There was until '96 and you can't retroactively apply stricter laws. That said, I don't think that is a defense of anything in this case, especially given the fact that it would implicate him in further crimes of perjury.

I watched all the committee speeches on Friday live and heard great points made on both sides. I get the impression that the only reason people make up their minds is because they close their minds. 

No besides the sexual abuse allegations that came up it also has been proven that the guy has a a serious gambling addiction and it looks like he probably has alcohol problems also.

In my opinion, most people who believe that Kavanaugh should be confirmed believe so not because they believe she is lying, but because there just isn't any proof. You say we can't know what the truth is. Knowing that, what should the default course of action be? Drop Kavanaugh (guilty unless proven innocent) or confirm him (innocent unless proven guilty)? There's no in-between or third option. One course of action has to be chosen. I believe EVERYONE if they were in his shoes would like to be treated as innocent. And that's why there's just no valid reason for him to not be confirmed.

Well that's the rub: ANY kind of corroborating evidence (i.e. others confirming that Kavanaugh was at the party Ford described) would mean perjury for Kavanaugh, since he's on record under oath of never being at the party or ever meeting Ford.

All he had to say when these allegations came up was "Like most teenagers at the time I would sometimes have too much to drink. I do not recall any incident like Dr. Ford described and I have never nor would ever sexually harrass/assault women. I would welcome a full FBI investigation to clear my good name on this matter and to confirm my fitness to serve as a SCOTUS justice."  (or something along those lines)

Instead we got to see an angry, ranting, belligerent man yelling about Clinton conspiracy theories and alternately crying about how unfairly he was being treated. And all the while refusing to answer the question of whether he wanted and/or supported an FBI investigation to clear his name.

That is true, mostly because of the specific charge that would apply in this case.

(from https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/maryland-statute-limitations/571507/)

"Although Maryland is one of few states without a statute of limitations on felony charges of rape and attempted rape, the incident Blasey Ford described—a crime of attempted rape between two minors (a 17-year-old boy or 15-year-old girl)—would have been a misdemeanor in 1982, though it’s a felony now. Crimes prosecuted years later are still punished according to the laws of the time: You can’t be charged for a felony without knowing you’re committing one.

Ford’s allegations could, however, lead to other felony charges that have no statutes of limitations in Maryland, including assault with the intent to rape, according to Thiru Vignarajah, Maryland’s former deputy attorney general."

As others have said, this isn't a court of law. He is being lined up for a promotion so the comparison to someone being tried just doesn't work. What we are asking is if we should take the risk that the country is promoting a sexually abusive liar to the top court in the country, or if perhaps another candidate would be better for the country. Basically, I consider it to be a fairly mathematical formula (numbers are hypothetical):

If we a assume a truthful Kavanaugh's suitability for the job is 10, a lying Kavanaugh's suitability is 5 and Trump's second choice is a 9, then if there is greater than a 20% chance that any of these accusations are true or that any of his statements made in court were not true, then Kavanaugh is not the best candidate for the job.

Obviously those numbers are hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates the point (I would argue that Kavanaugh was not the best candidate for this job before the accusations but hey, thats just me).

I have no problem with your logic here, but I do find it puzzling that you'd consider a lying Kavanaugh's suitability to be a 5 instead of a zero I mean, if he's lying then he's essentially an attempted rapist and committed perjury by lying to Congress. That only knocks him down to a 5 ?!? I know you were just giving a hypothetical, but...

I was being generous for the sake of argument xD Technically he is still a highly qualified judge but yeah, I'd agree that 5 is highly generous, especially in this context. If you were to change the 5 to a 0, that would drop it down to him not being the most qualified if there is even a 10% chance of him lying under the previously defined hypothetical conditions.

Actually there is evidence that he lost tons of money due to gambling.  Also he started drinking on a regular basis in high school already so its very likely he has alcohol problems also.