# 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:** 120
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2381 "2018-09-21T20:35:27Z")
> [@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. > [@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. > [@Ashtura](#): > > 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. What, it’s not anyone’s call here to make?? Well, fuck and damn. I thought for sure we were debating this because we got to decide. :rolleyes: So anyway, you’re happy to let the politicians deal with it however. Cool, guess that kinda takes you out of the debate though. Not sure why you’ve been debating here as much as you have, if that’s where you’re coming from. 😕 ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2382 "2018-09-21T20:41:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > After all, if the Kavenaugh nomination turns to crap, another right winger will be nominated pretty shortly and McConnell can easily jam that one through (assuming there’s no rape-related allegations) during the lame duck. If Kavanaugh withdraws, there will be such allegations. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2383 "2018-09-21T20:50:35Z")
If they thought Mark Judge’s testimony would help Kavanaugh’s case, then they’d subpoena him in a heartbeat. That the Republicans seem very unwilling to do so suggests very strongly that they believe that Judge’s testimony would not help, or even hurt, Kavanaugh’s case. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2384 "2018-09-21T20:54:15Z")
> [@XT](#): > > That seems reasonable to me. I’d say that even a small delay at that point could push this to the point where the Dems can simply say, well, let’s wait until after the elections. I find it hard to believe that this hasn’t occurred to people in this thread. … There are 45 days until the elections. Even getting close to that target is going to allow the Dems to delay until afterward. What may not have occurred to you is that Dems – in the absence of a substantive issue like the one we are discussing with Kavenaugh – have literally no power to drive the schedule of the consideration of another nomination. Had they had any parliamentary power to do so, they for sure would have pushed Kavenaugh hearings until January. To say it another way, you – yes, yes – have as much power as 49 Senate Democrats to determine when a vote on any judicial nominee happens. If you disagree, tell me exactly what mechanism the Democrats have to push a nomination past the elections. (I suggest that you also keep in mind that even if the Senate switches hands in November – which is unlikely but possible – the control of the chamber will not change until January 3rd, 2019.) > [@](#): > > But to say, with a straight face that really there is no reason why the Republicans want to push things is simply because they are afraid of another witness is just silly. So tell me the urgency of the Senate needing to vote on Kavenaugh in the next, oh, 8 days or so. > [@Shodan](#): > > If Kavanaugh withdraws, there will be such allegations. I think it more likely the opposite. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2385 "2018-09-21T20:58:49Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Are we all pretending that the Congressional elections aren’t just around the corner and that your 2 days or even 2 weeks assertion couldn’t stretch to, oh, say 45 days, 22 hours and 10 minutes? 😛 Just as a theoretical ballpark time frame… And?? Do the powers of this Congress turn into a pumpkin at midnight on Election Night? No, they don’t. They don’t go anywhere until the next Congress is seated on January 3, 2019\*. Not including the rest of today and the morning of January 3, Congress has 103 days to act on this nomination and a prospective followup nomination. There are plenty of clouds hanging over Kavanaugh, from his mysterious finances to his apparent untruths about his involvement in the Manuel Miranda hacking and various other Bush Administration stuff, to his posthumous persecution of Vince Foster which treated his family as collateral damage (kinda like how he and his associates would treat Monica Lewinsky a few years later), to his involvement in Doppelgangergate, and of course the question of whether or not he attempted to rape Dr. Ford when she was 15. They could, of course, withdraw his nomination and get on with the next one: there’d be plenty of time for that. If they don’t, and the combination of dealing properly with this one and the next one gets kinda tight, well, that’s on them AFAIAC: Kavanaugh is pretty dubious SCOTUS material AFAIAC, completely aside from his ideological stances. He’s a nasty piece of work who shouldn’t be dogcatcher. But 103 days is a pretty decent chunk of time, if they use it wisely. If they choose not to, there’s a very strong SEP field around it from my POV. - ETA: I see **Ravenman** beat me to the punch in pointing this out. