# 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:** 244
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4861 "2018-09-28T16:10:43Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > …even if duel sovereignty doctrine was overturned… Wait. Does that mean if I _win_ the duel, then I get away with it? ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4862 "2018-09-28T16:11:34Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > …It’s unrealistic to have the expectations that someone will tell the truth in this situation. … Maybe the average joe on the street. But Supremes are 9 out of 350 million. For life. I like to think they are a little better than you and me - or at least sophisticated enough not to clearly convey their shortcomings. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4863 "2018-09-28T16:14:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wait. Does that mean if I _win_ the duel, then I get away with it? :smack: somehow, that’s not my fault. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4864 "2018-09-28T16:15:24Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Long term, the rules of US democracy mean the system will stabilize on exactly 2 opposing parties. Demographic trends overall appear to be pushing the country leftward, but that doesn’t mean that it will become a system of 1 party rule by democrats. It might end up being a 2 party system between what are effectively the democratic party and the socialist party or something, but there would still be 2 parties. The most likely result is something similar to what happened the last time a major American political party decided to ally itself with a foreign enemy – the Federalist Party shriveled away and the Democratic-Republican Party had a brief “Era of Good Feeling” dominant period after which its main factions split apart and formed new parties. ---
**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 28, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4865 "2018-09-28T16:18:25Z")
**Bone** and **Bricker** , care to chime in with your opinions on Kavanaugh, the allegations, and this process? ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4866 "2018-09-28T16:18:50Z")
**Yale Law School Dean drops her hat into the ring:** > [@](#): > > “I join the American Bar Association in calling for an additional investigation into allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh. Proceeding with the confirmation process without further investigation is not in the best interest of the Court or our profession.” ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4867 "2018-09-28T16:20:21Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I’m not **Aspenglow** or **AK84** , but I’ll take a run at it. > > “Jeopardy” doesn’t kick in until someone is brought to trial. (swearing of the jury, if I remember correctly). If Trump pardons someone before they go to trial, federal jeopardy would not attach and the states would be free to prosecute, even if duel sovereignty doctrine was overturned. Under current law, states could prosecute even after a federal trial. > > Under the proposed change, if a person was convicted in federal court (or pleaded guilty) and was later pardoned, the states couldn’t do anything because of “double jeopardy.” And I have to say, I am surprised by that interpretation. Double Jeopardy is based on the English concept of _AUTREFOIS ACQUIT_. That does forbid trial even by different jurisdiction if a person has already been acquitted or convicted. Obviously, US jurisprudence has deviated from that. I think the person willing to return to form so to, speak would be Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh, since Gorsuch has a background in English law. ---
**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 28, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4868 "2018-09-28T16:21:33Z")
Here’s my best attempt to look at this from an objective perspective: The Democrats in the Senate have attempted to use these allegations in the most effective way they could come up with to delay and attempt to block the nomination of Kavanaugh. The Republicans in the Senate have attempted to pay the absolute minimum attention to the allegations as they possibly can get away with, and have shown very little interest in fact-finding with regards to the allegations, as well as very little interest in probing whether Kavanaugh has lied in his explanations for some of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the allegations. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4869 "2018-09-28T16:27:39Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > So… are you married? Like cats? 😉 Have a spare room over the garage? You have a short memory. We’ve already had these discussions, and you may recall that, although dogs are fine, the negotiations reached a total impasse over the issue of cats. It became an intractable obstacle just like in the current NAFTA negotiations – although they’re arguing about tariffs, not cats! Lookit my avatar, fer chrissakes! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4870 "2018-09-28T16:32:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Democrats in the Senate have attempted to use these allegations in the most effective way they could come up with to delay and attempt to block the nomination of Kavanaugh. > > The Republicans in the Senate have attempted to pay the absolute minimum attention to the allegations as they possibly can get away with, and have shown very little interest in fact-finding with regards to the allegations, as well as very little interest in probing whether Kavanaugh has lied in his explanations for some of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the allegations. I agree. I wonder what would happen if the parties in the situation were reversed. What if the D’s were the majority _and_ this was happening to Garland _and_ it’s close to the election _and_ the D’s didn’t think the election was going to swing their way? If the same kinds of allegations came out about Garland, would the D’s still be calling for investigations, delaying the vote, and that he should withdraw his nomination? I’m not so sure. I think the D’s have more integrity around these kinds of sexual assault accusations, but I think they’d be very seriously weighing the consequences of not getting him on the court. We certainly saw this with the way Clinton’s accusers were handled, although that was somewhat of a different cultural environment. Back then, the D’s were calling them liars and trying to discount their claims as much as possible. I don’t think it would be exactly the same as that today in 2018, but I do think there would be a lot of strategizing by the D’s on how to handle the accusations and get Garland on the court. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4871 "2018-09-28T16:34:35Z")
