# 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:** 17
**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 6, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/321 "2018-09-06T19:35:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Has there been anything of substance released from the emails? I’ve been in meetings and haven’t been able to read them. Seems like a nothing burger - they probably shouldn’t have been classified, and there is nothing actually there. Senator Feinstein just said that the newly released emails directly contradict Kavanaugh’s assertion that he wasn’t involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor in the early '00s. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/322 "2018-09-06T19:38:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve long very strongly suspected this is how you felt about me, my family … This is out of line - you should let it go. Those comments were very obviously not directed at you personally. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/323 "2018-09-06T19:42:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Has there been anything of substance released from the emails? I’ve been in meetings and haven’t been able to read them. Seems like a nothing burger - they probably shouldn’t have been classified, and there is nothing actually there. It turns out Mr. Booker is just [a drama queen](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/06/kavanaugh-questioning-enters-final-stretch-as-dems-seem-to-lay-traps.html). All that stuff about how he was courageously engaging in civil disobedience was an unfortunate piece of grandstanding. What does it say about a politician who you can’t even trust when he says he is cheating? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/324 "2018-09-06T19:53:50Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/325 "2018-09-06T19:55:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Has there been anything of substance released from the emails? I’ve been in meetings and haven’t been able to read them. Seems like a nothing burger - they probably shouldn’t have been classified, and there is nothing actually there. Certainly possible. That they went to all that effort to hide shit that didn’t need to be hidden. Stuff that didn’t worry them. Could be. Maybe. As far as the rules go, my reading of the situation says that the Procedure is supposed to be that the Archives people go over this stuff with an eye to editing out any threat to national security. Which, you will recall, was the flimsy excuse they offered. The Pubbies made an end run around that because they didn’t want to wait for the procedure to be done, in a bit of a hurry… Twilight of the Gormless is quickly approaching… So, they made up a procedure whereby the friendliest lawyer imaginable gets to decide what the Dems can see, and the Pubbies pretend that’s the same thing. (IIRC, Grassly tried to say exactly that, that the Archive people gave it their official ok-dokey, but no, they didn’t.) So, yeah, they don’t really know either, so its \*possible \*that the Pubbies are trying to hide something that isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/326 "2018-09-06T20:10:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > ISTM the theory behind this is to defeat Kavanaugh by any means, fair or foul. Why do you consider that to be a problem? ---
**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 6, 2018, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/327 "2018-09-06T20:16:58Z")
Point of clarification on the released documents: A while back, there was a discussion about how Trump has powers that are “above the law” in that he could release classified information to our enemies, and it was insisted that senators could in fact release classified information on the senate floor. If that is the case, then what exactly are they doing wrong? If that is not the case, then does that mean that I was misinformed? I tried to find the thread and post, but this message board is not well suited for searches. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/328 "2018-09-06T20:26:45Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Why do you consider that to be a problem? Because lying and cheating are bad. Even by Democrats. YMMV. 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 6, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/329 "2018-09-06T20:30:52Z")
> **[Ron Wyden says Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied in 2006 testimony](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/ron-wyden-says-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-in-2006-testimony)** > > Sen. Ron Wyden said Thursday that it appears Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lied to Congress in 2006 when he testified about when he learned of a post-9/11 surveillance program. Senator Wyden says the emails reveal he lied in 2006 testimony. If he and Feinstein are accurate, then so far the emails have revealed at least two instances of dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/330 "2018-09-06T20:35:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because lying and cheating are bad. Even by Democrats. > > YMMV. > > Regards, > Shodan Sorry, but after Merrick Garland, I figure anything short of actual criminal conduct is fair. Whatever else you can say, Kavanaugh’s getting a hearing; Garland didn’t. He’s getting better than even-steven here. I know what lying is, though I’d disagree that anyone besides Kavanaugh has been doing it. Not sure what you regard as ‘cheating’ and why. Not that I feel such an accusation is germane, just wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/331 "2018-09-06T20:46:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Has there been anything of substance released from the emails? I’ve been in meetings and haven’t been able to read them. Seems like a nothing burger - they probably shouldn’t have been classified, and there is nothing actually there. I read them. Tried to. Eyes kept glazing over. It may be that they demonstrate