If you think that these accusations haven't destroyed his reputation, whether he gets on the supreme court or not, you have to be living on Mars. That accusation will hang over his life for the rest of his life - innocent or not. — Sam26

Sure, but there's nothing anyone can do about that. Once the accusations come in, the public are going to think what they think. So I'm not sure what you were trying to suggest with your remark.

I agree with everything you said. But as far as I can tell, every reasonable person around me believes he attempted rape at the age of 16. If he's confirmed it will be wounding. It's just a shame that we can't go back in time and have Trump pick somebody else. — frank

People who are generally reasonable can be unreasonable at times, there are a number of reasons/causes for this.

Sure, but there's nothing anyone can do about that. Once the accusations come in, the public are going to think what they think. So I'm not sure what you were trying to suggest with your remark. — Michael

Sure, there was plenty that could have been done, viz., much of this could have been done behind closed doors so that the reasonableness of the accusations could be ascertained. However, we've allowed accusations of the worst kind come into the public arena.

Yep. I'm just looking beyond the question posed by the situation and just looking at what it's doing to Americans to have to helplessly watch this.

However, we've allowed accusations of the worst kind come into the public arena. — Sam26

Allowed? Unless you want to live in some Big Brother society there's nothing that can stop someone from publicly accusing another of wrongdoing.

Allowed? Unless you want to live in some Big Brother society, there's nothing that can stop someone from publicly accusing another of wrongdoing. — Michael

Obviously we can't stop all accusations, but what happened here was just a circus.

Obviously we can't stop all accusations, but what happened here was just a circus. — Sam26

What should they have done? Not had Kavanaugh and Ford testify before the Senate in an open hearing? Confirm him regardless and then call for an investigation later (or not at all)? Tell Trump to nominate someone else?

While this is all well and good - there are really only 3 people in the world that have anything to say about this Flake, Collins and Murkowski. There was not one, well maybe the possibility of one, democrat that would have voted for confirmation. Kind of makes the call for and complaints about the FBI investigation more about delay than truth. If it comes back that he actually is a choir boy and she is a liar, they still would not confirm him. And other than those 3, there is not one Republican who would vote not to confirm, again indifferent to what the FBI report says.

This whole bonfire of the vanities is at the bequest of, and for the benefit of those 3, who are IMO looking for a politically acceptable reason to vote not to confirm and for 2 of them to get reelected, and the other to have a base for a run at 2020.

Further neither of those 3 reason not to confirm has nothing at all to do with Dr. Ford, Drinking or a high school yearbook. It is fear of a too conservative court and limits on or an attempt to reverse Roe

Flake says "We cant have that on the court" referring to Kavanaugh's partisan outburst.

Just need one more.

In August, (pro-choice) Collins met with Kavanaugh about Roe v Wade, and was satisfied with his assurance that he would "respect" the prior precedent. That ambiguous statement seemed to be enough for her, at the time. I wonder if his questionable performance last week will alter her perspective.

A month ago, I thought there was a 90% chance he'd be confirmed. Now I think it's even money.

I really have no idea.

I'm Dutch and a lawyer and I'm telling you that it's not a political process. The sitting judges submit a list of 6 candidates. The house proposes 3 from those 6, including the first person nominated. The executive appoints the first one nominated. There's something called tradition which has its own rules. Political parties tend to raise concerns, if any, when the commission makes its initial list of 6, which is rare but has happened. Those issues aren't political though as you're not going to get a majority for it (15 parties in parliament) and the last time a nominee was scrapped was because of him having a political opinion on a court case. So yeah, pretty much independent and devoid of politics.

Latest news:
In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

this is a red herring. Ford's testimony has already been considered believable enough to pursue further investigation into whether Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied to senators, which seems 100% likely considering his answers to what entailed boofing and a devil's triangle. In fact, it's obvious from his body language and speech patterns when you compare the answers to those questions and the one on "ralphing". All the corroborating evidence was provided by himself already.

Btw, how did Lindsey Graham ever get elected? He has the charisma of a wet towel.

Latest news... — Proto

If there are credible claims by people who knew Ford and Kavanaugh that both of them lied under oath, they should both be held accountable for their lies. It would be unfair to deny Kavanaugh the opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court, and not penalize Dr Ford as well. She should also be denied the opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court.

