Defenders of Brett Kavanaugh have insisted that he has a right to a hearing in which Ford gives testimony, and faces questions. After all, if his nomination is going to be defeated on the basis of her allegations, shouldn't there be some process by which her allegations are examined? The process should be fair to Kavanaugh, right?
My response? Fuck "Brett." This isn't about him. This is about the country, and who is going to be one of the nine members of the US Supreme Court. For life, making rulings that will impact everyone. This is about determining who is the best person to hold that position. Fuck fairness to "Brett" and his entitled ass.
I have already indicated that I believe Ford, but that isn't even the point here. This isn't a trial. In a criminal trial, the basic question is the probability of innocence or guilt. I've gone back and forth with legal scholars on this at the occasional conference, as someone who crosses back and forth between disciplines (I do election law, so I deal with some legal types), but here's my statistician's view of criminal law, contested by some legal scholars. Set a probabilistic threshold for conviction. If that threshold is met, convict. Otherwise, acquit because we don't want to convict innocent people. The parameters for estimation should be evidentiary, and the threshold should be high. There. Done. That's criminal law, from a statistician's point of view, in simple form.
Now, "Brett." What is the probability that he is guilty, given the evidence? I'd have a hard time putting a precise number on it (but I'll try, shortly), but higher than 50%. Could I convict on it? Statute of limitations has passed, but even that aside, I have no idea, not having heard any testimony. Still, and this is important...
This isn't a criminal trial. If the Senate did decide not to confirm "Brett," all that would happen to him is that he would stay a judge on the DC Circuit Court, which is still massively powerful. That's not ruining a man's life, or anything close to it.
What is at issue here? Picking someone for one of the most powerful jobs in the country. How certain do you want to be that the individual is not a rapist, going back to my basic, probabilistic approach to most things? I'd like to be as close to 100% as possible. How sure am I for "Brett?" Right now, if I had to put a number on it, if I had to be as generous as possible to "Brett," the number I'd give him is 10%, but realistically, that's high, given the baseline rarity of false accusations of rape and corroborating evidence (the therapist's notes). Could you convict on the therapist's notes alone? No, but again, this isn't a criminal trial. That's the ass-backwards way to think about this. You don't say, 10% is high enough to put this motherfucker on the Supreme Court. You say, 10% is way too fucking low to put this motherfucker on the Supreme Court. Look at it this way. If this had been caught in a background check, would he have made it through a rigorous vetting process? No. That's the point. And don't give me this shit about how any nomination can be defeated by an allegation. Will that allegation be backed by therapist's notes that predate the nomination by years? No. I call bullshit.
Now, that does mean there would be a chance of denying "Brett" a place on the Supreme Court because of a false allegation. Boo fucking hoo. This isn't about him or his entitled ass. If that's what you think of as a monumental injustice... just keep reading. I don't give a rat's fucking ass about what "Brett" thinks he is entitled to have. This is about the country. Worst case scenario for "Brett" is that he goes back to the DC Circuit Court. Cry me a fuckin' river for him and the unfairness of it all.
However, anyone truly concerned with the unfairness of false accusations might be interested in a little thing called "The Innocence Project." They find people wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death. They use DNA evidence to exonerate those people and save their fucking lives.
Funny (ha, ha), but these people rushing to "Brett's" defense and worried about the fairness of the process, and what a false accusation might do... I've never heard any of them say a kind word about "The Innocence Project." Gee... It's almost as if they don't have a coherent theory of the role of due process or the importance of evaluating the truth of accusations. In criminal justice, all accusations are true to these people. Except in the case of rape. Then, all accusations are false. Why, if only I could figure out why they treat rape accusations differently...