I do not wish to beat a dead horse, so I hope this to be my last post on the matter.
I do not think I posed a "transparently false premise," so perhaps we disagree on what the premise actually is?
The premise I put forth from the article is that if allegations of sexual assault make one unfit for the Supreme Court, isn't that person unfit for the Circuit Court, too? In other words, why should we accept someone of lesser character in the Circuit Court?
The premise I believe you put forth is that the standard for confirming someone to an office (or specifically, the standard for elevating someone to a higher office) is different than the standard for removing someone from an office. In other words, it's easier to get in than get out.
Based on my premise, I suggested forcing their hands by making them live up to it. Are these Senators really willing to declare that Kavanaugh should be removed from the Circuit Court if they successfully block him from the Supreme Court? Would they go that far to destroy this man, or would there be a limit to how much credibility they're willing to give these accusations?
Your point that it takes impeachment to remove a federal judge makes no difference. Talk is cheap. In fact, an extreme pressure campaign can drive someone to choose to resign. After all, that's what the left is doing when they chase administration officials out of restaurants.
I never expected it to ever get to the point of starting impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh, but I did want to put the logic out there that why would Democrats stop at blocking Kavanaugh from SCOTUS if he's such a danger to law and order? The fact that they would NOT be willing to go that far suggests that they really don't believe the charges, but are using it to block Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court, in other words, a crass political move.
-PJ
Your premise is utterly and completely false. The standard for confirmation is a majority vote of the Senate. The standard for removal is impeachment by the house and then trial and conviction by the senate requiring a 2/3 vote.
Totally completely and utterly different standards. Nothing to do with one another and your attempts to link them creates a false analogy.
And anyone with a wit of sense can see through it.