When an astounding number of the nation's law professors (2,400 plus)
call for Brett Kavanaugh not to be confirmed, we should listen to their reasons.
One of those reasons was that in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he "exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry." He was not "open to the necessary search for accuracy."
Kavanaugh, of course, apologized for his conduct during the hearing. But, I don't believe he ever -- not even in his apology -- called for more judicious inquiry into the accusations against him. Now, bless him, let him apologize in his own way, and let us see good in that he is apologizing. But, it remains, if failure to be open to judicious inquiry is your fault, then your apology will be improved if you apologize for that shortcoming, and if you back your apology by showing you are open to deeper inquiry into the allegations against you.
Indeed, if not being open to having the allegations against you be fully weighed is your fault, then there is some good reasoning to the sentiment that your apology is not complete unless you apologize for that.
If the 2,400 law professors saw him as not being open to inquiry and a not being open to a search for accuracy into the allegations against him, then one option becomes that he could suggest, that indeed, perhaps a more thorough FBI investigation was in order -- one not limited by the White House to speaking to just ten people, and one in which the two parties (Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford) were interviewed. (How do we suppose it a just and thorough investigation if we do not even interview the participants?) Yes, one option open to him would be to acknowledge that the hearing could have covered all the allegations against him, instead the damage being minimized by not bringing in any of the witnesses other than Ford to testify against him.
I have often said, Truth doesn't run from knowledge.
(Note: The article was rewritten 10/3/18, hoping to adjust the tone to be less critical.)
No comments:
Post a Comment