# 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:** 326
**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:** [October 6, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6502 "2018-10-06T17:21:52Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > As I have said earlier, the elevation of this illegitimate partisan hack to SCOTUS strongly increases the likelihood that Democrats are going to Court-pack the next time they have power. And if a future hypothetical SCOTUS decision declares that Medicare-for-all is unconstitutional? Hoooo-boy, there’s a roughly zero percent chance that any Democratic administration will tolerate such a decision, so expect either immediate Court-packing in response or whoever the POTUS is at such time to declare that the SC ruling is illegitimate and to continue implementation of the law. > > Seriously, people on the right are underestimating the fury on the left over the GOP’s SCOTUS shenanigans; the theft of Garland’s seat, the elevation of Neil fucking Gorsuch, and now the confirmation of this hack Kavanaugh in spite of all the credible allegations against him, nominated by a president under investigation for potentially colluding with a hostile foreign power to steal the 2016 election. That’s building the case for Democratic Court-packing right in front of our eyes. And I get that the Democrats’ respect for institutions means they’re a few cycles behind the GOP in terms of radicalization, but c’mon now, the Dems aren’t 1000 years behind the GOP on this, so it is not preposterous to anticipate dramatic responses to GOP tactics in the next few years. > > And if all of this leads to the end of judicial review, that’s a good thing! Yes, that means the end of rulings like Roe and Obergefell, but that also means no more obviously bullshit cases like any of the stupid anti-Obamacare lawsuits that have arisen over the past few years. > > If concern about GOP retaliation is the issue, well, that’s why the Dems should Court-pack at the same time that they ram through statehood of DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. Installing several more Democratic senators would make it much less likely that the GOP would regain a majority. Good post, though I’m doubtful that Dems will have the mettle to pack the Supreme Court. You’re certainly right that not just Medicare for all but any kind of federal involvement in improving health care is now doomed. And not just health care, but any kind of progressive legislation. Any kind of environmental legislation, for example, in the interests of clean air and water or mitigating climate change, is vulnerable to nothing more than a coal company bringing suit, and this court will find a reason to declare it unconstitutional. The US has just taken another major step toward becoming an embarrassing idiocracy. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6503 "2018-10-06T17:28:02Z")
I would love to see that little prick have his “great man” fantasy vote diluted, and opposed by 3 or 4 younger justices, maybe women, who saw the hearing last week. He will be an open sore on democracy until he is out of the robe. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6504 "2018-10-06T17:28:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … > > At least when they say they want to take our country back, we now know what century they want to take it back to. Try the 20th century. Can’t believe no one mentioned another recent president who was elected despite a lack of a popular majority - Bill Clinton, twice. So shall we disregard his Supreme Court nominees Ginsburg and Breyer? We have a system. Rather than focusing on packing the court perhaps the pledge of the Democrats should be to push an Electoral College Interstate Compact as a key issue in campaigning at the state level? Or go all out and push for a Constitutional Amendment enshrining a popular vote? Both are well withing accepted democratic traditions and less likely to result in blow back than court packing. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6505 "2018-10-06T17:32:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You mean, if only Trump had allowed the FBI to investigate it, right? And you would be wrong. Why did Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys refuse to turn over Ford’s therapists notes, and polygraph data to either the FBI, or to the Senate Judiciary Committee? Ford requested a hearing, she got a hearing. Ford requested that the FBI further investigate Kavanaugh, and the FBI conducted an investigation. Why didn’t Ford chose to assist either effort with actual evidence? Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? The answer appears to be no. The so-called blue wave that Democrats had hoped would magically materialize and sweep elected Democrats into legislative power never appeared. The Senate Democrats had a chance to question/investigate Ford’s claim during the confirmation hearing, but Feinstein, well… you know. Many people in the U.S. still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Claiming that ALL alleged victims MUST be believed regardless of any LACK OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE will probably cost the Democrat Party seats in the upcoming general election. Haters gotta hate, but voters get tired of hearing haters cry wolf all the time. Keep up the good work. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6506 "2018-10-06T17:40:35Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Please provide a cite that Ford “claimed” specific people would corroborate her story. Hahahaha. Ford told her story. Ford chose to provide the names of people she claims were present. NONE of those people agree with Ford’s story. Ford’s own therapist’s notes do not match her new number of those present at this incident. Ford talked. People listened to what she said. They just can’t confirm her story based on what Ford has claimed. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6507 "2018-10-06T17:43:21Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Try the 20th century. Can’t believe no one mentioned another recent president who was elected despite a lack of a popular majority - Bill Clinton, twice. So shall we disregard his Supreme Court nominees Ginsburg and Breyer?. In 1968, Nixon won with 43.4% of the vote. In that term, his first of two, he nominated 4 justices that were confirmed. One was the Chief Justice. ---
