Editor’s note: A California woman’s allegation that she was sexually assaulted by the current Supreme Court nominee when they were teens in the early 1980s is the talk of the nation. We’re turning over today’s mailbag to some of your responses to our coverage, including the Senate hearings before the accusation landed. Write us at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: About Elizabeth Slattery’s commentary, “I Stand With Brett Kavanaugh“: As soon as President Trump named Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, I wondered how long before one of the left would suddenly find something to bring up that would cause this kind of fiasco. I went to Twitter and stated the same at the time, and advised the president and Judge Kavanaugh not to fall into their trap.

If any of this is true, why did Christine Blasey Ford not bring it up when Kavanaugh’s name appeared on the multiple listings of Supreme Court candidates in 2016 and 2017?

Nope, it is just another smear tactic, just like with the military doctor the president nominated for Department of Veteran Affairs secretary who was smeared. He bailed, and I can’t blame him.—Karen Callaway, Florida

***

As a woman, I cannot respect this particular tale because I truly believe it was conjured up in a marriage therapy session.

How convenient after more than 35 years  for Christine Blasey Ford to claim she was so traumatized by five minutes of unsuccessful groping by someone that it affected her sex life forever.

A lie detector test proves only that the person believes himself or herself to be telling the truth. It in no way proves a non-event in a non-year at a non-place owned by non-people actually happened, rather than being part of Ford’s imagination.

And what was she hiding on the social media accounts that she erased?—Joleen Worden

***

I just put in my voter application to change my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican.  I have been a Democrat for well over 40 years.

After witnessing the horrible display of conduct by the Democrats at Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, I want nothing to do with this party.  If the Democrats don’t like the “process,” then they need to use another forum to change it.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley repeatedly stated that the White House documents requested by the Democrats were not authored by Kavanaugh and were the property of former President George W. Bush.

The Democrats and protesters want someone who will listen, but yet they are unwilling to do the same.  The protesters don’t even know what they are protesting.  These protesters and Democrat senators do not reflect the opinions of the “people.”

The “people” do not want to read (or will not read) thousands of pages of additional documents. The Democrat senators only used that request as a ploy to impede the hearing and advertise themselves and their party.

The hearing is not a trial, as one of the Democrat senators erroneously stated, but a hearing. Kavanaugh is not a witness, but rather a nominee.  The Democrat senators’ actions are uncivil, unruly, inappropriate, unethical, and flat out bad form.

Their display is an embarrassment to the United States.  Putin and other world leaders are laughing their asses off.Stephanie Jeffords, Oklahoma

Any Democratic voter who claims that we do not suffer a glaring double standard is either a fool or a liar.

If you are Republican and accused, you are guilty, no matter how outrageous and unlikely the accuser. If you are a Democrat like Rep. Keith Ellison and the accuser has proof, you are innocent and the accuser gets excoriated by Dem followers.

The left is the newest and largest hate group in U.S. history.—Anthony Alafero

***

We should remember that the Democrats’ last presidential candidate demeaned the numerous women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct, including rape.

Of course, Bill Clinton was a progressive who supported Planned Parenthood, making his conduct excusable. For the same reason, Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with his conduct for many years.—Boyd Richardson

***

If this doesn’t prove that the socialist Democrat Party is nothing more than a bunch of spoiled 3-year-old brats, nothing will.

They want everyone to believe unsubstantiated hearsay allegations and take them as gospel, and the Republicans must do as they demand or they will hold their breath till they turn blue. Let them do it.Jim Scofield

***

I stand with Brett Kavanaugh as well, and have written both of my Louisiana senators demanding they do also. I hope that others here have made their voices heard in a similar way.

What evidence? There does not seem to be any. Besides, any allegation made for an incident over 35 years ago, in high school, has no bearing on today.

My personal statute of limitations ran out on stuff like this long ago. A sincere accusation should have been made long ago, and at least when Brett Kavanaugh was selected in 2003 for the D.C. Court of Appeals.—Wayne Peterkin

Dear Daily Signal: Kelsey Harkness’ commentary is right on the mark regarding abuse of the #MeToo movement (“The Kavanaugh Allegation: #MeToo’s Big Bet“). It is political/media suicide to challenge anyone who wraps themselves in the #MeToo banner.

Look up NBC News anchor Natalie Morales’ interview with actor Sean Penn. I saw this broadcast and said, “I never knew Sean Penn was so sharp.”

The “kicker” in my opinion is that it was Morales who tried to spin a simple movie with a strong woman role into a #MeToo mantra. Penn takes the heat because of an honest answer to the twisted intent of the interviewer.

Save the hater response. I know sexual abuse is real, unfortunately from both sides. #MeToo seems to have become the latest platform to deal with poor decisions made even while a child.

It’s like: “If I can find someone to blame and reshape my dumb choice from consent to abuse, I can exonerate myself.” This is not how #MeToo started, nor the intent of any of its honest participants.—Russ Isham

***

Ford’s allegation is a total lie, concocted when Romney’s election was entirely possible in 2012, and even then it was known that Kavanaugh was atop the contenders list for a Supreme Court pick.

