This responds to Bill Nemitz’s column in the Sept. 23 Maine Sunday Telegram: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
Thus, Judge Nemitz dons his judicial robes and plunges into murky waters over his head, displaying simpleness and parochialism in his very first sentence with this either/or logical fallacy: “Either Sen. Susan Collins believes Christine Blasey Ford or she doesn’t.”
That is a false dilemma. Truth is sometimes an either/or thing, but most things about which we argue are not. In this case of a 36-year-old, alcohol-soaked teenage party, at least two alternatives come to mind: 1) Either Sen. Collins believes Brett Kavanaugh or she doesn’t, and 2) Sen. Collins believes both, but without corroboration or credible witnesses she is ambivalent – the court-trial equivalent of a hung jury – and unable to reach a firm decision.
The latter, in my opinion, will be the likely ending of this debacle and degradation of the judicial nominating process.
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz poses this question: “Are women born with a special gene for telling the truth, and men with one for lying?” And Sen. Dianne Feinstein – who did not release Dr. Ford’s letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee until Sept. 20 – says, “I can’t say everything is truthful. I don’t know.”
Our American system of jurisprudence is founded on two bedrock principles: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the accuser – not the accused.
If these principles are not followed, we cannot keep a republic.
Walter J. Eno
Scarborough
Send questions/comments to the editors.
