# 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:** 101
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2001 "2018-09-20T18:00:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In my understanding, they’re all advocating that the allegations against Kavanaugh be fully investigated, which is the morally correct stance on this particular allegation. In the case of Feinstein in particular, this is not their stance. Feinstein did not want a full investigation, and sat on the allegation until it was too late. If Feinstein were really convinced that the allegation should be investigated, she would have asked Kavanaugh about it during the hearings or in closed session. This has been explained to you already. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2002 "2018-09-20T18:01:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Depends on what “proving” means (and assuming they’re true, of course). Beyond a reasonable doubt? It’d probably take a full FBI investigation including questioning nearly everyone who went to the high schools in question in the early 80s. A preponderance of evidence? Maybe just interviewing Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge would be enough. Cast enough suspicion to convince a few Republicans to vote “no”? Maybe just interviewing Ford in public. We’ll see. If we were talking about a criminal trial, we would want proof beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe 95% confidence). If it were a civil trial, we’d be talking preponderance of the evidence (51% confidence of guilt). But being a Supreme Court Justice is a privilege, not a right. People are entitled to their liberty, but not to a seat on the Supreme Court. What degree of confidence do we need to deny a nomination? Should we be happy if there’s only a 40% chance that a Justice is an attempted rapist? What about 25%? ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2003 "2018-09-20T18:05:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So then what the hell were you disputing? The Democrats did the right thing on Franken. The Republicans haven’t done the right thing on Trump (or Kavanaugh, so far). I’m saying if you had anything even remotely close to what was on Franken, Kavanaugh would be done. Kaput. This isn’t about Trump, it is about Kavanaugh. We can go down the whataboutism rabbit hole all day, and it will not be productive, I assure you. Given the vagueness of the allegations, and the willingness of Republicans to hear her story, I see nothing wrong with how they’ve done by Kavanaugh on this issue. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2004 "2018-09-20T18:07:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If Ford has sinister motives (i.e. made it up for partisan purposes), then an FBI investigation would have at least a moderate likelihood of exposing them. … Why do you think this? She’s already done the whole “I have no recollection” thing on how she got to the party, and home from it, and which house it was at, and which year it was. How would the FBI expose that (if that were the case)? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2005 "2018-09-20T18:07:56Z")
If we put the sexual assault allegation aside for a bit, it bothers me how little attention Kanavaugh’s suspected underaged alcohol abuse is getting. That too has recently emerged as his past has been dug up, but I don’t even see anyone challenging the idea that he binged drank; it’s as if we are not surprised that a person with his background would have such a history. Last I checked, though, 17 year olds drinking was as illegal in 1983 Maryland as it is now. It would be one thing if we were only talking about an occasional sip of champagne during the holidays or something. But we’re not. “Bart O’Kavanaugh” apparently was raised in a culture where drinking to the point of blacking out and getting sick in crazy random places was the height of fun. In other words, evidence suggests he was inculcated with the view that following the law was optional if it stood in the way of him and people like him having the fun owed to them. Should this not factor into how we assess his candidacy? I think so. A 17 year-old is old enough to know right from wrong (as many 17 year-olds tried as adult for crimes can attest to). Has Kavanaugh been asked whether he regularly drank alcohol in high school, to the extent that he may have blacked out on one or more occasions at parties and other settings? How confident are any of us that he would answer this question honestly? I don’t think he would, even though I think there is no shortage of evidence to support this. Now, going back to Ford’s allegation: Kavanaugh defenders are focused on hand waving her story, claiming among other things that _her_ memory isn’t reliable. But if we have good reason to believe that not only did young Kavanaugh have a history of getting blacked out drunk during parties (Judge’s memoir), then him not being honest about this history plus not showing any remorse about breaking the law in his illicit use of alcohol as a teen would effectively negate any weight assigned to his denial about Ford, IMO. I’m not saying this means we should assume he attempted rape and should be locked up, but if we can’t trust him to come clean about _anything_ bad in his past, then his credibility is trash. There ceases to be a good reason to appoint him to the SCOTUS when more trustworthy candidates are out there. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2006 "2018-09-20T18:08:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So then what the hell were you disputing? The Democrats did the right thing on Franken. The Republicans haven’t done the right thing on Trump (or Kavanaugh, so far). The two situations aren’t similar. One had photographic evidence, the other has some vague memory without specifics. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2007 "2018-09-20T18:11:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In the case of Feinstein in particular, this is not their stance. Feinstein did not want a full investigation, and sat on the allegation until it was too late. If Feinstein were really convinced that the allegation should be investigated, she would have asked Kavanaugh about it during the hearings or in closed session. > > This has been explained to you already. > > Regards, > Shodan Feinstein sucks and should resign immediately, but since she hasn’t she’s done the next best thing, which is take the morally correct stance from the situation we’re in in the present going forward, which is to advocate for a full investigation of Kavanaugh before any vote. I’ve explained this multiple times, but I’m happy to do so again. ---
