Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

Its pretty obvious why. A female lawyer would have much better optics and be able to perform a much more thorough cross. The reluctance of the Ford team on this score, suggests that they are not confident as to the ability of their client to effectively resist cross.

the legal scholar Franklin Graham says:

Attempted rape not a crime. Kavanaugh “respected” his victim by not finishing.

Since this, sadly, needs repeating: It’s not a trial. It’s a job interview.

Since sadly this needs repeating, that’s irrelevant, as the committee has the power to issue process, record evidence under oath and punish contempt, it is acting in this instance as a quasi-judicial tribunal. So normal concerns of witness testimony and handling apply.

And again, even in a job interview, don’t we value fundamental fairness as Americans? If a guy is interviewing to be a janitor at your business and someone comes in and says, “Don’t hire him, he steals from the till after hours!” don’t we all think that it is only the right thing to do to give the candidate the opportunity to fairly respond to the allegations? And we further would want an opportunity to examine the accuser about his/her knowledge of these allegations of theft?

Your point is correct and has been rebutted several times. This is not a criminal trial and the 5th and 6th Amendment rights do not apply, but our basic sense of fairness and decency do apply.

Yes, the committee has the power to compel people to tell the truth to it. That should not be a problem for people *willing *to tell the truth, should it?

Nobody is going to get convicted of anything here. The worst that can happen is the guy has to keep his existing lifetime Federal judgeship, and his rulings can be overturned on appeal.

Damn. :rolleyes:

Of course. So why are you opposed to that happening? Why are you denigrating the testimony and even appearance of someone ready to provide a* fair* accounting of the nominee’s character? Is there a reason you don’t want to be fair?

We Americans, collectively, need fairness from the committee and the Senate* to us*, too. Stop resisting it and start supporting it.

But all other aspects do not. Because it is a job interview. “Irrelevant” should be changed thereby to “relevant”. Carry on.

Something about this quote makes me think you’re not a great person to talk with about allegations of sexual assault.

I could not, in good conscience, vote to confirm Kavanaugh without some sort of independent investigation of this matter. If I were a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. And I say that given:

  1. I’m OK with Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy and history as a judge.

  2. I think there is very little chance that such an investigation would turn up anything substantive and we’d be left in the somewhat absurd situation of dealing with two middle aged adults, in the 50s, arguing about what happened in high school.

But “very little chance” is not no chance, and there is plenty of time to do such an investigation even if we bow to the political situation of the Republicans wanting a vote before the midterm elections. My only caveat is, and I hope we find this out during the testimony this week, if Ford’s memory is a “recovered memory” that only came out during one of the therapy sessions back in the 2012 timeframe. If it turns out that is the case, I would vote to confirm. I would not commission an investigation to check out an accusation based on recovered memory from 30 years ago. But otherwise, no. We have time to do unbiased fact-finding, and not doing so forces us to make a completely unnecessary leap of faith.

What do you hope to find, John? What were you doing in 1982? Or possibly 1981 or 1983 or 1984? There is literally a better chance of finding D.B. Cooper at this point than there is finding solid evidence in this case.

surprised they have not found a way to put a GOP woman on the committee unless the rules don’t allow that kind of committee change until after the next election. Of course being the party in power the GOP could always change the rules.

Paul Krugman said this recently:

" “Bad faith” is, by the way, a legal term, referring to “entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty.” In politics, it usually means pretending to be committed to principles you abandon the moment they become inconvenient. And bad faith in this sense pervades almost everything the modern G.O.P. says and does.

In fact, what’s really hard is to come up with significant areas of politics or policy where Republicans are acting in good faith. … Mainly, I suspect, because its core policy agenda of cutting taxes on the rich while slashing social programs is deeply unpopular. So to win elections it must obscure its true policies."
There is a desperation that looks like the death throes of a party today. You (Rs) need more justices to make up for the politics that you keep losing at. 2 women on the court, then we need 2 abusers. Much of this court will be appointed by people who lost the popular vote, and won the electoral. Electoral voting is a remnant from slavery. Rs are looking like those flies and bees you see at the end of summer. Lots of flailing and no future.

Upon review of my post to** iiandyiiii **above, when I said “your secret goal” I meant to say the left’s secret goal. I fully believe that iiandyiiii holds a valid position on this issue, one that I simply disagree with. No personal attack intended.

You mean, what you know of it, given the little information that Grassley has allowed to become public. I think you might want to know more about how he views Presidential immunity from investigation, and why his position has reversed extremes from the Clinton years. Unless you’re OK with that, as you say. The rape allegation should, I would think, also color your views on how he’d rule on sexual harassment and related cases. But the topic has been shut off from discussion, as has his financial history (and bribeability?). Why does that not bother you?

That’s what investigations are for, aren’t they?

The refusal to call Mark Judge along with McConnell and Hatch’s admissions that they will confirm regardless of what comes out tells you pretty much everything you need to know about this.

The Republicans do not care to learn the truth, and as some have admitted it is because they don’t care if Kavanaugh tried to rape her.

Maybe, but I took that as just brave talk to encourage the troops. I don’t think either knows how Flake will vote, since he’s not under the leadership’s whip anymore. I also doubt McConnell would take it to the full Senate anyway after a negative committee vote. They do know there are elections coming up soon, and that their continued efforts to keep the USS Trump from sinking are making the party look bad in the polls.

I don’t know. I disagree about the DB Cooper analogy, but I do believe that a person’s answers when being personally interview by the FBI might be different from what they would write in a letter to the committee. And I’d like to have the FBI interview Ford’s about the therapist notes. I’m assuming the therapists themselves would not be able to discuss the notes, but Ford can.

I agree, except I would be more careful about using the term “Republicans” in this case. Probably true for most, but I’m not sure that applies to Flake, Collins and a few others. And right now, the only person of either party who matters on the SJC is Flake.

Collins will vote at her party’s call. She always does despite some occasional tut-tutting beforehand.

I hope you’re right about the first sentence, but you’re wrong about the second one: How Each Senator Voted on Obamacare Repeal Proposals - The New York Times

If Flake is a potential holdout vote, and he wants to know the truth, then wouldn’t he leverage the committee into a subpoena of Judge?