17.10.18

IF IT PREEMPTS JUST ONE BLUTO, IT'S WORTH IT.

That appears to be what Balkinization was arguing.  (Inside Higher Ed saw fit to reward the post with a hot take.  Consider the source.)
For thirty-five years, Brett Kavanaugh has romanticized his underage drinking, inspiring other ambitious young men to drink to excess, confident that their behaviors will have little bearing on their professional lives once as adults they moderate their drinking or moderate their drinking behavior. If Kavanuagh [c.q.] goes down, somewhere in North Bethesda or elsewhere, an ambitious young man might decide not to attend an underage drinking party or to moderate his drinking behavior at such affairs. One less neighbor may be be woken up at three in the morning. One less racial epithet may be uttered. One less window may be broken. One less drunk driving accident may occur. One less woman may be sexually assaulted. One less drinker and one less victim may have their lives not damaged, ruined or destroyed.
Sorry, no. There's this concept in economics called cost-benefit analysis, in which the costs of saving one life by scheduling a mammogram or installing a traffic signal, or avoiding one overdose or letting one clueless academic loose with the imprimatur of Inside Higher Ed must be weight against the benefits.  Is stripping any semblance of protection under the laws from Senate hearings, which is what the Democrats seemed bent on doing, the proper price to pay for preempting some future Bluto, who may or may not screen for the High Bench?

Eventually, they will come for youIt came to this, Herr Graber, the first time you wrote up a freshman on intoxication charges you knew not to be true.

No comments: