# 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:** 125
**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 22, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2481 "2018-09-22T16:56:39Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Sure, if he was being charged. > > But this isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s a proceeding designed to get at the truth. The party with something at stake here is “we, the people,” and only incidentally Brett Kavanaugh. Ford and Kavanaugh are _witnesses_, not plaintiff and defendant. They should not be privy to one another’s testimony before their own testimony. Emphasis added. Use any word you’d like, and Kavanaugh should know what the \ against him is. Much has been made of Ford’s demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I’d say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact \ which I an supposed to be addressing. ---
**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 22, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2482 "2018-09-22T17:15:41Z")
I would hope that the first question Ford is asked is when she has or is planning to report this allegation to the police, so an investigation can start. That’s the biggest thing missing at the moment, and the thing that makes it look like a political thing. The FBI have already peformed multiple background checks on him, and they (presumably) have found nothing to suggest he’s a sexual predator. If that’s not the case, and they have found such evidence, it should be released. Otherwise, what are people expecting from another background check? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2483 "2018-09-22T17:17:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. Use any word you’d like, and Kavanaugh should know what the \ against him is. Much has been made of Ford’s demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I’d say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact \ which I an supposed to be addressing. Once again, I cannot recommend enough,[Sadakat Kadri’s The Trial](https://www.amazon.com/Trial-History-Socrates-Simpson/dp/0375505504). It charts the history of most of the procedures used. Lets just say they aren’t placed there willy nilly, most of them have come through bitter experience. One of the most common excuses for violations of fundamental rights is that the accused is too powerful and prominent to be handled by ordinary judicial proceedings, the other that “this is not a Criminal Court/just an investigation, inquiry”. You would think the United States would _not_ want to recreate the fucking Star Chamber or the Inquisition in the 21st century. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2484 "2018-09-22T17:20:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I guess we have different definitions of “corroboration.” I am using the actual definition of corroboration. You, a lawyer, are not. Some details in her story have been corroborated. Details of substance. That’s a fact. In other news… [you have your own thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=862652). ---
**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 22, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2485 "2018-09-22T17:27:05Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It just doesn’t work that way with legislative and judicial bodies. If the WV Supreme Court tells me to be there next Wednesday, it just won’t work for me to tell them that I can’t be there because I have nobody to watch my dog that day. Perhaps if I had to attend a funeral that day, they would accommodate. What I would not get away with is telling them that Thursday and Tuesday are just as good and just as “arbitrary” as Wednesday and to fuck them that I’ll be there on the day of my choosing. > > Hundreds, if not thousands of people will need to be there for this Ford/Kavanaugh hearing. If we tailored it to everyone’s individual schedule, it would never happen. You need to explain the reason for the timing for us to begin to discuss whether it’s not arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2486 "2018-09-22T17:28:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > > > … the statements from her friends noting how much she changed after the incident (which they weren’t aware of at the time) … > > This is the first I’ve heard of this bit. Cite? This is also the first I heard of anything of the sort. Didn’t Ms. Ford’s best friend and college roommate tell (IIRC _[The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-allegations.html)_) that no mention was ever made, and her roommate didn’t observe anything. As a matter of fact, the roommate said Ms. Ford contacted her via Facebook shortly before deciding to make the allegation to check if she had ever mentioned it before. Which seems a little out of the ordinary - Ms. Ford says the attack put her into a tailspin, but doesn’t recall if she ever mentioned it to her best friend. So that friend in particular doesn’t say anything resembling that she was changed, or mentioned it. The first time anyone seems to have heard anything from Ms. Ford was in 2012, where her therapist says Ms. Ford said she was attacked by four people, and doesn’t mention Kavanaugh or Judge. Now five years later, she says she remembers it was two people and who they were, and that the therapist’s contemporaneous notes don’t report what she said. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2487 "2018-09-22T17:31:54Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Sure, if he was being charged. > > But this isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s a proceeding designed to get at the truth. The party with something at stake here is “we, the people,” and only incidentally Brett Kavanaugh. Ford and Kavanaugh are witnesses, not plaintiff and defendant. They should not be privy to one another’s testimony before their own testimony. Do you mean that neither should be privy to each other’s testimony, or only that Kavanaugh should not be privy? Is there a reason that it will be harder to get at the truth if Kavanaugh hears the testimony but not if Ford does? Besides, Ford was offered the chance to testify in private, and turned it down. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2488 "2018-09-22T17:37:25Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I am using the actual definition of corroboration. You, a lawyer, are not. > > Some details in her story have been corroborated. Details of substance. That’s a fact. > > In other news… [you have your own thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=862652). So in other words, you’ve got nothing except for a Pit Thread. Fine. I’m not interested in those type of childish games. In fact, you are playing into my main argument that there is no reason or consideration when it comes to these types of allegations, simply personal attacks. If you would like to respond to the substance of my response, I’ll be glad to engage. ---
**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 22, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2489 "2018-09-22T17:42:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It just doesn’t work that way with legislative and judicial bodies. Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2490 "2018-09-22T17:43:05Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I’m confused. What do you want a “linky” to? The fact (I assumed was a universally understood) that Dr. Ford wanted to remain anonymous? Okay, here’s a linky: > > [https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html) You skipped over the part where she wanted to both remain anonymous AND have her story kept confidential. You’re saying she wanted her story to come out and destroy Kavanaugh while her identity remained secret. **CITE???** ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2491 "2018-09-22T17:44:30Z")
Next final deadline’s in 45 minutes. Wonder what’ll happen. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2492 "2018-09-22T17:48:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. Use any word you’d like, and Kavanaugh should know what the \ against him is. Much has been made of Ford’s demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I’d say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact \ which I an supposed to be addressing. I hear it has to do with some sort of party that he may or may not have been present at. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2493 "2018-09-22T18:02:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia? Sure it does. But if a judge thinks that you are using the motion simply to delay it will not be granted. If you tell the judge that the cable guy is coming that day, it will not be granted. Continuances are granted for good cause, not because I petulantly demand it. ETA: “Good cause” is flexible depending on the type of hearing. If it is just a status hearing, then maybe the cable guy coming is good enough for the judge. If it is a final jury trial scheduled for weeks, then you had better be dead and then your dead body had better have a good excuse for not appearing. ---
