In an appearance on MSNBC, Weiss argued that the fundamental “ethical question” at issue is whether someone should be disqualified from sitting on the court because of a crime they committed as a teenager.
Weiss added that Ford’s allegations, which Kavanaugh has “unequivocally” denied, don’t fit a pattern — as many other instances of men who commit sexual misconduct do — and that the accusations can’t be proved.
“Brett Kavanaugh has a reputation as being a prince of a man, frankly, other than this,” she said. “Now, I believe her. I believe what she’s saying. I’m just saying, in the end of the day, it is one word against another.”
.. MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle pushed back, arguing that the standards should be higher for someone nominated for a lifetime position on the highest court in the country.“We’re not talking about should he be disqualified to be a dogcatcher,” Ruhle said. “We’re talking about to be a Supreme Court justice.”
.. Weiss then seemed to back away from her assertion, but lamented that Kavanaugh’s “worst instance” was being “paraded” in public.
.. Mark Joseph Stern, a lawyer and writer for Slate, called Weiss’ question a “useless and irrelevant red herring” and argued that the question is not whether an adult should be held accountable for something they did as a teenager, but whether Kavanaugh lied about the allegations. If Weiss’ intuition is correct and Ford is telling the truth about the incident, then Kavanaugh has wrongly undermined a victim, he said.
.. “It is perfectly consistent to believe that nobody’s life should be ruined for committing a crime at age 17 — and that any adult who lies about that crime should not be elevated to the Supreme Court,”he wrote.