That may indeed be portion of the motivation, but if you set partisan motivation aside - there's still good objective reason to extend the investigation: Ford presented a credible allegation.Credible allegations of sexual assault should be taken seriously. Alleged victims shouldn't be treated as liars until proven to be telling the truth.

If no corroborating evidence is uncovered, which seems likely, the evidence is equivocal. Kavanauh is not proven innocent and he's not proven guilty. Senators are free to decide what standard to apply. If it were me, I wouldn't approve him because there's a good chance he actually assaulted her and lied about it. On the other hand, were I on a jury evaluating a criminal charge against Kavanaugh I would acquit because I have a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

As @ssu points out, Kavaugh's openly partisan conspiratorial outbursts are immediately disqualifying. Of course, nearly all judicial Supreme Court hearings are political to a degree, but that Kavanaugh was so explicit and outspoken, lashing out to such a hyperbolic degree, means that any lawyer arguing in front the of SC has to take into account what he said. Any preponderance to neutrality is out the window.

This is a bit absurd isn't it? If you are accused and you cannot convince others of the falsity of the accusation, you should accept punishment under the idea that the system is holier than the individual? — Hanover

When's the last time you complained to your employer that being passed up for a promotion was punishment? Are all the other capable judges passed up for this position also punished? SCOTUS has a special position in society where we can and should expect exemplary behaviour because the trust in the judiciary ought to be more important than a single person's career path or indeed partisanship which underlies his ridiculous nomination in the first place.

The purpose of the investigating is clearly only to delay. — Hanover

How are the Democrats benefited by a delay?

the belief that no relevant new evidence existed. 2) further enquiry was a rabbit hole - one lead would lead to more, but none could ever support or refute the charge. — Relativist

Could be.

How are the Democrats benefited by a delay? — frank

If they can delay and eventually deny his confirmation, they'll hope to either receive a less conservative option in the second round or they'll hope to block the second person until after the new Senators are sworn in after the mid-terms, which they hope will be Democratic majority. The idea is that every day another conservative justice is not sworn in is a good day.

They also feel a political need to obstruct due to the significance of the role, understanding that the Supreme Court has positioned itself as the final arbiter of right and wrong on right versus left political matters. Their constituency demands obstruction regardless of merit due to their underlying belief in the fundamental righteousness of protecting progressive judicial policy.

As ssu points out, Kavaugh's openly partisan conspiratorial outbursts are immediately disqualifying. Of course, nearly all judicial Supreme Court hearings are political to a degree, but that Kavanaugh was so explicit and outspoken, lashing out to such a hyperbolic degree, means that any lawyer arguing in front the of SC has to take into account what he said. Any preponderance to neutrality is out the window. — Maw

This is the "even if" argument now being proposed. That is, even if the Ford allegations were bullshit, Kavanaugh is disqualified because he denied it improperly. Even if it's all bullshit, he should withdraw to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. Even if it's all bullshit, some people remain unconvinced. My position is if it's bullshit, it's bullshit, which means that's the question we ought continue focusing on, not conceding it's not true but then arriving at other reasons why it doesn't even matter if it's not true.

The institution that has been destroyed is not the Supreme Court, but the Senate for exploring the high school behavior of a 50+ year old man. — Hanover

I thought they wanted to see whether he's lying about his high school behaviour, to determine his credibility. If one cannot accept responsibility for one's own past actions, how could that person be accredited to the Supreme Court without destroying its reputation?

When's the last time you complained to your employer that being passed up for a promotion was punishment? — Benkei

If I were passed up on a promotion based upon false allegations of sexual impropriety in the workplace, for example, that would be an HR issue that I would vigorously address. In Georgia, the law presumes damage when slander relates to one's profession.

I would also expect that if I were in a politically charged workplace where one faction wanted to promote me and another didn't, and I wanted the position, and my supporters wanted me in that position, I would fight for it if I thought I could prevail.

SCOTUS has a special position in society where we can and should expect exemplary behaviour because the trust in the judiciary ought to be more important than a single person's career path or indeed partisanship which underlies his ridiculous nomination in the first place. — Benkei

He was chosen by Trump because of his conservative ideology and he has been submitted to a political body for consideration per the Constitution. If this were simply Kavanaugh and his naked ambition, the President or the Senate could end this whole thing. They've not. Those in charge of his promotion want him to continue fighting for it, so he is.

I thought they wanted to see whether he's lying about his high school behaviour, to determine his credibility. If one cannot accept responsibility for one's own past actions, how could that person be accredited to the Supreme Court without destroying its reputation? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they wanted to know if he tried to rape Ford back in high school. The goal post shift is now, "even if" his behavior was far less than attempted rape, and even if the behavior of a minor should not be imputable to a now 52 year old man, he's not qualified to be a Justice because he didn't admit to and apologize for his ancient misbehavior.

