# 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:** 136
**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 23, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2701 "2018-09-23T17:32:46Z")
Looks like Ford will testify 10am on Thursday. I’d guess Kavanaugh goes second (during prime time hours for max exposure). I don’t think anyone else will testify. I do think a lot of people who should testify will instead submit written statements not remembering anything that Republicans will use as denials of the allegation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2702 "2018-09-23T17:33:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I hope you’re right about the first sentence Why? Do you prefer your Senators to be unwilling/unable to exercise independent thought and judgment? Or is that party affiliation really is everything to you? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2703 "2018-09-23T17:33:22Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Given that Grassley’s aide coordinating messaging on this whole thing [just resigned](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/GOP-Staffer-Garrett-Ventry-Kavanaugh-Resigns-Harassment-Allegation-494036251.html) because it came out he was fired for sexual harassment, you would think conservative Dopers would be fine with a calm, measured, detailed approach. > > Or maybe they just want to shove this through before more women come forward, like those that said they were coached to [look like models](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua) in order to clerk for Kavanaugh. The situation with Ventry being fired from a previous job is from 2017. It would appear Grassley did a crap job vetting him or the GOP members of the committee just didn’t care. We also have [a group of GOP women defending Kavanaugh](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407927-gop-women-issue-strong-defense-of-kavanaugh) with one of them saying > [@](#): > > …we’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me, what boy hasn’t done this in high school? So apparently in GOP World, all teenage boys are expected to attempt to rape any available female. I know I wouldn’t let a boy raised by any of those people near any female in my life. But hey, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since it lines up with the attitude of a number of people defending Kavanaugh. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2704 "2018-09-23T17:33:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You mean, what you know of it, given the little information that Grassley has allowed to become public. You mean opinions of the DC Circuit aren’t published and available freely to read? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2705 "2018-09-23T17:34:15Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If Flake is a potential holdout vote, and he wants to know the truth, then wouldn’t he leverage the committee into a subpoena of Judge? No doubt a _lot_ of conversations are happening in private. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2706 "2018-09-23T17:36:21Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > You mean opinions of the DC Circuit aren’t published and available freely to read? There’s quite a bit more to his record than _that_. It \*has \*been normal in previous hearings for it all to be made public, but not this time. That’s been pretty widely reported over here. Just out of curiosity, what the \*hell \*has gotten into you lately? ---
**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 23, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2707 "2018-09-23T17:37:22Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I’m sorry, but give me a friggin’ break! Ford goes to a school where the girls are trying to make themselves more desirable to boys by having their skirts hemmed shorter, using fake I.D.s, and boozing it up at the homes of whoever’s parents were out of town. And then they would then also rent houses for alcohol-fueled, unchaperoned, “bacchanals” they called "Beach Week,’ and would apparently cavort in other houses and in friends’ basements in a similar manner. > > The boys were a caution, however, trying to get the girls drunk and to do whatever they could manage to do with them. (Who’da thunk that, right?) So in essence, Ford was asking to be raped because she and her friends might’ve committed the cardinal sin of baring their knees, drinking alcohol unsupervised, and socializing with boys in the absence of 1950’s-style chaperones. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > And yet here we have young Christine Blasey, a member of this group of sneaky, misbehaving party girls {snip} Oh here comes the good stuff: she was sneaky _and_ misbehaving, too. We can infer this not from character witness statements about her personally, but by the mass failure of her peer group to be prim and proper at all times. Niiiice. But what’s telling is that we don’t see **SA** condemning Kavanaugh at all, even though nothing can be said about Ford’s debauchery that can’t also be doubly said about Kav’s. Plus, it’s only Kav that stands accused of victimizing someone. Not surprising in the least, but still worth noting. I have to thank **SA** for validating what I predicted in this [post](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21220510&postcount=2190). It’s always nice to have proof that I’m not just pulling shit out of my ass. Pay attention to this part, y’all: > [@ywtf](#): > > Let’s pretend, for a sec, that Ford was the one getting shitfaced drunk at these parties. If that came out in the hearing, we all know the Republicans would instantly use this to attack her credibility. Not only in the sense of poor memory problems but also character problems. In the slut shaming/victim blaming culture that we live in, a woman must first demonstrate all of her actions are sufficiently within the bounds of prim and proper conduct before she can be taken seriously as a sex crime victim. Shameless drunkenness automatically puts you in the “you had it coming to you” box, and maybe also in the “you might be an immoral cunty whore liar” box as well. > > Kavanaugh’s defenders want their cake and eat it too. They want to act as if his relationship with alcohol poses no problems for his credibility, but they want to go to town attacking Ford’s. But the question in front of us is pretty simple: Can the American people take Kanavaugh at his word when he denies sexually assaulting Ford? The answer is no. That’s the problem his past poses to his own case. