he has a history of ruling against the epa and the the 2 presidents he has ties to both have a history of actively working against environmentalism. its not fear mongering its called looking at precedent 

Ehh we'll see what comes from it if he gets confirmed.  

You mean like how Biden led the charge to stop Bush in '92 from appointing ~50 judgeships because it was an election year?  And you say 10 months.  Well, how about the Dems plans to keep that spot vacant for another 2+ years?  Or because it's "your guys," it's ok?

That is blatantly false and you know it.  He said he would support whatever the committee suggested happen.  Asking him the same thing over and over again doesn't change anything.  Nor does it mean you "got him."  He, and the other Reps, called for the committee to hold the hearing to begin with.  And this investigation could have happened much sooner, and privately like Ford wanted, if the Dems didn't keep this as their last ditch effort to delay the process.

There is no theory, when that is exactly what happened.  The second he was nominated, the Dems opposed him.  Called him evil.  Said he would kill millions with his rulings.  A bunch of BS red meat thrown to their base, which led to his wife, and daughters being receiving rape/death threats.  Girls/women that I guess don't matter cause they are on the wrong side.  The Dems in those seats don't care.  Not about Kavanaugh's family or Ford.  If they did, they would have immediately let the committee know about the allegation, where it could have been investigated in private.  Instead, they lawyered up the woman, made sure she talked to no Reps about the matter, and kept it in hiding, waiting to spring it (by leaking it to the press) the second they had nothing else.

And it's not very dangerous for her, at all. You would have to prove, without a doubt, that she was lying for anything to be done.  And we never go after these women who make these claims that are never proven to be true.  Hell, we don't really go after the ones when it is obvious that they are lying.  Like with the Duke Lacrosse Team and the stripper.  It's why many are suggesting that penalties need to be in place for women who falsely accuse people of assault/rape.  When it is proven, of course.

Are you saying that we should side with companies that put profit over everything else instead of the organization that actually has a reason to give a damn about the environment

Female activists have made this about Ford, saying that if she is disbelieved then it's like disbelieving & dishonoring all complainants. I don't agree, but what if Julie Swetnick's accusations are conclusively disproved? To me, those sound like a pack of lies and they will severely shake the premise that women don't lie about rape. Will the activists stand by Swetnick whatever? And if they don't, what will it mean for Ford and Kavanagh?

If Kav is confirmed, the 'horrible' decisions he makes will most likely have to wait until after Trump is proven to be a Russian tool, and NK drops it bombs. They have priority still, I think, or has the news moved on? That's not to say any of these things are impossible, but they were urgent immediate threats, that still haven't gone anywhere, or are going the opposite way as initially reported.

I'd like to say that your post has been really enlightening on the other side's point of view. I have to admit that such an argument is not one I would have seen coming.

Your argument is pretty much that in purely legal terms, the law doesn't afford him the presumption of innocence because he isn't being tried for something. I would say that many people talking about the presumption of innocence are not talking about it in a purely legal sense but in a philosphical sense as well. If there is no evidence to go either way, do you condemn or do you consider the accused to be innocent? And that is the entire argument.

What I've gathered from your posts is that since he is not being tried for something but is just "up for a promotion" as you say, the presumption of innocence argument is moot. And thus it falls on him to prove his innocence lest it be found out later that he is in fact guilty. Essentially saying that because there is a possibility of him being guilty, we should err on the side of caution and just drop him. I wonder if you've taken the time to actually think of the consequences of implementing such a principle. You're basically saying that unless the accused is on trial in a court of law, in any other circumstance, it's up to the accused to prove his innocence because as long as there exists the possibility of the accusation being true, we should never take the risk.

The presumption of innocence is not just a right in legal terms, but also a principle by which to live and a human right. It is scary to see that people don't see a use for it outside of purely legal situations.

But the world outside of court isn't defined in such strictly binary terms as "guilty" or "innocent". It's possible to think that, for instance, while there isn't enough evidence to prove that Kavanaugh committed the acts he's being accused of, the way he's handled the situation indicates that he's too intemperate for the role of a Supreme Court justice.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with your first sentence. The issue is basically what should be done with unproven accusations, and there are only two options. You either say concrete proof is needed and continue with whatever the accusations hoped to stop, or you give in to the accusations and drop whatever was supposed to happen. That's it. Guilt and innocence are perhaps not black and white, but what you do with accusations is. You could argue that a third option would be to delay (even more) whatever is supposed to happen to "investigate", but that's just putting off one of the only two options.

I don't want to come off as agressive, but how exactly is someone supposed to act when their whole life is being smeared, when they are being attacked and condemned without a shred of proof? I don't know, I just feel like you think there is a certain way people are supposed to behave when facing an injustice and if someone deviates from it, it can only mean that they are guilty or not fit. How should he have reacted? It's so easy to say he should have been more calm or this or that, but we don't know how we'd react until we are in his shoes, and his reaction was completely reasonable for someone who risks not just losing "a promotion" but his entire reputation. Maybe we should refrain from judging him?

Lying to the Senate is a felony, which he has done many times. So yes, it should prevent his nomination.

Ford's friends did NOT refute her story BTW, Keyser only said she has no recollection (which is consistent with Dr. Ford's account of her being downstairs when Cosbynaugh was in the upstairs bedroom trying to rape her) and BELIEVES Dr. Ford, another one of his lies.

Man, the GOP can't stop nominating predators. Roy Moore, Cosbynaugh, the list goes on.

P.S., yes Cosby is guilty, he admitted he drugged women for sex, which is rape by definition in case you weren't aware.