# 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:** 11
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/201 "2018-09-05T16:13:07Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > … 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? He didn’t “usurp” anything and he wasn’t “exercising prior restraint on that body”. If “that body” wanted to, they could have overruled McConnell and tossed his declaration aside and voted on Garland. They did not want to. McConnell knew that, which is what he said on TV. ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/202 "2018-09-05T16:18:51Z")
You do need to be more precise than “they”. Was it only a slight majority of the caucus that didn’t dare face a vote, or was it unanimous, enough to reject the nomination? ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/203 "2018-09-05T16:22:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You do need to be more precise than “they”. Was it only a slight majority of the caucus that didn’t dare face a vote, or was it unanimous, enough to reject the nomination? A majority of the Senate never chose to overrule McConnell and bring up Garland’s nomination for a vote. My assumption is that the vast majority of Democrats would have been on board with such a maneuver if they’d had the votes to execute it, which tells me that the vast majority of Republicans were not on board with it. Why do I “need” to be more precise than that? The majority of the Senate never chose to do so. That’s the reality. ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/204 "2018-09-05T16:35:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > A majority of the Senate never chose to overrule McConnell and bring up Garland’s nomination for a vote. My assumption is that the vast majority of Democrats would have been on board with such a maneuver if they’d had the votes to execute it, which tells me that the vast majority of Republicans were not on board with it. Why do I “need” to be more precise than that? The majority of the Senate never chose to do so. That’s the reality. If the speaker needs to be ignored and overridden to do ordinary business, then you might have a problem. Maybe we are one election away from that discovery. Everyone knows this inside anyway. If you opt for “Might makes right” then you have lost all moral and intellectual standing beyond that assertion. Which might mean a victory in the senate, but at least here on the web, on threads, you are hobbled. It is mostly moral and intellectual talk online. Dominionist talk works better in person. What purpose does it have on the web? ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/205 "2018-09-05T16:39:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > A majority of the Senate never chose to overrule McConnell and bring up Garland’s nomination for a vote. The House has a procedure to pull a bill or a nomination out of committee, called a Discharge Petition, but the Senate does not. Did you know that? You continue to mix “the Senate” and “the Republican caucus”. They are not interchangeable. > [@](#): > > The majority of the Senate never chose to do so. That’s the reality. _You do not know_ what the majority of the Senate would have voted to do if a respect for democracy were in place in the Republican leadership. You were \*prevented \*from knowing. That’s the reality. And you’re \*proud \*of it. ---
**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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/206 "2018-09-05T16:41:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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”? No, I do not agree, which is what I specifically said in my posts. Not sure how you would gather otherwise. A person may very well vote for a nominee, but not vote to completely break tradition and precedent in order to be able to vote for that nominee. What part of this are you not understanding? > [@](#): > > 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 So, you admit that it was all political grandstanding by McConnell. Nice bothsidsism, can you tell me when the democrats refused to vote on a supreme court nominee? ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/207 "2018-09-05T16:42:28Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > … What purpose does it have on the web? To dispense with the stupid claim that it was “the decision of one man”. It was the decision of the majority. Also, you may not like it. You may think it was uncool or mean or whatever, but it was _not_ unconstitutional. The sooner you get that simple point through your head, the better we’ll all be. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/208 "2018-09-05T16:44:52Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > A person may very well vote for a nominee, but not vote to completely break tradition and precedent in order to be able to vote for that nominee. It’s more than that. It’s repudiating his party leadership to do so, even if parliamentary means exist. That has to lead to forcing the leader out of the position entirely, or the consequences to that Senator’s career and future effectiveness will be severe. It isn’t a choice, it’s accepting intimidation. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/209 "2018-09-05T16:46:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It was the decision of the majority. The majority of the Senate, or of just the Republican caucus? You insist on using the terms as synonyms, for reasons which you would be well-served to explain. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/210 "2018-09-05T16:47:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … A person may very well vote for a nominee, but not vote to completely break tradition and precedent in order to be able to vote for that nominee. What part of this are you not understanding? … Garland’s nomination wasn’t being filibustered. That’s what I don’t understand. What are you alluding to with “not vote to completely break tradition and precedent in order to be able to vote for that nominee”? We’re not discussing the nuclear option to end the filibuster, which it would seem is the parliamentary maneuver that you’re describing. