# 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:** 44
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/861 "2018-09-15T01:18:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > … Feinstein fucked it up. Majorly. Bravo, your most direct criticism up to this point. I’m delighted we can agree, at least on this point. Earlier you said this: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > … Journalists know how to treat the crazy bullshit allegations vs the credible ones. … Which category do you think this one most likely falls into? ---
**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 15, 2018, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/862 "2018-09-15T01:21:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Which category do you think this one most likely falls into? Not interesting in discussing this with someone whose posts show so little concern about sexual assault. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/863 "2018-09-15T04:27:56Z")
So saying in essence tha claim as presented does not seem to be credible, is showing “little concern about sexual assault”? Right. ---
**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 15, 2018, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/864 "2018-09-15T10:37:09Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > So saying in essence tha claim as presented does not seem to be credible, is showing “little concern about sexual assault”? > Right. No, my opinion is based on a long history. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/865 "2018-09-15T12:34:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The next SCOTUS term starts in October. Did that matter two years ago? Why not? Yes, we understand the desperation to get a vote on the Court against allowing investigations of a sitting President. Is that the most important consideration for your faction? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/866 "2018-09-15T13:09:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The next SCOTUS term starts in October. Feel free to link to posts of yours here in August and September 2016 that indicated similar concern that the Scalia vacancy might not be filled by the first Monday in October of that year. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/867 "2018-09-15T13:58:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … Yes, we understand the desperation to get a vote on the Court against allowing investigations of a sitting President. Is that the most important consideration for your faction? That’s probably not even in the top 10 most important considerations for me. I strongly suspect I’m not alone in that respect. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/868 "2018-09-15T14:22:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Did that matter two years ago? Why not? > > Yes, we understand the desperation to get a vote on the Court against allowing investigations of a sitting President. Is that the most important consideration for your faction? Don’t think it matters, many scholars think a sitting President cannot be indicted, including many liberals and most crucially, Robert Mueller. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/869 "2018-09-15T14:24:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > She’s the ranking member of the minority party on the Committee. “The Committee” isn’t some entity that exists completely apart from her. But the idea that “there is no reason” to disregard this particular allegation is nonsense. The reasons have been brought up in this thread many times. You may not like the reasons, but they are actually part of our legal system, and for good, well, reason. > I think you’d be less than ecstatic once you started seeing the gears of government grinding to a halt every time an anonymous person claimed sexual assault from 35 years ago, including times when the alleged perp was a minor. Don’t think for a minute that the crazies wouldn’t start doing this sort of thing a lot if the precedent is set. > > Give us names, dates, specific charges, and a collaborating witness or two if you want there to be any consideration that something needs to happen wrt events from 35 years ago. I think the good Senator was more worried that this was some sort of trap to be honest, but her staff leaked this not having her acumen. ---
**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:** [September 15, 2018, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/870 "2018-09-15T14:27:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Did that matter two years ago? Why not? Why not? Because there wasn’t a Republican president 2 years ago. Two years ago, there wasn’t going to be a judge nominated that the senate would accept to rule correctly (as they saw it), so it was important not to appoint one. Now, that situation has changed, so it is important to. What about that do you find hard to understand? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/871 "2018-09-15T14:37:49Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Don’t think it matters, many scholars think a sitting President cannot be indicted, including many liberals and most crucially, Robert Mueller. It’s never been tested so we don’t know. The definitive ruling would come from … well, guess what, the Court that Kavanaugh has been nominated to! The \*Nixon \*precedent was in the opposite direction, btw, and Mueller is referring to DOJ tradition only rather than a legal position. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s probably not even in the top 10 most important considerations for me. Well, sure, we do know “Suck It, Libtards, We Have The Majority Right Now, To Hell With Half The Country” is a bit higher up the list. I suspect your views on presidential immunity have … \*evolved \*since the 90’s, as have Kavanaugh’s, amirite? