Except for the the exact details of those days I knew about it, but if you care about the USA and its citizens Democrat or Republican what has been confirmed that whatever decision is being made is going to have a huge negative impact. 

I would try to come together and find a new solution that seems fair to the people, I know my idea is crazy but let them choose a new candidate that only for this exception may be voted by the old members and not by the new elected ones. I know very well it is not going to happen but now it is just a shitshow.

Everybody keeps talking about crimes, guilt, innocence. It's a job interview. Hell it's not even that. It's an interview for a promotion. He already has a lifetime appointment to a court, this is about a lifetime appointment to a higher court, the highest possible. Perjury is the only possible crime to prosecute him for here, and that's not terribly likely as most of the times he may have perjured himself could be written off as simply being wrong, not lying. Regardless of your opinion on the guy, you should be thinking about his impact on the court, not the confirmation process impact on his life or the midterm election or the parties. We're talking about the Supreme Court here, the final arbiter of all laws and legal disputes. The most foundational pillar of the rule of law beyond the constitution itself.

Regardless of "the truth", his confirmation would damage the court at this point, especially if enough information came out to warrant his impeachment later. It's not about "due process" at all, and it's certainly not about one man's career, which would be fine regardless of how the confirmation vote goes. It's about protecting a sacred institution of our democracy. It's not like there aren't options. Trump has a big list of them, and all are great for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

People say that Dems are going to start accusing Rep nominees of sexual crimes every time, but they didn't do it for Gorsuch, and if somehow they started doing it every time from now on, it won't work, both because they won't be able to find accusers every time and because it won't always be believable, especially for the female candidates, however unfair you may feel that is. If the Dems actually tried such an absurd strategy with every Republican candidate, the public would stop believing them and Reps would be able to confirm their nominee without hurting the court because everyone would stop believing the Dems. Similarly, if Lindsey Graham follows through with his threat and comes up with fake sex crime accusations for every future Dem nominee or whatever he's implying, Dems might have to withdraw their first candidate if he makes a convincing case, but eventually it won't work as everyone will stop believing him. There's just no need to endanger the court's reputation like this when there are other options, some of which, quite frankly, are more conservative than Kavanaugh, if that's all they care about.

I'd never do that personally. No one on here should be banned for giving their opinion on any subject. Only time it becomes a bannable offense is if it becomes hostile towards another user when giving said opinion. I appreciate a good conversation, so thanks ^__-

Hadn't read this far when I wrote my last comment. I mostly agree here, but I'd argue that even if we never find out whether Kavanaugh is a liar or not, the testimony so far is enough that substantial portions of the country believe he's a lying rapist. Even if you think that's unfair, you should want the Supreme Court to be respected, and it's decisions to be respected, so you wouldn't confirm him. Since this is, again, just a job interview, there's no consequence to Kavanaugh if he doesn't get confirmed. There is a consequence to the SC's reputation if a lying Kavanaugh is confirmed, but there's also a consequence if a truthful Kavanaugh is confirmed, because the public will likely never know if he's truthful or not, and thus can only guess, and guess they will, whether you like it or not. And a plurality of the public, and by some polls like the Fox News poll, a majority, have guessed that he's a lying rapist. This may seem unfair to Kavanaugh, but it would be very dangerous to the fundamental institution that is the Supreme Court if you confirmed him. Seeing as there are better options, handpicked by Trump and the Federalist society, that wouldn't harm the court in this way, if you just pick one of them, this problem goes away. As I said in my previous comment, the fear that false sexual crime accusations will jump out of nowhere for every nominee from either party till the end of time as a strategy to stop nominees is a baseless fear and will not come to pass, as even if that happened, it would just ruin the party that tried it when the public grew tired of it. Withdrawing Kavanaugh and nominating a better candidate is the best option available for both parties (though still a shitty option for Democrats) and the best option for the Supreme Court, and thereby the best option for the rule of law and the American people.

This "Kavanaugh Precedent" is nothing to fear. Those "baseless charges of racism" didn't stop those appointments from being confirmed. Gorsuch got multiple Democratic votes, and no accusations. The only reason this would stop Kavanaugh is the combination of national attention and a story that convinced a sufficient portion of the population that it becomes a danger to the SC's reputation. Thomas had similar accusations, and was confirmed, but there wasn't as much of a public outroar or cries that the SC would not be trusted by women again. Thomas just became yet another conservative judge that liberals didn't like or trust, especially liberal women. Kavanaugh's situation is a different animal altogether. Even if Dems are doing this on purpose and will try to do so for every Rep nominee, and even if Reps never try to do it, it wouldn't create a system stacked against Rep nominees, because not every nominee will have an accuser, and not every accuser will be believed at the level Ford is. If Dems try to force the issue, all they'll accomplish is to destroy their own reputation in the public's eye. Better that the Democrats destroy their reputation than that the Republicans destroy the Supreme Court's reputation.

I view it as a ''facts dont care about your feelings'' type of stance. Large amount of people believe something that isn't true, we've all done it in every aspect of our lives. Just because we believe something and perceive it as a true(without proof or facts), wouldnt give us a right to defame and destroy someones life or career.

