One of the more striking images in recent days has been barricades being brought forth in Washington in anticipation of a vote on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of where one stands on the expected outcome of that vote, the barricades remind us a little of an old Navy practice of spreading sand on the decks before a battle in anticipation of the decks becoming slick with blood.

The truth is that there has already been plenty of political blood spilt in the raw political street fight over this nomination. Perhaps it was always going to be thus. Judicial nominations have become increasingly contentious over the past few decades, and in this round the table stakes involved retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a swing vote on hot-button issues. This was never an ordinary political debate, and it was therefore never going to be a normal nomination fight.

But that doesn't mean we have to accept all of this as the new normal in our politics. When Kavanaugh was nominated, it was immediately clear he came with strong credentials. His judicial record is befitting that of a nominee for the highest court in the land. Sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years, he authored some 300 opinions that could be publicly assessed. And it is clear that his legal reasoning has influenced several Supreme Court decisions.

In short, Kavanaugh offered the kind of record we should welcome. It's comprehensive enough to allow the public to judge the nominee's approach to the law and revealing enough to demonstrate that he can operate at the highest level of the legal profession, and therefore should have won confirmation.

But none of this has mattered since Christine Blasey Ford's accusation that the judge sexually assaulted her 36 years ago exploded onto the scene in Washington a few weeks ago. That explosion proved to be a catalyst that turned this nomination fight somewhat into a referendum on how survivors of sexual assault are and should be treated and how nominees should comport themselves.

Our view is that sexual assault survivors should be supported and their claims always taken very seriously. In a world where many women have been sexually assaulted and not believed, to do any less is to abet a process that further victimizes precisely the people justice should serve. Part of taking those claims seriously and of supporting survivors is to take steps (regardless of how hard they may be) to investigate, to learn the knowable facts, and then to act on those facts.

Now after an FBI background check, after the Senate Judiciary Committee vetting process and after an additional Senate hearing and supplemental FBI investigation, however limited, no facts have emerged to verify Blasey's allegations. The evidence does not seem to support her allegations even as it does not thoroughly rule them out.

Perhaps there would be more information if the most recent FBI investigation included a forensic interview with Blasey and included her complete lie detector results as well as a complete version of her therapists' notes. Or perhaps we would know more if Kavanaugh and others similarly sat for such extensive FBI interviews on this go-round. But then, perhaps isn't conclusive, and it is likely we will never have more information than we have right now.

Following his most recent Senate testimony, more than a few people raised questions about Kavanaugh's temperament and ability to put politics aside. We understand the concerns, but also give someone in the midst of such a firestorm some emotional leeway and believe his 12 years as a circuit judge show how he will serve on the bench. As for his yearbook entries, one could read a lot into those but they are likely more of the variety of adolescent ramblings.

In our view, there is another concern here that has not been fully part of the public discussion in this nomination fight. Politics can be an extremely messy business, but our system of government is intentionally designed to operate one step removed from the passions of the moment. That design allows leaders to make decisions based on knowable information, and it gives them a chance to conduct a fair process.

We've written previously that to allow unsubstantiated allegations to determine the outcome of this debate would be to essentially give every person a veto on each judicial nominee. And if we end up there, we no longer have a representative form of government. We would have a system that is fueled by whatever is driving the passions of the people of the moment. That's not conducive to fairness or the rule of law.

Last week, we asked the Senate to grant 72 additional hours for the FBI to investigate. That's been done. Unless there is new information, the senators from Texas should vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

What's your view?

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.