he has lied in his confirmation hearing, which if so would be a big deal. In a vacuum, to this non-lawyer, there was nothing too earthshaking there. And certainly nothing that could be construed as affecting “national security” by any stretch of the imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/332 "2018-09-06T21:20:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/ron-wyden-says-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-in-2006-testimony](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/ron-wyden-says-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-in-2006-testimony) > > Senator Wyden says the emails reveal he lied in 2006 testimony. > > If he and Feinstein are accurate, then so far the emails have revealed at least two instances of dishonesty. I don’t quite interpret it the same way. “call me” doesn’t mean involvement, and the question from Wyden seems to be about different components of the eavesdropping program. I could be wrong on that, only read the Feinstein Twitter feed and the article you linked. ---
**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 6, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/333 "2018-09-06T21:20:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If they do’t have the 51 votes to deny him a nomination now, the odds of them having the 67 votes needed to impeach him later seem … slim. 1. It’s a lifetime appointment. There’s a lot of later. 2. A couple of blue waves would be good. 3. I’m game right now for changing the rules about impeachment. We obviously need to do it more. It’s an emergency IMO. If dems get in power it will be incumbent on them to begin prosecuting “lying and cheating” by impeachable parties. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/334 "2018-09-06T21:25:34Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > 1. It’s a lifetime appointment. There’s a lot of later. > 2. A couple of blue waves would be good. > 3. I’m game right now for changing the rules about impeachment. We obviously need to do it more. It’s an emergency IMO. > > If dems get in power it will be incumbent on them to begin prosecuting “lying and cheating” by impeachable parties. Because the requirement to convict someone in an impeachment hearing is too high, your plan is to … “chang[e] the rules about impeachment”? Do you understand what the requirement to do _that_ is? ---
**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 6, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/335 "2018-09-06T21:26:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > ISTM the theory behind this is to defeat Kavanaugh by any means, fair or foul. That was within the rules. Releasing confidential information is not. > No, I have always thought that both parties should abide by the rules. If you can cite some instances of GOP Congressmen releasing confidential information to smear a Supreme Court nominee, I will join you in condemning it. I agree with you there. Refusing to hold hearings on Garland was within the rules. That is not at all comparable to what Booker is doing. > > Regards, > Shodan Maybe you are not there yet, but it seems to me that all of donalds acts as president are tainted and need to be stopped or reversed. This is the only way to have a bipartisan position on this. So you say K is a mainstream DC R so we must confirm him even though the president is credibly accused of being a russian asset. The people who voted against trump have a diffferent set of needs around this quite obviously. Nothing bipartisan can occur at all until we resolve 1) russian influence issues, and 2) dt financial crimes issues. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/336 "2018-09-06T21:28:12Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Maybe you are not there yet, but it seems to me that all of donalds acts as president are tainted and need to be stopped or reversed. This is the only way to have a bipartisan position on this. … I don’t think you’re using the standard definition of “bipartisan”. ---
**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 6, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/337 "2018-09-06T21:29:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Because the requirement to convict someone in an impeachment hearing is too high, your plan is to … “chang[e] the rules about impeachment”? Do you understand what the requirement to do _that_ is? Do you understand how hard it is to put a russian asset in the white house? Extraordinary times. ---
**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 6, 2018, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/338 "2018-09-06T21:30:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think you’re using the standard definition of “bipartisan”. OK. Any more to this? ---
**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 6, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/339 "2018-09-06T21:37:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because lying and cheating are bad. Even by Democrats. > > YMMV. > > Regards, > Shodan Great. Are you for impeachment for lying and cheating? Maybe we can iron something out right now. That’s where I am headed. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/340 "2018-09-06T21:38:12Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Do you understand how hard it is to put a russian asset in the white house? > > Extraordinary times. Just give me two “yes” or “no” answers please: #1) Do you understand that it would require a constitutional amendment to change the rules about impeachment? #2) Do you understand that a constitutional amendment must be approved by 2/3 of the House & Senate and ratified by 38 states? If you already had 2/3 of the Senate that agreed with you, it is not necessary to change the rules about impeachment, those same senators can just proceed with the impeachment. The fundamental problem you have is that you don’t have the votes, and you’re extremely unlikely to get the votes you need to do what you’re fantasizing about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=18)