@Benkai

You make a bold claim that facts simply establish that my opinion is simply not true (which was simply independent systems are more vulnerable to corruption than direct/indirect elected system).

As a lawyer in the Netherlands, your opinion that the system works great maybe an example of the exact systemic bias in this sort of system that I'm referring too. But let's ignore this.

Also note, my view is not that that full independence of judges choosing their successors can't work. Just like an aristocracy or perhaps more apt any craftsmen gild: a good starting point, good traditions and supporting cultural norms can result in good performance of these systems for even very extended periods of time. So, I am not saying independent courts totally fail immediately.

I qualified my statement that it is my opinion because I know these systems exist and have performed well; my view is they are not better than democratic systems and not the pathway to reduce corruption.

Perhaps a better presentation of my point is, what you would advise for improving the US system (or an even more corrupt system for that matter): more or less democracy in selecting judges. My conclusion is that if corruption is a problem, historically established or culturally supported, then independent courts of judges selecting replacements isn't going to reduce corruption. If judicial corruption is already a problem how is giving them more insulation from accountability and more power going to help? However, electing judges (of which many, many systems to do so are available) can act as a counter force to corruption.

So, as far as the facts are concerned, why did electing judges (directly or by representatives) arise in the first place? To solve corruption and class-bias problems. If a society doesn't encounter judicial corruption due to strong anti-corruption cultural norms or then lawyers and judges manage to self-discipline their judge-guild to keep it going, independence can work. In other-words, low-corruption cultures have low-corruption judicial systems whether independent or democratically appointed in some way, whereas cultures where judicial corruption became a problem, more democracy rather than more judicial independence has been the historic go to for increasing faith in the judiciary. Do you agree with this? or are you saying that in a country where corruption is a problem applying full independence of the judiciary and judges being life-time appointed and then selecting their successors would be the way forward in tackling judicial and government corruption?

I would also add that elections of judges also serves as accelerating society's learning about what makes a good judge and why impartial judges and fighting corruption benefits everyone.

If you think that these accusations haven't destroyed his reputation, whether he gets on the supreme court or not, you have to be living on Mars. That accusation will hang over his life for the rest of his life - innocent or not.. — Sam26

A few have responded, but I think the most important rebuttal here is that it comes with the territory of accepting a nomination for the Supreme court.

If you want to be one of the most powerful people in the country, far greater scrutiny than a less powerful judge or politician is part of the process, much less a normal citizen applying at a coffee shop.

If you don't want to deal with such scrutiny or don't want to deal with potential false accusations (which are a thing): don't accept nomination for the supreme court!

Also, Kavanaugh's reputation has taken a hit because it's now firmly established that his behaviour in school and college fits the pattern of irresponsible drinking. If it was just Ford's accusation without witnesses and he had no pattern of excessive drinking and there's simply no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise; maybe true, maybe false accusation; this has happened to other politicians and it didn't "destroy their reputation". Lot's of random accusations were thrown at Obama (like being full into the gay sex scene, part of some secret black stone cutters society), but nothing came of it and his reputation wasn't destroyed since there was no well established pattern of behaviour (of visiting gay bars all the time or hopping from secret society to secret society) nor any direct evidence (i.e. the media had nothing legitimate to talk about and they remained random accusations ... except for Fox new on many occasions). So again, knowing that you have a past that easily supports reckless drunken acts, it's reasonable to expect to deal with such accusations when going for a supreme court seat. And Kavanaugh was fully aware of this, as he preemptively sought support from his friends and acquaintances to make sure they wouldn't tattletale on him. In other words, he rolled the dice on whether his drinking past would come up or not. It's completely fair to Kavanaugh as he could have refused the nomination to avoid the scrutiny. So, innocent or not, it's not a case of "poor little Kavanaugh".

While this is all well and good - there are really only 3 people in the world that have anything to say about this Flake, Collins and Murkowski. There was not one, well maybe the possibility of one, democrat that would have voted for confirmation. Kind of makes the call for and complaints about the FBI investigation more about delay than truth. If it comes back that he actually is a choir boy and she is a liar, they still would not confirm him. And other than those 3, there is not one Republican who would vote not to confirm, again indifferent to what the FBI report says. — Rank Amateur

The Democrats have the right to think he's not the best candidate regardless. It's already been established that Kavanaugh's accessed democrat emails with a stolen password. No one seems to be refuting this.

