Poll: 6 of 10 Trib readers support Brett Kavanaugh
Trib readers on Facebook support the Judiciary Committee’s decision to send Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate for a vote.
That was the finding of an unscientific poll posted to the Trib’s Facebook account Friday.
Of the 866 votes tallied, 522 readers — 60 percent — said they agreed with sending Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate, and 344 said they didn’t.
A separate poll on the Trib’s Twitter account drew 410 votes, and the result was split 50-50.
Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation came into serious question after Christine Blasey Ford accused him of sexual assault at a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s.
Kavanaugh and Ford testified last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On Friday afternoon, Republicans agreed to ask for a new FBI investigation into those allegations.
As expected — taking cues from lawmakers, perhaps? — some of the Trib Facebook comments became partisan.
Below is a sampling of how you, our readers, are feeling:
Do you agree with the Judiciary Committee’s decision to send Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate?
Robyn McCall: Yes! Ford has NO credibility.
Ginger Mawhinney Dlutowski: Big waste of time — send the nomination on!
Pete Doel: You think investigating multiple claims about sexual harassment/attempted rape against a man who could be put on the bench of the highest court in our country is a waste of time? May God have mercy on your soul.
Cindy L. Killeen: Vote now. Stop this chicanery.
Bob Donegan: The man already passed at least 6 FBI background checks in his career. Any more is unnecessary. CONFIRM!
Renee Anderegg: (Replying to Bob Donegan) Unreported crimes for ANYBODY wouldn’t show up on a background check. Priests who abused children also had background checks. Teachers who abuse children also had background checks. Not saying he did it or not — just stating background checks do nothing unless you are already found guilty of doing something wrong.
John Art: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Joshua Stivason: If it is found he is innocent, then no problem. If not, then a rapist doesn’t sit on the Supreme Court. What’s the problem?
Anthony Talak: (Replying to Joshua Stivason) It’s supposed to be “if he is found guilty.” You don’t assume guilt in our justice system.
Lar Payne: A Supreme Court Judge needs to be above reproach and display a non-partisan, emotionally mature demeanor at all times. Once anger comes into play, it’s no longer about the issue but rather about yourself.
Sue Amon Lussa: This is an investigation that should have been done already. And Kavanaugh should have been the one to demand it to clear his name.
Deborah Clair: I am a Democrat, was a Democrat. I watched with an open mind from beginning to end. I watched her compelling testimony and thought, “wow,” this happened, this poor woman.
Cleared my head. Watched as an innocent-until-proven-guilty man make his opening statement. There was absolutely “no evidence” against him. Her own friend didn’t even know him. He was definitely not proven guilty.
I was ashamed of my party and how they treated this man. I probably won’t vote Democrat again in my lifetime. God Bless America!
Melissa Ann: Never again will I vote for a Democrat. … I have in the past, but never again. … Completely done.