Judge Kavanaugh: Again Accused

I find myself clarifying the facts about Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh:

1.  This apocalyptic battle is about abortion, the singular most divisive issue in the history of our country. (Yes, worse than slavery in my view.) Admittedly, there is a secondary concern: the abuse of women. It is possible for a pro-lifer, especially a woman, to be against his nomination. But it is mostly about abortion: it is unthinkable that a pro-abortion advocate could back him; and improbable that such would oppose a pro-choice candidate with a similar accusation.

2.  The Supreme Court Justice has extreme legal power and so the bar for moral integrity (and competence)  is sky high; and also the credibility bar for serious accusations quite low in comparison with that for criminal or civil conviction or other social judgments.

3.  In his entire adult, professional, post-school life this man has a superb history in his relations with women, his professional integrity and competence, and his entire personal life.

4.  The reality of abuse of women by men is pervasive, profound, and entirely horrific.

5.  The accusations are not substantiated by a convincing body of evidence and cannot stand as an objective judgment against the man.

6.  The accusations are credible. The testimony of the primary witness was entirely convincing in regard to her sincerity, her intelligence, and her conscientiousness. Additionally, the details and context make sense, especially the jock-drinking world the young man inhabited. It also makes sense that he would not remember it, if it did occur when he was drunk.

However, granting the fallibility of memory and the evident fragility of the witness, her testimony on its own, without corroborating evidence, cannot be considered objectively valid. Even ancient Jewish tradition always required at least two witnesses to convict (the story of Suzana and the prophet Daniel): the second witness never appeared.

The fact that the alleged incident, or something like it, would have happened under the influence of alcohol is certainly not exculpatory, but in light of his age and subsequent history, not insignificant.

I think it is possible that something dishonorable happened: I would place the probability in the 20% to 40% range...not enough to stand as a disqualification in light of all the facts. I feel terrible for him and his family, as I also feel badly for the witness. I understand how an intelligent person, especially a woman who has been violated by male aggression,  one who shares my values and these facts, would have a more sensitive sensibility and oppose the nomination.

I remain a firm, ardent supporter of the Judge. I despise the shrill, self-righteous,lynch mob charge to crucify the man on such inadequate evidence. I trust that his service on the court will be long, wise, and honorable. And I wish healing for him and his family as well as his accuser and hers.