ShareThis Page
Poll: 6 of 10 Trib readers support Brett Kavanaugh |

Poll: 6 of 10 Trib readers support Brett Kavanaugh

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington.

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.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.