# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/381 "2018-09-07T22:49:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The senate gets to pick what they want to use for the basis of their judgment. Period. You ask why it matters…it matters if they say it matters. I understand that. I’m simply questioning the wisdom of it. If a Senator asked Kavanaugh if he ever had a threesome with two women, would you equally respond that it is the Senate’s choice to decide whether that is relevant, or would you criticize the question as being irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2018, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/382 "2018-09-07T22:56:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What special “self control” is required by the constitution that a Supreme Court nominee should have to endure a circus? I do think he should [have to explain](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-baseball-debt-democrats-hearing-missing.html)what getting aggressive after losing another game of dice means in the context of requesting his friends keep their weekend activities confidential even from their spouses. A guy who repeatedly gets aggressive regarding dice is probably more likely to be a guy to run up a 200k betting tab, and that’s none of my business, unless it gets paid off suspiciously and you want to be a Supreme Court justice. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2018, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/383 "2018-09-07T23:06:54Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I do think he should [have to explain](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-baseball-debt-democrats-hearing-missing.html)what getting aggressive after losing another game of dice means in the context of requesting his friends keep their weekend activities confidential even from their spouses. A guy who repeatedly gets aggressive regarding dice is probably more likely to be a guy to run up a 200k betting tab, and that’s none of my business, unless it gets paid off suspiciously and you want to be a Supreme Court justice. Slate is your cite? Even if it is true, is it a disqualifier for a guy to gamble on the weekends and keep it from his wife? I think the only this that this chaos possibly shows that a person who is willing to be nominated for the Supreme Court is mentally unfit FOR the Supreme Court. Really? Dice games are fair questions? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2018, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/384 "2018-09-07T23:13:59Z")
Dude, does character even matter? ---
**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 7, 2018, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/385 "2018-09-07T23:27:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Slate is your cite? Even if it is true, is it a disqualifier for a guy to gamble on the weekends and keep it from his wife? I think the only this that this chaos possibly shows that a person who is willing to be nominated for the Supreme Court is mentally unfit FOR the Supreme Court. > > Really? Dice games are fair questions? Was this a legal dice game? ---
**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 7, 2018, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/386 "2018-09-07T23:33:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m still not seeing it. Learn about his qualifications. Learn about any criminal history. Fine. But why does the investigation have to be so personal? Who cares if he spends his money on baseball tickets? What if he spent thousands at an adult book store? Should that be public knowledge? Should we know how large of a dildo he bought for his wife? > > Again, there will be many quality people who say to hell with public service because we want to put people under such a microscope. Further, the Dems who are wanting more documents and frothing over these documents are ones who have already said that they are not going to vote for Kavanaugh anyways! Why do they want more documents? Are they going to vote no twice? This is a circus and and absolute shame. You sure care alot about this guy. What quality people are you talking about. To me it looks like we could really use a good glass ceiling, or actually better yet, a moral floor, to keep the ones who shouldn’t be in, out. It’s a swamp. You are not being realistic about what public service means to conservatives. It’s a royal road to riches. For how long and how much did he spend to try to get vincent fosters attorney client privelege revoked because he was dead. We don’t need griftwood like this in government anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/387 "2018-09-08T00:23:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > …Nonetheless, if Kavanaugh was a big spender, he could make ten times that at this point in his career. Why would he take far less pay if he wanted to live a rich lifestyle? Right-wing arguments often seem so very unintelligent, as with this one: that Kavanaugh “must” be a man of integrity because the salary earned by a SCOTUS Justice is smaller than the amount he could earn elsewhere. The implication that the _salary_ determines how much money a SCOTUS Justice can take in, is ridiculous. Of course someone with the power to decide Supreme Court cases could be taking in sums that are quite massive, should that someone be inclined to let it be known that his or her vote is for sale. I don’t understand why you keep hitting this note (that “salary” determines Kavanaugh’s potential earnings on the Court) when it’s so obviously divorced from reality. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/388 "2018-09-08T00:46:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why does it matter how the man spends his money? I guess that is the part I am confused about. I’m sure that if we both exposed our finances to the board that there would be a lot of mundane things and several surprising things. Why is that the business of anyone who are supposed to be only judging our qualifications (or nowadays political beliefs)? In my view, it’s relevant for the same reason interviewers ask “Does he live within his means, as far as you know?” when interviewing acquaintances of a candidate for a security clearance. A person is of course free to spend their money as they please, but if his personal finances are in a condition that might reasonably leave him unable to service his debt, he would be vulnerable to financial temptation. That’s a fair question for the Senate to ask. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/389 "2018-09-08T00:50:42Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I do think he should [have to explain](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-baseball-debt-democrats-hearing-missing.html)what getting aggressive after losing another game of dice means in the context of requesting his friends keep their weekend activities confidential even from their spouses. A guy who repeatedly gets aggressive regarding dice is probably more likely to be a guy to run up a 200k betting tab, and that’s none of my business, unless it gets paid off suspiciously and you want to be a Supreme Court justice. That, too, is a fair question to ask. I don’t think the mere speculation that Slate offers is disqualifying, but I wouldn’t quibble if a senator asked him to explain the comment in more detail. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/390 "2018-09-08T01:14:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Slate is your cite? Even if it is true, is it a disqualifier for a guy to gamble on the weekends and keep it from his wife? I think the only this that this chaos possibly shows that a person who is willing to be nominated for the Supreme Court is mentally unfit FOR the Supreme Court. > > Really? Dice games are fair questions? My cite is Kavanaugh’s actual email. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/391 "2018-09-08T01:35:30Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > … after losing another game of dice … You need iron nerves to play high stakes Yahtzee. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/392 "2018-09-08T05:25:28Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Right-wing arguments often seem so very unintelligent, as with this one: that Kavanaugh “must” be a man of integrity because the salary earned by a SCOTUS Justice is smaller than the amount he could earn elsewhere. > > The implication that the _salary_ determines how much money a SCOTUS Justice can take in, is ridiculous. Of course someone with the power to decide Supreme Court cases could be taking in sums that are quite massive, should that someone be inclined to let it be known that his or her vote is for sale. > > I don’t understand why you keep hitting this note (that “salary” determines Kavanaugh’s potential earnings on the Court) when it’s so obviously divorced from reality. Because if money was his goal, he could be a wealthy man by legal means. Yes, the guy who has little training and the best job he can get is cutting meat at Winn Dixie may nonetheless have expensive tastes and be tempted to get money illegally. If Kavanaugh had such expensive tastes, he could simply say to hell with public service. He could make ten times as much without having to put himself and his family through a gloved hand treatment. And no, I am not just saying this because he is conservative. I believe that I said on this board that I would have voted to confirm Kagan and Sotomayor, even though I could not disagree more with their judicial philosophy. My problem is very simple. We might have a superb candidate out there. Say one who is moderate down the line, but would be the next Holmes. However, he sees the current political climate and also plays poker with his buddies on the weekend. He decides that he does not want to subject himself or his family to this type of invasive scrutiny. That’s a real issue. Some people are very private and very embarrassed to talk about their personal life. Should we lose this quality candidate simply because of our perverse desire to know every single personal detail about him? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/393 "2018-09-08T10:02:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If Kavanaugh had such expensive tastes, he could simply say to hell with public service. He could make ten times as much without having to put himself and his family through a gloved hand treatment. Republicans have repeatedly told me that as long as the decisions made by the Senators are legal, their ridiculously selfish and unethical behavior should be accepted as part of “Advice and Consent”. We may have had a superb candidate in Garland and the dude didn’t even GET to answer questions about his gambling and sex toy purchases, because the wrong president selected him. ---
**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 8, 2018, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/394 "2018-09-08T12:06:11Z")
The money thing doesn’t seem as compelling to me as the possibility he lied in testimony a decade ago. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/395 "2018-09-08T12:23:24Z")
Were the positions reversed, I have no doubt that the R’s, with 49 Senators, would have numerous ways to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until after the November election. But the D’s, silly things that they are, want to defeat Kavanaugh in a fair vote. Should be easy, right? They just need two R’s to defect. Recall that Donald Trump, to appease right-wingers who thought he was too off-the-rails even for them, posted a list of 25 judges from whom he solemnly promised to select his SCOTUS picks. **Kavanaugh is not on that list.** Trump has violated his own promise and picked a certifiable wingnut. This judge opposes woman’s choice, opposes almost all regulations, opposes bans on military-style rifles, opposes net neutrality, opposes the separation of church and state, opposes right to privacy, and voted to repeal Obamacare judicially. Plus he’s almost certainly a perjurer. Real sweetheart, hunh? None of that matters to Trump, of course. He’s in love with Kavanaugh because that judge feels that Trumpo, like Elizabeth Dei Gratia and the Pope, should have effective immunity from his crimes. Now is the last chance for R Senators to stand up and decide on which side of history they want to fall. But remember — 50 of these scoundrels voted to confirm Betsy DeVos and 51 voted for Scott Pruitt — either of these two is twice as evil as Kavanaugh. And Susan Collins, despite all the vehement anti-abortion rhetoric and rulings from Kavanaugh, still pretends to believe that he thinks Roe v Wade is “settled law.” So … the answer to OP’s question? _No._ ---
**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 8, 2018, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/396 "2018-09-08T13:22:30Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Were the positions reversed, I have no doubt that the R’s, with 49 Senators, would have numerous ways to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until after the November election. > > But the D’s, silly things that they are, want to defeat Kavanaugh in a fair vote. Should be easy, right? They just need two R’s to defect. Just to be clear, you are saying there are parliamentary procedures that the Republicans would use to delay a vote, but that the Democrats won’t use? If so, they are not silly. They are stupid. I don’t think they are stupid. But if you know of some procedures that exist, let us know what they are. If you don’t know of such procedures, wouldn’t you have at least a teensy bit of doubt about that? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/397 "2018-09-08T14:51:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The money thing doesn’t seem as compelling to me as the possibility he lied in testimony a decade ago. Or that he trafficked in stolen documents literally ([yes, literally)](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-confirmation.html) labeled “spying”. ---
**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 8, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/398 "2018-09-08T15:11:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The money thing doesn’t seem as compelling to me as the possibility he lied in testimony a decade ago. It’s 100% certain that he lied in previous confirmation hearings. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/399 "2018-09-08T15:35:06Z")
I can’t believe that all the protesters dressed as Handmaids haven’t worked yet. It sure seems like that would do the trick. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2018, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/400 "2018-09-08T15:39:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. You are conveniently leaving out the most important part. THE SENATE RULES CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. They don’t have free reign to make whatever rules they want. And the actual Constitution says, and a I quote: **“[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint […] Judges of the supreme Court”** The Senate must give its advice and consent. It is required by the Constitution itself, that the Senate advise and attempt to form consensus on the appointment. McConnell abrogated his duty to the Constitution by ignoring this. I mean, by your logic, the Senate could make a rule that said that, I dunno, the senators from Arkansas count as a majority and their votes always win. They don’t get to make up any rules they want–only rules that follow what is stated in the Constitution itself. Otherwise we have tyranny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=21)