Thats why I'd stick with kav because emotions are just those, emotions. No facts present that makes Kav guilty of something at the moment and saying he should withdrawn from nomination just based off ''emotions'' isn't really a logical way to go. If we based everything off emotions rather than facts or proof,then society wouldn't be able to function properly.

So we'll see where this goes.  Give me hard proof that Kav is guilty as can be and I'll be right there saying he should be withdrawn and or impeached. Until then it doesnt make sense to not move forward and put him on the SC

Except for his repeated lies. And his calendar which supports HER version of events. And a therapy record from 2012. And his well-documented booze-filled blackouts which his best friend describes in his own book, another thing he lied about.

Which BTW, the fact that he has provably and repeatedly lied under oath alone should disqualify him from any judicial nomination.

Facts don't care about your feelings either though, and it's a fact that huge swaths of the population think he's a rapist, and it's a fact that this would damage the Supreme Court's reputation if he were confirmed, and it's a fact that the Supreme Court is a foundational pillar of the rule of law, and it's a fact that there are no consequences for Republicans' goals for the Supreme Court to just nominate another candidate so long as they're equally qualified, and it's a fact that Trump has a large list of such candidates. A person acting purely rationally and sitting in Trump's position would withdraw Kavanaugh and pick Amy Coney Barrett, because she's actually more conservative than he is, and nominating her would simultaneously prevent any further damage to the court's reputation, while also cornering Democrats if they're bluffing. You may feel this is unfair to men or whatever, but you know it's true, and facts don't care about your feelings. If Dems brought accusations against Barrett, they'd look like they really were just trying to come up with bogus accusations, and the public would just roll their eyes. In all likelihood, there would be no accusations and she'd sail through with multiple red state Dem votes just like Gorsuch did and become the conservative version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, causing as much angst to liberals as RBG did to conservatives. The opportunity for Trump and Republicans is right there. They can get a more conservative judge, humiliate Democrats now, cause liberal angst for the rest of ACB's lifetime, and if Dems tried anything with sex crime accusations to stop her, they'd ruin their own reputation and cast enough doubt on the Kavanaugh accusations to give Republicans an excuse to nominate him for a future seat if Trump gets a second term (or sooner, I don't know). All it would take is for Trump to be a leader for 5 seconds and withdraw the guy. His base will follow along if he explains what he's doing and why. There's a clear conservative case to do this and you can bet if he laid out that case conservatives would follow him, and persuadable independents wouldn't buy accusations out of nowhere a second time, unless they were absurdly credible on a level beyond the Kavanaugh situation. All but the most hardcore liberals probably wouldn't believe it either, and if Dems don't try this tactic again, liberals might not like ACB but they at least won't feel like a rapist is on the court. 

The most important fact here is that whether you feel that a society should make all decisions based on purely emotionless facts or not, emotions aren't just a part of our society, they're fundamental to it. You can't separate them out like that. This is because of one emotion in particular, trust. Trust in the institutions that make up society are what keep a society from collapsing. If you undermine trust in a society's institutions, it will not remain a society, it'll collapse into chaos. The Constitution of the United States is just a bunch of meaningless words on paper if we don't trust it. The Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are just labels we give to a collection of people and buildings unless we trust them enough to give authority to their words and actions. You can't just keep disrespecting the feelings of half of society over and over again and expect trust to remain, and that goes for both sides. Facts don't care about anyone's feelings, but trust cares about feelings, and society is built on trust. Good decisions are built on facts, sure, but it's a fact that emotions influence trust, and a fact that damaging the institutions of society is bad, and therefore a fact that maximizing trust in the institutions that uphold society will require accounting for the emotions of that society's citizens. It's not a black or white thing, of course, as nothing is going to make everyone feel great, and nothing is going to gain universal trust. It's a balancing act, and it takes skilled leadership to navigate that balancing act and lead a society to unite around a vision for those institutions that they can trust in. It's even more difficult in a time like today with society already divided so thoroughly and rigidly along partisan and ideological lines, but that's the reality we face. We're at a tipping point right now where too much more trust lost in our institutions could cripple or utterly destroy us, and it's not worth playing around with society's trust in the highest court in the land with the final say on every law. Rule of law depends on it.

Also, Kavanaugh wouldn't be harmed in any way by not being confirmed. He's a judge. With a lifetime appointment. Since he can't be tried for anything he's been accused of, his career is safe. His life won't be impacted any further than it already has whether you confirm him or not at this point. Likewise, he's already as defamed as he's going to get, unless more things come out, and confirming him won't protect him from that. Doesn't make sense to confirm him to "protect" him or his career, as it won't have that effect.

I dont base stuff off emotions, thats not my M.O. I base my stuff on facts and right now there just isn't any facts presented here nor in the case against Kav at this time. Until that time comes,its just people leading with emotions and emotions only. You bringing up ''well people believe this'' proves my case that people lead with emotions rather than dealing with factual evidence or proof,it confirms my statements. 

Will that change in the future and we get facts/proof against him? maybe,maybe not, but until then I'll be waiting for actual proof 

Surely Being a Proven Liar under oath, shouldnt prevent him from being a Supreme Court Judge