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2386 "2018-09-21T21:04:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If Kavanaugh withdraws, there will be such allegations. > > Regards, > Shodan Right, and you know that because all these rape allegations are lies, right? Dude, please stick with “we don’t know for sure, therefore we should ignore it”. It’s a much better look. As for the contention that the Democrats could delay a vote if Kavanaugh withdraws, the problem for the Democrats is that the Republicans control the Committee, and the Senate. The Republicans could hold the vote any time they can find 51 votes for the nominee. It doesn’t matter how much the Democrats squawk. The Republicans could delay Garland for a year because they controlled the Senate, the Democrats can do no such thing. The only problem for the Republicans is that Senators want to keep their jobs. Dudes, I guarantee that confirming a reliable conservative to the Supreme Court in a party-line vote during a lame duck session is not going to move the needle in 2020. The Republicans want to confirm Kavanaugh before the election because winning a vote is a win, and voters vote for winners. But they don’t want to alienate people who are against rape either. So it’s a conundrum. ---
**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 21, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2387 "2018-09-21T21:05:22Z")
It occurs to me that the Dems can use this to delay things as long as possible, and if enough of them do so that Kavanaugh will be out. After all, if the Pubs had the votes to do it by themselves it would be done. Is this not the case? Assuming it is, then the longer they can delay with the hope that Trump will eventually abandon Kavanaugh and be forced to bring in someone else, the better from their perspective. Perhaps the next candidate will be a slam dunk, but we are talking Trump here, so if I were a betting man and in charge of the Dems strategic planning I’d bet on it not playing out that way. Which could give them another wedge to play for time. As for your point about the new Congress not taking over until January, I’m not sure how this would work. Assuming there is a change over in power, I think it’s plausible the Dems could push for not voting on this until after the change over. Sure, they can’t decide when the hearings will be, but they could delay their votes. Again, unless the Pubs have the votes to do this all on their own they have to have at least some Dem votes, at least that’s my impression. If I’m wrong about that then I guess there would be no reason for the Dems to delay, as it’s moot. I’m mystified in that case as to why the Republicans wouldn’t just vote and put him in if that’s the case though. And that’s why I think the Republicans think there is some urgency in voting on this now. It seems clear to me, though I take it I’m wrong on a few points here from the responses. Wouldn’t be the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2388 "2018-09-21T21:12:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I once started a [thread on the very subject](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=614140) of the appropriateness of this type of tactic. Not one SDMB lawyer had any qualms about it. (Can’t say the same for myself, but then I don’t have such a favorable view of legal ethics.) While I support your linking to that thread, methinks the situation is different. For one thing, Whelan isn’t posing as Kavanaugh’s lawyer, so the audience doesn’t automatically discount his claims. Very different. Also others disagree: > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Not defamatory legally, but an utter dick move. And Whelan himself has deleted his twitter thread and apologized: I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake. [Ed Whelan Apologizes For Naming Kavanaugh Classmate As Blasey Ford’s Alleged Attacker - TPM – Talking Points Memo](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/whelan-apologizes-for-insinuating-that-kavanaugh-classmate-attacked-blasey-ford) So yes: there is wide (though not unanimous) consensus that this was appalling behavior. > [@Bone](#): > > Assume there was certainty that any investigation wouldn’t shed much light on things. Would you still believe an investigation is worthwhile? I don’t believe this is the case in this instance. But yes, if there’s certainty that an investigation won’t shed much light, then the investigation… won’t provide much additional information. It may, however, _confirm_ what we already think we know. That’s one of the benefits of procedure. So… it depends upon whether confirmation would provide additional benefit. In most instances methinks it does. ## As for this case, I’d like to see interviews under oath with some of those making claims. There apparently were rumors of the incident at the time. One of the sources may have been Kavanaugh himself: he _may_ have bragged about the incident on his yearbook page: [INDENT]Berenzweig also pointed to other words in the yearbook that he says could relate to the allegations against Kavanaugh, specifically the phrase, “Devil’s Triangle,” which he said could mean a three-way sexual encounter involving two men and one woman. … Indeed, [urbandictionary.com](http://urbandictionary.com) confirms that this meaning has been attributed to a threesome, but that’s now. There’s no indication that teens in the 1980s used the phrase the same way. The term “devil’s triangle” has also been known to refer to a vagina, or the Bermuda Triangle. [/INDENT] [There are Some Pretty Bizarre (Telling?) Comments on Brett Kavanaugh's High School Yearbook | Law & Crime](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/there-are-some-pretty-bizarre-tellling-comments-on-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-yearbook-r/) There is also a not-so-cryptic allusion to activities with his drinking pal Judge: “He that would live in peace and at ease must not speak all he knows, nor JUDGE all he sees.” Emphasis in original. