Trust Kavanaugh or believe his accuser?

David:: Did Brett Kavanaugh attempt to sexually assault Christine Blasey Ford when they were high school students more than 30 years ago? There's no way to know, and now a Supreme Court nomination hinges on our ability to judge the unjudgeable. Ford seems credible. She's an accomplished professional. There are no signs she is a rabid partisan. The Washington Post reports there are notes from 2012 when she first detailed the alleged assault to her therapist. But from Kavanaugh's side, how do you defend yourself from a three-decade-old accusation? That's doubly true when the accuser isn't even sure what year the assault took place in, let alone what day or exactly where it occurred. There's a reason we have statutes of limitations in criminal cases. Jill: I'm torn on this. The misjudgments and mistakes I made in my teens are beyond counting, and I'd hope to never be judged on them. On the other hand, I've never been “stumbling drunk” and I'm not trying for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. Ford's account of the entitled private-school culture in the Washington area rings true to me, as does her fear of an aggressive athlete pinning her down. Plus she's taken a polygraph. I thought about that when I heard Kevin McAleenan, head of the Customs and Border Protection agency, talk about polygraphs in his hiring process. They're “an effective tool” and “an important part of ensuring a high-integrity workforce,” he told the USA TODAY Editorial Board on Monday. Kavanaugh has twice now denied Ford's allegation and said Monday he is willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He should offer to take a polygraph. He might pass it because it didn't happen or because he truly doesn't remember it happening. But at least we'd have that. David: I wish polygraphs were a solution, but as the head of a National Academy of Sciences panel that looked into polygraphs told NPR in 2015, “My conclusion is it has no place in government's dealings with its citizens.” At best, we're left with a flawed process of having Kavanaugh and Ford testify on camera under oath in front of the Senate and the FBI tracking down anybody else who may have been at that party to testify as well. If you care about the truth, that's a profoundly unfair process. Kavanaugh is an experienced legal pro skilled in the high-pressure Senate confirmation process, having done it himself. Ford is a researcher unaccustomed to the spotlight. If his performance receives raves and hers raises doubts, who will be surprised? And as for those witnesses, how would the FBI ask them about what they saw or heard at a party in an unknown time and place? And, of course, everybody was drinking, which doesn't do great things for memory. Which reminds me, Ford was sure of one thing about the party — she had only one drink. As a father of teen daughters, that's a line I have a hard time believing. In any case, my bet is that polling over the next week will have more to do with the outcome of Kavanaugh's nomination than anything else. Jill: It is worth trying to get to the bottom of this. The Senate and the public need a fuller picture. It might turn out to be an inconclusive picture, with credible arguments on both sides. If that's the case, the tie should go to Ford. Men (like Al Franken) have been drummed out of jobs for less, and women (like Anita Hill) have been ignored for long enough. Kavanaugh presented complications even before this allegation arose. He has been involved in partisan crusades such as the Bill Clinton impeachment investigation, and Republicans are withholding reams of potentially relevant Kavanaugh documents. There is also Kavanaugh's generous attitude about protecting presidents from investigations and charges while they're in office — raising questions about exactly why he was chosen. There are many other solid choices on President Donald Trump's list of possible picks. There is no entitlement to a Supreme Court seat. And there is life after a failed nomination. Just ask Merrick Garland.