**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 22, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2494 "2018-09-22T18:02:49Z")
Still trying to figure out if Kavanaugh could be criminally charged if Ford decided to try. After a bit of searching that didn’t turn up much, I figured I’d page through The Baltimore Sun (figuratively speaking) and found this interesting article: > [@](#): > > [**Gov. Hogan rules out state police investigation of Kavanaugh allegations**](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-hogan-kavanagh-20180921-story.html) > The Republican governor [of Maryland] was asked at a news conference about a letter Democratic state Sen. Cheryl Kagan of Montgomery sent him. She urged Hogan to take the step because the White House has not ordered the FBI to look into the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford about Kavanaugh’s actions at a high school party. > > Hogan said he had not heard about the request, but he immediately turned it down. > > \ > > Legal experts doubt that a case could be made against Kavanaugh even if someone makes a complaint. > > For one thing, if attempted rape in the first degree was the most appropriate charge, that was a misdemeanor in the 1980s in Maryland. It did not become a felony in the state until 1996. Former Attorney General Doug Gansler, who also served as Montgomery County state’s attorney, noted that Maryland’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors for an offense committed in the 1980s expired long ago. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2495 "2018-09-22T18:05:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is treat the allegation seriously and investigate. It’s completely relevant. Feinstein treated it with all the seriousness she deemed it was worth. There was a hearing specifically to vet Kavanaugh. It’s over and this isn’t new evidence that’s come to light. It was always there. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Many, many sexual assault and investigative professionals feel the opposite, and I’m inclined to go with their take over yours. It’s indeed quite possible to find out facts about events from as far back as three decades ago. Not a slam dunk, but still a chance of finding out more information. Not one shred of evidence. Which is why Feinstein didn’t bring it to the hearing in the first place. There is literally nothing to investigate. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is to treat the allegation seriously and investigate. The only reason not to is political. There’s no evidence to investigate. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2496 "2018-09-22T18:07:23Z")
Attempted rape, first degree, was a misdemeanor? Certainly, things have improved, having gone from terrible to not very good. ---
**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 22, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2497 "2018-09-22T18:11:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You skipped over the part where she wanted to both remain anonymous AND have her story kept confidential. > > You’re saying she wanted her story to come out and destroy Kavanaugh while her identity remained secret. > > **CITE???** I’ll cite myself, since that’s\* not\* what I said. I said, and I quote: > [@](#): > > It should be noted that Dr. Ford wanted this to be done anonymously to avoid blowblack on herself, and perhaps naively believed she should could levy such an accusation against a prominent figure in the national arena without that happening. She was, of course, gravely mistaken. Oops. Now, I am going to try to deconstruct what I think your apparent misinterpretation is of what I said. When I am referring to “the national arena”, that is a continuation of the string of words “a prominent figure in the national arena”, being Kavenaugh. NOT “\ in the national arena.” The accusation itself made it up to a United States Senator and apparently was meant to stay there. It stretches credibility that a high level politician would be expected to read this letter and just sit on it, but, uh, sure. And, I still think it’s awfully naive to think that she could make such an allegation against a friggin SCOTUS nominee during one of the most highly politicized time in recent history and remain anonymous. But, again, oops. Any further questions? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2498 "2018-09-22T18:12:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Still trying to figure out if Kavanaugh could be criminally charged if Ford decided to try. After a bit of searching that didn’t turn up much, I figured I’d page through The Baltimore Sun (figuratively speaking) and found this interesting article: Also: > [@Mace's Article](#): > > Even if charges could be brought, Gansler said that based on the accounts he’s seen, it would be difficult to prove an alleged assailant had the intent to complete a forcible rape and would not have stopped short of that. I’m glad a Democrat said it. When I say it, I get called all kinds of nasty names, the truth of the assertion be damned. I know nothing of MD law, but find it amazing that attempted rape was a misdemeanor in MD until 1996. In my state, any attempt to commit a felony is a felony, and any attempt to commit a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. So, if the assertions are true, it should put an end to claims for a criminal investigation. The SOL has expired and Kavanaugh cannot be prosecuted. ---
**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 22, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2499 "2018-09-22T18:12:37Z")
New facts have already come out in the few days since this allegation became public, such as Whelan knowing the accuser’s name before it was made public, the writings about O’Kavanaugh, statements by other people in that social scene, etc. And that is without putting key people like Judge under oath. The idea that there are no possible new facts to be learned from investigation is absurd motivated reasoning. This has already been one of the fastest confirmations in the modern era of hearings. Delaying a couple of days is nothing. The massive resistance to any half-serious investigation shows the GOP is afraid of what else might emerge. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2500 "2018-09-22T18:16:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia? You need to have reasonable grounds to be granted one. Time to prepare your brief will be routinely granted as a matter of course. But it is the Court which controls its calendar, not the parties. They’ll accommodate the parties and Counsel within reason, but, you can’t go around making demands and expecting them to be accepted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=124) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=126)