This article is an exercise in straw man reasoning. Not that that’s unusual these days.
Both parties refuse to engage in meaningful discussion over WHY they hold the policy positions they do. What’s far more common is for the the party opposing the policy to go on the air and, without evidence, state categorically what they believe the motivation of the “other party” is. And unsuprisingly, that motivation is always painted in the most negative way possible.
In the Ford/Kavanaugh issue, two sides. Both were virtuous, although the disagreement was deep. Those supporting Ford took the position that all women who claim the role of “victim” must be believed, and since she was believed, Kavanaugh was unfit for the SCOTUS.
That’s all fine. What’s not fine is lying about the motivation of the OTHER side, saying that in some way it was “against women” or a statement that “sexual assault is OK.”
That’s not just bunk, it’s illogical. To give that straw man any legitimacy at all, Dr. Ford would have to have *proven* (not beyond reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance of evidence) that she was attacked by Kavanaugh.
She could not.
Taking the pro-Kavanaugh position does not belittle Dr. Ford in any way, because that position is simply this: An accusation against a nominee must be shown to be true. It must be, in some way, backed by evidence. If not, then all we’ll have to do from this point forward to “freeze” a nominee for any position is to accuse them of something heinous.
That is a recipe for governmental disaster.
If we are to ever recover our ability to reason together and compromise politically, we must first, before anything else, reclaim our ability to listen to one another.
But, let’s carry on:
How does she expect an outspoken conservative judge to uphold the law by voting to keep abortion rights accessible?
One doesn’t quite no how to answer this one, other that to say that Kavanaugh is one of nine. He does not have the ability to either end abortion rights, nor keep abortion accessible. (That seems too obvious to be stated, but, whatever.)
A significant witness was excluded from the rushed and time-limited FBI investigation.
On 9/26, Charles Schumer, demanding an FBI investigation, said, “What’s the rush? An investigation will only take a week.”
How quickly that changed.
Also, I am unaware of any “significant witness” that was excluded. The FBI determined that Ford was credible, Ramirez was not (after a short interview with her) and Swetnick was, well, laughable. That is part of what the FBI does; decide what’s credible and what’s not. They determine credibility, not the mob.
If under half of Republican women have zero faith in Kavanaugh, then Susan Collins has not listened.
If under half of GOP women have zero faith in him, then Collins HAS listened. (Not sure how you reasoned through those numbers.)