No payback in effort to torpedo Supreme Court nominee
While Debra J. Saunders gaveve Christine Blasey Ford credit for “coming across as genuine,” she goes on to detail all aspects of her story that would prevent a jury from finding Brett Kavanaugh guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (“A Supreme faceoff inside the Beltway,” Sunday Review-Journal). But this is not a criminal trial. It is a job interview.
All agree that Ms. Ford is very credible. She passed a polygraph test. Yes, two of the people she says were at the party do not remember the assault. But they were not involved with the assault, and they were not told of it at the time. Why would they remember?
Judge Kavanaugh came across as angry. But he was also found to lie about several of the little things he was questioned about unrelated to the assault (such as items in his yearbook and his history of drinking while at Yale).
So whom should we believe? Ms. Ford, who has everything to lose and nothing to gain? Or Judge Kavanaugh, who has everything to gain by being untruthful and who was found to be untruthful while under oath testifying to the committee? Even if you believe that attempted rape as a drunken teenager doesn’t disqualify you from the Supreme Court, shouldn’t telling lies under oath disqualify you?
Trying to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court is not political payback, as Ms. Saunders suggests. It is trying to ensure that only high-quality men and women ascend to the bench. Let Donald Trump pick a qualified conservative without the baggage of a Brett Kavanaugh.