Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

She was having marital problems (hence the couple’s therapy) and invented a story about being assaulted in high school in order to explain her lack of interest in being intimate with her husband.

That was me imitating Trump or Giuliani or someone else in the administration, btw, not my own opinion.

Now that the woman has come forward, if she’s willing to testify in front of the committee, I agree that a delay in the vote is warranted to allow her to testify. If she’s not willing to testify in front of the committee, then no delay in the vote. But if this is the only accusation of sexual assault against him I don’t think it’s reason enough to not seat him.

If for some reason Kavanaugh withdraws his name, I think that the nominee to replace him will be a woman.

Her claim is much weaker than Hills, even ignoring the changed climate.

Yeah, Ivanka.

America, 2018.

Heh. But if you remember “the list”, there were women on all versions of it. Trump might want to grab the nominee’s pussy first, so there could be some problems.

It doesn’t “imply” that at all. It implies they want to get Justice Kavanaugh confirmed before the SCOTUS term starts in OCtober.

What “rushing” are you talking about? Previously I posted this:

Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9th. That was 69 days ago, and it’s still probably another 10 or so until his final confirmation vote. That’s not “rushed”. Its right in line with the nominations of previous SCOTUS justices.

I know it’s not a done deal yet. We’ll know in a little more than a week if the Republicans have the votes or not. I think it’s likely that they do.

The accuser has come forward, and (according to the article) took a polygraph test and passed it:

I don’t expect this to change anything as far as the actions of the Republicans in the Senate, since they’ve made it clear they value politics far, far more than protecting women from sexual assault. And what this thread has shown, sadly, is that a few Dopers feel the same way.

Can you tell me that why this is important? It was not important to have a full court when the republicans were wanting to block Obama’s nominee. How is that suddenly changed?

The very rushing that we were just now talking about, here in this thread, just a few posts ago. Please tell me you haven’t already forgotten.

And this will be enough time to fully investigate these allegations against his character? If not, then yes, that is the definition of rushed.

You are taking a vote before you know whether there is merit behind these, whether there are more, or anything. You are choosing to vote before you know these things. Comparing it to time tables of other justices is an utterly irrelevant and pointless attempt at distraction.

Reading the text ans assuming what it meant, rather. An assumption based on the context of the times, certainly, but an assumption nonetheless.

When we go to “what did they mean *at the time *by ‘the press’” we are already straying from the plain text. No?

(ETA: missed all of the latest page of posts; sorry to be redundant.)
.

it’s already been stated on this thread that there is nothing to worry about - if he’s a bad guy he can be impeached later.

So now the accuser has come forward, and (apparently) passed a polygraph test. The Senate must take the time to fully investigate these allegations. I doubt they will, but if they do not it will only further cement the Republican party being reasonably characterized as the party of tolerance for sexual assault.

It’s Trump’s party now. I am guessing even this board’s NeverTrump crowd will claim this is all a hoax.

How much do you know about polygraph tests?

Feinstein’s actions showed that too, and yet you seem to only want to single out Republicans. Partisan much?

Enough to confidently assert “the Senate should investigate such a credible accusation seriously before voting on this nominee”. Of course, YMMV if you don’t place a high value on protecting women from sexual assault.

Do you know why the security services still use them extensively even though they do not reliably detect lies?

So all you got is “what about…”. Nothing about how, maybe, the Senate should fully investigate credible accusations of sexual assault before voting on SCOTUS nominees.

everybody with an IQ over 50 knows a polygraph can’t be used in court. But yet the CIA , FBI etc still use them ,maybe not as much as in the past. So those 2 facts don’t make sense when taken together.

In case no one else asks you, why?