The actual letter that Sen. Dianne Feinstein received has not yet been given to Sen. Charles Grassley as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which begs the question as to the full contents. Even the FBI was given only a redacted copy.

Of the three people Ford has named, all three have categorically denied her story. It. Never. Happened.—Dave Hunter

***

The #MeToo movement had an honorable start but was weaponized by the Democrats for their political warfare.

And just like all things Democrats touch that turn out horrible, the #MeToo movement has been permanently ruined. The only good news is that the movement has taken down 99 percent Democrats.—Rodigo Gubernatio

***

So, the White House called Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bluff, as Rachel del Guidice reports (“White House Says Woman Accusing Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct Should ‘Be Heard’“). I’ll bring the popcorn.

The Republicans are advocating that Christine Blasey Ford be heard.

Contrast this reaction to the smear campaigns done by the Clintons after allegations were made against Bill Clinton. Tell me again which party protects women?—Anna Clare

Dear Daily Signal: If the accuser wants justice, let her press criminal or civil charges against Brett Kavanaugh for the incident described in  Rachel del Guidice’s story (“EXCLUSIVE: Longtime Female Friend Who Signed Letter Supporting Kavanaugh Speaks Out“). If she has proof of her allegations, let her present proof.

The accuser has hired a lawyer; why would she need a lawyer? According to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the accuser was adamant about wanting to remain anonymous. Apparently, the accuser changed her mind.

According to Feinstein, the accuser was adamant about not wanting to press the matter further. Apparently, the accuser changed her mind about that too. It leaves me wondering what the accuser will change her mind about next.

Brett Kavanaugh’s life has been an open book since he left high school. What does the public know of the accuser’s past life, up to the present date?

My senators here in Illinois, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both have let their feelings about Kavanaugh be known well before the unfounded allegations were made. They were both adamantly opposed to his confirmation.

These allegations give them another excuse to delay the vote on Kavanaugh until such time as there are enough Democrats in the Senate to deny his confirmation. It will be left to the Republicans to expedite the vote on confirmation, once they have heard the testimony from the accuser and from Kavanaugh.—Drew Page

***

The Duke lacrosse rape case was pursued by leftist professors and a district attorney making a name for himself, which Rachel del Guidice’s report brought to mind. When it was over and all the lies exposed, lives were ruined. Not the professors and news media who led the lying charge, but the innocent boys accused falsely.

Unfortunately, in these times women lie all the time out of vengeance, remorse for their own actions, or much more often, political ideology.

This is the new tactic of the left and it is working. It is disgusting.—Lynne Hallman

***

The left is committed to the removal of a duly elected president, the destruction of our system of capitalism, and now an all-out assault on our system of justice. This shows a systematic attempt to overthrow our country.

The FBI conducted not one, not two, but six thorough investigations of Judge Kavanaugh, and found not one iota of anything even remotely illegal or criminal.

Many women who have worked with Kavanaugh already gave him a clear, sterling record of respect for women and the law.

We know Feinstein’s hate for anything Trump, anything our forefathers wrote into the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or anything she chooses not to like or follow, I guess we’re not supposed to have a background check on this professor.

Enough of this already.—Marty Miller

***

I wonder, if it was true, why Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser waited more than 35 years. Not only that, but [Sen. Dianne Feinstein] waited until after the Senate hearings were completed and a vote was ready to be taken.—Jim Scofield

Dear Daily Signal: So on the one hand,  as Rachel del Guidice reports, we have a highly accomplished judge at the pinnacle of his career, and on the other, a likewise accomplished research psychologist (“EXCLUSIVE: Woman Who Was High School Friend of Kavanaugh’s Calls Claim of Sexual Assault ‘Absolutely Fishy’”).

If Brett Kavanaugh loses, he goes back to his life, bruised and disappointed but still a judge.

For Christine Blasey Ford, it’s all over already. She’s had death threats. She’s had to move her family out of her home. It will only get worse if she wins. She has a lot more to lose, especially if she wins, and yet she persists. Hmm.

An independent investigation is the only way to find the truth—if the truth is really what’s being sought.—Edward Buatois

***

Since the Democrats control almost everything from the media to academia to Hollywood, they assume that at some point, they will fully control government. The last thing they want is a Supreme Court that blocks their frequent unconstitutional moves.—Anthony Alafero

***

I hope that on Election Day the American people will remember the hate, corruption, and lies from the dishonest Democrats. They need to be stopped, and the sooner the better to drain the swamp. I love my president.—Fran Leard

***

Why did the Democrats hold onto this accusation since July (“Kavanaugh Willing to Take Questions From Senate on High School Assault Allegation“)? Because it is totally not provable character assassination, to be used as a last resort?—Derek Dubasik

Dear Daily Signal: As Thomas Jipping notes in his commentary, the Democrats stated that Judge Brett Kavanaugh “perjured himself” as another tactic to keep him from being confirmed and/or to plan his impeachment (“3 Takeaways From Day 3 of Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Hearings“). This is considerable nerve in most of the Dems, who gave false information in the process of their questioning, so unprofessionally and disrespectfully delivered.

