# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/141 "2018-09-05T02:35:21Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Mcconnel restrained the senate from coming to the point in any process where what you are describing could have happened. > > The senate was prevented from acting (to deliberate, or straw poll, or research) by Mcconnell. No it was not. See UltraVires example in post #127. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/142 "2018-09-05T03:10:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not so sure you do, if you still believe it’s obligatory on the Senate. > > Cite for “admitted on camera that he intended to act unconstitutionally”? > > See post #94. He said that they would not have hearings at all. By what reasoning is mcconnell personifying “the senate” for your purposes? ---
**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:** [September 5, 2018, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/143 "2018-09-05T03:13:58Z")
Lets let the dead speak ill of themselves. it’s about the integrity of the Court. With less than a year left in a lame-duck presidency and the long-term ideological balance of the Supreme Court at stake, I believe the American people must have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court by electing a new president. The last time the American people spoke, they elected a Republican majority to the Senate to act as a ‘check and balance’ on President Obama’s liberal agenda – a responsibility I cannot ignore. We must allow the people to play a role in selecting the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." John McCain The hypocrisy is going to tear the nation apart. And he isn’t even on the list of bad ones. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/144 "2018-09-05T04:00:26Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > He said that they would not have hearings at all. > > By what reasoning is mcconnell personifying “the senate” for your purposes? Ahh, I see where your confusion lies. You still believe that not holding a hearing was “unconstititonal”. It was not. You are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/145 "2018-09-05T04:46:44Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > Even though he lied under oath in 2006, the Republicans will all vote for him. Too cowardly not to. He’s got 50 votes in the bag. > > Kavanaugh now proclaims wide executive privileges, but if a Democrat ever wins the White House, you can bet Kavanaugh’s decisions will then be against executive privilege. > > He’s a political hack and will vote straight down the line for favored corporations and the Republicans. But Kagan is a thoughtful, non-partisan justice, right? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/146 "2018-09-05T04:54:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Prediction: **elucidator** moves on to other subjects without a word of admission here. And here I was, being so nice to you, and all! First off, I looked at the picture. Strikes me that it is a peculiar and likely uncomfortable configuration to leave in place. It strikes me as very much like “OK” and/or the ASL symbol for “asshole”. Which brings us to Jonah Goldberg? That guys been on conservative welfare for a generation now! Somewhere down the list from Michelle Malkin. Sean Hannity throws a party, maybe he lets Jonah park the cars. Occupy Democrats? First I’d heard of them, if its all I hear of them, I will forget them quicker than a password. At any rate, I was swept away by the Constitutional expertise on display here. I imagine you, even more than I, gasp with astonishment at the bold and imaginative interpretations offered! Usually, you are quick to correct and admonish such impertinent incursions on your turf. Guess we all slow down a bit as we mellow. Or so I have heard… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/147 "2018-09-05T05:55:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Because I genuinely don’t get the brouhaha over what happened to Garland: I don’t see it as _at all_ problematic, and so I honestly don’t get _which part_ of it involves what you’d see as a key difference. Then you aren’t listening. The distinction is quite simple. They violated our Constitution and upended two centuries of precedent in an attempt to take over our democracy. The Constitution says they must have a vote, but they refused to so. If Garland had no chance of passing, then they would have let it go to a vote. They didn’t, meaning they knew he could win. **There is no reason not to have a vote unless you think you have a chance to lose.** Had they actually had to vote, and they still didn’t let him through, it would still suck. But at least then they wouldn’t have so blatantly and utterly tread on the concept of democracy and the Constitution. And the outcome is dire. For the first time since my parents have been alive, the rights of two different groups may be turned back by a supposed democracy, despite the will of the people saying that those rights should continue to exist. Most people still support abortion being legal, and most support same sex marriage. The issue at the core is that there is party of the United States of America that is blatantly anti-democratic. Hell, that’s why they gerrymander and have tried to pass voter ID. It’s even why Trump got elected despite running on a fascistic ticket. We are at a crossroads in our democracy. Can we keep it? Or does it die? And whence goes the rest of the world when we were the first? And you wonder why we’re upset. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/148 "2018-09-05T06:41:24Z")