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2708 "2018-09-23T17:43:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know. I disagree about the DB Cooper analogy, but I do believe that a person’s answers when being personally interview by the FBI might be different from what they would write in a letter to the committee. And I’d like to have the FBI interview Ford’s about the therapist notes. I’m assuming the therapists themselves would not be able to discuss the notes, but Ford can. The witnesses have every right to refuse an interview by the FBI. Judge and Kavanaugh probably would not, but they will have good attorneys to ensure that they do not say anything bad, even if the allegations are true. Ford’s husband has every reason to corroborate her story, not only because he loves his wife, but because the bed is far more comfortable than the couch at his buddy’s house. Further, how could Ford give any information on what her therapist’s notes say other than to say that the therapist made a mistake and that’s not what she said? The therapist could give information to the FBI if Ford waived her doctor/patient privilege, but if asked to do that, we would hear the word “bullied” again. If there was DNA to be tested, or a body to be searched for, I would agree with the need for an FBI investigation, but we don’t have that. In your view, is the Judiciary Committee or the media incapable of investigating? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2709 "2018-09-23T17:50:35Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Looks like Ford will testify 10am on Thursday. > > I’d guess Kavanaugh goes second (during prime time hours for max exposure). I don’t think anyone else will testify. I do think a lot of people who should testify will instead submit written statements not remembering anything that Republicans will use as denials of the allegation. I have an appointment half way across the state on Thursday. I won’t get home until late. That day is not good for me. I demand that they make it Friday. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2710 "2018-09-23T17:50:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why? Do you prefer your Senators to be unwilling/unable to exercise independent thought and judgment? Or is that party affiliation really is everything to you? Just imagine how you feel if / when Manchin / Heitkamp / Donnelly / other red-state Dems “exercise independent thought and judgement” and vote with the Republicans. Are you, typically, delighted by that? Do you find yourself hoping that it happens more often or less often? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2711 "2018-09-23T18:00:14Z")
My thoughts: 1. The evidence for the underlying accusation seems fairly weak so far. 2. There is a [process](https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nunziata/how-the-democrats-could-have-handled-the-allegations-against-kavanaugh)for such allegations to be investigated both confidentially and thoroughly which would probably have included FBI interviews. Feinstein should have used this process and senators could have made an informed decision without Ford having to come forward publicly. This would have been better for pretty much everyone concerned especially Ford. 3. In the current scenario, there probably should have been an FBI investigation conducted over 4-5 days anyway. This wouldn’t have significantly delayed proceedings and would have provided a baseline of facts collected by an independent body. To be honest though, I doubt any serious evidence would have emerged; this incident is just too old and the basic facts like time and place too vague. Still at least it would have cleared the air and allowed senators to make a more informed decision. I don’t think anyone comes out of this well. I also think the political impact is highly uncertain but possibly with more downside for the Democrats particularly if their red-state senators are forced to make a tough vote against Kavanaugh. This affair may well energize Democratic voters who were voting anyway as well as Republican voters who were complacent and thinking of sitting it out. ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2712 "2018-09-23T18:00:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The witnesses have every right to refuse an interview by the FBI. Judge and Kavanaugh probably would not, but they will have good attorneys to ensure that they do not say anything bad, even if the allegations are true. Ford’s husband has every reason to corroborate her story, not only because he loves his wife, but because the bed is far more comfortable than the couch at his buddy’s house. > > Further, how could Ford give any information on what her therapist’s notes say other than to say that the therapist made a mistake and that’s not what she said? The therapist could give information to the FBI if Ford waived her doctor/patient privilege, but if asked to do that, we would hear the word “bullied” again. > > If there was DNA to be tested, or a body to be searched for, I would agree with the need for an FBI investigation, but we don’t have that. In your view, is the Judiciary Committee or the media incapable of investigating? In my view, the Judiciary Committee is not an unbiased entity. I think the media is sensation-oriented but more importantly there is no penalty for lying to the media. And we have the precedent of the FBI doing an investigation into the Thomas/Hill affair. When the story first broke, I would agree that getting the FBI involved would be a mistake. An anonymous tip isn’t something you can do much about. But we have names of people who can be interviewed and plenty of time to do the interviews. And I believe the American public is largely behind the idea of doing it. It’s hard for me to think of a good reason not to get the FBI involved. If they come up with nothing, they come up with nothing. ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2713 "2018-09-23T18:01:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I have an appointment half way across the state on Thursday. I won’t get home until late. That day is not good for me. I demand that they make it Friday. If your appointment is to meet with the FBI over the death threats your receiving, I think they would accommodate you. If you’re just making stuff up, they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2714 "2018-09-23T18:12:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In my view, the Judiciary Committee is not an unbiased entity. I think the media is sensation-oriented but more importantly there is no penalty for lying to the media. And we have the precedent of the FBI doing an investigation into the Thomas/Hill affair. > > When the story first broke, I would agree that getting the FBI involved would be a mistake. An anonymous tip isn’t something you can do much about. But we have names of people who can be interviewed and plenty of time to do the interviews. And I believe the American public is largely behind the idea of doing it. It’s hard for me to think of a good reason not to get the FBI involved. If they come up with nothing, they come up with nothing. The FBI has used its discretion and declined the opportunity to investigate. The argument is that President Trump, who the left has continually labeled a fucking moron who has no expertise in these matters, should nonetheless override that decision and order them to investigate. This, despite their previous contentions that the FBI should be independent and not subject to oversight by Trump when it came to the Russia matter. They have used their discretion and rightfully found that they are not magic genies who can conjure up long forgotten events from 1982 (or 1981 or 1983 or 1984). What if a murderer gets away because the FBI has dedicated agents to this fool’s errand? Who is responsible for that? ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2715 "2018-09-23T18:13:20Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > My thoughts: > This affair may well energize Democratic voters who were voting anyway as well as Republican voters who were complacent and thinking of sitting it out. As much as I dread watching the ugliness play out next week, I hope it’s a wake up call for anyone (especially women) still unsure that the GOP is rotten at its core. My only fear is that people who can’t see this already may never see it. The Republicans seem to be doing their very damn best to make it crystal clear, I’ll give them that, though. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2716 "2018-09-23T18:13:24Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > If your appointment is to meet with the FBI over the death threats your receiving, I think they would accommodate you. If you’re just making stuff up, they won’t. Do you have a cite that she raised that issue for her unavailability? ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2717 "2018-09-23T18:13:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I know we keep going in circles on this, so I’ll try not to be repetitive. Imagine you are the Montgomery County, MD Sheriff and Ford comes into your office and tells you her story. The four witnesses that she claims were at the party: Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and now Meyer have written you a letter all denying that they were at such a party and/or do not recall such a party occurring. What do you do? > > You can fan your deputies out to interview those people, browbeat them into confessing that there really was such a party and that they remember something from 36 years ago and further interview everyone who attended any high school in the area, and let’s further say that you hit on your inside straight draw and you find evidence that there really was such a party. > > All you now have is the equivalent of Anita Hill working at the same place that Clarence Thomas worked. You have no evidence that the assault happened, again except for Ford’s word. The only people who could possibly provide solid evidence that what she said happened are Kavanaugh and Judge, both successful people who will have lawyers and will not be subject to coercion tactics to get them to confess like a guy you just caught selling a dime bag on a street corner. It will simply not happen. > > Plus, there are two rapes from last week that we need to investigate. You’re going to divert resources from investigations that may bear fruit on this snipe hunt? > > Okay, this is for all the marbles, the Supreme Court, so you need to investigate. Who is your audience? You have 46 Democratic senators who will not vote to confirm even if you interview Jesus Christ himself who declares Kavanaugh innocent. You have 48 Republican senators who will vote to confirm unless you find solid physical evidence (which, see above, will never be found) of his guilt. > > So basically your audience is six senators who have the power of the purse to conduct their own investigation. Let them do it if investigating this cold case is so important to them. Don’t waste your time. > > Is any of the above inaccurate? And further, as you know that there is very little likelihood of finding anything, isn’t your secret goal just to have Kavanaugh answer embarrassing questions about his juvenile sex life and drinking habits? How many girls did you sleep with in high school, when did you lose your virginity, did you have sex with girls when you were drunk, when they were drunk, you mentioned your dad as your hero did you brag to him about these girls, were you ever so drunk you didn’t remember having sex, etc. Did your wife know about all of this sex, did you ever get tested for AIDS, did you engage in anal sex a risky behavior that could lead to AIDS, did to tell your subsequent partners about your risky sexual behavior, would it be hypocritical of you to overrule Obergefell or Lawrence because you also engaged in illegal sex at the time, are you sure that nobody you had sex with got pregnant and had a abortion, if she did get pregnant do you think she should have had your permission before getting an abortion, etc. > > Again, I could add to the lengthy paragraph above. That is the true goal with any “investigation.” > > And no matter what he does, the optics will be criticized. If his daughters are in the hearing room, he will be asked how he could subject those young children to such testimony when he knew what he would be asked. If they are not in the room, he will be asked if he has something to hide from them. You keep saying there’s no chance of an investigation turning up anything helpful. Fine. That’s what you believe. Several professional investigators have said publicly that they think there is a chance it might be productive. I agree with them. And while it’s fine to disagree, the reason there’s no investigation is because of political timing, not because there’s no chance it could be productive. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2718 "2018-09-23T18:14:52Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > As much as I dread watching the ugliness play out next week, I hope it’s a wake up call for anyone (especially women) still unsure that the GOP is rotten at its core. My only fear is that people who can’t see this already may never see it. > > The Republicans seem to be doing their very damn best to make it crystal clear, I’ll give them that, though. The GOP is giving her an opportunity to testify just as she asked. How is that an example of the GOP being “rotten at its core”? ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2719 "2018-09-23T18:15:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The GOP is giving her an opportunity to testify just as she asked. How is that an example of the GOP being “rotten at its core”? If you have to ask, you are part of the problem. ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2720 "2018-09-23T18:16:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The GOP is giving her an opportunity to testify just as she asked. How is that an example of the GOP being “rotten at its core”? Many GOP senators have already stated that they support Kavanaugh no matter what happens at the hearing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=135) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=137)