At least he's getting a hearing. The GOP refused Merrick Garland a hearing because the Presidential election was "only" eight months away. Kavanaugh's hearing is only a month before the midterm election and they are trying to ram it through.

Oh, and another thing. Whatever the Dems and Reps do to further or obstruct Kavanaugh's appointment will be done in the public eye, with cameras rolling. The electorate will have an opportunity to evaluate the proceedings and judge the actions and motives of their elected representatives. Garland was denied that oversight, and there is now no doubt that the appointment of judges to the courts is strictly a political act, subject to the results and influence of gerrymandering, campaign contributions, voter suppression and industry lobbying.

After generations of Conservative whining about precedent, strict constructionism, rule of law, originalist interpretation, observing the Constitution and other powdered wig and buckle shoe bullshit about what the founding fucking fathers REALLY meant, we now see all they actually care about is furthering their corporate agenda and protecting their outlaw President.

I have no way of knowing if this woman's accusations against Kavanaugh have any basis in fact. But whether they do or not is irrelevant to those who wish to put him on the Court no matter what he did or didn't do. We need to see them reveal themselves by supporting his nomination in the face of the charges against him, no matter how convincing his accuser may sound, before there has been any chance to evaluate them. There may very well be a political price to pay for the nomination of an accused man, even if the charges against him are unfounded.

Yes, there is a legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty"; but that is a legal principle, not a political one. It is a protection against the State convicting someone without substantial evidence against them. It was never meant to automatically apply when a private employer was considering a job applicant, or a legislative body was considering a crucial and controversial appointment. You don't have to wait for a conviction to refuse to hire someone accused of a crime. In fact, even an acquittal isn't a guarantee he'll get hired.

And there is plentiful precedent for that, remember Justice Thomas?