On another thread the venerable
@Revoltingest asked the venerable question as to whether anyone has changed his/her mind about confirmation of judge Kavanaugh due to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I wanted to address the question under separate cover here in order to not mix the topics too much.
I did not oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to the hearing, having read a couple dozen of his opinions and unsurprisingly finding nothing terribly objectionable in them, even though I vehemently disagree with a significant percentage of them. I don't like that he has premised some of his opinions on extra-Constitutional principals rather than case law.
My reconsideration about confirming him has less to do with Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing than his testimony and behavior. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else (she apparently named Kavanaugh in this assault years ago, and knew he and Mark Judge were drinking buddies in high school; there is no rational reason to conclude that she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else). Of great importance in assessing her credibility, I cannot discern that she has any incentive to lie or be deceptive on this matter. Indeed, she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward with her allegations. I am well aware of cases where a woman has lied about a sexual assault, even to the point that charges were brought. In those cases, the woman had great incentive to fabricate such allegations, and, further, had a history of large deceptions or very odd behavior. Ford does not resemble any of that, as far as I know.
In contrast, Kavanaugh has overwhelming incentive to deny all allegations of sexual misconduct, including possibly being subject to felony charges and impeachment from the bench.
The following points are some of the reasons I oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation at least as of today.
(1) As of right now, Trump and the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prevented the public and the rest of the Senate from having the information necessary to assess Kavanaugh's credibility in his testimony at the hearing on Thursday. For instance, we do not have sworn statements from Mark Judge clarifying his submitted letter. Judge should have testified at the hearing. The Committee should have secured sworn statements from other implicated persons. Reputable media report and quote multiple sources who contradict Kavanaugh's claims about his alcohol consumption in college. These reports, if true, impeach Kavanaugh's testimony, and we need such information in order to assess Kavanaugh's credibility.
The FBI investigation currently occurring may resolve all questions about his credibility, but unless and until that happens, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.
(2) Several of Kavanaugh's statements in his testimony were apparently false or deceptive. For instance, his claims about the "drinking age" in Maryland when he was a senior in high school were evidently false--the minimum age to purchase alcohol in Maryland was raised to 21 at the end of his junior year when he was 17. Obviously this cannot be assumed to be a mere mistake about when a law was changed, as he knew he didn't walk into store and purchase beer in high school. To intentionally misrepresent under oath one's past illegal behavior is emphatically inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore he should not be confirmed.
(3) Kavanaugh's claims in his opening statement about the hearing being the product of a grand well-funded conspiracy involving "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" were baseless and outlandish, far beneath the dignity of the office he is seeking. I have never known any sitting judge make such comments publicly, much less under oath, much less while seeking a higher position. Justice Roberts has repeatedly assured us that the robes the members of the Court wear are black, not red or blue. And while that is not always strictly true, it is a praiseworthy and necessary goal. Kavanaugh has demonstrated the color of his robe is indelibly red, tinged with strange shades of paranoia. It doesn't belong on the Court.
(4) Kavanaugh's opposition to an FBI investigation in order to assess his and his accusers' credibility only raises suspicion about his credibility. A nominee who is unwilling to request an investigation necessary to determine credibility should not be confirmed.
(5) I am also concerned about what is in the many documents relating to Kavanaugh that the Committee is hiding.
So I say naw to Kavanaugh.
Other arguments for and against his confirmation are encouraged.
(Just to try to head off a couple of tactics commonly encountered in such discussion: No accuser is on trial, and accusations against a nominee to the Court need not meet the standard of a criminal case. And in case Lindsay Graham is reading this, it will not ruin Kavanaugh's life for him to remain in his current position on the Circuit Court. Lots of beer-loving sexual predators would love such a job.)
You act as if there is no qualitative component. If the lie was simply mis-recollection or whatever it's not terribly relevant. If the lie is just his personal opinion being mistaken also not relevant nor perjury. Perjury is basically intentional, if it's someone mistaken comments it's not perjury. 