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2389 "2018-09-21T21:17:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21221463&postcount=2295](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21221463&postcount=2295) > > I wrote this morning what I thought could fully exonerate him. Did you: > > 1. Not see it? > 2. Trying to make a “no true Scotsman” that I am not one of those who “decided without evidence to believe he’s guilty” so my response doesn’t count? > 3. Willfully ignore it? > > Or are you just going to say “yeahbut yeahbut yeahbut SOMEONE ELSE DID SOMETHING I DON’T LIKE!!” We already have the first of what you claimed you wanted, irreconcilable contradictions in her claim. It may be that she, in future, makes a different claim that is actually consistent with the other evidence - that is, the amount of people that she told her therapist were in the room, or the fact that none of the other people she claims were at this party remember any such event - but her claim in its current form is contradicted by evidence. So, why do you not currently believe that he’s probably innocent? However, _anyone_ except possibly the accuser that has decided he’s guilty at this point has done so without the support of the evidence. ---
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2390 "2018-09-21T21:23:06Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > There apparently were rumors of the incident at the time. One of the sources may have been Kavanaugh himself: he _may_ have bragged about the incident on his yearbook page: [INDENT]Berenzweig also pointed to other words in the yearbook that he says could relate to the allegations against Kavanaugh, specifically the phrase, “Devil’s Triangle,” which he said could mean a three-way sexual encounter involving two men and one woman. … > > Indeed, [urbandictionary.com](http://urbandictionary.com) confirms that this meaning has been attributed to a threesome, but that’s now. There’s no indication that teens in the 1980s used the phrase the same way. The term “devil’s triangle” has also been known to refer to a vagina, or the Bermuda Triangle. [/INDENT] [There are Some Pretty Bizarre (Telling?) Comments on Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Yearbook | Law & Crime](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/there-are-some-pretty-bizarre-tellling-comments-on-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-yearbook-r/) There is also a not-so-cryptic allusion to activities with his drinking pal Judge: “He that would live in peace and at ease must not speak all he knows, nor JUDGE all he sees.” Emphasis in original. Shall we call Robert Langdon as a witness next week to sort that 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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2391 "2018-09-21T21:28:26Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What, it’s not anyone’s call here to make?? Well, fuck and damn. I thought for sure we were debating this because we got to decide. :rolleyes: > > So anyway, you’re happy to let the politicians deal with it however. Cool, guess that kinda takes you out of the debate though. Not sure why you’ve been debating here as much as you have, if that’s where you’re coming from. 😕 Honestly I consider this whole thing here a little masturbatory, as are many threads in SDMB, but my position, as far back as post #1697 (ah, where did the time go?), is that the politicians should do what politicians do, and vote, preferably with Ford’s testimony (I truly hope she does testify and, if it derails Kavenaugh, fine). If he doesn’t go through, he doesn’t go through. There are others out there I’d likely get behind even more than Kavenaugh. He’s honestly a little bland for my taste. If he does go through, I am sure the GOP is prepared to pay the political price for that, whatever that may be. They’re big boys and girls, and if this turns into a massive shitshow (comparatively to now of course, which seems impossible but really isn’t) and they all lose there jobs in November, well, that’s on them. So yeah, I’ve been arguing some points, especially the idiocy of eagerly volunteering for an FBI investigation into yourself (would anyone here have done that under Hoover?? Raise your hands!). But my underlying position really hasn’t changed. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2392 "2018-09-21T21:29:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > … The Republicans want to confirm Kavanaugh before the election because winning a vote is a win, and voters vote for winners. But they don’t want to alienate people who are against rape either. So it’s a conundrum. I think most Republicans have been pretty insistent that the vote not be delayed too long. I don’t think it’s as much of a conundrum for them as you seem to think. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2393 "2018-09-21T21:31:32Z")
