The full force of the Demo­c­ratic Party has been deployed in a last-minute smear cam­paign to prevent the con­fir­mation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

First, there was Christine Blasey Ford. Sen. Dianne Fein­stein (D‑Calif.) had been holding her ace in the hole since July: A letter from Ford that claims Kavanaugh attempted to sex­ually assault her 36 years ago at a high school party. And though she’d had it for months, Fein­stein con­ve­niently chose to release it last week, a few days before Kavanaugh’s con­fir­mation.

The problem? Ford can’t remember much more than that. She doesn’t remember the year, or her age, the location of the party, or how she got there. She told nobody at the time, and all four people she iden­tified as being present at the party have denied being there (including her lifelong friend Leland Ingham Keyser, who both denies attending the party and knowing Kavanaugh alto­gether). Her various accounts even con­tradict them­selves, iden­ti­fying dif­ferent numbers of people at the party.

When asked to testify before the Senate Judi­ciary Com­mittee, Ford, a Cal­i­fornia res­ident, demanded in a letter to Chairman Chuck Grassley (R‑Iowa) per­mission to drive across the country rather than fly. She also required that in any hearing, Kavanaugh — the defendant — must testify first. If this sounds more like the plot of a Franz Kafka novel than a serious attempt to unearth the truth, that’s because it is.

As for Ford herself, she is a college pro­fessor, an out­spoken Democrat, and an anti-Trump marcher.

Does this claim, made with absolutely no cor­rob­o­rating evi­dence on the eve of Kavanaugh’s con­fir­mation, seem credible? Is this all it takes to stall the con­fir­mation process of the nation’s highest court?

Kavanaugh has “cat­e­gor­i­cally and unequiv­o­cally” denied the accu­sa­tions mul­tiple times. His response has always been the same: “I have never sex­ually assaulted anyone — not in high school, not in college, not ever.” His friend Mark Judge, the other alleged par­tic­ipant, has also denied the alle­gation.

But it doesn’t end there. Deborah Ramirez, after six days of “assessing her mem­ories” and con­sulting with attorneys, came forward with a new accu­sation: She claims she was another victim of Kavanaugh’s aggres­sions at Yale Law School. Her story is also baseless — by her own admission, she wasn’t even sure it was Kavanaugh who did it. And, like Ford, she has no wit­nesses to cor­rob­orate her account.

And lastly, Michael Ave­natti, lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels and out­spoken member of the “Resis­tance,” has released a “sworn dec­la­ration” from a client, Julie Swetnick, that claims Kavanaugh was part of a gang rape in the early 1980s.

This claim is the most fan­tas­tical of them all. Swetnick grad­uated three years before Kavanaugh: Why did a college-aged woman attend 10 high school parties over a period of three years, espe­cially if she knew there were gang rapes hap­pening? Why didn’t she do any­thing about it? And why has nobody else made this claim?

Each accu­sation grows more ridiculous than the last. To sober minds, this reeks of des­per­ation.

But in the eyes of the Demo­c­ratic Party, this is more than enough evi­dence to delay the vote until after the midterm elec­tions, when they hope to retake the Senate and per­ma­nently shelve Kavanaugh.

Remember, this is not the Demo­c­ratic Party’s first attempt to delay Kavanaugh’s con­fir­mation. From the circus-show inter­rup­tions during Kavanaugh’s initial hearings to Cory Booker’s “Spar­tacus moment” gaffe, Democrats have shown increasing des­per­ation to prevent Kavanaugh from reaching the Supreme Court.

But why the hys­teria?

Democrats are ter­rified the Supreme Court will reject their under­standing of the Con­sti­tution as a hope­lessly out­dated, infi­nitely mal­leable doc­ument stained by a history of racism, sexism, and bigotry.

If Kavanaugh takes Justice Anthony Kennedy’s swing seat, Democrats’ central idea that the Con­sti­tution is a “living doc­ument” will be in jeopardy. And without this rea­soning, the Supreme Court might no longer read “new rights” into the Con­sti­tution.

Con­sider some of the biggest tri­umphs of the left today: Abortion, gay mar­riage, and racial pref­er­ences. The people approved none of these through elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Instead, courts imposed them.

Because in the left’s for­mu­lation, these “rights” were really hidden in the Founders’ Con­sti­tution all along! Or is the Con­sti­tution out­dated and irrel­evant to the modern era? Which one is it?

The jus­ti­fi­cation itself doesn’t seem to matter, so long as the end result is the enacting of the liberal political agenda.

The Democrats will resort to any absurdity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. The Repub­licans don’t seem to be backing down.

Regardless of what happens at the tes­timony, the aftermath won’t be pretty.

Gar­rison Grisedale is a George Wash­ington Fellow and a senior studying pol­itics.