Editor’s note: This commentary is by Robby Porter, of East Montpelier, a self-employed woodworker and the owner and partner in small scale hydroelectric projects. He is the author of “Doodlebug, A Road Trip Journal.”
Fact 1: At the Senate hearings on Thursday both Dr. Christine Blasely Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh presented credible but contradictory stories. Dr. Ford says with 100 percent certainty that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both teenagers. He, also with 100 percent certainty, denies this. It is technically possible that it is a case of mistaken identity on her part or drunken amnesia on his part, but, if you say that you are 100 percent certain, then this is the same as lying.
Logic: Therefore one of them is lying.
Fact 2: There was not enough “evidence” presented for a reasonable person to determine who was lying.
Logic: Therefore no reasonable person will be able to make a judgment with 100 percent certainty as to which story is true.
Fact 3: Lying under oath in front of the U.S. Senate is a disqualifying action for a candidate for the highest court.
Logic: Therefore, if Kavanaugh is lying, he should not be approved for appointment.
Fact 4: Because both stories were credible and contradictory, there is a reasonable possibility that Kavanaugh is the one lying.
Reasonable people will disagree about degree. Jonathan Last, writing in the conservative Weekly Standard says, “If you aren’t split at least 80-20, then you are probably looking at this wrong.” Some people will be 80 percent certain Kavanaugh is telling the truth, others will feel that way about Ford.
Conclusion: We should not appoint someone to the Supreme Court if there is a 5 percent chance that they lied under oath in front of the Senate, much less a 20 or 50 percent chance.