And there's even more that that, as what's now being submitted now that Ford's credibility is in question, is that "even if" he did nothing at all, he should withdraw because at this point it all seems unseemly.

How about we set forth a rule as it exists in every court of law across the country that says that juvenile acts cannot be used to attack the credibility of a witness? It seems we've focused heavily upon what most likely consider entirely irrelevant, but now we're interested in whether he's been dishonest about something that is irrelevant.

The real purpose of the FBI investigation is to appease Senator Flake because he's from a left leaning state, and his insistence upon it gives him cover to vote for Kavanaugh because he can now show he's not a rubber stamp for the Republican party. There is no non-political purpose for this investigation, which should not be a surprise, considering the Senate is an openly political institution. The Republicans want the man confirmed, which means that we should expect the purpose of the investigation is to obtain confirmation.

So delaying is for lack of any other strategy but hope for a miracle. I agree.

It's strange to criticize the Supreme Court's behavior re: ruling on good and evil, because what's your standard? Not the Constitution. It's a philosophical basis. Democracy vs tyranny of the Court.

No, they wanted to know if he tried to rape Ford back in high school. The goal post shift is now, "even if" his behavior was far less than attempted rape, and even if the behavior of a minor should not be imputable to a now 52 year old man, he's not qualified to be a Justice because he didn't admit to and apologize for his ancient misbehavior. — Hanover

Face the facts, often the cover up is worse than, and evidence of, the crime itself. This is especially relevant in politics.

How about we set forth a rule as it exists in every court of law across the country that says that juvenile acts cannot be used to attack the credibility of a witness? It seems we've focused heavily upon what most likely consider entirely irrelevant, but now we're interested in whether he's been dishonest about something that is irrelevant. — Hanover

I don't agree. Judging one's character on one's parents' character would be wrong, but one's childhood is definitely relevant in all forms of psychology, so it ought not be dismissed in judging one's character.

The real purpose of the FBI investigation is to appease Senator Flake because he's from a left leaning state, and his insistence upon it gives him cover to vote for Kavanaugh — Hanover

He's not seeking re-election to the senate.

If I were passed up on a promotion based upon false allegations of sexual impropriety in the workplace, for example, that would be an HR issue that I would vigorously address. In Georgia, the law presumes damage when slander relates to one's profession. — Hanover

I don't see an answer. Missing a promotion or not getting a job you want, isn't punishment, regardless of the underlying reasons and causes.

EDIT: Death threats the type of which both Kavanaugh and Ford have received is and totally unwarranted.

His reputation is already shredded. If the senate doesn't confirm him, it will be even worse. Put yourself in his shoes and imagine you're innocent.

This all about Abortion and the votes it gets for and against and math, and has been from the start.

2 months ago:

48 democratic senators were a no vote for confirmation
48 republican senators were a yes vote for confirmation

1 democratic senator was looking for a way to vote no - and not lose
his next election in a very republican district.

2 republican senators were looking for a way to vote no - and and minimize any damage that would cause to their republican base.

1 republican senator was looking for a way to use this stage as a way to position himself for 2020.

His reputation is already shredded" — frank

So is Ford's, and all she did was speak what she believes to be true. Worst case for her, she is misremembering who did it. Worst case for Kavanaugh is that he did it and lied about it.

Kavanaugh may very well be innocent of the assaullt, but he is guilty of defending this innocence with a partisan rant.

IMO, the best outcome will be to vote him down, but with each "no" vote accompanied wirh a justification that acknowledges that we should not assume his guilt, and every "yes" vote noting we should not assume she's lying.

This all about Abortion and the votes it gets for and against and math, and has been from the start. — Rank Amateur

And therein lies the problem. When the Court started finding new rights, it became a super-legislature.

I don't agree. Judging one's character on one's parents' character would be wrong, but one's childhood is definitely relevant in all forms of psychology, so it ought not be dismissed in judging one's character. — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess we ought reverse all laws excluding the consideration of juvenile history in adult court.

Kavanaugh may very well be innocent of the assaullt, but he is guilty of defending this innocence with a partisan rant. — Relativist

And who finds his comments inappropriate other than those who were already his opponents? He has the right to defend himself. You don't get to lob whatever you want at someone no matter how abusive and think you have the right to avoid a similar response. Maybe you have a different standard than me, but I fully expect to be attacked if I attack, regardless of how lofty one's station is in life I attack.

very much agree - we have been in a "legislature from the bench" for some time, and combine this with executive orders and the process is getting corrupted. Not sure if the cause is over reach by the executive or the court, or ineffectiveness of the house.

And who finds his comments inappropriate other than those who were already his opponents? — Hanover

That partisan lens works both ways: who's defending the partisan rant?

I can understand his reaction to a false accusation (if it IS false) most of us would react similarly. However most of us aren't candidates for the Supreme Court. It was a missed opportunity for him to demonstrate how a judge should evaluate evidence and respect the alleged victim.

