Consider: you may have just undercut your own argument that this was about "TDS". If people were actually objecting because of concern about what Kav would do to abortion and gay rights, it wasn't anything to do with Trump. And, you know, stripping away the right of gays to marry (which really shouldn't have taken much longer than Loving v. VA) or abortion rights is kind of something to be worried about.
But again, the fuss over Kavanaugh as articulated wasn't mainly about that, or at least, there was no indication allegations of anything were manufactured over it. All you really have is the typical gap of physical evidence in an old he-said/she-said case, or indeed any he-said/she-said case without physical evidence. But again, the focus was:
- Degree of belief in Ford's testimony, which again in criminal court could be deemed sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury accepted it.
- Opposition based on the uncharacteristically partisan tone of his statements at the hearing. For example, that this was all some scheme perpetrated by people trying to "take revenge for the Clintons" or a statement nearly like that. "What goes around comes around". The blatant anger and lack of decorum: how dare I have to appear here?!
- The simple fact that he acted like he only liked to have a beer or two, meanwhile the people who knew him at the time(s) said he was constantly getting ripped and "boofing". (which does not mean "farting", as he claimed). Why lie? That raised a question: if he lies about that, or even downplays it (if one wants to call downplaying inaccurately not-a-lie), what else might he downplay or lie about?
Maybe you don't think that should all be enough, but I do not see any reasonable conclusion that opposition was down to "TDS", which was my point - that's where this exchange started. If it was "TDS", it would have happened with Gorsuch. It didn't. There were other factors in play.
