-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?
I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.
How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?
Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.
How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?