Because you have no evidence he's a sexual predator. Additionally, if all it takes is an accusation with no evidence or specifics to give a candidate a hint of impropriety, then what's a stopping Republicans from doing the same to Democratic nominees? Most of partisan politics at this point is tit for tat. My point is, you can't just disqualify someone for unproven charges. I'd even go as far as to say it's fundamentally against American values to have guilty before innocent, especially in a case like this with no evidence at all. While the woman may have been sexually assaulted, I'm afraid there's no evidence to say so. On the flip side, while Kavanaugh may be innocent, there is no evidence to say so. The burden of proof is on the accuser, who frankly was voluntarily intoxicated at the time and whose recollection I would not trust on a dime necessarily. If we are going to put such stock in unverifiable reports, I'd like to direct you to rate my professor reviews from 2010-2014. These were prior to the controversy and she had a pretty low rating, with a few noticeable reviews mentioning her polarizing nature and discrimatory nature against people who 'crossed' her. I don't put much stock in these reviews, and I don't put much stock in Ford's account. Unless some new information comes to light in these hearings, and if it turns out he did sexually assault her, then don't let him be a Supreme Court Justice. That would be a affront to the US and the courts. But if there is no new info, then we can't stop anything. The onus of proof is on the accuser.