That process has gone awry and astray whenever those senators, whose job is to duly consider and assess the candidate's qualifications and character, abdicate that responsibility. That's exactly what has happened here, just as it occurred 27 years ago in the wake of Prof. Anita Hill's allegations about current Justice Clarence Thomas.

Rather than re-examine the candidate in light of new testimony regarding his character and fitness to serve a lifetime appointment as one of the nine final legal arbiters of justice in our land, a handful of senators have instead subverted the nomination process by turning it into a political power struggle and test of personal wills.

It was obvious to many of us that Brett Kavanaugh was a terribly flawed SCOTUS candidate, even before these recent allegations of sexual abuse became public. It's now further apparent that numerous Republican senators were quite aware of these allegations well prior to public disclosure. But rather than slow the process down to consider their veracity, Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley instead sought to rush the nomination through before such disclosures came to light.

But even before Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez went public with their stories, there was more than enough evidence to strongly suggest that Judge Kavanaugh knowingly and deliberately gave false and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on multiple points back in 2004 and 2006, in order to secure his present position on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington.

Is lying to Congress while under oath now an acceptable standard for candidates who've been nominated for our federal judiciary? I certainly hope not. I don't consider it at all unreasonable that the public should expect honesty and forthrightness from judicial nominees in their testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate, and to further demand integrity, balance and due diligence from these judges in the performance of their official duties, once they're confirmed for their posts.

But per the public record, Brett Kavanaugh hasn't delivered on much if any of that over the course of the past two decades. By failing to meet such basic and reasonable standards, he's really not owed any further consideration for SCOTUS and indeed, he ought to also forfeit his present job as a federal appellate court judge.

And as I say here the other day, if Judge Kavanaugh had any sense of honor and decency left in him, he'd withdraw his name from nomination, rather than further subject his country to this absolute Republican mockery of our judicial selection process.

But here's the bottom line.  This is where we are.  You can make an argument both sides are to blame but blame is really no longer the point.  This is where we are.

This nomination is the most important one in my life.  It will change the country we live in for the rest of my life and the lives of pretty much every person reading this.  The republicans have crashed through every norm of the process and rubbed our noses in the residue.

It's a terrible thing.  But this is the fight we are in.

The Republicans' actions, yes.

But nothing justifies the latter (i.e., the assumption the accusation is true) prior to a hearing or trial before a neutral and detached magistrate or tribunal. That's the law in America

Of course no one would disagree with this.  But here's the problem I see with this approach to Kavanaugh.

This is not a "hearing or trial before a neutral and detached magistrate or tribunal".

It's a job interview.  For a very important job for life.  No one is entitled to due process in a job interview.  You look at the person and decide if they have the qualifications and character to do the job.  

If you have any question about either of those the logical thing to do would be to investigate.  They will not do this.  They will not even consider this.  It makes absolutely no sense to me that you have two (so far) accusers or a typically begging for an investigation of their claims.

In a sworn statement posted on Avenatti's Twitter account, witness Julie Swetnick says that she saw Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge target women for sexual assault.

"During the years 1981-82, I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to `spike' the `punch' at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say `No,'" Swetnick says in her statement. "I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be `gang raped' in a side room."

Like his politics or not Kavanaugh is well qualified as a jurist.  But as you point out it must be terrible for him and his family to go through what is happening now.

A big part of why some folks are upset about what is going on is it fails to pass the 'shoe on the other foot test'.  Both the women accusing Kavanaugh are Democrats who oppose him.  On the other hand both Clinton and Ellison were accused by members of their own party who were making statements against their interests.  All the accusations against Clinton and Ellison were much better documented than those against Kavanaugh in terms of time and place.

The accusations against Kavanaugh also violate Rule 39.  The Democrats could have easily raised the first accusation much earlier and started any investigation much earlier; instead they waited to raise the issue till it would cause maximum delay.  The same can be said of the second accusation's timing.

I would add that if you take the allegations seriously the implication is that Kavanaugh should be impeached; even if it is unlikely he would be convicted.  Yet I have seen several Democrats support impeachment; and if the Democrats retake the House it may happen.

The Democrats are working hard to destroy a wonderful man, and a man who has the potential to be one of our greatest Supreme Court Justices ever, with an array of False Accusations the likes of which have never been seen before!

C'est Moi: "But rather than slow the process down to consider [the veracity of these allegations], Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley instead sought to rush the nomination through before such disclosures came to light."

... Grassley's office has publicly announced that a confirmation vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee has been scheduled for this coming Friday, one day after the hearing. In the immortal words of George Custer at the Little Bighorn:

"Benteen: Come on. Big village. Be quick."