# 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:** 74
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1461 "2018-09-18T21:17:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, they are not. I might give you partial credit if they had refused to hear from Ford, but instead they postponed the vote to give Ford a chance to tell her story in front of the committee. Yeah! Like Roberto Duran said “_No mas_!” because his opponent was exhausted from beating his brains out. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1462 "2018-09-18T21:21:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As opposed to a clear partisan attempt to rush it through while the Republicans still can, withholding and concealing whatever relevant information they fear might be revealed? :dubious: > > Some of us are more concerned with the character of the nominee for a lifetime appointment than with his job interviewers’. Obviously you are not. 1. What, in your view, would consist of not “rushing”? I’ll bet a shiny nickel that whatever it entails means a delay until after the midterms and one step further than what the Republicans propose, whatever it may be! 2. Oh, so if these allegations are not substantiated, you and your side will support Kavanaugh’s nomination? Of course not. You are already opposed to him, so why should the GOP care about what your side believes is an appropriate amount of investigation or testimony? No amount will be enough. Yesterday the cry was “She must be heard, we cannot vote on Thursday!” Today, now that she is invited to testify, the cry is “That is not enough! We need more witnesses!” If the GOP keeps playing the left’s game and keeps reacting instead of being proactive, we will lose this. I admit that your side in winning this exchange because you get to set the rules. Again, your side has had since July to investigate this and to ask Kavanaugh questions about it. Feinstein kept it secret. Try that in any court in front of any judge. Say on the eve of trial, “Judge, I’ve known about this witness for two months, but now I need more time to investigate him. Please continue the trial.” See how that goes for you. Why should this type of shenanigan work in the U.S. Senate? ---
**Author:** ![Modesty\_Blaise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Modesty\_Blaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Modesty_Blaise)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1463 "2018-09-18T21:22:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Stipulating that she did that, the question isn’t, how does your sports team recover from the dirty play. The question is, how do we **now** avoid putting a sexual predator on the court. > > You’re in the “let’s go ahead!” side. I’m in the “let’s not” side. > > The side you’re on is terrible, even if, as you insist, you share it with Feinstein. You mean ANOTHER sexual predator on the court. I’m curious, does the fact that the accuser passed a polygraph change the opinion of anyone here? You know Kav will be asked if he’ll agree to take one. Should he? ---
**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 18, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1464 "2018-09-18T21:26:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I mean, remember when Merrick Garland couldn’t get a hearing because the voters deserved a chance to decide, when a year wasn’t enough time to let him have a seat? The truth is no one cares about being called a hypocrite when a SCOTUS justice is on the line. And the fact is, if the Democrats can stall the confirmation vote until after January, there’s a chance they might have control of the Senate. The Republicans are not going to allow that no matter how much they look like hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1465 "2018-09-18T21:28:56Z")
> [@Modesty\_Blaise](#): > > … I’m curious, does the fact that the accuser passed a polygraph change the opinion of anyone here? … Not without significantly more details about the polygraph. She said it was “administered by a former FBI agent” in “early August”. Who was that agent? Did they have any experience administering polygraphs? What were the questions asked? Did the polygraph detect an “untruthful” response to any of the questions asked? etc. ---
**Author:** ![Modesty\_Blaise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Modesty\_Blaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Modesty_Blaise)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1466 "2018-09-18T21:33:20Z")
Okay, I get that. What about the fact that she volunteered to do it in the first place. Does that mean anything? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1467 "2018-09-18T21:33:50Z")
Sen. Blumenthal has made up his mind: > [@Reuters](#): > > “I believe Dr. Ford. I believe the survivor here,” Blumenthal said. “… She has come forward courageously and bravely, knowing she would face a nightmare of possible and vicious scrutiny.” No need for further evidence taking. Why is Blumenthal rushing? ---
**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 18, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1468 "2018-09-18T21:40:58Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Sen. Blumenthal has made up his mind: > > No need for further evidence taking. Why is Blumenthal rushing? …says the guy who doesn’t see any need for any investigation at all. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1469 "2018-09-18T21:45:29Z")
> [@Modesty\_Blaise](#): > > Okay, I get that. > > What about the fact that she volunteered to do it in the first place. Does that mean anything? Not much. I suspect the whole thing was much more of a gimmick set up by the lawyer with a friendly “former FBI agent” and carefully pre-screened questions to ensure that they could include the “she passed a polygraph” line in press releases, than an actual attempt at uncovering the truth of the matter. I remain open the possibility that my suspicion is incorrect, but persuading me of that would probably involve answering the sort of questions I posed above. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1470 "2018-09-18T21:49:12Z")
