Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.
One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.
We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.
An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes
A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.
Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?
I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.
Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.
'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.
If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.
So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.
So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.