Kavanaugh did not dispute Ford's claim of an assault. He only disputed that it was him. He should have built on this and the impossibility of proving a negative. The politics on both sides of this are completely irrelevant to the charge- in a courtroom, a judge wouldn't allow it to be presented because it appeals to prejudice.

If I'd be innocent I'd challenge them to find proof, knowing there is none. I could do so angrily and vocally but I wouldn't be so stupid to challenge lies with my own easily refutable lies.

Sure. I was in a deli watching it. The place erupted with "You're a fucking liar!" when he gave his childish answers about his yearbook. He could still be innocent.

from what I have been reading - it looks like the Republicans have the numbers now - look for a vote on Saturday to confirm. But a lot can happen between now and then and I would expect a no holds barred democratic fight in the press. Would guess the strategy from here out would be just pile on accusation after accusation on the hope that the weight of it all makes at least 2 of the 3 Republicans that are on the fence leaning yes to waiver.

Not sure what is left to do other than that.

Bigger question is what did this circus do to the court and it's decisions going forward.

It's ironic that a Kavanaugh win may fire up Democrats for the midterms, while a loss may fire up Republicans.

Not being a Republican or a Democrat, but an independent who thinks the system is broken - here is what I think would be a great ending. The Senate approves Judge Kavanaugh on Saturday - and on Monday he declines the nomination. And in declining he says the Senate has so politicized the confirmation process that his ascendancy to the Court could hurt its ability to act as a check on both the Administration and the Legislature.

The idea is that every day another conservative justice is not sworn in is a good day. — Hanover

If that's their thinking, I wonder from what party they have copied this strategy.

Not being a Republican or a Democrat, but an independent who thinks the system is broken - here is what I think would be a great ending. The Senate approves Judge Kavanaugh on Saturday - and on Monday he declines the nomination. — Rank Amateur

My opinion is that this scenario has essentially zero chance of happening. If you want to believe that Kavanaugh is some noble patriot thinking of the interest of the court and country before himself and his masters, well let's see Monday if he "declines".

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the purpose of the FBI investigation was simply to buy time to see how the polling goes for senators like Flake who still don't get the scandal / logic immunity that the Trump administration has vis-a-vis the Republican base.

The administration has been immune from any scandal affecting the Republican base support for Trump (he might be the most popular Republican president, among self identified republican voters, ever), so why would it stop now? And indeed it hasn't.

Therefore, claim the investigation is thorough, which the Republican base can then repeat to each other, and that Kavanaugh's performance in difficult questioning was stellar, and then nominate him to the bench.

Why Democrats Senators would pickup the meme of a "FBI Investigation" in the first place, when the FBI is controlled by Trump and he's certainly changed it to his liking by now ... is a good example of Democrats being paid to ignore how the system works (that's basically the roll of most Democrat politicians).

I also disagree that this this is about abortion. Kavanaugh's nomination is about protecting Trump. I very much doubt abortion laws will change, that's just something Republicans let the evangelicals believe they'll care about someday. The situation of abortion as it is, is convenient for republicans and the'll likely keep it that way.

What matters, is that while Mueller's investigation grind on and scandals peter out and new scandals emerge, and the leaves turn color and the larks go extinct, Trump has been finding by trial-and-error who's loyal and who's not. He got hoodwinked by Sessions and his backers so that an investigation could start that would have leverage on Trump (something the Republicans establishment ousted by Trump wanted to control him and something Democrats wanted to blame the election loss on, so a win-win for the previous power brokers), but Trump has found other backers and has started to understand, with his family members, how the state apparatus works and the amazing powers of the President (from controlling things like the FBI, intelligence agencies, nominating SCOTUS, tariffs and trade deals, threatening nuclear war and the like) as well as cut deals with the real Republican power holders like the Israelis, Saudi's and the Kochs, not the puppets seen on TV who he can now just ignore. He'll soon be able to pardon who he wants from federal and state crimes, get rid of Rosenstein and Mueller, as well as take full charge of the whole wealth of propaganda outlets and dirty bag of tricks the Republican establishment has painstakingly crafted over the years.

In my view Trump has now secured the essential state power mechanisms (why he's now so happy on TV) thanks to unquestioning loyalty of the Republican base that have kept all the Republican senators and congress members in line, and avoided a revolution of the moderate Republicans teaming with the Democrats to impeach him.

So great for Trump. And a great day for Trump supporters for sure.

However, supporting an incompetent statesman who falls in love with dictators is not necessarily a good future for any American, including Republicans. When a real crisis comes, history has shown that governments filled with loyal sycophants simply lose their grip on the situation.

edit: corrections

Does anyone seriously question the proposition that Kavanaugh is an asshole? And second, is assholes on the Supreme Court of the United States of America the best we can do?