It's funny that three unrelated confirmed accusers (plus two credible ones) now became just one person who is clearly lying.
As we all know, rape accusations always take the man down, while benefiting the woman, as we can see from this nomination going forward as planned and Dr. Ford being slandered on national television.
How deluded do you have to be to believe she and the other accusers are lying? What possible benefit could there be?

Really, the answer to this question is very simple: if you are going to sit on the highest court of the land, your reputation should be beyond reproach.
There are thousand of people qualified for the job; trying to push in the sexual predator at all costs in is just a sign they don't believe they'll have the votes to get anybody in very soon...

P.S. If anyone is actually interested in learning about the topic of false rape accusations, this (and the article linked within) is a pretty good primer https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford

I feel like you are attempting to take a neutral stance and be reasonable but it just feels like a cop-out, like a way to avoid having to make a decision, perhaps out of fear of making the wrong one or fear it makes you be on the "wrong" side. I still don't know what you think should be done concretely. You keep talking about some sort of "middle-ground" that is supposedly attainable by giving weight to both sides. Unfortunately, there are only two options - confirm Kavanaugh or drop him. There's no nuanced, middle-ground, or compromise course of action possible.

I can't speak for all those who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed, but in my case, it's not necessarily that I believe Kavanugh and that I believe Ford's a liar. I simply do not see proof of what she is accusing, and as I've said in my past post, I still stand by the principle of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof being solely on the accuser. In cases where there is no proof going either way, the only course of action I find acceptable is to accord the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

It's not a testimony of belief in one person or lack of belief in another, but simply belief in a principle that irrefutable proof be required to ruin a person and deny him an honor. I guess my last question to you would simply be, of the two opions - confirm or drop - what do you think should be done?

The benefit is keeping a Conservative off the Supreme Court, so they can hopefully (in their minds) win back the house in November and hold the seat open until they hopefully (in their minds) win in 2020, and put a Liberal extremist on the court, who is perfectly fine with tearing up the entire constitution and then pissing all over it.

How deluded do you have to be to not see that?

Just pick a new one from the list. He's too toxic. Neil Gorsuch went through just fine and his is absolutely a stolen seat. Bret just is not fit for SCOTUS, and it's not even these allegations. His temperament, demeanor, and political drive just does not fit. There are plenty of right leaning judges who could meat SCOTUS standards, just not this guy.

It's inevitable that SCOTUS will strike down roe v. wade, because of the current administration, along with other longstanding democratic standards. So the fight should be fought in a different battleground, congress.

Also, jesus is this thread nasty.  A veritable who's who of the nasty side of VGC.

Wonder how long before someone makes a claim in this thread that some of us, if not all of us, verbally assaulted them at some point in time in the past and they feel their was life was threatened. They don't remember when, or where exactly, but they know for sure it was us. They can't comment again either, because they are afraid of commenting, which is unfortunate, but we understand, don't we?

When we are all asked to prove our innocence beyond doubt with only that minimal information at hand, or face being banned, I wonder how many would still think the burden is on Kav to prove his innocence or face being rejected?

They know exactly why they are doing it.  It's that they agree wholeheartedly with "the ends justify the means."  They just pretend they don't know what's going on to try to push the narrative that a woman would never lie about this because "it hurts them more."  The fact is, no it does not. 

Take the Duke Lacrosse team incident.  There were no charges filed against the woman.  She had her college tuition paid for by Jesse Jackson.  She wrote a book.  The students, on the other hand, were smeared in front of millions on national TV.  Had their names and reputations ruined for months.  Even after it turned out she lied, and the prosecutor withheld evidence, some still didn't believe them.  Fortunately for them, it was pretty much proven it was a lie, and they were able to slowly get their lives back together. 

Unfortunately, because this is from so long ago, we can't prove anything.  Yes, Ford will probably get some hate, now, but after this is all over she will leave the public eye within a few months, most likely getting a nice new cushy job from the Dems.  Kavanaugh, on the other hand, will have the label of rapist follow him his entire life, and his wife and daughters will have to deal with it even after he dies.  All based on hazy testimony with many holes and no corroborating evidence.  But, hey, the ends justify the means.

Politics have really become a sport these days. You stick with your team no matter what.

I mean is there any person here who call themselves a Democrat and thinks hes innocent or a Republican who thinks hes guilty?

Looks as though he lied under oath anyway

"Brett Kavanaugh's classmate says he lied about drinking"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45710340

Another one.. looks a though Kavanaugh has been tampering with a witness and also lying about what he knows under oath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IQ9aCLlq7w

No. Simply put, they already won.