From a conservative perspective it maybe "of course! he's a conservative judge and gonna try to get the one-up on democrats any chance he gets: should have protected that password better. Powned!"

However, it seems pretty reasonable that Democrats wouldn't view a judge that participated in hacking their server account (stealing passwords is hacking) for partisan reasons as impartial. It's totally reasonable for any Senator to have already reached their "no-vote" threshold with Kavanaugh for other reasons or then believe a better candidate exists even without any scandal (on Kavanaugh judicial record in itself compared to other potential nominees: as with any job selection process!).

So the "turn it around ploy" and accuse democrats of not voting yes if the FBI exonerates Kavanaugh doesn't work, the FBI investigation is only part of a whole. If the conservatives haven't reached a point where they would vote no while democrats have, it's totally reasonable for democrats to continue the scrutiny process as further evidence may reach R senator's threshold.

This is basic common decision making patterns. For instance, we may want to go on vacation together but we disagree on the spot. You want to go to Paris but I don't want to, simply because I think London is better. We hear a rumour that the plague has broken out in Paris, so I suggest "hmm, if the plague is in Paris, let's definitely not go there, let's try to verify this" a reasonable response is not "woa, woa, if it turns out there is no plague, you wouldn't want to go to Paris anyway, verification is pointless! bad faith, bad faith!"

It's a simple thing, but unfortunately conservative propaganda has taken it to this level.

Edit: Alex Jones also claimed not only was Obama super gay, but Michelle Obama was a man based on her being tall and having broad shoulders ... just like a man. Their kids you ask? Stone cutter child trafficking plants! Innocent or guilty, these claims didn't ruin Obama's reputation. Now, I don't agree that corporate ToS should be used to censor political debate completely deplatforming removing all their content ToS violation or no, and I also agree with Alex that the rich do meet and conspire against the public (just as Adam Smith points out as obvious fact), but doesn't make Obama's Gaygate plausible or relevant, as there's no credibility to it. Kavanaugh's problem is claims are credible, perhaps not true nor proven in a criminal court, but very plausible given reports about his drinking behaviour and material evidence like his yearbook.

my only point above was the "call for the FBI" investigation by the democrats on the committee as a search for truth is meaningless, if as i believe, there was no chance that any democrat was voting for confirmation.

Except they need Republicans to vote against as well so the call for the FBI would then be to have them unearth necessary details that would convince the Republicans Kavanaugh is unfit for the office. It doesn't seem meaningless at all to me.

think i addressed this above - all this is for the 3 republicans - who IMO have been looking for a politically acceptable reason to vote against the conformation.

I think if there was evidence of Obama cruising gay bars I would have been even more inclined to vote for him than I already was. I can see Obama saying, "Those were good times." and chuckling.

Kavanaugh throws a temper tantrum. My biggest concern is that many men will identify with his anger and have zero impact on what they think other than perhaps, "yah my ex wife tried throwing me under the bus once". People tend to make everything about themselves hence why I emphasize the gay aspect of the original post.

Opinion not philosophy - but pretty sure Kavanaugh is toast. Mukowski and collins do not want a SCOTUS that will endanger Roe - or support state driven restrictions on abortion. Unless the FBI comes back with Dr. Ford made the whole thing up, there is enough noise around him now they can vote no, and go to their constituents with a story it was not about abortion, but about his fitness for the job and take their chances.

IMO Judge Kavanaugh played this completely wrong. He should have immediately acknowledged that he lead the frat boy life, drank too much as a teenager and in college, said and did some juvenile stuff that he is not proud of now. But completely deny the sexual attack - and make people weigh his teenage - college years versus all the years thereafter.

As a lawyer in the Netherlands, your opinion that the system works great maybe an example of the exact systemic bias in this sort of system that I'm referring too. But let's ignore this. — boethius

Political bias is grounds for substition in Dutch courts, whereas the political bias of a US judge is a given nowadays based on which president confirmed his position. The proof is in the pudding as to what extent politics creeps into these systems and the political drive surrounding Roe vs. Wade and Citizens United. It's quite clear from the current spectacle and the Garland no-show which system is embattled by corruption and it isn't the Dutch one.