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/872 "2018-09-15T15:06:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s never been tested so we don’t know. The definitive ruling would come from … well, guess what, the Court that Kavanaugh has been nominated to! The \*Nixon \*precedent was in the opposite direction, btw, and Mueller is referring to DOJ tradition only rather than a legal position. _US v Nixon_ 418 US 683 was on service of process. The latest case is _Clinton v Jones_ 520 US 681. In that case the Court found a lack of immunity from private Federal _Civil_ claims made prior to ascendancy to office, but seemed to suggest that it would be the opposite for criminal cases and state claims. It was a 9-0 decision and three of them-Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer are still on the bench. Breyers concurrence especially; is helpful to Trump. Plus the case is generally considered to have been wrongly decided on the merits. ---
**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 15, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/873 "2018-09-15T16:23:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s never been tested so we don’t know. The definitive ruling would come from … well, guess what, the Court that Kavanaugh has been nominated to! The \*Nixon \*precedent was in the opposite direction, btw, and Mueller is referring to DOJ tradition only rather than a legal position. Emphasis added. [Current policy](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/prof-mueller-saying-he-cant-indict-a-president-may-really-be-a-bad-sign-for-trump/), not “tradition”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/874 "2018-09-15T17:30:31Z")
Ah, yes, the “unindicted co-conspirator”. Proof of the old saying, that which slithers around, comes around… So, he can’t be indicted? Still want the truth, all of it. Laid out with the glossy photos with the arrows. Still want to see which of our elected Republicans will stand there naked and swear otherwise. Devil doesn’t take your soul all in one chunk, usually in happens on the installment plan. Suppress voters with voter id plans? Kinda stinky, sure, there goes a chunk. But at least they can pretend to believe that voter id is so gosh-darn wonderful, the Dems ought to be willing to make such a sacrifice! Proud to take a bullet for the Party! Ruthless gerrymandering is a bit worse, make that one a couple of chunks to the Dark Lord Credit Co. How many will surrender whatever they have left when the truth is stark, clear and undeniable? Not that I’d really\* like\* to know, I’m a mite squeamish. But I should. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/875 "2018-09-15T18:45:59Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why not? Because there wasn’t a Republican president 2 years ago. Two years ago, there wasn’t going to be a judge nominated that the senate would accept to rule correctly (as they saw it), so it was important not to appoint one. Now, that situation has changed, so it is important to. > > What about that do you find hard to understand? Nothing at all. Just wasn’t expecting you to acknowledge that for you guys, the Supreme Court is just like any other political office: you want an officeholder who’ll vote for your team rather than the other team. But your honesty is appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/876 "2018-09-15T19:00:42Z")
> [@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. I assume by the logic you are displaying here, that if someone has declared their support for Kavanaugh, then they are disqualified from defending him, or supporting his confirmation in public, because doing such is just political theater? Or is it somehow different for Republicans who have made up their minds? As to this, I entirely disagree. Well, ti is political theater, but you completely miss the point about who the audience is. The audience isn’t other senators, the audience isn’t the constituents of the senators asking the tough questions. The audience is the constituency of the senators who are leaning towards voting to confirm. And it is working. I live in deep red trump territory, and I avoid bringing up politics with all but a few close friends, but I am hearing quite a bit of push back against this nomination among people who have been life long Republicans. Not trump supporters, to be sure, those people are all big fans of this nomination, but every person that I have spoken to about this, who voted for every republican prior to trump, is pulling back on this. Some have even put out calls to their senators, asking them to vote no. Will it work? I dunno. That is part of the reason for the rush, IMHO, to limit how much feedback these senators will receive from the people who elected them into office before they are forced to vote to confirm this person to a lifelong appointment. Do they feel that it is worth their jobs to give trump the nominee he wants to protect him from the legal consequences of his actions? They may, they may not, but it is something that is going to be in the minds of the senators when they get called to make this decision. > [@Bricker](#): > > You said: > > 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. Great, at least when they keep saying that they want to take the country back, we know what era they want to take it back to. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > When Obama voted to filibuster Justice Alito, did you denounce him? Or are you on the “obviously don’t” side? Did Obama make the decision for the entirety of the senate? Did you notice that, when Alito was filibustered, the nomination was actually brought to the floor and voted on? Can you see any difference between that, and a nomination that was not brought to the floor to be voted on? Any at all? In order to make that charge of hypocrisy, you would have to show that the circumstances were at least similar enough to make some sort of connection. In this case, you fail. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Some of us see Bork as the beginning of the dysfunction. Including the Republicans that voted against his confirmation? > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Although the branches are “co-equal,” each is supreme in its bailiwick. Congress (and the Senate, specifically) can indeed hamstring a President they don’t like, with nothing more than a simple majority. That’s the way the system is set up. > > Now, the President has options as well, like recess appointments, but they too can be frustrated by a Senate that does not recess long enough to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause, and in any event such appointments would terminate at the end of the next Senate session. > > But that’s the way the system is set up. I gather you’re not a fan of this system, but your dislike to the outcome doesn’t change the existence of the system. Right, and the president can appoint a SCOTUS that will find congress’s declaration making him King for Life to be constitutional. That is how the system is set up. Would you still be defending it if those were the outcomes? > [@Bricker](#): > > Today we also have a fractured political sphere. I’d say the Senate choices are a symptom, not a cause. > > But they are not “unprecedented,” or “once, a long time ago.” Unprecedented in the last century. Unprecedented since the civil war. Unprecedented since the franchise was extended to blacks and other minorities. Unprotected since the franchise was extended to women. unprecedented since civil rights and voting rights. 