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/211 "2018-09-05T16:56:20Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The majority of the Senate, or of just the Republican caucus? You insist on using the terms as synonyms, for reasons which you would be well-served to explain. majority of the Senate. I don’t believe there were any significant schisms in the Republican caucus on this matter that would make denoting what a majority of the caucus wanted relevant. If a significant minority of Republican Senators had been united with the Dems in their desire to see Garland’s nomination receive a vote, that would have constituted a majority of the Senate. _That_ majority did not exist, apparently. ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/212 "2018-09-05T16:58:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To dispense with the stupid claim that it was “the decision of one man”. It was the decision of the majority. > > Also, you may not like it. You may think it was uncool or mean or whatever, but it was _not_ unconstitutional. The sooner you get that simple point through your head, the better we’ll all be. When did senate “advise and consent”, as distinct from mcconnel? What majority and when? Date and time will be appreciated. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/213 "2018-09-05T17:02:17Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > When did senate “advise and consent”, as distinct from mcconnel? What majority and when? Date and time will be appreciated. We’ve already been over this. See posts #174 & #187. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/214 "2018-09-05T17:02:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > majority of the Senate. _ **I don’t believe** _ there were any significant schisms in the Republican caucus on this matter that would make denoting what a majority of the caucus wanted relevant. If a significant minority of Republican Senators had been united with the Dems in their desire to see Garland’s nomination receive a vote, that _ **would have constituted** _ a majority of the Senate. _That_ majority did not exist, apparently. You’re saying mitch just needed to “believe” like you, about things that “would have been” but that he never actually did. Do you see any problem with this? Do you know the phrase “That’s why they play the game”? Learn it, know it, live it. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/215 "2018-09-05T17:04:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > We’ve already been over this. See post #174. I looked. Didn’t see anything. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/216 "2018-09-05T17:08:32Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > … Do you know the phrase “That’s why they play the game”? Learn it, know it, live it. Do you understand that the Constitution does not require the Senate to hold a vote if the Senate chooses not to? There is nothing that requires them to “live” the phrase “that’s why they play the game” and hold a vote if they don’t want to? This happens all the time, on legislation the House sends over, on bills approved by various Senate committees, on requests the President makes, and on nominations made by the President. The Senate is free to choose what it votes on and what it does not vote on. Do we agree at least on that last sentence? ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/217 "2018-09-05T17:11:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > majority of the Senate. What say did the Democrats have in this? > [@](#): > > I don’t believe there were any significant schisms in the Republican caucus on this matter that would make denoting what a majority of the caucus wanted relevant. You keep insisting, correctly, on what “a majority of the Senate” wanted. But somehow you think that means that both caucuses vote individually, and both have to agree. That is … weird. > [@](#): > > If a significant minority of Republican Senators had been united with the Dems in their desire to see Garland’s nomination receive a vote, that would have constituted a majority of the Senate. _That_ majority did not exist, apparently. “Apparently”? You do know that a majority of the Republican caucus would have been needed to depose McConnell, don’t you, but that only a minority of it would have been needed to join with the Adult Party caucus? Is that a tiny hint that you do, in fact, know the vote would have been to approve? That you do, in fact, know the Constitution was thwarted and America spited? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/218 "2018-09-05T17:14:42Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > 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? Do you understand that the Senate has the power to overturn his decision? Any 51 Senators can force a vote, even if the Majority Leader tries to block it, right? You’re clear on that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/219 "2018-09-05T17:17:01Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > If the speaker needs to be ignored and overridden to do ordinary business, then you might have a problem. Maybe we are one election away from that discovery. Everyone knows this inside anyway. > > If you opt for “Might makes right” then you have lost all moral and intellectual standing beyond that assertion. Which might mean a victory in the senate, but at least here on the web, on threads, you are hobbled. It is mostly moral and intellectual talk online. Dominionist talk works better in person. What purpose does it have on the web? I’m OK with that. You win the SDMB, you lose the Senate, and Kavanaught and Gorsuch are Supreme Court justices. That works for me. Is there anything else you’d like to win here and lose in real life? Tax cuts? DACA? Let me know… ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/220 "2018-09-05T17:18:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What say did the Democrats have in this? Very little. They were the minority. Unless they could peel off some Republicans to support them, their desires would not carry the day. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … somehow you think that means that both caucuses vote individually, and both have to agree. … Wrong. I don’t think that, and I haven’t written anything like that. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Apparently”? Is that a tiny hint that you do, in fact, know the vote would have been to approve? That you do, in fact, know the Constitution was thwarted in an act of spite? No, the Constitution was not “thwarted” and no, I don’t believe that had the Garland nomination been brought to an up-or-down vote it would have been approved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=12)