**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 20, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2008 "2018-09-20T18:13:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can you explain briefly how the accusation of an anonymous someone who claims she asked someone else how to dress for an interview with Kavanaugh is relevant? Especially since This from an anonymous source, who nevertheless decided to go ahead and be interviewed by Kavanaugh. > > And someone who is willing to be named says -Your smoking gun is a leaky water pistol. > > Regards, > Shodan What I got out of it was that the tiger moms husband (Tony?) said that K liked them to have a certain look, for a clerkship. It’s not a smoking gun, but rather a curious fact pattern which is part of the story. If you don’t want to hear about it now, that’s OK. At some point it may be relevant. Ask any FBI agent. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2009 "2018-09-20T18:14:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The two situations aren’t similar. One had photographic evidence, the other has some vague memory without specifics. Not only was there photographic evidence of Trump bragging about multiple instances of sexual assault, there was video and audio evidence as well. At least the Republicans are making some tiny semblance of interest in finding out more about Kavanaugh; they haven’t done jack shit about investigating the credible allegations against (and admissions by) Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2010 "2018-09-20T18:15:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If Ford has sinister motives (i.e. made it up for partisan purposes), then an FBI investigation would have at least a moderate likelihood of exposing them. I’m extremely skeptical. > [@](#): > > Further, if Kavanaugh did this, and especially if he did anything else similar to any other women, then the FBI would at least have a moderate chance of revealing that as well. Your statement that I challenged said “If he’s innocent and truly cares most about clearing his name over being confirmed, then he’d advocate for a delay and a full FBI investigation.” Why are you responding about what would happen if he’s guilty? On another note [Keith Ellison’s Accuser Reiterates Claims Against Deputy DNC Chair Amid Kavanaugh Debate](https://www.newsweek.com/accuser-reiterates-abuse-claims-against-keith-ellison-1129202) > [@](#): > > The woman who accused Democratic Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison of domestic abuse last month has reiterated her allegations that the Congressman physically and emotionally abused her during their relationship. > > Karen Monahan tweeted Monday that the Democrats had not stood by her since she accused Ellison, who is running for Minnesota attorney general, of the abuse. > > […] > > **Many prominent Democrats did not comment on the accusations against the Minnesota representative, HuffPo reported. Democratic leaders from his home state have continued to support him, according to NBC News.** > > Another woman who alleges she had an affair with Ellison in 2006, while he was married, levied a similar accusation against the Congressman. Amy Alexander accused the representative of shoving her. Ellison, who received a court restraining order against Alexander, has said he did not have a romantic relationship with her. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2011 "2018-09-20T18:15:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If we put the sexual assault allegation aside for a bit, it bothers me how little attention Kanavaugh’s suspected underaged alcohol abuse is getting. That too has recently emerged as his past has been dug up, but I don’t even see anyone challenging the idea that he binged drank; it’s as if we are not surprised that a person with his background would have such a history. Last I checked, though, 17 year olds drinking was as illegal in 1983 Maryland as it is now. It would be one thing if we were only talking about an occasional sip of champagne during the holidays or something. But we’re not. “Bart O’Kavanaugh” apparently was raised in a culture where drinking to the point of blacking out and getting sick in crazy random places was the height of fun. In other words, evidence suggests he was inculcated with the view that following the law was optional if it stood in the way of him and people like him having the fun owed to them. Are you saying underage drinking is a disqualifier for high office? Would you say the same about marijuana use? That was also illegal, everywhere, in the US in 1983 and in many places today. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2012 "2018-09-20T18:17:36Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The FBI had jurisdiction in the Thomas/Hill case since the allegations had a federal nexus - both were federal employees and the allegations related to Thomas’ actions in the workplace. > > If Ford wants a criminal investigation then she needs to make a complaint to the relevant authorities with the local or state police that does have jurisdiction. The FBI don’t have jurisdiction over a state criminal matter. This is false. The FBI conducts background investigations of all judicial nominees, which often include matters unrelated to federal crimes and are updated when new information comes to light. For example, they often examine a nominees financial affairs to determine whether the candidate is vulnerable to blackmail or bribery. The FBI does not require a nexus to a federal crime in order to investigate the background of a nominee for the Senate. Of course the FBI does not want to investigate this. The GOP’s current frontman is smearing them every day, and they do not want any more political exposure than they already have. Similarly, Trump, Session, and Grassley do not want an FBI investigation for political reasons. But that has nothing to do with their jurisdictional authority. It would be nice is conservatives stopped repeating this canard. