# 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:** 13
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/241 "2018-09-05T18:00:22Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > 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. An attorney who can recuse himself if he finds the client or his position odious. The job isn’t just an academic exercise. Most of us find torture odious, for instance, but Kavanaugh obviously does not. If a nominee’s record is not relevant in considering his worthiness for a lifetime appointment, what is? If full disclosure was important to Obama’s nominees, why should it be avoided with Trump’s? What are they scared of revealing? ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/242 "2018-09-05T18:01:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. We’re not just talking about members of the other caucus though. We’re talking about a group of 51 senators, some of which must come from the Republican caucus for it to get to 51. 51 senators can overrule the parliamentarian, as Harry Reid vividly demonstrated in 2013. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/243 "2018-09-05T18:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > …To dispense with the stupid claim that it was “the decision of one man”. … > [@](#): > > …That risky decision paid off, so well in fact that today, McConnell is basically bragging about it. > > “You’ve heard me say before,” he told the Kentucky Today editorial board Tuesday, “that I thought the decision I made not to fill the Supreme Court vacancy when Justice Scalia died was the most consequential decision I’ve ever made in my entire public career.”… > **[Analysis | Why Mitch McConnell is bragging about holding up Merrick Garland...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/05/why-mitch-mcconnell-is-bragging-about-holding-up-merrick-garland-from-the-supreme-court-two-years-later/?utm_term=.b7d31461b157)** > > "The decision I made not to fill the Supreme Court vacancy when Justice Scalia died was the most consequential decision I've ever made in my entire public career,” he said. “…the decision I made…” Note the first person singular. He made the decision, or at least, that’s what he said. You know, that it was _him_. Anyway, you were dispensing? Didn’t mean to interrupt. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/244 "2018-09-05T18:25:49Z")
ETA: responded before reading most of the thread. Oops. Deleted. ---
**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 5, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/245 "2018-09-05T18:35:29Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > For the fourth time: By what reasoning does mcconnel equal the senate in your assertion? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. It’s a mistake to say the Senate didn’t want to vote on Garland. The majority of Senators, that is. We don’t know if they didn’t want the vote, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still: Why did the Senate not vote on Garland? - Because McConnell blocked the vote. Why could McConnell block the vote? - Because the Senate rules allow it. How is that constitutional? - Because the constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules, and that’s one of the rules the Senate has set. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/246 "2018-09-05T19:01:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a mistake to say the Senate didn’t want to vote on Garland. The majority of Senators, that is. We don’t know if they didn’t want the vote, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still: > > Why did the Senate not vote on Garland? > > - Because McConnell blocked the vote. > > Why could McConnell block the vote? > > - Because the Senate rules allow it. > > How is that constitutional? > > - Because the constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules, and that’s one of the rules the Senate has set. QFT. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/247 "2018-09-05T19:11:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. Your examples may have been enough downside for certain senators (Collins, Murkowski, etc.) to vote “yes” on Garland, had it actually been up for a vote. We’ll never really know. All we can really say is that strategically, the downsides of having to actually be accountable for an up/down vote outweighed everything else. ---
**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 5, 2018, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/248 "2018-09-05T19:21:43Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > Your examples may have been enough downside for certain senators (Collins, Murkowski, etc.) to vote “yes” on Garland, had it actually been up for a vote. We’ll never really know. I agree. I think the odds were low, but they were definitely non-zero. If I had to quantify, I’d put it in the 10 - 20% range. > [@](#): > > All we can really say is that strategically, the downsides of having to actually be accountable for an up/down vote outweighed everything else. Also agreed. I didn’t like the maneuver that McConnell pulled. Not at all. I even thought it was a bad tactic from a purely political standpoint, but I was proven wrong about that. In the end, though, I’m not going to claim that it was unconstitutional just because I didn’t like it. If by some miracle the Democrats take the Senate, I fully expect them to block any further SCOTUS appointments by Trump. I won’t want them to do that, but it will be difficult to blame them. It’s now the new normal, and it’s completely constitutional until the Senate changes the rules. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/249 "2018-09-05T19:37:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > … If by some miracle the Democrats take the Senate, I fully expect them to block any further SCOTUS appointments by Trump. I won’t want them to do that, but it will be difficult to blame them. It’s now the new normal, and it’s completely constitutional until the Senate changes the rules. I think it’ll take something more than a Senate rule change. Those can be undone by the next Senate. I think it would require a Constitutional amendment. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/250 "2018-09-05T19:42:12Z")
So, you are all done with your “dispensing”, then? A wise choice. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/251 "2018-09-05T20:15:20Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > 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. If an attorney were advising their client on how to break the law, would that become relevant in such a hearing? ---
