I always find it kind of funny how people that are shitted and smeared by another group of people are somehow to remain impartial to that group.

Like i'm going to call you a gang rapist on TV with tens of millions of eyes and then expect for the next 30 years that you won't absolutely hate everything I stand for.

Thats literally the job.

Not how reality works tho my man, especially when one side is swinging below the belt.

Idk it seems pretty important to know before a lifelong appointment for the highest court in the land if someone raped someone or not. Assuming you value not having rapists in positions of power. Doesn't really matter though, you can apparently rape 13 year olds and people still clamor for you now days, so who the fuck cares I guess.

- They can chose them young but there's a drawback: they can change their mind with age and i think people from elite classes like that are not necessarily becoming more conservative when getting aged. (unlike masses)

- When was the last time a juge got rejected by "his" party ?

.

the job of the senate is not to listen to tabloids when making decisions with confirmation of judges

please underline the part where anyone implied otherwise.

somehow the tabloid accusation that a nominee for the Supreme Court “led gang rapes of adults when he was an underaged teenager” made its way into the confirmation hearings by the Senate and also into your post

Its not a tabloid accusation if the accuser is literally in the room, but regardless the original thing you quoted and I replied to wasn't the second thing you're quoting now. You're also dramatizing what happened, much like a tabloid would.

To the thing you actually quoted. One of the key facets of the job of a lifelong appointment to the highest court in the land is to be impartial.
If you're incapable of that, you don't take the job. That statement isn't even up for discussion.

How the senate approaches that process is up to each individual member of the senate involved in the process.

One would hope that they're thorough in a confirmation and don't just let any randomly selected person, regardless of how bad they might be for the job, to have it.
If I were hiring someone for a management position and a coworker told me they know that guy and they're pretty sure he did some shady shit before, I would look into it, like any rational thinking actor would.

Manufacturing a smear campaign at the zenith of someone's career to try to derail his confirmation is grade A scumbaggery. If there was any shred of truth this accusation wouldn't of surfaced a week or two right before his nomination, it would have surfaced at some point in the last 20 years.

You should be ashamed for endorsing that type of smut politics and disguising it as some bullshit as 'people deserve to know'