# Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 4, 2018, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733 "2018-09-04T12:49:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/181 "2018-09-05T15:26:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The spirit of the Constitution, and of democracy itself, \*is \*fundamentally emotional, **John**. No. Neither of those is fundamentally emotional, although this bit about “the spirit of the constitution” is highly debatable. One can imagine that the radicals who dressed up as Indians and threw tea into the Boston Harbor would not be bothered by a rather simple parliamentary tactic. Some might. Some would not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/182 "2018-09-05T15:35:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t buy it being a false dilemma. If Roe is overturned, women will die. If Roe is not overturned, more fetuses will die. > [@](#): > > Disproportionately, they will be poor women. Rich women will always have the option of going to wherever it is legal and having it done safely. Now, that’s a different argument, but still rather empty. Most laws that impose restrictions on actions have a disproportionate effect on the poor. That would include things like requiring restaurant owners to meet certain public safety standards or apply for licenses. In any case, if the goal is to minimize the loss of human life, and you think a fetus qualifies, then it’s better to overturn _Roe_ even if it does have a disproportionate effect on the poor. One needn’t avoid doing what one thinks is good just because the act isn’t perfect. > [@](#): > > So, will Republicans admit that their goal is to oppress women of low economic status and give them the choice of risking their lives with an illegal abortion or being condemned to perpetual poverty by being forced to raise a child? No. There might be a few who are motivated by that, but they won’t admit it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/183 "2018-09-05T15:36:57Z")
Principle is emotional. The reasoning you insist upon can be based only on principle. You’re wrong to do so. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/184 "2018-09-05T15:44:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And that’s known as “appeal to emotion”. Got an argument that is not a logical fallacy? Sorry, Dad, I’ll take a look. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The chose to _not_ give consent. Why is this a hard concept for people? We’ve probably been over it a hundred times now on this site. And _how_ do they “not give consent”? In principle, they should vote on it. Again, it all seems a lot of weaseling around the edges. I’ve played games of Monopoly that stick more to rules and precedent than this. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you think that hasn’t already been covered in this thread, then there is no point in repeating the argument. It hasn’t. > [@](#): > > And the argument doesn’t hinge on “strict constructionism” anyway. If true, that would constitute an historic occasion. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/185 "2018-09-05T15:52:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The chose to _not_ give consent. Who do you mean by “they” and how do we know what they “chose”? Hint: It was just McConnell, not “the Senate”. > [@](#): > > Why is this a hard concept for people? We’ve probably been over it a hundred times now on this site. That’s why your failure (or is it refusal?) to get it is no one else’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/186 "2018-09-05T15:52:49Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Staying in power is the oldest tradition in politics. A tradition that was upset when George Washington refused to seek a 3rd term. A tradition that was upset by the ideals of democracy our founding fathers worked for. A tradition that the Republicans desperately are seeking to bring back. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/187 "2018-09-05T15:55:00Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > … And _how_ do they “not give consent”? … In that case, they did so by not voting. That’s one of the options available to them. It was never a rule that they “must have a vote”. That’s a figment of a few liberals’ imaginations. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/188 "2018-09-05T15:55:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How about: Both situations are bad, but one is worse than the other. > > N.B.: That is not my belief, but your statement is what is known of as a false dilemma. How is that a false dilemma? That is the sort of thing that was happening before Roe, why would it be something that wouldn’t happen if Roe were no longer precedent? And a both situations are bad fallacy? How does that work? On the one hand, women are given agency over their medical decisions, and on the other, women are dying from botched medical procedures. Both being bad seems disingenuous to me. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/189 "2018-09-05T15:57:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Who do you mean by “they” and how do we know what they “chose”? Hint: It was just McConnell, not “the Senate”. … See post #127. Hint: the majority of the Senate could have held a vote over McConnell’s objections if they so desired. That they did not is evidence that they did not so desire. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/190 "2018-09-05T15:57:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In that case, they did so by not voting. That’s one of the options available to them. It was never a rule that they “must have a vote”. That’s a figment of a few liberals’ imaginations. Once again, who is “they” and how do you know the consensus of that “they”? You don’t, you know the decision of one man. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/191 "2018-09-05T15:58:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In that case, they did so by not voting. When and how did this “they” you keep mentioning make that choice? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/192 "2018-09-05T15:58:56Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Once again, who is “they” and how do you know the consensus of that “they”? > > You don’t, you know the decision of one man. See my answer immediately above your post. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/193 "2018-09-05T16:00:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > See post #127. Hint: the majority of the Senate could have held a vote over McConnell’s objections if they so desired. That they did not is evidence that they did not so desire. Right, and that makes sense for the same reason as to why the filibuster was not nuked the very first time it was ever used. If people were going to vote for the bill or the nominee, why would they not vote to overturn tradition and precedent as well? Do you not understand that these are two completely separate things? That people who would be willing to vote for a rather conservative pick to SCOTUS may not be willing to play parliamentary tricks? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/194 "2018-09-05T16:03:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > See post #127. Hint: the majority of the Senate could have held a vote over McConnell’s objections if they so desired. That they did not is evidence that they did not so desire. Now we’re getting _somewhere_, at least. You saw the general simple spinelessness that characterizes the GOP caucus’ rank and file, and somehow declare that to have been a principled, considered, non-spiteful act of statecraft. Well, if the nomination would have failed a vote, why not just take the vote and forestall all the criticism? Or maybe it _wouldn’t_ have failed and McConnell was thwarting democracy and the Constitution just for spite, hmmm … Is that possible, d’ya think? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/195 "2018-09-05T16:04:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Right, and that makes sense for the same reason as to why the filibuster was not nuked the very first time it was ever used. If people were going to vote for the bill or the nominee, why would they not vote to overturn tradition and precedent as well? > > Do you not understand that these are two completely separate things? That people who would be willing to vote for a rather conservative pick to SCOTUS may not be willing to play parliamentary tricks? You agree that the majority could have brought the Garland nomination up for a vote if it desired to do so, yes? That’s what I gather from your post anyways. If you do agree with that, then why continue this charade that it was “the decision of one man”? ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/196 "2018-09-05T16:04:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. There might be a few who are motivated by that, but they won’t admit it. So, that’s the bunch you would choose to side with? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/197 "2018-09-05T16:07:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … if the nomination would have failed a vote, why not just take the vote and forestall all the criticism? … Because smart majorities that want to stay the majority do their best to avoid taking votes that are difficult for their members. Democrats do it when they have the majority and Republicans do it when they have the majority. It’s politics. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/198 "2018-09-05T16:08:00Z")
Also, Kavanaugh just admitted to not returning his sixth grade copy of “To Kill a Mockingbird.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/199 "2018-09-05T16:09:05Z")
> [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](#): > > So, that’s the bunch you would choose to side with? I’m fairly confident that’s not “the bunch [John Mace] would choose to side with”. He’s just a more principled debater than most and doesn’t mind sometimes pointing out the weaknesses in arguments made by his own side. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/200 "2018-09-05T16:09:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In that case, they did so by not voting. That’s one of the options available to them. It was never a rule that they “must have a vote”. That’s a figment of a few liberals’ imaginations. “They” didn’t do anything. Mcconnell usurped the function of the senate, by making pronouncements on behalf of them. You can’t abbrogate the responsibility just because: it was already in the cards, or it was a done deal, or it was a cinch, or they see themselves as powerful, or anything else. There is a big difference between the _ **senate deciding to not hear garland** _, and Mcconnel going on tv to say that it won’t ever happen, _ **in the future** _. There is a temporal problem. Mcconnel can’t speak like that for the senate, til he has gauged it. He gave away too much of his game when he admitted on camera that he wasn’t going to gauge it at all. It’s trumpian, in that he admitted it becuase he thought he was invulnerable. I’m asking for the third time: What is the reasoning behind mcconnell personifying the senate as a body, just by himself, and exercising prior restraint on that body? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=11)