# How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2018, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383 "2018-11-12T00:53:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 414
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2018, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/414 "2018-11-30T16:03:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > AKA The Garland Doctrine? :dubious: No, that’s a different standard. The standard for Garland was the Senate acting in accord with its own rules and the Constitution, and the standard for Kavanaugh was the Democrats lying, engaging in character assassination, unfounded accusations, hysteria, and violations of confidentiality. > [@](#): > > We The People don’t have to accept either. The Court of Public Opinion, which includes you, gets to decide for itself if someone is worthy of a responsible position. Only indirectly. If the public thinks Kavanaugh shouldn’t be on the Court, then they would vote in a Senate where a majority or super majority is going to impeach and remove him. If the public did think that, one would expect that the Dems would pick up seats in the Senate in the midterms. If your suggestion is that Supreme Court Justices should be directly elected, then you need a rather large supermajority to amend the Constitution. But until that happens, then We the People do have to accept. That’s how it works in a republic. Regards, Shodan --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383)._