Clarence Thomas (1991) should have put them on notice forever to the possibility of a sexual charge surfacing, plus more recently the addition of the #MeToo movement and the Roy Moore allegations. If they weren’t prepared for this against Kavanaugh with some character witnesses from every era of his past, they certainly should have been. But as I wrote earlier, the character witnesses were not marshaled in advance; they came forward as a result of the charges, and people who claim otherwise (such as yourself) do so with zero evidence.

Now, by the way, it’s 200 women vouching for Kavanaugh’s character.

There’s also the precedent of allegations of sexual misconduct against GOP politicians Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and John McCain.

On the other hand, Roberts’ confirmation occurred when the GOP held the Senate rather strongly, 55 to 45. Right now, the margin in the Senate is much closer, and they feel they have a chance, a good chance, if they can just peel off a couple of Republicans in the Senate.

Same situation for Alito as for Roberts: 55 Republicans in the Senate. And yet the Democrats tried to block the vote with a filibuster, but they couldn’t get enough votes for that. Also, this was one of the accusations against Alito:

Alito was questioned about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), described in some media reports as a racist, sexist organization that sought to restrict the admission of women and minorities to the private institution. When questioned by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about his involvement, Alito claimed to have no memory of being a member of the group. However, in his 1985 ‘Personal Qualifications Statement’ when applying to be an Assistant Attorney General, he listed his membership in CAP as a qualification.

Gorsuch was accused of plagiarism, unsuccessfully, and Democrats tried to block him with a filibuster. That’s when the nuclear option was activated.

In addition, it was clear from the start that the Kavanaugh nomination activated the Democrats to what amounted to a no-hold-barred frenzy, compared to previous nominations (except Clarence Thomas). That is probably because Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch replaced basically conservative justices, and their becoming SCOTUS justices did not change the court’s balance. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, was nominated to replace liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, and although that also didn’t change the court’s liberal majority, it was quite threatening to the left, more so than Alito and Roberts and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh is replacing the swing justice Kennedy, which is far more threatening to the left, so anyone could have seen they would be pulling out all the stops, and that that could easily include old sexual allegations if they could find someone to make them.

It’s really not rocket science.

“Well, since 1991 we’ve had Ailito, Roberts, and Gorsuch. I don’t recall them being assaulted in such a manner, so this would be a first.”

No they went after Roberts for having adopted children who were blond and not disabled.

Of course, the target here & with Moore was really President Trump, and it took out a lot of Democrats before the Media quit running with it, but that doesn’t invalidate it’s success as a weapon against Republicans.

Waiting for some ‘journalist’ to ask DiFi how she decided to hire a Chinese driver who for 20 years was moonlighting as a spy, while her husband was doing business with China. Crickets.

Well, when the tactic was tried against Justice Thomas, it didn’t work.

So one rebuttal to Manju is the timing: the other three predate the success with Roy Moore and the #MeToo avalanche that demonstrated the newly created value of such allegations.

(all quotes from Wikipedia)
“On July 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had announced his retirement.[1] ”

“The Senate hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, began on September 12, 2005, with U.S. Senators posing questions to Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush to fill the vacancy of Chief Justice of the United States.”

“On October 31, 2005, Samuel Alito was nominated by President George W. Bush for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor. ”

“After hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nomination was sent to the Senate floor on April 4, 2017. … Democratic Senators then proceeded to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination, after which Republicans invoked the “nuclear option”, eliminating the filibuster with respect to Supreme Court nominees.”

BUT
“In November 2017, nine women accused Roy Moore — a United States Senate candidate and a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama — “.

It’s also known—to anyone who hasn’t lived in a cave since 1991—that one of the major assaults on any conservative nominee to SCOTUS is likely to include allegations of sexual wrongdoing.

Well, since 1991 we’ve had Ailito, Roberts, and Gorsuch. I don’t recall them being assaulted in such a manner, so this would be a first.

As usual, your logic is faulty.

Let’s see—it was known for years (probably since 2012) that Kavanaugh was on anyone’s short list of conservative justice appointees.

It’s also known—to anyone who hasn’t lived in a cave since 1991—that one of the major assaults on any conservative nominee to SCOTUS is likely to include allegations of sexual wrongdoing.

And lately, accusations (sexual and otherwise—a la Mitt Romney and the high school haircut) have been extended to include high school shenanigans. So any smart group would have this sort of thing prepared for all the major candidates for appointment to SCOTUS.

However, it’s absurd to say that such a group couldn’t also have been assembled on short notice. I could do it; all you’d have to do (through Facebook or other ways) would be to contact people who knew that person in high school. It’s simplicity itself, really, so don’t act like it’s some enormous and unbelievable feat.

And that’s exactly what the people involved have said—that they were contacted after the allegations were made public:

September 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM
I signed it. Here’s how it went down.

On Thursday afternoon, Dianne Feinstein released a cryptic statement saying she had submitted to federal investigators a letter about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Although the FBI quickly announced it would not pursue an investigation, speculation surfaced that the claims related to an incident of sexual misconduct dating to Kavanaugh’s high school years.

On Friday, a group of women who knew Brett in high school sent a letter in support of him to Senators Grassley and Feinstein. I am one of those 65 women. Having seen some of the reaction to the letter, I’d like to clear up a few things:

The letter was conceived and drafted by friends of Brett’s, and it was drafted after allegations came out on Thursday. I learned about the letter from a friend and fellow signatory. Others learned about it the same way. Those surprised at the speed with which it came together should see it as yet another testament to Brett’s excellent reputation.

To those who responded to my tweet saying “I knew Brett in high school” by asking if I had gender reassignment surgery: I went to an all-girls school in Bethesda. He went to an all-boys school in Bethesda. We were permitted upon occasion to speak to people of the opposite sex.

To those hearing the thwap thwap thwap of black helicopters because my father is a journalist or because I worked in politics: In a group of 65 graduates of D.C. area schools, it would be odd not to find someone related to or working as a journalist or politician. It is entirely unremarkable. This is a company town. (That said, it might explain why people happened to see my tweets on the subject).

Ever hear of the internet? Or the telephone? Or texting? They all are ways to contact someone almost instantaneously, when last I checked.

Don’t you ever get tired of repeating talking points?

Now you find it odd—something “amiss”—for Kavanaugh to be characterized as “a good guy, a good soccer dad, a guy who personally treated women well, etc.”? I think something’s “amiss” with you if you can find that suspicious.

And Kelly Ann Conway nearly always speaks very smoothly. So no, nothing was “unusually smooth” about anything she said.