There is absolutely nothing stopping the GOP from confirming someone during the lame duck. The reason they don’t want to do so is that they don’t want a lose a fight because partisanship, and because they know that Kavanaugh is much more of a party hack than the alternatives–as we all learned yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![psychobunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@psychobunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychobunny)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4872 "2018-09-28T16:35:07Z")
With Flake voting yes with the explanation that there just is not enough evidence on either side, it becomes clear that the Republicans only held this hearing so that they could say that they addressed the situation. They don’t want an investigation because they don’t care about the truth; they just wanted to be able to say that they looked into it but there was just not enough evidence. That is why they are ignoring the other allegations. On the one hand, I feel sorry for Ford being used as a pawn by the Republicans like this but on the other hand I am reassured that she got to tell her story and a lot of people believe and support her. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4873 "2018-09-28T16:36:58Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > I agree. I wonder what would happen if the parties in the situation were reversed. What if the D’s were the majority _and_ this was happening to Garland _and_ it’s close to the election _and_ the D’s didn’t think the election was going to swing their way? If the same kinds of allegations came out about Garland, would the D’s still be calling for investigations, delaying the vote, and that he should withdraw his nomination? I’m not so sure. I think the D’s have more integrity around these kinds of sexual assault accusations, but I think they’d be very seriously weighing the consequences of not getting him on the court. > > We certainly saw this with the way Clinton’s accusers were handled, although that was somewhat of a different cultural environment. Back then, the D’s were calling them liars and trying to discount their claims as much as possible. I don’t think it would be exactly the same as that today in 2018, but I do think there would be a lot of strategizing by the D’s on how to handle the accusations and get Garland on the court. I don’t think the D’s would be in as much lock step today on this. While I feel that the majority of them would still support, say, Garland based on the level of actual data we have thus far, there would be a large minority of D’s that couldn’t comfortably support him in the face of even this level of accusation, because their voters would be outraged. JMHO, but I think that if the situation were perfectly reversed that the D’s wouldn’t be able to get the votes to confirm with just their own party, since I think their electorate is different than the R’s wrt this sort of accusation. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4874 "2018-09-28T16:43:02Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > I agree. I wonder what would happen if the parties in the situation were reversed. What if the D’s were the majority _and_ this was happening to Garland _and_ it’s close to the election _and_ the D’s didn’t think the election was going to swing their way? If the same kinds of allegations came out about Garland, would the D’s still be calling for investigations, delaying the vote, and that he should withdraw his nomination? I’m not so sure. I think the D’s have more integrity around these kinds of sexual assault accusations, but I think they’d be very seriously weighing the consequences of not getting him on the court. We have to be careful with false equivalencies. Sure, both parties are politically motivated to get their nominee confirmed. What is striking about this situation is the Republicans’ complete and transparent lack of integrity and ethics, absolutely no interest in the facts. > [@psychobunny](#): > > With Flake voting yes with the explanation that there just is not enough evidence on either side, it becomes clear that the Republicans only held this hearing so that they could say that they addressed the situation. They don’t want an investigation because they don’t care about the truth; they just wanted to be able to say that they looked into it but there was just not enough evidence. That is why they are ignoring the other allegations. On the one hand, I feel sorry for Ford being used as a pawn by the Republicans like this but on the other hand I am reassured that she got to tell her story and a lot of people believe and support her. Agreed. ---
**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 28, 2018, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4875 "2018-09-28T16:52:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Here’s my best attempt to look at this from an objective perspective: > > The Democrats in the Senate have attempted to use these allegations in the most effective way they could come up with to delay and attempt to block the nomination of Kavanaugh. > > The Republicans in the Senate have attempted to pay the absolute minimum attention to the allegations as they possibly can get away with, and have shown very little interest in fact-finding with regards to the allegations, as well as very little interest in probing whether Kavanaugh has lied in his explanations for some of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the allegations. I agree with that assessment. There is much ado about how Feinstein handled this whole thing, but I can’t really fault her. And I consider it irrelevant in terms of where we are today (or where we were when this whole thing came to light). There was no good, non-political reason