Ranger from the North

Shifting the burden of proof on Senate confirmations, appointments, and elections changes all the incentives for public service.  If we are not to evaluate claims on "facts" in order to determine whether the "essence" actually is "real," then what should form the basis of our evaluation?  Whether or not we like the accused?  Which party does he or she represent, or which party appointed him?

This is not a recipe for justice, but instead an environment for bare-knuckled politics and a breeding ground for a return to Salem circa 1692.  Such an environment will repel men and women of goodwill and good character from public service, incentivizing only the most insensitive and impervious personalities to choose to serve.  That will lead to even further degradation of public discourse and an erosion of trust in institutions, which will make witch hunts and smear campaigns even more likely. 

Does anyone remember what point Democrat Richard Blumenthal sought to make when he began his questioning of Judge Kavanaugh yesterday?  Blumenthal prefaced his questions with a citation of the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  The gist of the principle is that if a witness is shown to have lied about one thing, one may infer that a witness lied about everything.

The thoughts of anyone familiar with Blumenthal's own issues with the truth must have wandered, as mine did.  It calls to mind the paradox of the Cretan philosopher who posed the proposition that all Cretans are liars (the Epimenides paradox).  Senator Blumenthal is such a Cretan.