Despite Donald Trump's reality TV-like presidency the accused US Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed to prevent future nominees from being wide open to charges and accusations.

The well for the appointment of a Supreme Court justice has long been poisoned, most recently in 2016 by the outrageous actions of Senator Mitch McConnell in denying a hearing on utterly spurious grounds to President Obama nominee Merrick Garland.

That broke every rule of comity and cooperation on Capitol Hill, ensuring that every new nominee ever after would endure a baptism of fire before being confirmed or not.

POLL: Should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed as a Supreme Court judge?

Here now is the latest case involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and an accusation from at least 36 years ago by Christine Blasey Ford, a young woman at the time, who alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her and she was afraid he might kill her.

A possible suspect in an attempted murder certainly beats the band as a Supreme Court nominee, far worse than Judge Clarence Thomas and his porn addiction. (Remember “Long Dong Silver?”)

Christine Blasey Ford.

Christine Blasey Ford.

Both sides are up in arms, but the nomination of Kavanaugh has suddenly become an issue of whether “he said/she said” from decades ago lives up to grounds to disqualify him.

Kavanagh has denied the attack vehemently; his accuser has just as forcefully stated it happened. The other witness, writer Michael Judge, denies it ever happened though he can hardly be taken as a neutral party.

It seems impossible to prove the incident happened all those years ago, and witnesses who were also in the house but not in the room would likely be little use as testifiers to what happened.

What to do when the accuser and accused appear to have perfectly clear recollections that what happened 36 years ago occurred or did not occur?

The only true way is to cross-examine both principals, one a federal judge on the verge of a crowning achievement, a seat on the Supreme Court, the other a distinguished psychologist who also teaches at Stanford University.

The only possible conclusion barring a sensational revelation or the appearance of other women making claims is that Ford’s accusation cannot be proven.  It is simply too long ago and far away, and no definitive evidence exists about the assault.

But is “not proven” sufficient to enable Kavanaugh to take his seat on the Supreme Court?

The answer has to be yes if we accept that all are equal under the law.  Whether it is a federal trial or a nomination to the United States Supreme Court, the same rule applies of innocent unless proven guilty.

If he is appointed, Kavanagh will carry a deep scar and a major asterisk beside his name. His nomination, like everything else President Trump attempts, has ended up in a mud pit, with both sides mauling and scratching to gain an advantage.

It definitely feels like we have stumbled on to some TV reality show since Trump became president. You could not make up this most recent plot twist of sex and attempted murder accusations.

The sorry mess is a reflection of our times, with a president seeking to divide people and an ineffectual Congress unable to achieve bipartisan agreement on just about anything.

The bottom line, though, seems that barring any other revelations, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Any other result leaves future nominees wide open to charges and accusations that are impossible to prove.

Was it for this surreal case the Founding Fathers put together such a complex political and judicial system?  Hardly!

Read more: Why I believe Brett Kavanaugh's accuser