# 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:** 12
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/221 "2018-09-05T17:23:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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? For the fourth time: By what reasoning does mcconnel equal the senate in your assertion? ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/222 "2018-09-05T17:27:10Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > For the fourth time: By what reasoning does mcconnel equal the senate in your assertion? He does NOT “equate” the Senate. He does NOT “personify” the Senate either. He was merely giving voice to his (accurate) perception that there were not 51 senators that wanted to vote on Garland’s nomination. He was right: there were not 51 senators that wanted to vote on Garland’s nomination. If there had been, regardless of what McConnell said / equated / personified, 51 senators could have forced a vote on Garland. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/223 "2018-09-05T17:27:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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… My point is there are no winners. But this (SDMB, other internet activity) is an intellectual and moral exercise, and not a contest of strength. That’s what we are doing right now. So mccconel is not your friend. He’s leading you down the road. Good luck. ---
**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, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/224 "2018-09-05T17:29:45Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > He was right: there were not 51 senators that wanted to vote on Garland’s nomination. Not in his own caucus, no. How about in the full Senate? \*You \*don’t know that answer, but it’s clear McConnell _did_. that’s why he didn’t dare allow it. > [@](#): > > If there had been, regardless of what McConnell said / equated / personified, 51 senators could have forced a vote on Garland. Using what for a parliamentary process? You’ve already been informed that the Senate does not have a discharge petition procedure. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/225 "2018-09-05T17:32:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Very little. They were the minority. So you’ll drop this nonsense about the Republican caucus being “the Senate” now, will you? :dubious: > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that had the Garland nomination been brought to an up-or-down vote it would have been approved. Then what were the Republicans scared of? :dubious: What you “believe” doesn’t matter, does it? The fact could have been easily discerned. So why wasn’t it? ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/226 "2018-09-05T17:32:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not in his own caucus, no. How about in the full Senate? \*You \*don’t know that answer, but it’s clear McConnell _did_. that’s why he didn’t dare allow it. Yes, not in the full Senate. You’re the only one talking about the caucus here. McConnell doesn’t have the power to disallow a vote if there were 51 senators that wanted it. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/227 "2018-09-05T17:34:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … Then what were the Republicans scared of? :dubious: … I already answered this in post #197. You do realize there might be other reasons for a legislative body to avoid unpalatable votes, besides that they might lose, right? ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/228 "2018-09-05T17:41:00Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > My point is there are no winners. But this (SDMB, other internet activity) is an intellectual and moral exercise, and not a contest of strength. That’s what we are doing right now. So mccconel is not your friend. He’s leading you down the road. Good luck. It’s an intellectual exercise, perhaps, but you and I don’t share agreement on basic principles of morality, so I don’t agree it’s a moral exercise. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/229 "2018-09-05T17:41:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I already answered this in post #197. No, you just acknowledged that it would have put the Republicans in a difficult spot. Well, boo frickin’ hoo, that’s the job. Again, \*what were they afraid of? \* > [@](#): > > You do realize there might be other reasons for a legislative body to avoid unpalatable votes, besides that they might lose, right? Tell us what they were, then. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/230 "2018-09-05T17:41:32Z")
> [@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. And if the senate elected Trump king for life, and the packed supreme court allowed it, that would be constitutional too. How we actually treat people in this life is what we are actually judged on, and that is whether you are uncool or mean or whatever, not on whether you managed to twist 200 year old words on a paper to justify you being uncool or mean or whatever. You may feel it a simple point, but as with most things simple, it is also wrong. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Garland’s nomination wasn’t being filibustered. That’s what I don’t understand. As I’ve said nothing about it being filibustered, I cannot understand what it is that you do not 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. No, I am talking about what you pointed to, in stripping a bill of its contents to change it to one that confirms Garland. That would be breaking with tradition and precedent, and it would also be challenging the party leaders on a level that just voting for the nominee wouldn’t. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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… What else are you willing to lose in order to continue to laugh at liberals trying to save our country from your ilk? ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/231 "2018-09-05T17:43:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, not in the full Senate. You’re the only one talking about the caucus here. Do you understand that that’s the only route available to overturn his (lack of) action? In his own caucus? > [@](#): > > McConnell doesn’t have the power to disallow a vote if there were 51 senators that wanted it. Do you need to be informed yet again that there is no mechanism to do that? ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/232 "2018-09-05T17:43:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, you just acknowledged that it would have put the Republicans in a difficult spot. Well, boo frickin’ hoo, that’s the job. Again, \*what were they afraid of? \* > > Tell us what they were, then. For example: They didn’t want their “no” vote to appear in their opponents campaign ads. They didn’t want their “no” vote used by their opponents for fundraising. They didn’t want moderate voters being turned off by their “no” vote, or their opponents’ base fired up by it. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/233 "2018-09-05T17:46:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Do you understand that that’s the only route available to overturn his (lack of) action? In his own caucus? > > Do you need to be informed yet again that there is no mechanism to do that? There’s an example proposed by UltraVires that k9bfriender and I have been discussing. Is there some reason you’re aware of that that would not work? ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/234 "2018-09-05T17:50:54Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > For example: They didn’t want their “no” vote to appear in their opponents campaign ads. 1. Again, boo frickin’ hoo. 2. Their dereliction of duty showed up in their ads anyway. Is that all you got? ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/235 "2018-09-05T17:51:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 1. Again, boo frickin’ hoo. … I’m not the one crying about the Senate’s choice on this matter. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/236 "2018-09-05T17:54:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not the one crying about the Senate’s choice on this matter. “The Senate” and “Choice” are not relevant words to your claims. That’s been explained to you enough times. ---
**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 5, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/237 "2018-09-05T17:54:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Just told you. > > Not to mention, someone in an appropriate position (e.g. Solicitor General’s office) ought to be making the determination of executive privilege, not a private attorney of Donald McGahn’s and GWB’s who is also a friend and former associate of Kavanaugh’s. (Any claim of GWB’s to confidentiality would have been in his capacity as POTUS, not his personal capacity.) Hillary Clinton says hi. The documents that represent his role as White House counsel, are hardly relevant to his potential role as a judge. When reviewing judiciary nominees historical qualifications, no one would review their practice as an attorney on behalf of a client. In those cases, they are rendering advice, in many situations advising their clients about many potential scenarios and strategies that could be taken from a legal perspective, NOT, making a judgement with regards to a specific case. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/238 "2018-09-05T17:55:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “The Senate” and “Choice” are not relevant words to your claims. That’s been explained to you enough times. You’re wrong, as has been explained to you enough times. ---
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/239 "2018-09-05T17:56:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s an example proposed by UltraVires that k9bfriender and I have been discussing. Is there some reason you’re aware of that that would not work? The presiding officer simply need not recognize any member of the other caucus. And, if he does, the matter can be referred to the Pariiamentarian, who will rule the way the man who can fire him wants him to rule. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/240 "2018-09-05T17:57:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You’re wrong, as has been explained to you enough times. Deny is not a synonym for explain. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=13)