140 years of tradition isn’t the entirely of history, to be sure, but it is a bit of a long stretch to just throw out arbitrarily, as if it never happened. But, sure, whatever it takes to get your activist judges on the bench. You accuse democrats of sacrificing the constitutional principles when they push for judicial nominees and outcomes that further social equality, but refuse to recognize when your party pushes for nominees who want to reverse the progress towards social equality. > [@Bricker](#): > > Keep saying that. > > And I’ll keep cheering for new textualist appointments to the federal bench. I get the judges; you get the pithy rejoinders! It’s win, win! Maybe you will get one, unfortunately, what you are getting is a far right wing ideologue. He may very well judge cases in a way that you find favorable, but don’t pretend that you are supporting him because of his commitment to preserving the constitution or anything like that, at least admit that you are supporting him because he will find in favor of causes that you support. > [@Bricker](#): > > NO! > > That’s not the job of judges. Judges are here to interpret the law, not impose their own ideas about wisdom. If we are a democratic republic that vests sovereign power in the people, then we must change the law by way of the legislature, the elected leaders, not by way of the unelected, lifetime appointed judges. > > My goodness, I’m so happy your view is on the decline. We aren’t supposed to enshrine wise philosopher kings on the bench. No, we are apparently supposed to enshrine selfish ideologues who are loyal to their party’s platform to the bench. Good on! > [@Bricker](#): > > If a law that worked fine for wigs and carriages doesn’t work for mohawks and Teslas, CHANGE THE LAW with the legislature. > > Your plaintive complaint is simple: you want the laws changed but can’t garner the necessary popular support. > > Women can’t vote! Do we (a) decide that the language of the Constitution, which was passed with everyone agreeing it did not mean that women have the right to vote, now suddenly is revealed to mean that women have a right to vote? Or (b) amend the Constitution to correct what is now seen as an injustice? > > I know which one is the proper choice for a representative democracy, and I know which choice is the proper choice for a nation governed by philosopher-kings. > > I imagine you do, also. Like they did with Heller, with Trinity, with the Colorado bakers, right? Are you claiming that it is only democrats who turn to the courts when they feel as the the legislature is not responsive to the rights that they are entitled to? > [@Bricker](#): > > And if a pure interest in representative democracy does not sway you, then this thought experiment should: > > Trump is, like it or not, the President. Which judge should he appoint? > > (1) A judge that says, “I dispense justice as I see it. I’m not concerned about the opinions of dead men in wigs. I will deliver results that make this country better!” And remember: Trump picked this judge. > > (2) A judge that says, “My ideas about wise legislative choices and policies have no place in my opinions. I deliver a reading of the law as written, applied to the facts before me.” > > I know that you WANT Judge 1 picked by Obama. But that’s not an option right now. So are your interests better served by Trump-picked Judge 1 or Trump-picked Judge 2? Are you trying to claim that trump nominated a type 2 judge? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The argument boils down to “there is no way he could not have known…”. That’s different from showing “here is proof that he did know”. Also, note that your article ends with: > > I quote that in deference to the subject of this thread. This either goes to his integrity or his incompetence. He was receiving and distributing information that was stolen. The excuse here is that he wasn’t quite bright enough to see that it was intended solely for internal distribution in the party. He also wasn’t bright enough o see when the subject said “spying”. He even apparently thinks that a mole is an animal, and not a person who is planted in an opposing organization to acquire information. So, “there is not way he could not have known” is not true. He could have not known if he was a fucking idiot. > [@Bricker](#): > > Trump is the nominating power. That is a given today. Under that, do you prefer that he picks a judge that agrees “wisdom and life experiences” are a central source of insight? This would be a judge whose wisdom and life experiences resonate with Trump. > > Or do you prefer he picks judges that believe wisdom and life experiences ought not to be a central source of insight? Which do you really think this is? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > He paid off someone using a credit card? If he did, he definitely does’t belong on the Supreme Court. > > **Bijou** : Obama admitted to using cocaine in HS, as well as being in a pot smoking club. I’m think we’re well past that sort of thing. It’s not hypocrisy if one side is against something, and the other is not, for the one side that is against it to be held to a higher standard. Ginsberg was not voted down by democrats, it was his own party that came to him, and told him that the revelations about his “stoner ways” wasn’t going to fly. I don’t care what Obama did, and while I’d rather have him not toking it up in the oval office, I actually don’t care, so long as he isn’t making any important decisions while under the influence. OTOH, the Republicans are the party of Jess Sessions, who wants to increase the drug war. If you nominate a very strong anti-drug person the attorney general, then your party takes such things more seriously, and as such, you can be judged on it. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What would? > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I think the letter from 65 women indicates that someone on the Republican side knew that this was possibly going to come out. To be fair, I think that at this point, every republican has been instructed to compile a list of 65 women that they haven’t raped, just in case. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The next SCOTUS term starts in October. That wasn’t of any sort of importance when your party didn’t want to fill the vacant seat. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Did that matter two years ago? Why not? > > Yes, we understand the desperation to get a vote on the Court against allowing investigations of a sitting President. Is that the most important consideration for your faction? No, of course not. They also want an activist judge who will ensure that gun laws are banned and fetuses are people from the moment of ejaculation. ---