Then don’t you want a more thorough investigation to change Blumenthal’s mind? There’s a lot of tu quoque going on here. Like, if some random Democrat does something wrong, it means the Republicans have license to do the wrong thing too. Again, this is not a court of law. We’re not discussing whether Kavanaugh should go to prison. If we were, then for someone on the jury to preemptively declare that they believe the accusation would be improper. We’re discussing whether the accusation is credible enough to cause you to vote against confirming him to the Supreme Court. And if you want to play the tu quoque card, I can point to dozens of Republicans who’ve jumped in and stated that they believe Kavanaugh’s denials. So if the presence of political grandstanders on one side automatically discredits that side, then both sides are discredited. And so the only option is to ignore the political grandstanders. If the charge is that the Democrats are trying to delay the nomination, well, there you go. That’s a thing that is happening. Now, given that, what’s your response? That because the Democrats are trying to delay the nomination the accusation must be untrue? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1471 "2018-09-18T21:58:07Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > … Now, given that, what’s your response? That because the Democrats are trying to delay the nomination the accusation must be untrue? I don’t think anyone here has insisted that “the accusation must be untrue”. Why would you ask that? ---
**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 18, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1472 "2018-09-18T21:58:54Z")
the Dems want Judge to be subpoenaed which is not surprising but they have no power on their own to make him testify. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1473 "2018-09-18T22:00:36Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > the Dems want Judge to be subpoenaed which is not surprising but they have no power on their own to make him testify. Have they called for the polygrapher to be subpeonaed? the therapist? Ford’s husband? the other people at the party? or just Mark Judge? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1474 "2018-09-18T22:01:43Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Then don’t you want a more thorough investigation to change Blumenthal’s mind? > > There’s a lot of tu quoque going on here. Like, if some random Democrat does something wrong, it means the Republicans have license to do the wrong thing too. > > Again, this is not a court of law. We’re not discussing whether Kavanaugh should go to prison. If we were, then for someone on the jury to preemptively declare that they believe the accusation would be improper. We’re discussing whether the accusation is credible enough to cause you to vote against confirming him to the Supreme Court. > > And if you want to play the tu quoque card, I can point to dozens of Republicans who’ve jumped in and stated that they believe Kavanaugh’s denials. So if the presence of political grandstanders on one side automatically discredits that side, then both sides are discredited. And so the only option is to ignore the political grandstanders. > > If the charge is that the Democrats are trying to delay the nomination, well, there you go. That’s a thing that is happening. Now, given that, what’s your response? That because the Democrats are trying to delay the nomination the accusation must be untrue? I have no idea whether the accusation is true or untrue or partially true. I don’t know Kavanaugh nor Ford. I was 6 years old in 1982. I do believe that any process, whether a trial or a confirmation process, should be governed by notions of fundamental fairness to all parties and to the process itself. The time lapse has made a defense all but impossible. I am all for encouraging women to come forward with allegations of sexual assault; however, I am also for allowing a person who is innocent of those allegations an opportunity to defend himself. Waiting thirty-six years does not accomplish that fairness. Not even close. Add into that the fact that the Democrats have had the note since July and spring this at the 11th hour of the process makes it doubly unfair. Now, it seems because I am not holding a torch as part of the mob to condemn anyone simply accused of sexual assault, then that somehow means that I condone sexual assault. It is a non-sequitur that is going to end up being the modern version of the Salem Witch Trials. ---
**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 18, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1475 "2018-09-18T22:02:54Z")
I hear there is something called Google that might be able to give answers as to who is or is not being called to testify as of today. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1476 "2018-09-18T22:04:43Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > I hear there is something called Google that might be able to give answers as to who is or is not being called to testify as of today. That’s ok. Your response here tells me what I need to know. ---
**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 18, 2018, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1477 "2018-09-18T22:10:44Z")
has anyone answered why there is a hurry to get this done? I seem to recall a group of people a few years back that were totally OK with having only 8 members on the court for a year. Or did I dream that ? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1478 "2018-09-18T22:13:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > On the TV, Mark Judge (the alleged accomplice) released a letter saying he has no memory of this incident At best, it comes off sounding like “Sometimes in high school I really got blitzed at parties, but I don’t remember _that_”. Regardless of whose story is truthful, Kavanaugh is probably toast. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1479 "2018-09-18T22:13:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, they are not. I might give you partial credit if they had refused to hear from Ford, but instead they postponed the vote to give Ford a chance to tell her story in front of the committee. Announcing that Ford will testify without checking with her first, refusing to conduct an FBI investigation, and refusing to call in witnesses to evaluate Ford’s account is not a full and fair investigation. My claim stands. What the GOP now is doing is kabuki for the rubes. ---
**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 18, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/1480 "2018-09-18T22:19:30Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > has anyone answered why there is a hurry to get this done? I’ll answer it – because the Republicans are worried that the longer this drags out, the less chance Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and the less time they’ll have to confirm another Republican-preferred justice before a risky election. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=73) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=75)