In this case, you are saying that the asserted, unproven personal satisfaction of one individual supersedes the political process of the whole country. Remember when Republicans were doing a huge disservice by refusing to confirm Obama's appointment? Well, Ford was doing the same thing, except she doesn't answer to an electorate. She was not given Constitutional authority to consent to the appointment of the Supreme Court justices. Mitch McConnell and the colleagues who made him Senate leader and the electorate that gave him a majority of the vote in that House, against the express wishes of the Most Powerful Man in the Universe, did. Christine Ford is entitled on the subject to one vote for the Presidential electors and one vote for each of the Senators from her state, she exercised them and was overruled by the people of most of the other states.

And then there is the point, that if she is wrong she has NO right to confront him. Are you seriously suggesting that someone's life should be disrupted for the delusions of a high school classmate?

Your very wording gives the lie to your affectation of impartiality on the particular case in question.

And self-interest aside, presumption of innocence benefits the far greater portion of society. That's why we have that doctrine in the first place! Presumption of guilt, or with the priority on the satisfaction & feelings of the accusers, serves a small group of victims of a rare crime and what will be an ever-expanding group of cranks. You're talking about the justice system like a grievance bureaucracy, instead of an impartial institution of mediation.

No one has any rights that require something other than restraint from another person. You don't have a right to food, shelter, or medical care, because someone else has to provide those things. You have the right to speak, because that only requires people not to interfere or suppress it. The right to be heard is a different animal entirely, because it requires... well, we're not sure what it requires, because it is intentionally vague. An alleged victim has the right to say he was victimized, but no one is required to listen to him, except now they are? And that's wrong, because it's up to everyone to determine for himself what is the best use of his time. Lots of people have better things to be doing than listening to the dream journal of some California academic. On a scale of things to care about, I list much higher every rape victim whose experience actually did preclude her from graduating high school, pursuing a higher education, living in Hawaii and California and becoming a professor.

Or they were just trying to be nice and we are already seeing mendacity as a result of this pressure to Believe All Women. The problem with the GOP, and why Trump retains popularity even among the Republican public who are disappointed with some of his policies, is that they don't fight back, they try to get along with the Democrats and extend olive branches. And it always blows back. Either the Democrats snap off the hand offered, or they look like asses, such as Todd Aiken's moronic attempt to split hairs over the case of abortion in the case of rape. The point is never whether or not the woman deserves her pregnancy, the point is the unalienable right of a fetus to life and the guilt of a third party does not cause that right to be forfeit. But Todd tried to be nice to the harpies and concede rape without letting them get away with lying about it. So they say that she's believable but mistaken, because that's a nice way of letting her down, and of course, the feminists and Democrats jump all over that like it's a rape conviction.

You guys are so fond of pointing out that this is not a criminal trial, and there is no obligation to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the Not-a-Trial standard also means the committee is under no obligation to state their truthful opinions, nor to parse their expressed opinions as precisely as a judge or jury handing down a verdict.

And even if they ARE saying what they really felt, they were not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine her or test her credibility.

That's why Trump's combativeness gets so much support. He's the only Republican official who seems to recognize that you people affect an innocent disinterest on one hand, while setting up a trap on the other. This isn't a trial, what does he have to worry about, we just want to hear what she says so we can make up our minds, it's all low stakes, and then, when the Republicans act like it's no big deal, and as if the stakes are as low as suggested, then it's AHA, you said she was credible! Kavanaugh is a credible rapist!

It doesn't matter the rules or official stakes in which someone gets a platform. Words still have power. Ford should not get a congressional forum in which to publicly make unsubstantiated accusations for political benefit, unless she can be challenged, rather than be given softball questions of the sort used to coax a deposition out of a shy child.

This posturing as if the accusations is toothless, because it can't be used to convict Kavanaugh of a serious crime, is typical dishonesty of the left. If he can't go to jail, then what is the point? Derailing the appointment for something so insubstantial is equally ridiculous, because then it's a political tactic. Then you gin up an unsupported accusation and as long as the victim is a competent performer, down goes the nominee. There has to be a higher standard of proof than cross my heart, hope to die. If prospective justices are going to be held to a higher standard, it has to be their standard. This is not people trying to minimize the significance of known conduct, this is something Kavanaugh has no control over. He can't help partisan commenters painting him as a danger to a group's privileges, and he can't help someone being motivated to make a claim about him.

So, no. You DON'T get to have it both ways. You don't get to demand the Republicans give the benefit of the doubt and play softball, against hardball consequences. You don't get to hit off the ladies tee when you're playing for prize money.