The Dems better take care not to judge the judge, in that their behavior is definitely not above reproach. Each of them should/could be impeached for lying, misinforming, obstructing, etc. They are a total embarrassment. They are so blind to their hypocrisy, arrogance, and narcissism.—Donna Kleister

***

Ask yourself why these Democrats are opposed to Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court justice. Why are the protesters screaming from the gallery?

They’ve already said they won’t vote for him, so why all the theatrics? The answer is really simple but sad. It’s because they don’t want a justice who they can’t be assured will support their progressive agenda. They want a liberal politician to be seated on the Supreme Court, not one that holds the Constitution and the rule of law in high esteem.—Wes Potts

***

The protesters in the Senate hearing were screaming because they were paid to be there and scream and obstruct the proceedings. It sure as heck wasn’t the Republicans paying them to do that.

When, finally, the police started doing their jobs and hauling these disruptive people out of the building, Democrat senators could complain that the paid troublemakers’ rights of free speech were being denied.

If such disruption and obstruction is a violation of the law, I hope everyone of those removed from the chambers is prosecuted and taken to trial.

It really doesn’t matter how many people come forward with testimonials of Kavanaugh’s good behavior. Two or 2,000 people could offer positive comments about this man, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the Democrats in the Senate and the pro-abortion crowd who have already made up their minds about him.

Those who want a liberal on the Supreme Court will condemn this man in the most malicious of terms, strictly because he was appointed by Trump.

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee acted no better than the screaming mob of paid protesters.—Drew Page

***

All Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., managed to do at the Kavanaugh hearings was make himself look like a total fool. Does he honestly think being so arrogant and defiant and using these hearings for his own personal agenda is going to help him?

He is just giving the public more reason not to vote him into the White House running. With all his babbling and displays of defiance and just plain rudeness and disrespect, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get into the running for president in 2020.—Doris Belanger Frazier

***

I didn’t see any takeaway from the third hearing except the Dems were still obstructing and making donkey patoots out of themselves as always. Since hearings are televised, no one should be allowed in the chambers. That would have stopped the Dem protesters.—Doris Gray

Dear Daily Signal: Sadly, the elite Democrats’ audience is the liberal snowflakes who’ve been spoon-fed lies about most Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians (“What 2 Women Who Actually Clerked for Kavanaugh Really Think of Him“). Their audience takes their hatred as genuine gospel.—Roberto Enrique Benitez II, Omaha, Neb.

***

Immensely qualified. Impartial. Judges, to the best of his abilities, based on the texts and intents of laws, not what he wants the laws to mean. No wonder the Democrats revile him.—Rich Logis

***

Dems always make themselves look like fools to those of us who care to look. The problems with Judge Kavanaugh started the minute his name was seen on the list for the Supreme Court.

Makes no difference how good or bad he might be. It is all in the fact that the Supreme Court will no longer be a Democrat-run system. It was designed to be nonpartisan. However, with the many, many times the left has been in power, they think that it is all about them and not we the people.—Karen Callaway, Florida

***

I am surprised that the radical libs have not used prejudice against men as a battle cry. I think the judge prefers law clerks who are intelligent and very detail-oriented. Women fit the role as well as men, and in some cases, much better.

There are a few female politicians who are notable exceptions to the foregoing opinion. These politicians will show their inability to clear the bar at any level during the confirmation hearings.—Jason Traxler

Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Genevieve Wood’s video commentary, hearings were not held for Supreme Court nominees until 1916, and the nominated Supreme Court justice did not appear (“3 Reasons Why We Should Get Rid of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings“).

The first hearing that was open to the public took place in 1916 over President Woodrow Wilson’s nominee Louis Brandeis, prompted both by anti-Semitism and Brandeis’ reputation as the “people’s lawyer” for his public interest work.

Brandeis refused to testify, and the Senate committee deliberated for four months before he was confirmed 47-22. There was also a hearing in 1922 over Pierce Butler—who was also confirmed, 61-8, without testifying —over allegations of professional misconduct.

In 1925, Harlan Fiske Stone became the first nominee to testify before the Judiciary Committee, which had been established in 1816. Stone was questioned about his role in the Teapot Dome scandal. That hearing was closed to the public, and the Senate swiftly confirmed him, 71-6.—Joel Wood

***

I don’t think we should get rid of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees per se, but in their current form they are less than useless. 

It’s a week of a nominee looking like an idiot spending eight hours a day saying things like “I don’t understand a yes or no question” or “I don’t recall what I said last week.”

Especially if the Senate is controlled by the same party as the president, a nominee could send a blowup doll to sit in his place and still get confirmed.—Edward Buatois

Troy Worden helped to compile this column.