**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 15, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/877 "2018-09-15T19:04:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What the fuck are you talking about? The Senate decides the process for vetting SCOTUS justices. I’m talking about your post, where you specifically referred to “the committee”, not “the Senate”. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing in this process that’s “actually part of our legal system” that prevents the Senate from investigation this. There’s nothing stopping them from delaying a vote and actually investigating this except for politics. It was an analogy. Claiming that there is no good reason to reject an investigation here is the same as claiming there is no good reason for a statute of limitations. Because the “reasons” are exactly the same. > [@](#): > > The crazies have been doing this bullshit for years. This is nothing new. Journalists know how to treat the crazy bullshit allegations vs the credible ones. And it wouldn’t be at all hard for the Senate to figure that out either, as long as they actually devoted some time and effort to it. Nothing would change except that the government might actually start treating allegations seriously. If this has been happening for years, when was the last time a confirmation committee spent time investigating a 2nd hand anonymous claim of 35-years-in-the-past sexual assault by a High School student? Why should such a claim be treated seriously? It’s hard to imagine a claim with less substance to it, unless the parties were deceased. I don’t know exactly what Feinstein did, but if she did anything more than send a letter back saying: “Thanks for your interest in the confirmation process (blah, blah, blah). Please be advised that I am unable to bring this claim into the process due to the lack of any substance. I encourage you to work with the accuser and present a substantive claim that we can work with” (or something to that effect that might sound more user friendly) then I think she would have over-reacted. ---
**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 15, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/878 "2018-09-15T19:10:59Z")
And let’s not forget that the issue was eventually referred to the FBI. They declined to investigate. Why do you suppose that is? “Reasons”? I believe they have some level of expertise in doing those types of investigations, no? ---
**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:** [September 15, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/879 "2018-09-15T20:06:44Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Nothing at all. Just wasn’t expecting you to acknowledge that for you guys, the Supreme Court is just like any other political office: you want an officeholder who’ll vote for your team rather than the other team. > > But your honesty is appreciated. I’m not one of those guys, I’m not American for starters. It’s rather telling that you think that someone accurately observing what has happened, what has changed, must be your enemy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/880 "2018-09-15T20:22:22Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Right, and the president can appoint a SCOTUS that will find congress’s declaration making him King for Life to be constitutional. That is how the system is set up. Would you still be defending it if those were the outcomes? No. Because those outcomes are inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution, so we are protected from such outcomes by selecting judges that believe only the text, and not their ideas of wise social policy, should drive decisions. > [@](#): > > But, sure, whatever it takes to get your activist judges on the bench. You accuse democrats of sacrificing the constitutional principles when they push for judicial nominees and outcomes that further social equality, but refuse to recognize when your party pushes for nominees who want to reverse the progress towards social equality. Wrong. My nominees want to limit the judicial reach to the text of the Constitution, and accept “progress towards social equality” when it comes from the legislature and is not violative of the Constitution. YOUR preferred judges are willing to enshrine their view of wise “progress towards social equality” into their decisions even if the text of the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing. > [@](#): > > Maybe you will get one, unfortunately, what you are getting is a far right wing ideologue. He may very well judge cases in a way that you find favorable, but don’t pretend that you are supporting him because of his commitment to preserving the constitution or anything like that, at least admit that you are supporting him because he will find in favor of causes that you support. Not true in the slightest. I support the process, not a desire for particular results. > [@](#): > > Like they did with Heller, with Trinity, with the Colorado bakers, right? Are you claiming that it is only democrats who turn to the courts when they feel as the the legislature is not responsive to the rights that they are entitled to? Text of the law. That’s all they asked for Which do you really think this is? It’s not hypocrisy if one side is against something, and the other is not, for the one side that is against it to be held to a higher standard. Ginsberg was not voted down by democrats, it was his own party that came to him, and told him that the revelations about his “stoner ways” wasn’t going to fly. I don’t care what Obama did, and while I’d rather have him not toking it up in the oval office, I actually don’t care, so long as he isn’t making any important decisions while under the influence. OTOH, the Republicans are the party of Jess Sessions, who wants to increase the drug war. If you nominate a very strong anti-drug person the attorney general, then your party takes such things more seriously, and as such, you can be judged on it. To be fair, I think that at this point, every republican has been instructed to compile a list of 65 women that they haven’t raped, just in case. That wasn’t of any sort of importance when your party didn’t want to fill the vacant seat. No, of course not. They also want an activist judge who will ensure that gun laws are banned and fetuses are people from the moment of ejaculation. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=45)