DM:
The philosophy of politics should incorporate a review of facts with reason, something that is completely lacking when it comes to leftists opposing Brett Kavanaugh.
If you are going to argue that facts are important then you have immediately lost credibility with this non-specific, accusatory, broadside generality.
Fact: No one questions Kavanaugh's credentials. No one.
That is simply not true. The American Bar Association had doubts about his credibility, demeanor, and lack of candor in 2006, changing their rating from highly qualified to qualified. Following his recent testimony Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with those who criticized his temperament. The ABA withdrew its support for him and called for an investigation. In addition to questions of sexual impropriety, many people also questioned his temperament and impartiality. To pretend that no one questions his credentials is disingenuous and false.
Fact: His accuser requested anonymity, a trust that was betrayed in a last-ditch attempt to delay his confirmation until after the midterm elections.
She did request anonymity but she has not claimed that her trust was betrayed by anyone she confided in. In any case this has nothing to do with the veracity of her claim. A thorough investigation would not have delayed his confirmation until after the elections.
Fact: Democrats and their allies have a history smear campaigns to thwart nominations they don't like. (Consider where the term "Borking" someone came from.)
I thought you were interested in facts. A slogan is not a fact. What was the “smear”? The same Senators who rejected Kavanaugh approved Gorsuch, and many were not on in the Senate when Bork was rejected. This also ignores the fact that other Republican nominees have been approved.
Fact: Everyone Ford identified has provided a statement, under penalty of a felony, that they have no memory of the gathering. One even wrote a letter saying she felt pressured to change her story.
There were two people other than Ford who knew what happened, and both have a direct personal interest in not implicating themselves.
Fact: Contrary to her testimony, Ford is leftist political activist: Palo Alto University where she works is a SJW factory, she gained financially to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars and is regarded as a "hero" by her circle of friends.
Guilt by association? What are her leftist activities? In what way was she financially rewarded? Are you claiming that she made up the story? If someone else had been nominated she would have accused him?
Fact: Ford came forward only after carefully deleting her social media profile; and after carefully selecting left-wing attorney Debra Katz to represent her political interests; and after carefully scripting some dubious and sketchy supportive material including a lie-detector test (she could easily fool, giving her background) and vague notes from a 2012 couples-therapy session.
What difference does it make that she deleted her profile? Why should she have left herself vulnerable to attack? What were her political interests that led to her accusing him? Since when is a lie-detector test “dubious and sketchy”? Even if she could have fooled the test most of the senators said she came off as credible. Those who supported Kavanaugh who said they believed her fell back on a mistaken identity defense.
Fact: A person can be absolutely, 100% certain their memory serves them well and be absolutely, 100% wrong.
And so, Kavanaugh could be 100% wrong when he denied it happened. But the Republicans were dead set against an investigation to try to determine the truth.
More can be said, but it is clear that people here don't give a damn. They'd rather see the Constitution destroyed and a man's life ruined than due justice.
If justice was to be served a thorough investigation should have taken place. A majority of his record was not made available. The “investigation” was hampered. There are many more people who should have been interviewed, including Kavanaugh himself. All of this could have been completed before the election. It was obvious from the beginning that he was rushed through.
And here is a fact: he lied under oath. There were several people, including friends, who said he drank to excess and behaved badly when drunk. None of them were interviewed. He lied about the meaning of terms because they showed him in a different light than the squeaky clean image we wished to portray. He gave misleading information regarding underage drinking.