I don't know what happened.  I wasn't there.  Is it possible he did it or did something?  Absolutely.  It's also possible he did nothing.  Or something but not what was described.  Here are the things I struggle with:

I didn't watch her testimony as I was working, but I saw some of his.  I understand that the Republicans are upset about what they feel is a political sham.  It might be.  It might not be.  I didn't catch the beginning, but when I did watch, all of the Republican senators were just attacking the Dems and making no effort to clarify the actual incident while trying to claim the moral high ground because they "investigated" it when they were made aware of it.  I don't think anyone gets the moral high ground here.  Had they handled themselves better, they probably had a claim to make, but their approach was terrible.

The Democrats weren't much better harping on how NOW they want an investigation when 2 weeks ago they couldn't be bothered to investigate anything.  It just makes the accusations of this all being a stall tactic so easy.  Hold onto the letter for over a month before the original hearing, then use it when that hearing doesn't go your way.  Once it's out, you refuse to participate in an investigation, but now you want to claim the moral high ground because you want an investigation?  No.

I'm sure her testimony wasn't handled any better.  What bothers me about her story is that she can't really remember anything specific other than he was the one who did it and she's 100% sure of that.  That's awfully convenient.  She supposedly remembers who was there, but even her friend she was with apparently said she has no recollection of being at a party with him.  Everyone was drinking.  Nobody can corroborate ANY of her story.  Everything is "well they had parties to bang chicks all the time" or whatever...just innuendo.  This wouldn't have even made it to a court of law, but because the Dems feel they are entitled to destroy someone because they equate destroying someone to not having a vote on their person, all of this is okay.

I am pro-choice for the most part.  I do believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother/baby, etc.  I do think the fathers should have rights too though in cases of legitimate pregnancies that the mother decides to end for no reason other than wanting to.  I don't agree with my body, my decision in cases where the decision was made to have sex with someone and that decision was made willingly with complete consent.  THAT was where you made your decision with your body.  It sounds like BK is pro-life and might attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.  I am not in favor of that, so I am not all for him getting appointed to the court.  I think there are equally qualified people I would prefer.  So I am completely fine with him getting rejected, but I am not at all happy with the way either side is handling this.  This is everything wrong with politics today and further evidence that neither side is at all interested in what is best for the people.

Something may have happened to her.  I don't know.  None of us do.  He may have been involved.  I don't know.  None of us do.  The amount of people making decisions on this case not at all based on the evidence (because there really isn't any at this point) is disgusting.  The people that believe her only believe her because it's in their interests to do so whether those interests are political or personal.  Right now there isn't a shred of proof/evidence other than her word that he was involved with something that happened to her.  That absolutely doesn't make him innocent.  I don't know.  None of us do.  It's sad that otherwise intelligent people on both sides are making emotional decisions on something instead of even trying to make fact-based decisions.  If you think he did it, prove it.  Or don't even prove it, but have something - anything - that corroborates one person's statement of the events before doing what was done here.  And if you think you're part of some political sham, prove it, don't just make accusations.  Lay out facts that can't be denied.  Make a case instead of yelling and screaming about it.  People on either side will stop and listen to a reasonably presented case from either side.  But that isn't how the political game is played now, is it?

That still doesn't answer the question.  We all know the Republicans weren't going to support it no matter what (those obstructionist bastards), so how the fuck did this happen?

Just to humor you and point out how idiotic this is, let's just nip this one in the bud.  It's really easy.

The Dems had enough control to pass whatever they wanted, so why did they tear their own plan apart?  Why did they give in to lobbyists and conservative lawmakers?  You think that somehow had they been given another 7.6 billion dollars to piss away (which they would have) everything would have been great?

See, these opinion articles aren't actually facts at all.  Sure, they contain facts, but they conveniently ignore other facts to try to convince weak minded people that they have everything figured out.  The excuses start flying (they gave into lobbyists and conservative lawmakers)...okay, but why?  They didn't have to.  So why?  That seems to be conveniently left out of the article.

It was too full of biased shit to read through.  When the first point is wrong, the rest of it doesn't matter.  Insulting the intelligence of someone with much more intelligence than you is an interesting play.  Well done.