I love how you presume to know better than the voters of West Virginia who should represent them as their Senator in Washington DC. I don't know where you got your "Oh, my goodness…" quote you imply is from Senator Manchin (Google only returns your Medium article); but, if it's not against Medium's rules to miss attribute a quote, it's at the least unethical.
Sure, those accusers of future Associate Justice Kavanaugh were credible.
Julie Swetnick, the accuser represented by that astounding legal mind, Michael Avenatti, accused Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of "'abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls' during a SERIES [emphasis mine] of house parties, where the boys would 'spike' punch with drugs or alcohol to cause girls to lose their inhibitions or ability to say no" according to this Business Insider article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-misconduct-allegations-2018-9
Swetnick alleges this was done so that the girls could be "gang raped" by a "train" of boys and that she was one of the victims.
"I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room" Swetnick said in her declaration according to Business Insider.
The esteemed investigative reporters of our mainstream media and Democrat members influenced by this nonsense ignored some obvious problems with the assertions made by Swetnick.
1. If Swetnick (and presumably others) witnessed and were victimized by such inappropriate and illegal activities, why was no one reported to the police?
2. If Swetnick was supposedly a victim of a "gang rape" or "train", why did she not report the assault contemporaneously? Why not come forward during any of the future Associate Justice's prior confirmation hearings?
3. If Swetnick was to be believed, when did her alleged assault occur? Was it during the attendance of her first party? If so, why return for future parties? The article indicates her observations were during "a series of parties". So, if she was assaulted, she returned for future parties. If she wasn't assaulted at an early party, she allegedly observed the sexual misconduct, yet returned for future parties apparently without concern for her personal safety, or warning her fellow female partygoers, or reporting any activity to the police.
In short, Swetnick was not credible.
Contrary to your assertion that Christine Blasey Ford "went into substantial detail retelling the evening in question from 36 years prior", in actuality, her "detail" was severely lacking.
– She gave different indications as to when the assault allegedly occurred, ranging from the early to the late 80s.
– She couldn't identify where the party took place, how she got there, or how or with whom she left.
– The detail she did provide about three other people allegedly at the party was denied by all of them.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/22/kavanaugh-ford-woman-party-letter-836913
Blasey Ford wasn't credible either.
Even you note that the third accuser, Deborah Ramirez, admitted she had been drinking and that there were "gaps" in her memory. Classmates contacted by the New Yorker "didn't respond, declined to comment, or said they didn't remember or attend the party".
She was also not credible.
Without knowing exactly what future Associate Justice Kavanaugh told Senators Collins and Manchin in private, it's tough to gauge whether or not what was said could be considered a lie. I have no doubt future Associate Justice Kavanaugh referenced the concept of stare decisis. I also have no doubt both future Associate Justice Kavanaugh and the Senators noted that the Roe decision was indeed precedent.
But, given the lengths prospective Justices nominated by either party have gone to since the confirmation process of the Notorious RBG herself to not "foreshadow" how they might rule on various legal issues, I doubt future Associate Justice Kavanaugh specifically, or even by implication, indicated Roe could not be overturned.
A precedent wrongly decided, as both Roe and Casey were, cannot stand. That the SCOTUS has taken this long to correct that mistake is outrageous.
Let's just be thankful that Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William Douglas, Robert Jackson, Harold Burton, Tom Clark, and Sherman Minton didn't simply rely on stare decisis in their opinion overturning the Supreme Court precedent established in Plessy vs Ferguson. Otherwise, their decision in Brown vs Board of Education outlawing the "separate but equal" treatment of the races may not have went the way it did.
Or maybe you would've preferred it that way…