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6508 "2018-10-06T17:46:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Please provide a cite that Ford “claimed” specific people would corroborate her story. Tis but a minor quibble that everyone she claimed was present disclaims knowledge. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6509 "2018-10-06T18:00:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In 1968, Nixon won with 43.4% of the vote. In that term, his first of two, he nominated 4 justices that were confirmed. One was the Chief Justice. What is your point? Did Nixon get less votes than Humphrey? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6510 "2018-10-06T18:05:22Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. Ford told her story. Ford chose to provide the names of people she claims were present. NONE of those people agree with Ford’s story. That is funny because, for starters, it was told in conservative places that one former boyfriend claimed that Ford coached a woman about what was then a coming lie detector test, and that that was definitive (as one conspiracy minded co-worker said to me). But the woman that was allegedly coached reported that what the former boyfriend of Ford said was poppycock. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6511 "2018-10-06T18:10:21Z")
Lindsey Graham calls for Senator Klobuchar to apologize to Kavanaugh. > **[Lindsey Graham says Klobuchar should apologize to Kavanaugh over "smear...](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/lindsey-graham-says-klobuchar-should-apologize-to-kavanaugh-over-smear-campaign/?__twitter_impression=true)** > > Republican senator has been a vocal supporter of Brett Kavanaugh as he faces allegations of sexual misconduct by multiple women ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6512 "2018-10-06T18:21:12Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … At least when they say they want to take our country back, we now know what century they want to take it back to. It’s got nothing at all to do with “what century they want to take it back to”. **Fiveyearlurker** made a factually-incorrect claim: > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > … there has never been a single justice previously who had this ignominious distinction… We were correcting his ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6513 "2018-10-06T18:21:42Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > At least when they say they want to take our country back, we now know what century they want to take it back to. I noted a post or two that seemed false, and so I provided the correct information without saying a word about how I _wanted_ things to be. You’re of course free to take issue with that; but why take issue in that way? ---
**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:** [October 6, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6514 "2018-10-06T18:25:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Many people in the U.S. still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Would you hire someone against whom there were credible but unproven allegations of sexual abuse to babysit your daughter? No? What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? The real issue is not this preposterous misapplication of the criteria of a criminal trial to evaluating the ethics of a Supreme Court nominee. The real issue is that many _ **conservatives** _ in the US believe that far-right ideologues should be given a free pass to positions of power regardless of their background. They just don’t care. Many, indeed, apparently feel that dishonesty and lack of ethics is a bonus for someone on their side, because more things can get done that way. I am truly sorry and embarrassed for your country. All three branches of government have been disgraced. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6515 "2018-10-06T18:27:15Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. Ford told her story. Ford chose to provide the names of people she claims were present. NONE of those people agree with Ford’s story. Ahem - [Christine Blasey Ford’s Attorneys Reveal Statement From Corroborating Witness](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christine-blasey-ford-attorneys-keith-koegler_us_5bb82805e4b0876eda9e3d85) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6516 "2018-10-06T18:36:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ahem - [Christine Blasey Ford’s Attorneys Reveal Statement From Corroborating Witness](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christine-blasey-ford-attorneys-keith-koegler_us_5bb82805e4b0876eda9e3d85) This isn’t a rebuttal of **doorhinge** ’s post. Ford did not claim that Keith Koegler was present. Whatever hearsay he would like to share is non-responsive to “NONE of those pepole [she claims were present] agree with Ford’s story.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6517 "2018-10-06T18:36:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ahem - [Christine Blasey Ford’s Attorneys Reveal Statement From Corroborating Witness](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christine-blasey-ford-attorneys-keith-koegler_us_5bb82805e4b0876eda9e3d85) Dr. Ford is claiming this as someone who was present during the alleged assault? Ahem. