Enough people who knew Kavanaugh in high school, college, and law school have now come forward with memories that contradict some of his recollections and testimony, especially about the frequency and severity of his drinking, that even if he did NOT do anything to Ford in high school they should raise at least sufficient doubts about his fitness for the Court on other grounds to justify more investigation.
Yet, the Senate majority is rushing to vote. What's the hurry? A couple years ago they said there is no problem whatsoever with the Court only having 8 Justices for an extended time (at least three Senators--Burr, Cruz, and Paul--said they were willing to hold it open for five years if Clinton got elected).
Surely they can take a couple weeks or even a month now and thoroughly vet Kavanaugh?
Of course, then there's his behavior while testifying and the contradicting accounts of his drinking.
We're not trying to fill this post with not-quite-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, and we should stop trying. Lets try somebody clean to start with? Look for the best, instead of the not-the-worst?
And this dude is not being 'unfairly treated', forget that. I don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice either. Almost nobody does. He wants to do public service he can go volunteer at a Senior Center. Hell, he can take up woodworking, I don't care. He should just get the hell off the stage and lets start looking again.
No you can't. No judge the Republicans nominate will not be the target of some accusation by some woman at this point. If "the bar" is that no Democrat female accuses the nominee of something then then Supreme Court will be ...
... Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill?
Ah, now I get it.
Yes that's right. Make it impossible for a man to be a judge by insisting that any and all claims must be believed no matter how ancient, vague or implausible, to ensure that the court ends up packed with women.
If America continues down this path it will end very, very badly for women. We could easily end up returning to a time where women are disbelieved by default when they make an accusation of something. The Kavanaugh case has to be one of the clearest cases I can see of a frivolous politically motivated complaint (which is very likely false). Accusations of sexual assault are not tools to try and tilt the composition of courts.
There are plenty of folks who have sterling records and stainless background, lets not kid ourselves. Pretending its persecution doesn't get you far.
There's no evidence its come to anything extreme. How about, try one more time? Is two people too many to ask?
Gorsuch faced no such accusations.
If I recall correctly, the bar used to be 60% for approval, by gentleman's agreement. A few years ago, the Democrats decided to discard that agreement (executing the so-called "nuclear option"). Now they're paying the price.
Ultimately the electorate will judge what was done. At the moment, it appears that they're leaning against the Democrats' strategy, but we'll know more after the mid-term results are in.
There's impeachment, but the only case of that I'm aware of for a supreme court justice is from the 19th century.
If you think that there's no evidence supporting the accusations, though, you might suspect that they're manufactured political outrage. (You might even see a pattern with Bork and Clarence Thomas.) You start to wonder if it's possible to find someone for whom the other side won't manufacture outrage. At that point, trying to find someone "less controversial" is a fool's errand.
You just watched a federal judge commit several baldfaced lies and rant about political hits. That's not acceptable conduct for the supreme court, full stop.
Do you expect the guy to be some sort of emotionless robot? This is classic Alisnky tactics combined with some form of infinite projected purity spiraling to raise the standard for an SC judge to inhuman levels. Thankfully, the right has finally come around to not caring about these tactics being employed by the left.
This is a job-for-life. We can do better. Hell the guy who interviewed before (Garland) wasn't that bad.
Immoral moralization will draw anyone who's not going 100% with the program to eventually vote for the Trumps, AfDs, Farages etc.
* criminal justice (where you mete out punishment, and want to act only against confirmed bad people (and in case of doubt, you don't act), and therefore you require very strong evidence against someone), and
* examining candidates for one of the most elevated positions in government (where you hand out power, and want to appoint only confirmed good people (and in case of doubt, you don't appoint), so fairly weak evidence against someone is enough.)
That's not really a particularly hard distinction to grasp.