The disgusting thing about Garland was the Heads, I win and Tails, you lose situation that McConnell created for himself. If Scalia had died a couple of months later after it was clear that Trump was the nominee, the McConnell would have let Garland go though. But, because Scalia died in February l, McConnell could deny Garland the seat and if Hillary won, then they’d ram Garland through in the lame duck session to spite Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/149 "2018-09-05T07:40:39Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > But, because Scalia died in February l, McConnell could deny Garland the seat and if Hillary won, then they’d ram Garland through in the lame duck session to spite Hillary. Though Obama could have simply opted not to appoint him in those circumstances. (I imagine it would have come down to who controlled the new Senate. A spite-confirmation is probably the best a Democrat will ever get out of McConnell, but there were a few close Senate races that might have gone the other way if the top of the ticket had performed just a little better.) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/150 "2018-09-05T08:36:45Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Then you aren’t listening. > > The distinction is quite simple. They violated our Constitution and upended two centuries of precedent in an attempt to take over our democracy. The Constitution says they must have a vote, but they refused to so. > > If Garland had no chance of passing, then they would have let it go to a vote. They didn’t, meaning they knew he could win. **There is no reason not to have a vote unless you think you have a chance to lose.** > > Had they actually had to vote, and they still didn’t let him through, it would still suck. But at least then they wouldn’t have so blatantly and utterly tread on the concept of democracy and the Constitution. > > And the outcome is dire. For the first time since my parents have been alive, the rights of two different groups may be turned back by a supposed democracy, despite the will of the people saying that those rights should continue to exist. Most people still support abortion being legal, and most support same sex marriage. > > The issue at the core is that there is party of the United States of America that is blatantly anti-democratic. Hell, that’s why they gerrymander and have tried to pass voter ID. It’s even why Trump got elected despite running on a fascistic ticket. > > We are at a crossroads in our democracy. Can we keep it? Or does it die? And whence goes the rest of the world when we were the first? And you wonder why we’re upset. I think your post is not in touch with reality, starting with the very first line. Violated the Constitution? Two centuries of precedent? Are you sure about that? That not a single SCOTUS nominee in the last two hundred years was denied a hearing? “The Constitution says they must have a vote”? No, it does not. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2018, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/151 "2018-09-05T10:12:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Then you aren’t listening. > > The distinction is quite simple. They violated our Constitution and upended two centuries of precedent in an attempt to take over our democracy. The Constitution says they must have a vote, but they refused to so. See, this was my point, there; **ElvisL1ves** said that, had there been such a vote, the difference would’ve been: “None. At best it’s following mere form, not spirit and meaning, like elections in the USSR. Now why would you think there’s a real difference that it’s worth asking an “honest question” about?” As far as I can tell, he (a) thought there would have been no difference; and he (b) didn’t seem to understand why I’d even think it was a question worth asking. And here _you_ are, saying — the opposite, I guess? Maybe you can win him over to your view, or he can win you over to his; I of course think you’re _both_ wrong, and can’t grok _either_ mindset, but maybe there’s some value for one of you there. But back to what you were saying: > [@](#): > > The Constitution says they must have a vote, but they refused to so. Where does the Constitution say that? I see where it says what the president can’t do unless he gets the consent of enough senators; but I don’t see where it says that said senators “must have a vote” on that. > [@](#): > > We are at a crossroads in our democracy. Can we keep it? Or does it die? And whence goes the rest of the world when we were the first? And you wonder why we’re upset. Because I don’t quite get what you’re proposing. Near as I can tell, the GOP simply worked within the rules when the president tried to do something without their consent, and you want to keep our democracy by doing — what, exactly? By _likewise_ working within the rules? Or by doing the _opposite,_ to, uh, save it? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/152 "2018-09-05T10:42:11Z")
Kavanaugh will almost certainly get confirmed, but the result is that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy will be seriously questioned by at least half the country. If the high court rules that Medicare for All is unconstitutional, there could be legislative and executive resistance to court rulings in the future – or court packing, or court impeachment. None of which are good. Republicans, of course, don’t care about the perceived legitimacy of the government, as it fits with their mantra that ‘government’s bad’ - unless government is used to rescue a fetus of course. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/153 "2018-09-05T10:44:35Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Kavanaugh will almost certainly get confirmed, but the result is that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy will be seriously questioned by at least half the country. If the high court rules that Medicare for All is unconstitutional, there could be legislative and executive resistance to court rulings in the future – or court packing, or court impeachment. None of which are good. Republicans, of course, don’t care about the perceived legitimacy of the government, as it fits with their mantra that ‘government’s bad’ - unless government is used to rescue a fetus of course. Why would Kavanaugh getting nominated call the Court’s legitimacy into question for half the country? He’s a perfectly-qualified judge. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/154 "2018-09-05T11:54:17Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Because I genuinely don’t get the brouhaha over what happened to Garland Then I genuinely don’t know how to help you get it. If you don’t recognize that there’s a spirit as well as a letter, then there’s just no use trying. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2018, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/155 "2018-09-05T12:08:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then I genuinely don’t know how to help you get it. If you don’t recognize that there’s a spirit as well as a letter, then there’s just no use trying. I thought the spirit covered stuff like ‘we want a whole separation-of-powers thing, where the president is to be limited in various ways; for example, when it comes to the _third_ branch, our goal is to hamper the guy from one branch by insisting that he get consent from enough second-branch officials or else accomplish nothing — oh, and same thing if he goes out and negotiates a treaty without getting enough of them on board. Heck, we want the legislature to be able to impeach and remove him; but we want them to maybe not _need_ to, if blithely overriding his vetoes suffices.’ The spirit was, as far as I can tell, to keep the guy in check, to where he needs to get cooperation from the legislators. And, as far as I can tell, it — worked? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/156 "2018-09-05T12:08:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Why would Kavanaugh getting nominated call the Court’s legitimacy into question for half the country? He’s a perfectly-qualified judge. Qualified or not, there’s been inadequate transparency about his record. In tandem with very real questions about the legitimacy of the 2016 election, about half the country will not view the two most recent SCOTUS appointments as legitimate, because about half the country doesn’t view the president as legitimate. It’s a problem only made worse by the president’s and republican party’s apparent contempt for the rule of law and the entire constitution itself. They can strum their little originalist banjos all they want, but at least half the country isn’t dancing to that shit house tune. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/157 "2018-09-05T12:11:15Z")
Maybe we have to be more blunt with you, **HD** : What do \*you \*think the hidden papers might show? What are \*you \*afraid the public might learn about him? For the service of what higher cause do \*you \*think it needs to be kept secret? ---
**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 5, 2018, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/158 "2018-09-05T12:41:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m already looking forward to the retirement of RBG or Breyer, hopefully before Trump leaves office. > > I can’t stand Trump, but man, his judicial nominations make the other shit sandwich ingredients palatable. Thank you for articulating that, this is precisely the attitude of conservatives that we have pointed out is concerning. That you are willing to let all the other stuff go, so long as he nominates the judges that are picked for him. > [@](#): > > Today I watched looney Dems accuse a woman of Mexican and Jewish ancestry of flashing white supremacy recognition signs. It was a glorious look at madness. And you have articulated another concern that our ilk have about this presidency, that pissing off liberals is more important than actually governing. ---
**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 5, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/159 "2018-09-05T12:50:13Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Honest question: imagine the Republicans had flatly told Obama that they were going to vote “no” on anybody he nominated — and then they _held the vote_ on Garland and voted “no”, possibly with each such Senator looking right into a TV camera and saying _“why did the guy bother? I mean, we told him we were going to vote ‘no’, and then we voted ‘no’. Seriously, does he just not get it? We just went over this!”_ > > How significant an improvement, in your opinion, would that have been? In this, are you broad brushing all the republicans as being lockstep? You say “imagine the Republicans”, in this, are you saying, “Imagine if one Republican, claiming to speak for the others”, or are you saying “Imagine if each and everyone of the Republicans”, in which case, in order to say that, you’d have to take a vote. And each and every one of the republicans can then go and vote no, and they can look into the camera, and give their specific reason for voting against him. They could explain why they didn’t feel that he was qualified. They could explain why he was too ideological for them to vote for. They could explain that they didn’t feel that this president had the right to nominate another justice. Or, they could explain that they voted the way they were instructed to by their party leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/160 "2018-09-05T13:09:52Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The distinction is quite simple. They violated our Constitution and upended two centuries of precedent in an attempt to take over our democracy. The Constitution says they must have a vote, but they refused to so. Could you quote the part of the Constitution that says the Senate “must have a vote”? > [@](#): > > And you wonder why we’re upset. I for one have no occasion to wonder why you are upset. Your party lost the White House and controls Congress, so you won’t be able to get your agenda enacted thru judicial activism. See if you can identify the source of the following - > [@](#): > > Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=9)