# 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:** 29
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/561 "2018-09-11T18:44:22Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. So it is inherently dysfunctional when the Senate rejects a Supreme Court nominee simply because they don’t agree with the President’s views? So the rejection of Bork was dysfunctional, as were the Democratic votes against Gorsuch. And, to be fair, the votes against Sotomayor and Kagan as well. > [@](#): > > 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. In what way did the Senate rejection of Merrick Garland destroy the functioning of the US government? Gorsuch was confirmed, and soon Kavanaugh will be. The Supreme Court has its full complement of justices, so I see no impediment to its functioning. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/562 "2018-09-11T18:48:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. A debate between candidates is substantively different than a SCOTUS nomination hearing. At the debate, the expectation is that candidates will offer commentary regarding policy positions, their intentions, etc. They are campaigning, making promises, signaling support, etc. That is not the case during a confirmation hearing. During a confirmation hearing, it is the practice of the nominee to not offer any commentary regarding any potential issue that may come before the court. The hearings are not intended to suss out intentions on future treatment, and even commentary about previous cases is limited to the extent it may relate to potential future cases. So the hearings are special because they aren’t intended to reveal information in the way you describe. Not the same at all. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/563 "2018-09-11T18:51:16Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There is no _requirement_ to hold hearings, pal. We’ve been discussing that, yes. Have you just started reading the thread? ---
**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 11, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/564 "2018-09-11T18:54:19Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Oh, so you consider them an authority on these matters? Then I assume you would take their position with regard to Garland’s nomination and judicial nominations in general as valid as well?They also happened to [rate him as “well-qualified.”](https://abaforlawstudents.com/2016/06/21/aba-rates-merrick-garland-well-qualified/) In this case, I believe you have assumed correctly. Just to clarify: I think it’s hard to argue that someone who gets a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the ABA is somehow not qualified. Similarly, I think it’s hard to argue that someone who gets a unanimous “not qualified” ratings is somehow qualified. As for Garland, I’m on record in several places on this MB, including this thread, as saying he should have had a full vote in the Senate. I do not at all like what the Republicans did to him even if I recognize they are allowed to do so under both the constitution and the rules of the Senate. Further, I personally think he would have made an excellent SCOTUS justice. It’s a shame that opportunity was denied to him. I add that to the long list of why I won’t vote for Republicans for federal office anymore. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/565 "2018-09-11T18:54:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. “Both sides”? :dubious: :rolleyes: Please. > [@](#): > > 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. Is that the Rove/Trump distraction strategy of blaming “the opposition” for your \*own \*shortcomings? > [@](#): > > When Obama voted to filibuster Justice Alito, did you denounce him? Or are you on the “obviously don’t” side? Did Alito have a fair hearing and a fair vote? He did, you know. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/566 "2018-09-11T18:56:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So it is inherently dysfunctional when the Senate rejects a Supreme Court nominee simply because they don’t agree with the President’s views? So the rejection of Bork was dysfunctional, as were the Democratic votes against Gorsuch. And, to be fair, the votes against Sotomayor and Kagan as well. The lack of a rule allows for completely dysfunctional behavior, such as saying “we will not seat any justice or cabinet member nominated by President X”. > [@](#): > > In what way did the Senate rejection of Merrick Garland destroy the functioning of the US government? Advice and Counsel has been weaponized. The concept of Checks and Balances is supposed to rein in abuses, not BE abused itself. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/567 "2018-09-11T18:56:58Z")
> [@](#): > > …So the hearings are special because they aren’t intended to reveal information in the way you describe. Not the same at all. Or, the _intent_ of hearings is to reveal information, but the _practice_ changes according to the candidate’s desire to keep such information out of the wrong hands. Ours. We were originally told that a open release of all documents might pose a threat to national security. We might have hoped that the Pubbies would not stoop so low. Wrong again. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/568 "2018-09-11T19:00:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > A debate between candidates is substantively different than a SCOTUS nomination hearing. At the debate, the expectation is that candidates will offer commentary regarding policy positions, their intentions, etc. They are campaigning, making promises, signaling support, etc. That is not the case during a confirmation hearing. During a confirmation hearing, it is the practice of the nominee to not offer any commentary regarding any potential issue that may come before the court. The hearings are not intended to suss out intentions on future treatment, and even commentary about previous cases is limited to the extent it may relate to potential future cases. > > So the hearings are special because they aren’t intended to reveal information in the way you describe. Not the same at all. I disagree that it’s substantially different. Relevant information sometimes comes out of the hearings, whatever their reason for existence. Just like debates. And like debates, most of us, and most senators, have already made up our minds. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/569 "2018-09-11T19:16:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We’ve been discussing that, yes. Have you just started reading the thread? No, I’ve read the thread, and thus far no one has made a compelling argument as to why the hearings are useful, let alone necessary. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/570 "2018-09-11T19:20:17Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. You are referring of course to the Apocalypse that occurred after Bernard Kerik and Linda Chavez had their nominations returned without a vote. I an shocked we survived those times but we Americans always come together when times are the toughest. \ ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/571 "2018-09-11T19:24:01Z")
Kerik and Chavez withdrew their own acceptances of their nominations, after revealing they’d hired undocumented aliens as nannies. But I’m sure you had a point there somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/572 "2018-09-11T19:25:00Z")
