But I’m still no persuaded by your argument that Blasey Ford’s testimony was not credible enough to warrant withdrawing his nomination. I won’t rehearse all my reasoning, but I’m sure you’ve heard it all already on cable news.

There are a couple of things that news programs (I don’t have cable) have not mentioned is that Kavanaugh was a minor. Legally, we protect minors from having their early legal records opened for good reason; there is often no ongoing repetitive pattern. IOW, minors “go straight” at a much greater rate than adult perps.

A second relevant factor is the description of the attack given in Ford’s letter. That description is consistent with attempted rape (although Ford did not use that term); it’s also consistent with a couple of drunk guys who decided to scare the shit out of the freshman girl. Point here is that Ford’s “read” of the situation, and what was occurring, might have been very different from what was intended.

What I will say is that I am still mystified that Kavanaugh’s nomination wasn’t withdrawn.

And I’ll point out again that the way the Dems played this, they actually INCREASED the chance of the GOP sticking with him. They were up against a deadline (the election), and McConnell knew that if he tried to confirm another nominee during lame duck, the Dems would have been demogoguing that to death, especially if they won the election.

Further, I’ll point out something that Cory Booker said two days before the vote, when it was too little, too late: If the Dems really wanted the Kavanaugh nomination pulled, they could have cut a deal with the White House to send Barrett or Kethlege directly to the floor. I believe that the White House *probably* would have taken that deal.

Keep in mind that on the DC Circuit, Kavanaugh voted with Merrick Garland 93% of the time over 12 years. This is not a far right ideologue.

So, they did the most politically expedient thing — and the least responsible thing, as concerns the health of our republic — and attacked anyone and everyone who stood in their way, and pushed the nomination through.

Piffle. The Dems would have done the same if the situation was reversed. Look how they closed ranks around Clinton. The GOP will trade two years in the electoral doghouse for a thirty year SCOTUS seat all day long.

I still stand by my point: this man’s rights would not have been violated if his nomination was withdrawn (or a more thorough investigation done). And what would have been gained was a justice who did not undermine the legitimacy of the Court.

Oh, I agree that that this would not have violated his RIGHTS; what it would have violated is what used to be the national consensus, that it is a moral imperative for any accused individual, regardless of venue, to have the presumption of innocence.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with your characterization of totalitarianism as simply big government economic policy. If Arendt taught us anything, it was that totalitarianism’s virulence went far beyond that.

I don’t know what your grounds for disagreement are. There is no such thing as a totalitarian state and a libertarian economy; the two are totally at odds with one another. Totalitarians seek CONTROL; they certainly don’t stop trying to control when they get to Measures Economic.

Hence, I believe those trying to characterize Trump as a totalitarian wannabe aren’t thinking the entire matter through. His personality runs “my way or the highway”, yes, but that’s not all that unusual in a President, historically. Nixon and LBJ were the same way.