If you're hiring someone for life for one of the most important roles in the USA, I feel like any accusation is worth investigating at the very least. It's very difficult to get a conviction for sexual assault at the best of times and after so long, it does basically come down to his word against hers. And while I believe her, I also think that my belief is not enough to convict someone.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume he DID assault this woman and look at the other part of this.... the people saying that it was a "youthful indiscretion" and it shouldn't "ruin his life".

I do agree that you can make a mistake (even a serious one) in your youth and that shouldn't ruin your life, but with two caveats:
1) you need to acknowledge your mistake, and make reparations. In this case, it would mean Kavanagh serving time for assault and apologising to the victim.
2) Not being allowed to sit on the Supreme Court is not "ruining your life".

1. I completely agree, assuming that he did do it.

2. If you spent all of your life in a field of endeavor and someone came to you saying, we would like to add you to (as you said) one of the most important roles in the USA and the absolute defining pinnacle of your life's career, would you feel perfectly fine if you did not get that position because of something you did as a drunken minor and never repeated again?

Now, assuming you would not feel fine with #2, how would you feel if you had that shot ruined because of a false claim? I am willing to bet Merrick Garland is still pretty salty over having it denied to him, which it shouldn't have been.

My biggest issue with this is that if this had been announced when it was first known, we could have had an investigation. If he had been proven to have done it, off with his head. But everything I am seeing continually points to delaying tactics designed around the midterms. The Democrats and Republicans both know that if a couple of seats flip flop, then neither one will get the candidate they want. So the Reps want to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what and the Dems want to delay no matter what. I don't think a single one of them on either side gives two shits about Dr. Ford, she is just a means to an end even if she is telling the truth.

It depends on what I did as a drunken minor.

I've done some stupid shit in my time, but somehow I've managed to avoid sexually assaulting anyone.

If Kavanaugh IS guilty, then fuck him. The fact that he's managed to not assault someone since then ISN'T praiseworthy, it's the literal lowest bar for basic human behaviour.

I agree that we can't really know if he did it, but my problem is with the people brushing it off as a youthful indiscretion.

Whatever about the truth of the matter, I fully agree that this is a stalling tactic being used by the Democrats, but given the potential stakes, I can't say I blame them.

@Mordhaus, btw, it looks like another woman has come forward.

Again, this isn't proof, but it certainly strengthens the case for investigation.

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

She says it took her six days of hard thinking and speaking to her attorney before she decided she believed that she was positive it was Kavanaugh. Again, no other witnesses are backing her up and the couple that did say they heard of some sort of incident involving a plastic penis and a party think they heard Kavanaugh's name mentioned but they weren't present at the party.

I have to say, there was far more credible information against Clarence Thomas and a panel led by Democrats voted to pass him on to the senate. It is worth investigation? Maybe, but how do you prove it? Both accusers admit they were heavily intoxicated at the time and both have no credible witnesses. If you do have an investigation and he is found innocent, would a Democratic senate even still consider him for SCOTUS? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Sadly, it looks like he may be fucked even if he isn't guilty.

Moving this video to nanrod's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by original submitter nanrod.

you want the acts of a 17 yr old boy with no other history of repeat offense destroy a career?

If so we are all doomed.

So you now concede he tried to rape Ford? Wow, that's progress.
It's not once, there are a minimum of 3 public accusations known, and if they're true, probably dozens unreported since the MO was drug them into unconsciousness. Most wouldn't know what happened or who did it to ever accuse anyone.
These acts have destroyed one career, family, and life....Ford's.

We are, however, all doomed, thanks to the kind of politics that let people support probable drunks and rapists (and incontrovertibly those with no decorum, professionalism, or self control) for the highest court in the land if those rapists will push their politics from the bench.

Short answer: yes. 100%.

Long answer:
Well, let's unpack this.

"the acts of a 17 yr old boy"
I did some dumb shit when I was a kid. Nothing major, but I certainly wasn't a choir boy. But this isn't some drunken hijinx. It isn't even some petty crime.

This is an accusation of violent sexual assault.

Now, even then, I'd be willing to grant that people can change. If he'd paid his due, apologised, and proved he had changed, I'd be willing to say that everyone deserves a shot at redemption.

But...
"no other history of repeat offense"
you mean apart from the other two women accusing him of sexual assault?

Finally...
"destroy a career"
Let's cut this bullshit right here. Your career is not "destroyed" if you don't get to sit on the supreme court. I'm a software developer. I'll never work for Google or Apple or Facebook or whatever, but career is doing fine, thanks.

It's the Supreme Court... it should literally be the elite of the elite in legal minds. If you've got two candidates who are identical in all respects except one got slightly better marks in high school, you take that one BECAUSE YOU CAN.

Kavanaugh is clearly not the best available. If nothing else, this process has shown that he is woefully unsuitable for this position. He has constantly lied, deflected and then become hysterical (and yes, I'm using that particular word very deliberately).

But what saddens about this whole thing (and it really shouldn't surprise me at this point) is the hypocrisy of the right. Because it's Trumps pick, they're all "it's just youthful exuberance" and "let bygones be bygones" where you know if the tables were turned and it was a democratic pick who had even a minor misdemeanour they would be screaming from the rooftops.

The funny thing is, I still think that Kavanaugh (whatever I may personally think of the slimy fuck-weasel) deserves the presumption of innocence. If he really was the guy he's made out to be by the right, he would have said "I'm innocent, but of course this should be investigated. I am terribly sorry for this woman. She has obviously been through a traumatic incident, but she has me confused for someone else." and then it would have been investigated, probably nothing would be found (due to the age of the claims and the difficulty of gathering evidence).

He could have handled this with humility, sympathy and dignity.

But he failed every possible test. He has shown himself utterly unfit to be on the supreme court, and quite frankly, he's shown himself to be a poor excuse for a human. Fuck him so very much.

Nope I Do not concede it was Hypothetical speaking.

3 public accusations known..

1 is ford.
1 claims gang raped - 10 times -- She is not a victim.. She is an enabler.

The 3 is -- A story so not believable no one want to use it.

Democrats used this stunt to besmirch Clarence Thomas and Democrats are doing it again.

Moving this video to nanrod's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.