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6518 "2018-10-06T18:45:39Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Would you hire someone against whom there were credible but unproven allegations of sexual abuse to babysit your daughter? No? What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Honestly? Probably not, not that I actually have a daughter. Because my emotions would probably trump rationality in that situation. But if I’m a hiring manager for a company, let alone for the government, I have a duty to be impartial and rational, not emotional, about the hiring. This demonstrates another way that false allegations are so damaging. Even people like me, who know it’s wrong to judge based on a mere allegation, would probably end up doing so. However, we’re not just talking about an unproven allegation here, with respect to Kavanaugh. We are talking about one that has been thoroughly shown to have not happened in the way Ford described, with significant evidence against it and nothing apart from her claim in favour of it. And no, the claim that she told someone about it 2 years ago doesn’t corroborate her story. At most it shows she’s been making an unsupported claim for slightly longer, depending on whether you believe that she told the therapist about the same incident - despite the lack of names and differing details. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6519 "2018-10-06T18:51:00Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Same with you. italics added. 75% of rapes had alcohol involved. It’s clearly part of it. Maybe _you_ got lucky, but both posters here sound like those smokers you talk to. “_I’m_ not addicted, I just like the taste of cigarettes…” 75% of rapes have alcohol involved is not the same thing as 75% of drinkers being rapists. An no, I was not “lucky”. I am not a rapey kind of guy so when I get drunk I simply do not get rapey. No luck involved at all. I submit that most drunk people do not rape people when drunk. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6520 "2018-10-06T18:54:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This isn’t a rebuttal of **doorhinge** ’s post. Ford did not claim that Keith Koegler was present. Whatever hearsay he would like to share is non-responsive to “NONE of those pepole [she claims were present] agree with Ford’s story.” **Doorhinge** ’s post is smoke and mirrors anyway. First, applying criminal trial levels of proof here is not appropriate. This is to determine if Kavanaugh is fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Something he is not entitled to. Second, we have corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapey kind of guy. From Julie Swetnick and Deborah Ramirez and Christine Blasey Ford. > [@](#): > > To strengthen; to add weight or credibility to a tiling by additional and confirming facts or evidence. Still v. State (Tex. Cr. R.) 50 S. W. 355; State v. Hicks, 0 -S. D. 325. 00 N. W. 00; Schefter v. Hatch, 70 Hun. 597. 25 N. T. Supp. 240. The expression “corroborating circumstances” clearly does not mean facts which, independent of a confession, will warrant a conviction; for then the verdict would stand not on the confession, but upon those independent circumstances. To corroborate is to strengthen, to confirm by additional security, to add strength. **The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witness** , or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established. Corroborating circumstances, then, used in reference to a confession, are such as serve to strengthen it, to render it more probable; such, in short, as may serve to impress a jury with a belief in its truth. State v. Guild, 10 N. J. Law, 103, 18 Am. Dec. 404. > > SOURCE: [Black’s Law Dictionary](https://thelawdictionary.org/corroborate/) (bolding mine) **doorhinge** wants you to believe that since each person is not individually corroborated that there is no corroboration when, in legal terms, they are corroborating each other as to the character of Kavanaugh. Third, you have the very credible testimony given by Blasey-Ford. Even republican senators claimed it was credible. Fourth, Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony caught him in [lies and weird fabrications](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd) (Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game…really?). No one is trying to send Kavanaugh to prison. We are here to determine if he is fit to sit on the court. See [post #6477](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21251984&postcount=6477) for the rather long list of groups that do not think Kavanaugh should be on the court or, at the least, should be investigated further. So yeah, the evidence we have so far is more than sufficient to keep Kavanaugh off the supreme court (or at least should be). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/6521 "2018-10-06T19:03:11Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Would you hire someone against whom there were credible but unproven allegations of sexual abuse to babysit your daughter? No? What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Yes, I would. If those allegations were publicized by people who disliked that babysitter and had vowed that the babysitter wouldn’t get the job even before the allegations came to light, and if “credible,” is changed to mean “uncorroborated.” So innocent until proven guilty is alive and well. Whew. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=325) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=327)