>They were credibly accused, and only by virtue of being a reliable conservative judge, even if excessively emotional, was he confirmed

This is just not the case. Ford had many issues

- She couldn't remember which party it happened at

- She couldn't remember what year it even happened

- She told nobody until 2012 and even then she didn't mention Kavanaugh

- Multiple people she described as her friends denied they knew anything of this event including one who was allegedly at the party

- She lied to the Washington Post when she said she was frustrated that in 2016 she heard that Trump would potentially nominate Kavanaugh. She couldn't have been frustrated in 2016 since Kavanaugh didn't have his name put out until 2017.

- Her parents and siblings would not sign a document in support of her statement. Her family in law did though.

>The FBI got 4500 tips in the 80s, as well as multiple corroborating witnesses and chose not to investigate - presumably because of Kavanaugh's family and the 80s being even worse at investigating or prosecuting rape than they are today.

Prove to me that the police were even informed.

>There are then more recent, similarly corroborated cases of sexual harassment by Kavanaugh which confirm the kind of person he is.

Provide examples.

>So yeah I'm biased, in the sense that I consider a bunch of judges that are clearly uninterested in the law if it ever runs counter to their personal beliefs to be fundamentally unfit to serve

You haven't shown this is the case.

>and I consider a judge that supports an insurrection to be similarly unfit to serve.

Which judge did that? I assume you will say Thomas, but that was his wife. Unless you are going to say that spouses are responsible for everything they do, you can't put that blame on him. Thinking a man should have complete control over what his wife says is a remarkable sexist view.

>Your piss poor attempt at an argument is more reflective of your own bias and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own - based on your comments in other threads - fairly sexist world view.

You are the one making the claim that we should believe women because they are women. That is sexist. I am saying let's ignore their sex and only look at the facts.

>I'm going to assume that you would be one of those jurors that would happily accept and defend the "she was clearly asking for it"/"she's a slut"/"why would she be drinking" rape defense.

Please stop being an idiot. If you genuinely believe I think this then you need to get off the internet and as the kids say touch grass.

>I really hope that you're never put in an employment position giving you any power over women, and I sure as shit hope I never have to work with you - I already have enough shithead "conservative" coworkers w/o adding someone who is at the very least sexist.

I have stated multiple times in these posts (might not have been to you though) that Ford quite possibly was assaulted and Kavanaugh was possibly involved.

Instead of just asking my view on this you just assumed what I believe and had the audacity to call me a sexist. I'm not sure if you are implying I would rape a women with your statement about having power over a women or not but whatever you are trying to say is disgusting. I will never rape a women or be sexist to her. I think all rapists are terrible and the minimum punishment they should get is life in prison with no parole.

You are the bigoted person in this conversation. You assumed my entire world view and accused me of disgusting things. That is what a bigot does. You are the shithead not me.