Perhaps a better presentation of my point is, what you would advise for improving the US system (or an even more corrupt system for that matter): more or less democracy in selecting judges — boethius

Given the system you're with you can try the following:

a) increase the number of parties that can be elected to congress and senate by amending or doing away with the district system (fat chance); it's unlikely you'll get qualified majorities on barring persons for political reasons;
b) have the ABA and judges submit candidates to the Senate instead of the President; professionals tend to be concerned with professionalism;

Sorry missed that.

IMO Judge Kavanaugh played this completely wrong. He should have immediately acknowledged that he lead the frat boy life, drank too much as a teenager and in college, said and did some juvenile stuff that he is not proud of now. But completely deny the sexual attack - and make people weigh his teenage - college years versus all the years thereafter. — Rank Amateur

Yeah, he could've even gotten away with saying: I don't recall it happening but if it did happen I sincerely apologise to Dr. Ford. Such behaviour was inexcusable but unfortunately many teenagers and young adults make these sort of mistakes. Like many boys at that age I drank too much and as such was less capable in making correct moral choices. I can assure you that as I grew up, I learned what an appropriate amount of beer was and what the appropriate way is to treat women. As regrettable as my actions were as a boy I don't think they should have any bearing on my role as a judge and on the person that I am today.

Or something like that.

So why didn't he? Doesn't he want the job? Is this an example of someone fighting like a cornered rat because there really is something to discover in his teenage years?

Meanwhile on the other side of the fence: Breitbart comments

Dr Fraud perjured herself according to them...

Yeah, he could've even gotten away with saying: I don't recall it happening but if it did happen I sincerely apologise to Dr. Ford. — Benkei

He didn't even have to go that far. He could have just said "did a lot of partying, drank beer, like beer, had a lot of inside jokes with my friends about vaguely understood inuendo, but I am 100% positive I never sexually assaulted anyone, that's just not me." Which is how nearly anyone that was completely innocent (especially a judge) would respond given a partying past that "doesn't look good".

Lying and misleading and "what about you huh, would like to know about if you ever blacked out", especially unnecessary lies and totally implausible lies, is much more compatible (especially for a judge who presumably knows how evidence and critical thinking work) with the state of mind of someone who is guilty and panicked that it's coming to light. Not proof, but a credible conclusion to make. As Comey points out, small lies are often a indication of large lies.

Political bias is grounds for substition in Dutch courts, whereas the political bias of a US judge is a given nowadays based on which president confirmed his position. The proof is in the pudding as to what extent politics creeps into these systems and the political drive surrounding Roe vs. Wade and Citizens United. It's quite clear from the current spectacle and the Garland no-show which system is embattled by corruption and it isn't the Dutch one. — Benkei

My point was that in a self-replacing judicial system, systemetic bias is one problem (mainly the bias of the class from which lawyers generally come from, and further selection bias). As is the case with bias, people generally don't see their own biases, it's just the "true facts". Systemic bias is usually class bias, not necessarily partisan bias. In this case, your participation in the system perhaps leads you to conclude that it is really the best system, rather than a system that is working for the time being in the Netherlands but it's possible self-replacement of judges is not the main factor leading to the good judging you see (but solid tradition and general cultural norms), that it is an exception and not a good model for countries trying to reduce bias. However, if education is free, opportunity fairly equal, class mobility is a thing, then even class biases can be significantly reduced.

However, let's say down the road social mobility stagnates, the gap between the rich and poor increase, do you think the Dutch judge-guild is going to rule unbiased in cases of typical lawyery crimes as well as the wealthy class in general, or is it more likely a judge-guild to be lenient on people from their guild and class and less lenient on the poor?

Now, I fully agree that the US selection system isn't good. Having representatives select judges isn't a good democratic process of the many to choose from. Even with representatives nominating judges the bar can be far higher (like going back to the 60 votes threshold or even higher as well US congress getting a say).

However, I believe direct voting for judges, and judge terms, is the best system. As a citizen if you vote on who judges you (or at least supreme court), this immediately legitimizes the system and in the case of the US would be a counter-weight to "the club" of wealthy politicians appointing the judges from their class that they like and surprise, surprise those judges then protect the wealthy from accountability. It is also social learning experience to consider a judges record, and formulate an idea of who you think is a good judge.

This in going to have nothing to do with the FBI, or Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh - this will come down to the Republican leadership and the POTUS pressure on Collins and Murkowski. If they make it clear they will activly oppose their re-election, they have a tough choice - a) vote your conscience (like that could happen), b) cave and vote yes c) vote no - and take their chances on re-election.