Whelen [was working with a conservative PR firm](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/ed-whelan-kavanaugh-tweets-pr-firm-836405)when he released his conspiracy theory. A conservative PR firm best known for the original swift boating, whose clients happen to include the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, the two groups working to confirm Kavanaugh. Seems like we should get to know what Kavanaugh knew and when he knew it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2394 "2018-09-21T21:34:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Shall we call Robert Langdon as a witness next week to sort that out? A textual analysis makes it pretty clear that the allusion isn’t to the Bermuda Triangle. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2395 "2018-09-21T21:39:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If they thought Mark Judge’s testimony would help Kavanaugh’s case, then they’d subpoena him in a heartbeat. That the Republicans seem very unwilling to do so suggests very strongly that they believe that Judge’s testimony would not help, or even hurt, Kavanaugh’s case. My guess is that the testimony itself won’t help or hurt Kavanaugh. Judge will repeat what he’s already said, which will have the same impact that it’s already had. But what an appearance by him will do is give posturing Democrats on the committee a chance to focus on his lurid writings, which will then somehow be used to reflect on Kavanaugh. IOW, in a purely rational sense it would have no real impact. But as political theater, it would be a plus for the Democrats. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2396 "2018-09-21T21:42:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My guess is that the testimony itself won’t help or hurt Kavanaugh. Judge will repeat what he’s already said, which will have the same impact that it’s already had. > > But what an appearance by him will do is give posturing Democrats on the committee a chance to focus on his lurid writings, which will then somehow be used to reflect on Kavanaugh. > > IOW, in a purely rational sense it would have no real impact. But as political theater, it would be a plus for the Democrats. My guess is that the Democrats would ask him about his blackout drinking habits, and since he’s written about that extensively, he’d be forced to admit that yes, he recalls drinking heavily with Brett Kavanaugh when they were in high school. ---
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2397 "2018-09-21T21:45:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > My guess is that the Democrats would ask him about his blackout drinking habits, and since he’s written about that extensively, he’d be forced to admit that yes, he recalls drinking heavily with Brett Kavanaugh when they were in high school. If they don’t ask Kavenaugh about his underage drinking next week, I’d be shocked. I’d also be shocked if he wasn’t thoroughly prepared for that line of questioning. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2398 "2018-09-21T22:00:54Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But they don’t want to alienate people who are against rape either. So it’s a conundrum. Their playbook is right out of the old-school what’s the big deal with rape anyway, boys will be boys (unless they are black or possibly Mexican in which case they are scary thugs), let’s tell lies about sexual assualt! playbook, so I don’t think they actually care about alienating people who are against rape. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2018, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2399 "2018-09-21T22:06:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If Kavanaugh withdraws, there will be such allegations. > > Regards, > Shodan Keep digging, boys! The bottom of the barrel was a good 10 meters up, but I’m sure we’ll find what we’re looking for down here somewhere! ---
**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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2400 "2018-09-21T23:06:23Z")
> [@XT](#): > > It occurs to me that the Dems can use this to delay things as long as possible, and if enough of them do so that Kavanaugh will be out. After all, if the Pubs had the votes to do it by themselves it would be done. Is this not the case? There are 51 Republicans in the Senate, and if 50 of them (with Pence as the tiebreaker if needed) vote to confirm Kavanaugh, then he’s a Supreme Court Justice. Right now, 48 Republicans have committed to voting for Kavanaugh, but Collins, Murkowski, and Flake are still officially uncommitted. Everything that’s transpiring is really about nudging them one way or the other. And Collins and Murkowski (as well as some of the red-state Dems, especially Heitkamp) really would like this vote to go away. Collins and Murkowski don’t want to lose their moderate cred, but they also are under a lot of pressure to follow the party line. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=119) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=121)