# 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:** 157
**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 24, 2018, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3121 "2018-09-24T18:52:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’d be astonished if the FBI haven’t already looked carefully into Kavanaugh’s character and reported back to the relevant Presidents on it. I’m sure they’ll do so again if told to. It’s not his character that people are saying should be investigated by them though, it’s allegations of crimes. And for _very_ good reasons, they need to be investigated in the right way, by the right people, to ensure the accused’s rights are protected. > > This is not about Kavanaugh, it’s about everyone else who’s rights might be trampled on if you accept that those rules only sporadically apply. Nothing new or unusual is being proposed. The FBI has investigated such allegations regarding SCOTUS nominees before at the direction of the President. Not criminal investigations, but focused investigations to provide better information to the President and Senate about a specific set of allegations. That’s what they should do now. ---
**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 24, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3122 "2018-09-24T18:55:48Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > To revisit this for a moment, the paragraph in which the statement I quoted appears is as follows: > > The _Post_ article is clearly trying to equate Kavanaugh’s alleged drunken attack with actual rape. Why the alleged fear of looking as if she’d been attacked if the attack was unsuccessful? Why the need to carry herself as though this alleged rape attempt hadn’t occurred? Shame. The vast majority of sexual assault victims feel ashamed because they “let” themselves be violated. They feel responsible even if intellectually they know they weren’t. Also, it’s common to feel like being raped turns you into damaged goods. The author’s point has nothing to do with virginity. The point is that Ford was determined to act normal, not like the victim of something dirty and shameful. If this needs to be explained to you after all the discussions you’ve had on this board about rape, I don’t know what’s wrong with you. It’s not that difficult to understand. > [@](#): > > Fortunately the article does state that she was able to recover after fleeing to the West Coast to continue her education, where she was bravely able to reinvent herself as a blue jeans wearing surfer. :rolleyes: I don’t know why this merits an eye roll. Can you expound? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3123 "2018-09-24T18:56:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Wat? > > Kavanaugh “successfully” sexually assaulted her, buddy. So it’s your opinion then that he indeed did not intend to rape her but merely to grope her over her clothes? > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > now I see that you admit the “virginal” insanity was only in your “remarkable” interpretation of the Washington Post article, and did not actually appear in the article itself. So that’s progress… I don’t recall having said that the word “virginal” was contained in the article. Can you perhaps point to where I did? And secondly, yes, I do admit that the article implied that she was no longer virginal in her mind, both in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attack and some years later upon her graduation from high school. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3124 "2018-09-24T18:56:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s unsurprising to see how many of the people prejudging this case are the same people who repeatedly prejudge others guilty of alleged, but unproven, crimes. There’s a massive thread in the Pit mainly devoted to claiming cops who defend themselves are murderers, and let’s not get started on George Zimmerman… Yes, the people calling for an investigation into sexual assault accusations are the bad ones. ---
**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 24, 2018, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3125 "2018-09-24T18:57:12Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I would. Yes. However, I cannot think of evidence that can reasonably be discovered when there is definitely no physical evidence that would substantiate these allegations. > > We already have all of the named witnesses at both events denying that such a thing happened. What more can we hope to find? Generally, the witnesses were named by the accusers. The witnesses stated they have no memory of these incidents. Meaning, they have no memory of the incident or the party where the incident occurred. (\*If there is a specific denial, let me know.) It’s just been too long to remember. I have no memory of being born. I was there, it happened, but I have no memory of that. There are many things in life that I was present at, that happened, that I have no memory of - I went to dozens of parties in high school and college that I have no memory of - definitely not specific things that may have occurred in another room. A really easy follow-up question to these witnesses would be, “To be clear, are you stating you have no memory of the alleged incident, one way or the other?” (You don’t know whether it happened or not, whether there was a party or not). I do not think they are stating they remember the party and are denying the incident occurred (an affirmative denial). FBI investigating, witness testimony at hearing…all would be helpful. ---
**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 24, 2018, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3126 "2018-09-24T18:58:12Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s unsurprising to see how many of the people prejudging this case are the same people who repeatedly prejudge others guilty of alleged, but unproven, crimes. There’s a massive thread in the Pit mainly devoted to claiming cops who defend themselves are murderers, and let’s not get started on George Zimmerman… Have you made one post today that didn’t include an ad hominem, a distortion of what others have posted, or a clear factual error? ---
**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 24, 2018, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3127 "2018-09-24T18:59:32Z")
A big part of a background check is determining if there’s anything about you that makes you susceptible to blackmail. The FBI will investigate something that would ordinarily only be a state crime during a background check for this reason. As they should. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3128 "2018-09-24T19:02:01Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > So it’s your opinion then that he indeed did not intend to rape her but merely to grope her over her clothes? Yes, I agree with you that Kavanaugh intended to rape her (great defense of the man, by the way). But in the process of attempting to rape her he committed sexual assault. Is this really a difficult concept for you? Like if I set out to steal $10,000, but the bag contains only $1,000, I have unsuccessfully stolen $10,000, but I’ve still committed a crime. Do you think it’s a defense, if you murder someone, to say “but I was only trying to kidnap them, at which I was unsuccessful”? > [@](#): > > And secondly, yes, I do admit that the article implied that she was no longer virginal in her mind, both in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attack and some years later upon her graduation from high school. OK, buddy. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3129 "2018-09-24T19:03:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > More witnesses? > > If the FBI concludes that there’s evidence that the assaults did occur, would you support a prosecution of Kavenaugh for perjury? More witnesses? These alleged victims have named everyone at these events. If there are more witnesses that calls into questions either their credibility or the witnesses’ credibility. Yes I would. However, what evidence could you find which would prove these allegations with such certainty as to warrant a perjury charge? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3130 "2018-09-24T19:03:26Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Kavanaugh “successfully” sexually assaulted her, buddy. I think you misspelled “allegedly”. Unless you are claiming new evidence, in which case, cite? 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 24, 2018, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3131 "2018-09-24T19:09:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The FBI would be able to turn up a lot of information, even if no one else definitively remembered this party. They could with minimal effort find out if there are many classmates who remember heavy drinking from Judge and Kavanaugh, they could get a statement under oath from Judge (as well as Ford and Kavanaugh), they could interview the others identified by Ford as at the party to see if they ever recalled partying with any of the others identified, and much more. Are you saying the FBI should or could compel Ms. Ford to make a statement under oath? How about Judge? You are saying they should be compelled to give up their right to remain silent. Is that correct? What do they do if either Ford or Judge refuses? Arrest? Public shaming? Thumbscrews? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3132 "2018-09-24T19:09:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think you misspelled “allegedly”. Throw that word in wherever you feel appropriate (while you still can). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3133 "2018-09-24T19:11:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Are you saying the FBI should or could compel Ms. Ford to make a statement under oath? How about Judge? Ford would probably be eager to speak to them on the record. She’s the one who’s been asking for an investigation, after all. And if Judge refuses to speak on the record, well that’s a data point that the American people should know about. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3134 "2018-09-24T19:14:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Ford would probably be eager to speak to them on the record. She’s the one who’s been asking for an investigation, after all. … If she were so eager, she could have sent her letter to the FBI instead of her Congressperson. Just a thought. ---
**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 24, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3135 "2018-09-24T19:14:33Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > We’ve went round and round about an FBI investigation. Let’s say that the GOP caves (again) to your side and orders one. Let’s say that the result is as expected: Nobody can remember shit from a party in 19-fucking-82, so we are back where we started. > > Do you then support a vote? Do you support Kavanaugh’s nomination? (Yes, I laughed) 🙂 Will you say that the accusations were “unproven”? Would you still say that a rapist sits on the Supreme Court? I wouldn’t support Kavanaugh’s nomination, because I don’t support it now, and didn’t before all these accusations became public. I didn’t support Gorsuch’s nomination either, for what it’s worth. I’m in favor of putting moderates on the Supreme Court, not right-wing ideologues. So there’s that. But of