Thanks again Elle, the points you make are certainly salient but I cannot recall any of the coverage discussing conduct on the DC circuit (I freely admit that could be me this side of the pond!) which would certainly have been more convincing to me than excessive written questions and sensationalist accusations, mobs (maybe passionate and principled) in front of lifts etc. I defer to your expertise on due process and would happily accept correction if ethics violations are proven.
I must admit I do not share your opinion of Dr Ford other than I can possibly accept she was sincere in her testimony but there were inconsistencies and outright untruths around her testimony as well as related matters regarding her “fear of closed spaces”. It was claimed she modified her house, that was not so. She was happily flying to and from Washington for quick chats with her Democratic mentors when the whole process could have been conducted locally to herself; her best friend “believed her” but could not verify they attended that party when or where she said. I believe there has been the majority report since where people were interviewed who Dr Ford said could corroborate her account but which have failed to do so. Her sincerity is obvious but she just seems wrong about that party.
I have just seen your further response and your erudition is obvious. To elaborate a bit further regarding Dr Ford, there seems to be a bit of “pick your sympathetic expert to give a conflicting expert opinion” on her testimony (I seem to have read and watched neuroscientists on both sides of the fence) and what she might or might not have remembered (I did try to be fair to that in the original article). I am not accusing her of lying or being deliberately untruthful. My point was can you actually use that standard of testimony that could not seem to be corroborated to force a candidate down. There were also questions regarding her own therapeutic history and the “testimony” of a plausible former partner (admittedly I would not want a particular former partner of mine testifying about me so that is a minor addendum). A victim she certainly is and it was not convincing to me she should have been exposing herself in that public way, it could have been in a much more secure and local forum if the politicians really did care for her.
I also accept the point about John Paul Stevens but that was not germane to my point here. It seems to me the States are so polarised at present and the academy so enthused with Marxism, that it would not be difficult to get people to sign up to anything that would potentially frustrate their “liberal” (a misnomer if ever there was one) agenda. My sub-plot in the article was the sad state of the US that it has departed so far from the vision of decentralisation (to avoid tyranny) envisaged by its founders and has attached since the 1960s an inordinate importance and function to this court. That to me seems the rationale as to why this process was so perverse — the political stakes were so high, not because Dr Ford or any other woman had been abused by Kavanaugh. Perhaps some of those professors do have sound reasons for questioning his candidature but it does seem remarkable that Trump would take the risk of even nominating him when he had a bank of squeaky clean Catholic women to choose also — surely the FBI would have been aware of unproven allegations and advised him to stay clear as tainted goods?
I am certainly not trying to be blind here and I would happily be proved wrong in this particular case as you certainly seem to have more of a handle on the details of the processes than myself but in addition to my comment about the Court above I hoped I was making the more general point that a judicial process should be just and fair, based on supportable evidence rather than slander and trial by social media, if we are to have any confidence in those processes at all.