# 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:** 117
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2321 "2018-09-21T17:17:10Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > This isn’t a trial, it’s Thunderdome. Only one rule - two man enter, one man leave. Everything else is negotiable. > > but yea, the reason for the rule would still apply and makes sense. > > If I’m her and I only get to go first, and there are no other witnesses, I’m answering a lot of questions with, “you’d need to bring in Mr. Judge, Ms. X, etc. and ask them” to show how unfair this “fact-finding hearing” is. Opportunity for rebuttal is typically provided to the party going first. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2322 "2018-09-21T17:19:53Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > A full criminal investigation within the State of Maryland could occur at Ford’s request. They can take as long as they want. And they would. But the FBI can probably take care of it within days, as they demonstrated with Anita Hill. > [@](#): > > The Senate Judiciary committee is hardly capable of conducting a criminal investigation. Hence the FBI. As I’ve pointed out, the Judiciary Committee has a great deal of leverage here if they want the White House to tell the FBI to investigate this. > [@](#): > > If charges are brought against Kavanaugh, even if he’s confirmed to SCOTUS, and he’s convicted, then impeachment charges against Kavanaugh and have him removed from SCOTUS. > > There are remedies even if he is confirmed. This isn’t the last opportunity to have him off the court. Probably makes better sense to do it that way. Makes more sense to put him on the Supreme Court, and _then_ resolve this matter, than take care of it first? Ain’t enough rolleyes. ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2323 "2018-09-21T17:21:46Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Opportunity for rebuttal is typically provided to the party going first. I don’t think this is typical. Kavanaugh gets to go last. No rebuttal. ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2324 "2018-09-21T17:23:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > How long, would you guess, that process might take? My math degree doesn’t make me an expert in this. But their investigation into Anita Hill’s allegations took two days. Suppose this one takes two weeks instead of two days. The consequences are dreadful, I’ll admit - they won’t get that nice photo op with him and the other Justices a week from Monday. 😛 ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2325 "2018-09-21T17:23:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, I’m quite on top of things. > > I said that the morality of suggesting the guilt of tenuously connected bystanders in this instance would be comparable to the morality of suggesting the guilt of tenuously connected bystanders in a criminal trial, which is widely accepted. That doesn’t suggest that I think this is a criminal trial, only that I think the morality would be comparable. > > Your response was to imply that I continually need to be reminded that this is not a criminal proceeding, which - as you subsequently seemed to acknowledge - was false. You didn’t understand why other people, in particular lawyers, considered this normal and unobjectionable in a criminal proceeding but complained about it in this context. Your implication was that there was some kind of double standard at work. I explained to you why there isn’t a double standard and there are good reasons for treating judicial proceedings differently, which do not apply to a judicial nomination. You’ve failed to address those reasons at all, instead focusing on whether I have incorrectly accused you of having been repeatedly told this is not a criminal proceeding. That’s fine. You’re obviously free to choose to argue over some meaningless point of personal pride instead of the merits of the issue. But I don’t really have much interest in that. I think my meaning was pretty clear, which was that you were improperly trying to analogize this to a criminal proceeding. I do not think you literally believe this is a criminal prosecution, and that over-literal reading of my comments is pretty silly. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2326 "2018-09-21T17:23:43Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’d add that the witness list should include various media types who were hinting at the mistaken-identity story over the past few days. Who fed you the story, Kathleen Parker? How about you, Erick Erickson? Did all of you just happen to come up with this notion independently, or what? Do you honestly think that “media types” of whatever stripe, should be required to divulge their sources under oath? ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2327 "2018-09-21T17:30:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think the fact that you don’t want Kavanaugh anyway is probably part of your thinking - or at least mindset - here. By what calculation is speed of confirmation important? > [@](#): > > Suppose in a criminal case you need 99% likelihood to convict and in a SC confirmation case you need 10% likelihood to reject. If you have some speculation that moves the needle, in one case from 99% to 97%, and in the other case from 11% to 9% then those are equivalent. In either case, it could change the “verdict” from “not enough uncertainty under the applicable standard” to “enough uncertainty under the applicable standard”. But the question is then whether the collateral damage from that additional evidence is worth the impact on the verdict. > > The fact that one level of proof is 99% and the other is 10% doesn’t change the basic equation, which is about the value of the additional information in changing the verdict versus the collateral damage. We are not dealing with any particular burden of proof. It is completely up to each Senator to apply whatever level of standard they wish. One Senator may wish to cast a no vote because there’s a 1% chance he did it. Another may cast a yes vote because there’s a 1% chance he didn’t do it. You may see me as the former, and I may see you as the latter, but there are surely other Senators who are somewhere in the middle (to say nothing of the American people at large) and they have a reasonable expectation to make an important decision based on something more than a “he said, she said” hearing and a handful of letters of support for either side. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2328 "2018-09-21T17:33:36Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Do you honestly think that “media types” of whatever stripe, should be required to divulge their sources under oath? If they promised confidentiality to their sources, they should feel free to say so. If not, then they should answer the questions honestly. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2329 "2018-09-21T17:34:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I explained to you why there isn’t a double standard and there are good reasons for treating judicial proceedings differently, which do not apply to a judicial nomination. > > You’ve failed to address those reasons at all, instead focusing on whether I have incorrectly accused you of having been repeatedly told this is not a criminal proceeding. Nonsense. I repeatedly explained why those distinctions are not relevant here. > [@](#): > > But I don’t really have much interest in that. I think my meaning was pretty clear, which was that you were improperly trying to analogize this to a criminal proceeding. I do not think you literally believe this is a criminal prosecution, and that over-literal reading of my comments is pretty silly. You’re trying to obscure the issue. I’m well aware that you weren’t saying I literally believed it was a criminal prosecution, and that’s not what I’ve accused you of doing. Your point was of course that I was failing to appreciate the significance of the fact that it’s not a criminal proceeding. But where you went for the cheap snark was in implying that I had continually lost sight of this distinction, when in reality it’s just a disagreement about the significance in one particular instance. ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2330 "2018-09-21T17:36:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > By what calculation is speed of confirmation important? Getting Kavanaugh into that first-Monday-in-October photo op is a matter of extreme national importance. Time is running out! 😉 ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2331 "2018-09-21T17:38:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You seem to be implying that the FBI investigation in 1991 cleared Thomas. Haven’t reviewed things in awhile, but I don’t remember its being a slam-dunk for either Thomas or Hill. I don’t think an FBI investigation would be a “slam dunk” for Kavenaugh or Ford either, and there were a hell of a lot more specifics in Hill’s accusations, which, btw, didn’t happen at unknown places/times/dates 30 years prior. I’ve already said that Ford’s claims are unfalsifiable due to their imprecision and that I sincerely hope she gets more precise if she really wants Kavenaugh to not be the next justice on the Supreme Courth by the end next week. ---
**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 21, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2332 "2018-09-21T17:41:53Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Yeah, not sure that would lead you to the outcome you are hoping for. Kavanaugh was a Federal Judge for over a decade…won’t be near as easy as you think. Rather curious then that Kamal Harris had him looking like a 4th grader who shit in his pants when asking about his conversations about Mueller. I’m thinking it will be very easy to make him squirm like that again. ---
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2333 "2018-09-21T17:42:30Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I don’t think an FBI investigation would be a “slam dunk” for Kavenaugh or Ford either, and there were a hell of a lot more specifics in Hill’s accusations, which, btw, didn’t happen at unknown places/times/dates 30 years prior. I’ve already said that Ford’s claims are unfalsifiable due to their imprecision and that I sincerely hope she gets more precise if she really wants Kavenaugh to not be the next justice on the Supreme Courth by the end next week. I’m not seeing this as an argument against having an FBI investigation. I’m just seeing it as an argument for lowered expectations regarding whether they find anything dispositive. That’s fine. If they investigate, and simply can’t shed much light on things, then again, that’s just how things shake out. But there’s still no reason to not have them investigate. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2334 "2018-09-21T17:44:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And they would. But the FBI can probably take care of it within days, as they demonstrated with Anita Hill. Hence the FBI. As I’ve pointed out, the Judiciary Committee has a great deal of leverage here if they want the White House to tell the FBI to investigate this. Makes more sense to put him on the Supreme Court, and _then_ resolve this matter, than take care of it first? > > Ain’t enough rolleyes. Do you honestly think that this is going to be anymore than a he said, she said? The only other alleged witnesses have both said they don’t remember this event ever happening. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2335 "2018-09-21T17:49:53Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Do you honestly think that this is going to be anymore than a he said, she said? > > The only other alleged witnesses have both said they don’t remember this event ever happening. Judge says he has no memory of the alleged incident. Why not? That seems like a fair follow-up question. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2336 "2018-09-21T17:53:00Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I have the advantage of never having committing felony sexual assault, so no one will have a memory of me attempting to rape them. Pity we don’t hold our SCOTUS nominees to the same standard. Which, of course, begs the question. Let’s put it this way: how can you be certain that Prof. Ford is neither mistaken or lying? Because if she is, then you can easily be accused of having attempted rape the exact same way: by someone lying about it, or having mistaken you for someone else. Answer the question you were asked, rather than presuming the answer and using it to slough off the question. :dubious: ---
**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 21, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2337 "2018-09-21T17:56:28Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Judge says he has no memory of the alleged incident. Why not? That seems like a fair follow-up question. Why do you have no memory of there being an elephant in your kitchen this morning? ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2338 "2018-09-21T17:57:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m not seeing this as an argument against having an FBI investigation. I’m just seeing it as an argument for lowered expectations regarding whether they find anything dispositive. > > That’s fine. If they investigate, and simply can’t shed much light on things, then again, that’s just how things shake out. But there’s still no reason to not have them investigate. Well, unfortunately, that is not anyone’s call here to make. I think everyone agrees here that this is a political and not a criminal matter at this point. Obviously, if it was a criminal matter, we would not be so quick to dismiss burden of proof on the accuser. I am willing to let the politicians deal with the political calculus and fallout of having/not-having an FBI investigation. If they don’t have the votes, they should go back to the drawing board, and I suspect I would be perfectly happy with someone like Amy Coney Barrett (who I suspect will not get torpedoed by a last minute #MeToo moment) in his place. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2339 "2018-09-21T17:58:07Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Which, of course, begs the question. > > Let’s put it this way: how can you be certain that Prof. Ford is neither mistaken or lying? Because if she is, then you can easily be accused of having attempted rape the exact same way: by someone lying about it, or having mistaken you for someone else. > > Answer the question you were asked, rather than presuming the answer and using it to slough off the question. :dubious: Anyone can be accused, but coming up with a false but credible allegation is much, much harder than it’s made out to be. That would mean years of preparation – identifying someone who went to school in the same area and of similar age, having them tell their therapist and spouse years in advance, pass a lie detector test, and (most importantly) continue to tell their story despite death threats and other life-disruptive events. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2340 "2018-09-21T17:59:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why do you have no memory of there being an elephant in your kitchen this morning? Because I don’t remember seeing an elephant in my kitchen this morning. However, if I started drinking heavily and the last thing I remember is getting into a car with Kavanaugh, then the reason I don’t remember alleged things is because I was intoxicated - not because I can say they did or did not happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=116) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=118)