course, I’m not on the Senate. What we’re talking about now is whether the Senators should vote to confirm Kavanaugh. My Senators won’t. Other Senators will. Who will and who won’t is pretty clear in most cases, and it turns out that there are only a handful of Senators whose votes aren’t already in the bag. Those are the three or four “moderate” Republicans like Collins or Flake, who either represent moderate states, or fucking hate Donald Trump and are retiring and aren’t afraid to show it. Then there are the handful of red state Democrats, who ordinarily would be inclined to vote for a conservative nominee, like, for example, Gorsuch. Most nominees that make it to a vote get confirmed on a fairly bipartisan basis, usually ones who run into trouble don’t make it to the point where an actual vote is needed. They count heads, and if it’s not in the cards the nominee is withdrawn and someone else is put forward. See Harriet Meiers, and Clinton’s nannygate nominees. Anyway, suppose there were an investigation and suppose the FBI comes back with “Well, she says one thing and he says another thing, that’s all we can tell you.” Now what? Does the vote go forward or not? It only goes forward if the wafflers–the moderate Republicans and red state Democrats–feel obligated to vote to confirm despite the lack of information. It seems to me that we’re not discussing a criminal conviction here, for which the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We’re not even discussing a civil case for which the standard is preponderance of the evidence. We’re discussing a politcal appointment, for which the standard is “What will my constituents and colleagues and donors think?”. Is sticking it to the liberals and showing strength the winning strategy for those people? Or is it showing possibly feigned “sensitivity” and a willingness to listen to victims? I have no idea what these wafflers will decide is their best bet. On the other hand, what if there is an investigation, and the FBI turns up some evidence that Ford lies a lot about all kinds of things? Yeah, it’s smearing the victim, and won’t change most people’s minds. But it could certainly change the minds of those red state Democrats. Or maybe the FBI starts to turn up more and more evidence of more and more misconduct by Kavanaugh. What’s going to happen then? An investigation has at least three possible outcomes. More evidence exonerating Kavanaugh, which isn’t likely but could happen. More evidence incriminating Kavanaugh, which also isn’t likely. Or neither. If the answer is “neither” then we’re no worse off than we were before, right? Except we have to wait another week or two while this media circus goes on, when everyone wants to go home and start campaigning for November. Well, the media circus isn’t going to end if you ram through the vote before an investigation. We’ve seen some new allegations come up. Are they going to stop the minute Kavanaugh is confirmed? Maybe, if it’s all George Soros trying to keep him off the Supreme Court. Except probably not, because right now the campaign isn’t to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, the campaign is to make Republicans look like enablers of sexual assault. So how do Republicans stop that? One way is to hold the damn investigation, and if incriminating evidence shows up you vote against Kavanaugh, if exculpatory evidence turns up you vote for Kavanaugh, and if nothing turns up you vote the way you were going to vote before. The problem for Republicans is that the base wants a fight on this. Trump wants a fight on this. Remember back at the beginning of the thread when you recommended laying off the accuser and not making it personal? How’d that work out? Not very well. Trump kept his mouth shut for a week, but you can’t shut Trump up, even when shutting up would save his life. And so the Right-wing media-industrial complex is churning this into just another culture war issue where the facts don’t matter. And so, which side are you on? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3136 "2018-09-24T19:14:58Z")
McConnell is on the Senate floor excoriating the Dems if anyone is interested. ---
**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 24, 2018, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3137 "2018-09-24T19:16:09Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Ford would probably be eager to speak to them on the record. She’s the one who’s been asking for an investigation, after all. > > And if Judge refuses to speak on the record, well that’s a data point that the American people should know about. Right. Hopefully they could also get a statement from Judge, but I realize now that they couldn’t compel him without a subpoena. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3138 "2018-09-24T19:16:21Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Throw that word in wherever you feel appropriate (while you still can). Do you feel this is likely to get to a point where we will no longer be able to use the word “alleged”? That this is going to result in a conviction? ---
**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 24, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3139 "2018-09-24T19:17:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > McConnell is on the Senate floor excoriating the Dems if anyone is interested. Sounds like a day that ends in y. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/3140 "2018-09-24T19:17:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > McConnell is on the Senate floor excoriating the Dems if anyone is interested. I am. C-SPAN? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=156) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=158)