Let's assume for argument that Brett Kavanaugh is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I think even the anti-Trumpers in this group can agree that there is no possibility that any incriminating convicting evidence can be found for an alleged event that occurred approximately 36 year ago, approximately somewhere near DC in Maryland, approximately in some unknown house. 

The only "evidence" that could be obtained, from FBI investigation or otherwise, would be hearsay testimony from people about on an alleged crime 36 years ago. 

And if we are honest, all such testimony, including Ford's and Kavanaugh's, cannot be taken as proof, considering the undeniable presence of political bias, some of it very deeply held, or other personal bias. So, short of a mea culpa confession from either Ford or Kavanaugh, there is simply no way that convictable evidence can ever be obtained.

So here is the rhetorical question: 

Under the presumption of innocence... Do you consider the personal destruction of one good man (and his family), without proof,  to be an acceptable cost, to keep Trump's nominee off of the Supreme Court, so as to prevent possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade or other impacts from having another conservative judge on the court?

ago.  It is about determining the character and integrity of a man who may serve in, and play an integral role in, the highest court of this land for the next 40 years.

If he is a liar, we need to know about it.  If he is an #badword# with volatile temperament, we need to know about it.  If his integrity is less than SCOTUS-worthy, we need to know about it.

This is bigger than him and his feelings.  This is a big deal.

We will almost certainly have a conservative take the next seat on the Supreme Court.  Let's make sure we have a man or woman who is worthy.