# 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:** 28
**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 11, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/541 "2018-09-11T17:33:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Kavanaugh wouldn’t be my first choice, nor my second. He’s serviceable. But yes, as I said before I’d be fine with dispensing with the hearing process altogether. > > There’s a [recent episode of First Mondays](http://www.firstmondays.fm/episodes/2018/9/10/good-behaviour-10-bad-bens) (SCOTUS podcast sponsored by SCOTUSBlog) that discusses this. They are pretty solidly on the left (for example they have been pushing the idea of packing the court), but they have a similar take. There is no useful information to get from nominees anymore. I think that’s a reasonable position, but I don’t see then why my posts, or the positions of Harris or Booker, would then be singled out. Chances are, most senators made up their mind before the hearing. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to ask questions of the nominee, or wrong to scrutinize the answers. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/542 "2018-09-11T17:37:22Z")
It would be wrong \*not \*to. How does keeping a nominee’s past and viewpoints and agenda secret help \*not \*weaken democracy? ---
**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 11, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/543 "2018-09-11T17:37:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think that’s a reasonable position, but I don’t see then why my posts, or the positions of Harris or Booker, would then be singled out. Chances are, most senators made up their mind before the hearing. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to ask questions of the nominee, or wrong to scrutinize the answers. I would single out anyone who stakes out a position that the nominee is disqualified as a result of accepting the nomination, as you have done. Harris and Booker, who both stated they would vote against Kavanaugh before the hearings, were identified because they got a higher amount of press than other senators. I never said it was right or wrong (I think), but that any comments should be heavily discounted or even disregarded because it’s primarily theater and not substantive. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/544 "2018-09-11T17:39:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What are Sotomayor and Kagan, chopped liver? \*\*RTF \*\*was obviously referring to the time since Scalia’s death threatened the frustration of the regressive-activist agenda on the Court, and McConnell’s announcement that no hearings would be held regardless of whom Obama nominated. You remember that, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/545 "2018-09-11T17:42:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Have I said that the Constitution forbids it? No, I haven’t. I think it’s pretty clear that Alexander Hamilton, at the very least, would have thought that such a scenario shouldn’t have occurred. Have I said that the Constitution forbids it? No, I haven’t. Have I said that the Constitution forbids it? No, I haven’t. > > But thank you for responding to someone else’s argument in great detail. :rolleyes: You said: > [@RTFirefly](#): > > No offense against **the letter of the Constitution perhaps**. But I have a hard time believing the Founders intended the Senate to respond to a nomination to our highest court by refusing to even consider it, unless perhaps the nominee was so flagrantly unqualified and unworthy as to be beneath the Senate’s notice. By specifying the letter of the Constitution, and including the word “perhaps,” you suggested that PERHAPS the letter of the Constitution was violated, and PERHAPS it was not. And by mentioning the letter of the Constitution, you further suggested that PERHAPS there was some spirit of the Constitution, clearly visible to your keen eye but awash in obscurity to the readers in 1844 and 1828. But you didn’t actually say those things. My post puts you in the position of either disclaiming such sentiments, or defending them. So, now we know that the Constitution does in fact permit the Senate to exercise their power of providing advice and consent by refusing to even vote on a nominee. This is true in 2016, 1844, and 1828. What we’re left with is you wish they hadn’t, and that you have a deep reverence for the Founder’s intentions, when they happen to coincide with your desired outcome. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/546 "2018-09-11T17:43:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What are Sotomayor and Kagan, chopped liver? I didn’t think I needed to spell out ‘in the case of the 2016 vacancy’ or ‘once the GOP had a Senate majority.’ > [@](#): > > And I don’t see anything in your cites that defines what the process of “advise and consent” has to look like, which is what I asked. Quotes from the Declaration of Independence are all well and good, but I don’t think McConnell was announcing his intention to secede. > > Regards, > Shodan The cite from ol’ Publius did mention ‘discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature.’ Did we see anything in the Senate (non)response to Obama’s nomination of Garland that ‘looked like’ that? Fuck, no! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/547 "2018-09-11T17:47:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By specifying the letter of the Constitution, and including the word “perhaps,” you suggested that PERHAPS the letter of the Constitution was violated, and PERHAPS it was not. Yeah, and _perhaps_ your username means you’re a bricklayer rather than a lawyer. But taking a bit of common English-language usage, and turning its meaning totally inside out in the hopes of scoring an extremely tangential rhetorical point, suggests to me that yes, you are in fact a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/548 "2018-09-11T17:56:38Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > But I have a hard time believing the Founders intended the Senate to respond to a nomination to our highest court by refusing to even consider it, unless perhaps the nominee was so flagrantly unqualified and unworthy as to be beneath the Senate’s notice. Then explain what happened to John Crittenden. That was in 1828. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/549 "2018-09-11T18:01:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The fact that a rule has been violated before means there \*is \*no rule? That’s quite a remarkable thing for an Officer of the Court to say. Then please quote the rule **requiring** the Senate to vote on a nominee. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/550 "2018-09-11T18:02:03Z")
Been over that already. Spirit vs. letter, strengthening vs. weakening democracy, excuse-making and weaseling vs. respecting the process and the principles, all of that. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/551 "2018-09-11T18:05:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Been over that already. Spirit vs. letter, strengthening vs. weakening democracy, excuse-making and weaseling vs. respecting the process and the principles, all of that. This is apparently as close as he can get to acknowledging that there isn’t a rule. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/552 "2018-09-11T18:12:26Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Then explain what happened to John Crittenden. That was in 1828. What needs an explanation, exactly? Please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/553 "2018-09-11T18:19:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This is apparently as close as he can get to acknowledging that there isn’t a rule. Tell us what you think the \*spirit \*of the advice and consent clause is. Then tell us \*why \*it’s not only okay, but admirable to excuse weaseling around it. If, as you say, there is no rule, why has the routine dismissal of nominations by opposition-led Congresses not been the standard practice for our history? Some of us think our democracy is worth protecting and strengthening and respecting, and some of us obviously don’t. You’ve already told us clearly enough which of those you are. ---
**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 11, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/554 "2018-09-11T18:22:04Z")
No, there’s not a rule. However, a functioning government only exists if people are willing to work together with others who don’t agree with them. There is nothing in the rules to stop a Senate preventing a President from appointing anyone, to any position that technically requires their Advice and Consent. No rule requiring that this choice actually have a legitimate reason, none at all, they can do it simply because they don’t agree with the President’s views. That’s clearly not what the rule is for, because it’s inherently dysfunctional. If a rule, or lack thereof, can be applied broadly in a way that destroys the concept of functioning government, re-stating the fact that the rule does or doesn’t exist doesn’t create legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/555 "2018-09-11T18:30:38Z")
The first Supreme Court nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925. The Judiciary Committee was created in 1816. Were all of the Supreme Court nominations between 1816 and 1925 somehow illegitimate? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/556 "2018-09-11T18:36:11Z")
Refusal to hold \*hearings \*isn’t quite the issue, friend. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/557 "2018-09-11T18:37:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What needs an explanation, exactly? Please clarify. Why was his nomination not voted on and the Founding Fathers still alive didn’t all cry out “You have to vote on it!” ---
**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 11, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/558 "2018-09-11T18:38:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I would single out anyone who stakes out a position that the nominee is disqualified as a result of accepting the nomination, as you have done. Harris and Booker, who both stated they would vote against Kavanaugh before the hearings, were identified because they got a higher amount of press than other senators. I never said it was right or wrong (I think), but that any comments should be heavily discounted or even disregarded because it’s primarily theater and not substantive. Pretty much everything in politics (or at least everything public and on camera) is “primarily theater”. I don’t see how this is special in that regard. It’s just as likely to reveal something substantive as, say, a televised debate, or town hall, or a million other political events. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/559 "2018-09-11T18:41:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Tell us what you think the \*spirit \*of the advice and consent clause is. Then tell us \*why \*it’s not only okay, but admirable to excuse weaseling around it. If, as you say, there is no rule, why has the routine dismissal of nominations by opposition-led Congresses not been the standard practice for our history? I think it would be better if both parties could exercise some detente and return to earlier times when there was a bit more acceptance of political adversaries having some power. We’re not heading that direction though, so I don’t particularly want my side clinging to some Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side is acting like it’s a no-holds-barred streetfight. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Some of us think our democracy is worth protecting and strengthening and respecting, and some of us obviously don’t. You’ve already told us clearly enough which of those you are. When Obama voted to filibuster Justice Alito, did you denounce him? Or are you on the “obviously don’t” side? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/560 "2018-09-11T18:44:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Refusal to hold \*hearings \*isn’t quite the issue, friend. There is no _requirement_ to hold hearings, pal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=29)