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2013 "2018-09-20T18:18:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m extremely skeptical. I’m not. Dishonest people tend to crack under pressure. > [@](#): > > Your statement that I challenged said “If he’s innocent and truly cares most about clearing his name over being confirmed, then he’d advocate for a delay and a full FBI investigation.” Why are you responding about what would happen if he’s guilty? Apologies! So sorry. > [@](#): > > On another note [Keith Ellison’s Accuser Reiterates Claims Against Deputy DNC Chair Amid Kavanaugh Debate](https://www.newsweek.com/accuser-reiterates-abuse-claims-against-keith-ellison-1129202) The Democratic party still has a long, long way to go on this. They’re ahead of the Republicans on this issue, but similar to what I’ve said before, that’s like being not as anti-semitic as Hitler. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2014 "2018-09-20T18:22:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not only was there photographic evidence of Trump bragging about multiple instances of sexual assault, there was video and audio evidence as well. At least the Republicans are making some tiny semblance of interest in finding out more about Kavanaugh; they haven’t done jack shit about investigating the credible allegations against (and admissions by) Trump. Just as an aside, how would you grade the seriousness of these two accounts: 1. “I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my “mark.” Our groping ended soon and while no “relationship” ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn’t really know what she was doing.” 2. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” Trying, as best you can, to take the respective people out of it and look at the accounts objectively, which one sounds like a more serious violation of consent to you? #1 or #2? ---
**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 20, 2018, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2015 "2018-09-20T18:24:31Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > Are you saying underage drinking is a disqualifier for high office? Would you say the same about marijuana use? That was also illegal, everywhere, in the US in 1983 and in many places today. It was a just few years ago. We are in the infancy of a world where weed is OK for candidates. Do you know that? As far as the drinking: that school had problems, and as I said before, not many people can claim to be a famous teenage blackout drunk but kavanughs bud was. In blackouts one might not remember something. [https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html) Every day it looks more and more like we need a deeper dive into this. We don’t need a full 9 on the scotus anyway. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2016 "2018-09-20T18:25:16Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > Are you saying underage drinking is a disqualifier for high office? Would you say the same about marijuana use? That was also illegal, everywhere, in the US in 1983 and in many places today. It does seem a rather oddly puritanical objection. 😕 I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a substantial majority of those who hold public office and those on the various benches, including the USSC who has such a squeaky clean record in their teens…or who just blithely volunteers their under age drinking or illicit drug use when they were 17 in a hearing setting (or even to the public when running for office). The more this discussion evolves the more it seems to me to be about oxes and Gores. Maybe there is some fire here somewhere, but it sure looks like a lot of smoke and hot air at this point. That said, I won’t shed any tears if Kavanaugh doesn’t get the seat. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2017 "2018-09-20T18:25:18Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It would be nice is conservatives stopped repeating this canard. I forgot to point out the other false part of this narrative, which is the attempt to distinguish Anita Hill. Sexual harassment is not a federal crime. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2018 "2018-09-20T18:29:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In the case of Feinstein in particular, this is not their stance. Feinstein did not want a full investigation, and sat on the allegation until it was too late. Too late for what? Did we pass a line where investigating a possible sex crime is no longer possible? Has he already been given his lifetime appointment to the SC? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2019 "2018-09-20T18:30:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not. Dishonest people tend to crack under pressure. There’s a lot of room between deliberate dishonesty and no bias at all. To the extent that political bias is involved at all - and I’m not saying it was, but that’s your suggestion here - it’s not likely to be in the form of a completely concocted tale out of political motivations. More likely that her recollection of what happened 36 years ago (or 30 years prior, at the time she first discussed it) was very hazy as to what happened (possibly even who was involved) and in filling in the many many blanks she was influenced by political bias. Nothing the FBI can do about this, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2020 "2018-09-20T18:31:08Z")
not sure why people think attacking Collins is a good idea , that will likely backfire big time. (that attack started even before the attempted rape store surfaced) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=100) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=102)