So, if hearings aren’t necessary could the Democrats, during the Garland confirmation process (I call it that for lack of a better term) have simply requested a vote of the entire Senate on the nomination? And grind everything _else_ to a halt if they didn’t get one? ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/573 "2018-09-11T19:28:49Z")
No. The House has a discharge petition procedure but the Senate does not. There is no way to bring a matter to a vote if the committee chairman doesn’t want it. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/574 "2018-09-11T19:35:00Z")
You’re not actually discharging something if the committee never actually takes it up. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/575 "2018-09-11T19:46:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Kerik and Chavez withdrew their own acceptances of their nominations, after revealing they’d hired undocumented aliens as nannies. > > But I’m sure you had a point there somewhere. You left off the fact that Kerik is a convicted felon who was sentenced to 4 years in jail. > **[Kerik Confesses to Cheating I.R.S. and Telling Lies (Published 2009)](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/nyregion/06kerik.html)** > > For Bernard B. Kerik, his morning in court marked the low point in a career filled with operatic twists that wound through the Bronx, the rubble of ground zero, and the White House. ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/576 "2018-09-11T19:48:42Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The lack of a rule allows for completely dysfunctional behavior, such as saying “we will not seat any justice or cabinet member nominated by President X”. > > Advice and Counsel has been weaponized. The concept of Checks and Balances is supposed to rein in abuses, not BE abused itself. Is this a recent development, in your view? Or did the Senate in 1844 do something different? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2018, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/577 "2018-09-11T20:09:56Z")
> [@Cheesesteak View](#): > > The lack of a rule allows for completely dysfunctional behavior, such as saying “we will not seat any justice or cabinet member nominated by President X”. > > Advice and Counsel has been weaponized. The concept of Checks and Balances is supposed to rein in abuses, not BE abused itself. You haven’t explained how it is dysfunctional, or how it’s been weaponized. In what way has the functioning of the Supreme Court been impaired? Nor have you mentioned how the Senate advising the President that a nominee will not be seated is an abuse. That’s what they do - it says so right in the Constitution. As I have said before, if Obama had nominated a genuine conservative like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, the Senate would have fallen all over itself confirming him. But he didn’t. Are you saying that the Biden/Obama rule of not considering a nomination before a mid-term election is inherently dysfunctional? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/578 "2018-09-11T20:13:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In what way has the functioning of the Supreme Court been impaired? In that it is made to represent only a faction, not the country. Earlier you’ve stated that simply having every seat filled made it “functional” - so why not just have a random drawing out of the census returns? > [@](#): > > Nor have you mentioned how the Senate advising the President that a nominee will not be seated is an abuse. That’s what they do - it says so right in the Constitution. Have you completely missed the part where it wasn’t “the Senate” that did so? > [@](#): > > the Biden/Obama rule of not considering a nomination before a mid-term election You’re going to have to cite that _with context_. ---
**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 11, 2018, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/579 "2018-09-11T20:14:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, there’s the ABA, which **John** is swinging about like the #10 Magic Hammer of Thor. Which raises as many questions as it answers. For instance, was the ABA asked for an opinion in the same way as the Heritage Foundation and the Federalists, were they offered the opportunity to suggest nominations? Not to my knowledge. > > But if they had? Would the Kav’s name appear at the very tip-top of such a list? Would he have even made the top fifty? Would their hearts swell with pride at his Javertbot pursuit of HRC’s role in the death of Vince Foster? Ken Starr is a name that shines in the annals of strictly unbiased pursuit of Justice? (I mean “pursuit” in the sense of accomplishing an ideal goal, not “pursuit” in the sense of chasing down Lady Justice and beating the living snot out of her…) > > His work on behalf of a stringent “pro-life” advocate? As he conducts a festival of weasel-speak to convince nervous Republican women that, no, of course he hasn’t made up his mind! Oh, no doubt he has thought about the question, in odd spare moments when he isn’t actively adoring The Leader. But no, of course he hasn’t made up his mind, perish the thought! Or he had his mind made up _then_, but has recanted to a position of utterly fair and unbiased opinion. > > Or better still, he was functioning as an _advocate_, who’s sense of honor and fair play demanded that he ignore his personal views? Or _would_ that be “better”? His obligation to the Republican Party gives him a pass? Its totally ethical for him to behave this way, they are his clients, they write the checks! > > Given all this, I turn to **John Mace** , our resident avatar of non-partisan centrism. In your opinion, had the ABA been consulted in the same way that the Heritage Foundation and the Federalists were consulted, would his name be in the Top Ten? The Sweet Sixteen? The Sorta Kinda Fifty? Since the time, loathe, those many years ago, when so many had their reservations… has his reputation soared due to his brilliant opinions and interpretations? > > Ya think, maybe? Wow, that’s a lot of words. I’ll try to be pithier: I have no idea and I’ll go out on a limb and say that you don’t know either. Furthermore, I have no idea why that even matters. Presidents are not required to nominate the absolutely most qualified candidate they can find, nor have they typically done so in the past. Speaking of the past, and speaking of questions being begged (yes, I know), has it generally been the rule that past presidents even solicited that input from the ABA, much less followed it if it was available? PS: Since when am I “centrist”? If you average out radical views from the left and the right, you don’t get a centrist. Call me non-partisan if you like, but centrist? It is to laugh. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/580 "2018-09-11T20:16:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > has it generally been the rule that past presidents even solicited that input from the ABA, much less followed it if it was available? Yes, didn’t you know? Dubya ended it when the ABA kept embarrassing him with their assessments of his ideology-first nominees. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=30)