Lowering the bar because it's not okay to be accused?
I believe you have me blocked, and that's ok. But you have asked a question that starts leading back the inquiry we should be considering here; Is this man capable of setting aside his personal feelings in favor of the constitution/law?
Let's frame what a Republican asked the very first day of hearings
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said:...the question before us is whether or not he has the temperament and the character to take his policy views and his political preferences and put them in a box marked irrelevant and set it aside every morning when he puts on the black robe.
Rather than asking a question that is impossible to ascertain(was Ford assaulted 36 years ago), let's play by Senator Sasse's rules. Does Kavanaugh have the temperament to overcome "his policy views and political preferences", and does he have the temperament. His initial response to being asked about the alleged sexual assault was:
Kavanaugh said:I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.
Pretend he wasn't coached. On the surface, he's provided the seemingly immediate and assertive emotional response of a proud man being accused of a terrible crime. I'd consider this a natural reaction for any man(or woman). But we're asking him not to be any man(or woman)... we're asking him to be a Supreme Court Justice that can put that all of that(which I believe should include public opinion) aside. We're asking one of nine people not to look at their policy views or their political leanings, and make a legal decision. Is a man that's unwilling to hear out the other side of an argument appropriate to sit on the Supreme Court? Wouldn't an emotional response bring into question his Temperament? Just consider it.
Let's imagine the other side; he was coached ahead of time. Which would mean he saw this coming. No one's going to believe he was caught off-guard, or unprepared by legal coaches. Especially after Senator Grassley was near-immediately able to produce a list of sixty five female character witnesses from Kavanaugh's high school. In this scenario, his temperament would be fine, but his Character would be of question; it would appear that he was attempting to play ignorant(lies of admission) while he and his coaches knew better.
Move this a little down the timeline, and we can see him double down on not knowing anything about the accusation. Further, not even attempting to bridge knowledge gaps of the accusation in a second statement, merely leaving it up to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Kavanaugh said:This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone[...] Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making the accusation until she identified herself yesterday. I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity
Convenient that the Senate Judiciary Committee, controlled by the same group that nominated him. Very likely having a hand in his coaching. This, too, holds a different problem. Instead of having an active hand in understanding the allegation and locating the truth, one of nine people asked to understand the truth and interpret the law through is content passing the buck... again, to the same committee that shares political preferences with the man who nominated him in the first place.
A LIFETIME appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That's serious business. A similar situation(admittedly not identical) seems to be sitting on the jury of someone facing life in prison. Yeah, the stakes are higher... it's not just one person whose life is affected, but millions. Setting aside all other issues(perjury, blatant withholding of documents from the government, pretty obvious political leanings, pro-life, near presidential immunity, alleged sexual assault/attempted rape, the whole "no means yes" rhetoric employed by his fraternity, etc), are you sure?
Based on only the above, are you sure that beyond any reasonable doubt that this man is capable of, and willing to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America for the rest of his life?