# 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:** 114
**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 21, 2018, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2261 "2018-09-21T14:30:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you seriously not understand the difference between a denial of an accusation by an alleged victim and a denial without an accusation by an alleged victim? If so, what’s the point of this line of thought? Do YOU not understand that expecting an accused person to ask for an FBI investigation into themselves, is friggin ridiculous? I have seen multiple calls, here, and other places, that Kavenaugh should call on the FBI to investigate him if he wants to clear his name, with the implication being that if he doesn’t, he has something to hide. If I accuse you of not paying your taxes, will you call the IRS to audit yourself? Back in the day, if you didn’t confess to being a witch, that meant you were a witch. The logical fallacy is similar. ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2262 "2018-09-21T14:32:05Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > Do YOU not understand that expecting an accused person to ask for an FBI investigation into themselves, is friggin ridiculous? Not at all. If there was a serious allegation against me, and I was innocent, I’d beg for an investigation from an objective third party. I’d be desperate for it, in fact. Are you saying that you wouldn’t? You’d just be happy with a serious allegation against you, that you know is false, sitting out there, uninvestigated? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2263 "2018-09-21T14:32:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > She isn’t obliged to do any prep at all - she could just do it cold if she wanted to. The point isn’t that she has an obligation; it’s that she has had several weeks of opportunity. Sure, in 20-20 hindsight. > [@](#): > > Now that Ms. King has retracted her post, and said that she does not know whether or not it happened, I don’t think we can tell if anyone was talking about it, or not, nor what the timeline was. And given this -it does not sound like she is willing to provide any details. AFAICT, the only thing she’s ‘retracted’ is the claim that this incident really happened. If she’s retracted her claim that people at school were talking about an incident that sounded like this, linky please. > [@](#): > > So, to some extent at least, investigation (albeit not FBI investigation) found someone who has no first-hand knowledge, cannot corroborate any details, and is not willing to testify. ‘Investigation’ is one person posting on Facebook? I mean, I’m all for definitions evolving as usage changes, but this seems a bit … _extreme._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2264 "2018-09-21T14:41:18Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Whelan is a lawyer. That disclaimer was tacked on. It’s also nonsensical, given the bizarre theorizing that preceded it. I trust a certain middle school teacher has received offers from a few libel lawyers. > The first one: Dr. Ford may well have been the victim of a severe sexual assault by someone 36 years ago. > > If you say, something very well may have happened, show zillow pics of a guy’s house, allege physical resemblance… > …well IANAL. If you’re careful enough maybe you can imply something without saying it. Highly irresponsible to say the least though. Yes. Not defamatory legally, but an utter dick move. ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2265 "2018-09-21T14:44:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Are you saying that you wouldn’t? No. I’d be outraged by the accusation, flatly deny it, expect the burden of proof to be on the accuser (you know, the way it’s _supposed_ to be), and probably handle this with\* much less poise\* than Kavenaugh has. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2266 "2018-09-21T14:46:38Z")
One of the things being negotiated is who should testify first. I think that’s extremely important. I think whoever goes first, “loses”. The advantage of hearing the other’s testimony and modifying yours is huge. Does anyone think it matters who goes first? Who do you think should go first? Who should decide who goes first? Should whoever went first, be allowed to come back? Further, should the other witness(es) be allowed to listen to the other’s testimony? (either in person or outside the room through closed-circuit TV). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2267 "2018-09-21T14:47:02Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > No. I’d be outraged by the accusation, flatly deny it, expect the burden of proof to be on the accuser (you know, the way it’s _supposed_ to be), and probably handle this with\* much less poise\* than Kavenaugh has. Seriously – between these two options: 1. “You can’t prove a thing!” and 2. “The FBI has investigated and cleared me!” …you’re going with number 1? ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2268 "2018-09-21T14:48:07Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > No. I’d be outraged by the accusation, flatly deny it, expect the burden of proof to be on the accuser (you know, the way it’s _supposed_ to be), and probably handle this with\* much less poise\* than Kavenaugh has. The accuser is asking for a full investigation. If I was innocent, I’d welcome and encourage that. But I guess you’re different. Doesn’t make any sense to me, but whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2269 "2018-09-21T14:48:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Seriously – between these two options: > > 1. “You can’t prove a thing!” > and > 2. “The FBI has investigated and cleared me!” > > …you’re going with number 1? Depends. Do I have poise? ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2270 "2018-09-21T14:53:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Seriously – between these two options: > > 1. “You can’t prove a thing!” > and > 2. “The FBI has investigated and cleared me!” > > …you’re going with number 1? In a nutshell yes, seriously. When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT the accused. Were you asleep in civics class, or do you live in a tinpot country where that is not the case? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2271 "2018-09-21T14:54:43Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > For those of you with TPM Prime subscriptions, there’s a [great piece by Tierney Sneed](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/grassleys-blasey-ford-letter-doesnt-give-a-full-picture-of-the-process-for-vetting-noms) (doing an amazing job, being recognized more and more :)) about the use of supplemental FBI background investigations… Yeah, that could be it, sure. Or it could just be you fluting your membership in the elite aristocracy of TPM Prime! Not, of course, to say that TPM is not a font of wisdom and intelligence, without which no citizen can hope to be well-informed…most certainly it is! But you would do well to emulate the reserved and decorous behavior of other Dopers too modest and demure to publicly announce their elevation to such status! No doubt, there is some pleasure to be had from the rush of admiration and approval that results, but its all a bit unseemly, don’t you think? Or don’t you? ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2272 "2018-09-21T14:54:54Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > One of the things being negotiated is who should testify first. I think that’s extremely important. I think whoever goes first, “loses”. The advantage of hearing the other’s testimony and modifying yours is huge. > > Does anyone think it matters who goes first? Who do you think should go first? Who should decide who goes first? Should whoever went first, be allowed to come back? > > Further, should the other witness(es) be allowed to listen to the other’s testimony? (either in person or outside the room through closed-circuit TV). If there is only a first slot and a second slot, I prefer the second slot. But if my co-partisans control the ability to provide me a third slot, I’ll take first and third. I suspect that is what will happen in this case if there is a hearing. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2273 "2018-09-21T14:58:57Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > Furthermore, Evil Economist, if you’re truly interested in clearing your name, you must call for an FBI investigation. > > 1-800-CALL-FBI > > Only guilty people won’t call the FBI to clear their names. If I were credibly accused of attempted rape, I would certainly hope that the claim would be investigated. If I had the opportunity to have the FBI do the investigation I would certainly take it. This will not happen to me for several reasons: a) [most important] I have never attempted to rape anyone (giving me an advantage over Kavanaugh). b) If I had attempted to rape anyone I would know about it, because I don’t spend my weekends getting blackout drunk. Finally, possibly as a consequence of (a) and (b), I have never been accused of rape. ---
**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 21, 2018, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2274 "2018-09-21T15:02:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The distinction has come up multiple times in this thread. But not in connection to anything I’ve said, which is what you implied. > [@](#): > > I am not typically condescending, but bad motivated reasoning tends to bring it out in me. That’s what they all say … > [@](#): > > No, says the law. For example, you are privileged against libel in a criminal context for exactly the reason I gave. That is not true elsewhere. The law does not determine what’s ethical and moral. SC appointments are very high stakes but are a relatively rare situation and laws are not carved out in connection to issues that might theoretically arise during such proceedings. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2275 "2018-09-21T15:03:53Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If there is only a first slot and a second slot, I prefer the second slot. But if my co-partisans control the ability to provide me a third slot, I’ll take first and third. I suspect that is what will happen in this case if there is a hearing. I agree. And this will be tailored to Kavanaugh. So he will either go second (and last), or first and third. He will under no circumstance go first only. That’s an advantage. He’s going to get a lot of these “minor” advantages. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2276 "2018-09-21T15:04:17Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Sure, in 20-20 hindsight. She had enough foresight to hire a lawyer, set up and take a polygraph test, and set up a list of conditions that must be met before she will testify. But not enough to prepare for actually testifying. > [@](#): > > AFAICT, the only thing she’s ‘retracted’ is the claim that this incident really happened. If she’s retracted her claim that people at school were talking about an incident that sounded like this, linky please. She has said that she won’t testify, has no first-hand knowledge, and is not willing to provide details about what she alleged. If it helps, she didn’t retract the claim - she deleted it and said that she has no idea whether or not the incident happened. > [@](#): > > ‘Investigation’ is one person posting on Facebook? “Investigation” is Senate staff contacting her, and finding out what I mentioned. As I said earlier, nothing will ever be enough. But enough is enough, eventually, for reasonable folks. Whether or not Democrats will admit this remains to be seen. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2277 "2018-09-21T15:07:48Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > In a nutshell yes, seriously. > > When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT the accused. Were you asleep in civics class, or do you live in a tinpot country where that is not the case? Burden of proof is about judicial proceedings and stupid Internet arguments. It isn’t about a person’s reputation. See, for example, OJ Simpson. If someone ever accused you of doing something really bad, and you’re content with much of the world thinking that it is maybe/probably/definitely true even if you aren’t sent to jail or whatever, that’s your choice to make. It just boggles my mind that given very serious accusations, a person would prefer to not put the matter to bed, but instead rely on a principle and in so doing risk living the rest of your life with a cloud over your head… But okay. Your choice. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2278 "2018-09-21T15:08:31Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If I had attempted to rape anyone I would know about it, because I don’t spend my weekends getting blackout drunk. How do we know that you didn’t get so drunk you don’t remember? > [@](#): > > [most important] I have never attempted to rape anyone (giving me an advantage over Kavanaugh). Prove it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2279 "2018-09-21T15:08:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > She had enough foresight to …set up a list of conditions that must be met before she will testify. But not enough to prepare for actually testifying. Do you think setting a list of conditions to testify takes approximately the same amount of time as preparing to actually testify? Because I think I could do the first in 15 minutes.The latter might take me more time, but you may have better time management skills than me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2280 "2018-09-21T15:09:12Z")
It will be determined, by a vote of eleven to ten, that a victim of a witch hunt facing the prospect of being broken on the wheel due to the scurrilous accusations of some hussy (who is likely no better than she should be)… That such a blameless soul deserves every advantage to present his case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=113) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=115)