for the Republicans to refuse to agree to an FBI investigation. And as things stand now, I am unchanged in what I said earlier in the week: I could not, in good conscience, vote for Kavanaugh without, at a bare minimum, that FBI investigation. ---
**Author:** ![sweepkick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@sweepkick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweepkick)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4876 "2018-09-28T16:56:39Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I must say, this whole thing is making Kavanaugh look bad, Grassley look worse, and Graham look unhinged. Someone gets involved with Trump in any way and they increase their chances of flaming out. Kavanaugh, Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, should all be an example to Ryan and McConnell. I listened to Graham’s tirade live. There were a lot of words, but all I heard was “Damn you, Democrats, for not telling Ford to shut up and keep what happened to her to herself”. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4877 "2018-09-28T17:03:31Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > I agree. I wonder what would happen if the parties in the situation were reversed. What if the D’s were the majority _and_ this was happening to Garland _and_ it’s close to the election _and_ the D’s didn’t think the election was going to swing their way? If the same kinds of allegations came out about Garland, would the D’s still be calling for investigations, delaying the vote, and that he should withdraw his nomination? I’m not so sure. I think the D’s have more integrity around these kinds of sexual assault accusations, but I think they’d be very seriously weighing the consequences of not getting him on the court. > > We certainly saw this with the way Clinton’s accusers were handled, although that was somewhat of a different cultural environment. Back then, the D’s were calling them liars and trying to discount their claims as much as possible. I don’t think it would be exactly the same as that today in 2018, but I do think there would be a lot of strategizing by the D’s on how to handle the accusations and get Garland on the court. Please. If let’s say Kavanaugh is confirmed and then 10 years from now is seen as a liberal leaning moderate like Souter became, then you can be assured the Democrats will remember the current battle as “yeah there were complaints and we heard a lady, but come on, presumption of and innocence and all that”, while Republican will say “yeah, he was a serial rapist!!!”and try their hardest to make people forget they confirmed him. Same way as before November 2016, Democrats all insisted that Bill Clinton’s accusers were not credible, and now that the Clintons are out of political influence and #metoo is in full throttle, suddenl6 they erred back in the 1990’s. There is nothing about anything here which is not about political power. From both parties. And that’s politics. For another example, look at the UK. You have Remainer PM, May, leading the Brexit negotiations, while a known Eurosceptic leads the Labour Party, which opposes the diet of leaving the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4878 "2018-09-28T17:06:34Z")
One more dishonest Kavanaugh tactic that bears mentioning: They dug up some random Twitter user’s insane ramblings and interviewed Kavanaugh about it even though no one else had raised it. Then Kavanaugh used that as proof that the Senate Democrats were conspiring against him. It was a total lie. ---
**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 28, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4879 "2018-09-28T17:08:39Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Please. If let’s say Kavanaugh is confirmed and then 10 years from now is seen as a liberal leaning moderate like Souter became, then you can be assured the Democrats will remember the current battle as “yeah there were complaints and we heard a lady, but come on, presumption of and innocence and all that”, while Republican will say “yeah, he was a serial rapist!!!”and try their hardest to make people forget they confirmed him. > > Same way as before November 2016, Democrats all insisted that Bill Clinton’s accusers were not credible, and now that the Clintons are out of political influence and #metoo is in full throttle, suddenl6 they erred back in the 1990’s. > > There is nothing about anything here which is not about political power. From both parties. And that’s politics. > > For another example, look at the UK. You have Remainer PM, May, leading the Brexit negotiations, while a known Eurosceptic leads the Labour Party, which opposes the diet of leaving the UK. The Democrats booted Franken and Schneiderman just in the last year. The Republicans embraced Roy Moore (and Donald Trump, obviously). Maybe they hemmed and hawed about it a bit, but the party apparatus, and most senior Republicans, supported Roy Moore, and very, very few (only Flake and Kasich, I think) opposed him and supported Doug Jones. Contrast this to the 90s: in 1990, President George Bush took out ads in Louisiana for the Democratic candidate for Governor, Edwin Edwards, and was strongly critical of the Republican candidate, David Duke (former head of the KKK). And in the late 90s, Democrats made excuses for Bill Clinton and attacked those who accused him of sexual assault and harassment. Since then, the Democrats as a party have significantly improved in how they handle sexual assault. They take allegations seriously, and if there are multiple credible allegations, force their own officials to resign. The Republicans haven’t improved at all – in fact, they may have gotten even worse. The party of tolerating rape and sexual assault. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/4880 "2018-09-28T17:23:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You have a short memory… Guilty as charged. (I like dogs, too, and have a dog.) > [@psychobunny](#): > > With Flake voting yes with the explanation that there just is not enough evidence on either side, it becomes clear that the Republicans only held this hearing so that they could say that they addressed the situation. … Yup. But who will buy this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=243) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=245)