**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, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/252 "2018-09-05T20:29:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, you are all done with your “dispensing”, then? A wise choice. No, you can have a reply if you want one: > [@elucidator](#): > > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/05/why-mitch-mcconnell-is-bragging-about-holding-up-merrick-garland-from-the-supreme-court-two-years-later/?utm\_term=.b7d31461b157](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/05/why-mitch-mcconnell-is-bragging-about-holding-up-merrick-garland-from-the-supreme-court-two-years-later/?utm_term=.b7d31461b157) > > “…the decision I made…” Note the first person singular. He made the decision, or at least, that’s what he said. You know, that it was _him_. Anyway, you were dispensing? Didn’t mean to interrupt. A politician seizing credit for something or aggrandizing their role in events? I can scarcely imagine … He deserves some credit for providing some direction, and cover, to his caucus members, but he couldn’t, and didn’t, do it alone. Without the backing of the majority, his words, his decisions, don’t have effect. He probably cajoled some of the more reluctant members into acquiescing to his “decision”, but they did acquiesce. Had they not, had they decided to buck the party leader and defy his wishes, they could have done so. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/253 "2018-09-05T20:31:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it’ll take something more than a Senate rule change. Those can be undone by the next Senate. I think it would require a Constitutional amendment. The notional Democratic majority in the Senate can block Trump’s nominees with a rules change as long as they remain the majority. And why shouldn’t they? This would simply complete the process they started with Bork. But it’s all good. If the voters dislike it, they can undo the decision by electing a GOP majority in 2020. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/254 "2018-09-05T20:34:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The notional Democratic majority in the Senate can block Trump’s nominees with a rules change as long as they remain the majority. > > And why shouldn’t they? This would simply complete the process they started with Bork. But it’s all good. If the voters dislike it, they can undo the decision by electing a GOP majority in 2020. But why would they need a rules change to do that? Just vote them down, or if all this talk of the sacredness of holding an up-or-down vote was more politically convenient than core conviction, they could just choose to not hold a vote. No rule change necessary, right? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/255 "2018-09-05T20:42:08Z")
I skipped ahead, and I have only watched the hearings off and on as I have had time, but I think Kavanaugh is doing wonderfully. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/256 "2018-09-05T20:42:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > He deserves some credit for providing some direction, and cover, to his caucus members, but he couldn’t, and didn’t, do it alone. So we’re finally done with you telling us “the Senate” did it? :dubious: > [@Bricker](#): > > This would simply complete the process they started with Bork. I think you know Bork was \*voted \*down by the full Senate, and that you know why, and that it had to be done. Or maybe you don’t, but other readers do. The party-first instinct is so strong that those who hold it cannot conceive that country-first can even be a thing, yes, we get 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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/257 "2018-09-05T20:49:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So we’re finally done with you telling us “the Senate” did it? … Not particularly, except that we’re getting off into repetitive territory and it’s getting boring. When I wrote “he couldn’t, and didn’t, do it alone” that was intended to mean that he did it with the (at least tacit) support of a majority of the Senate. In other words, “the Senate” did it. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/258 "2018-09-05T20:54:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So we’re finally done with you telling us “the Senate” did it? :dubious: > I think you know Bork was \*voted \*down by the full Senate, and that you know why, and that it had to be done. Or maybe you don’t, but other readers do. > > The party-first instinct is so strong that those who hold it cannot conceive that country-first can even be a thing, yes, we get that. And don’t forget, there were democrats that voted for Bork, and republicans that voted against. So, the tactic of “you did it first” falls on its face, yet again. Not only did Bork actually get a vote, it was a bipartisan vote down. I suppose that in that day, you didn’t have a single person speak for the entire party. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/259 "2018-09-05T20:56:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not particularly, except that we’re getting off into repetitive territory and it’s getting boring. When I wrote “he couldn’t, and didn’t, do it alone” that was intended to mean that he did it with the (at least tacit) support of a majority of the Senate. In other words, “the Senate” did it. Either “the Senate” did it, in which case, they would have a vote and we would see how each senator voted, or one person did it with at the very best “tacit” support of people who didn’t want to overturn precedent and tradition in order to buck their leadership. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/260 "2018-09-05T21:08:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Either “the Senate” did it, in which case, they would have a vote and we would see how each senator voted, or one person did it with at the very best “tacit” support of people who didn’t want to overturn precedent and tradition in order to buck their leadership. The “it” in “the Senate did it” in this case refers to _NOT_ holding a vote, so no, they wouldn’t have a vote. But I think the point you’ve made (that, with apologies if I misstate it here in my attempted summary, it’s harder to cast a vote that bucks the party leadership in an unusual parliamentary maneuver than it might be if Garland had been brought up for a regular up-or-down vote) is accurate, I just think it unlikely that that difference would have been enough to get him confirmed. Like John Mace and YamatoTwinkie stated earlier, there’s no way to no for certain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=14)