Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

I’m all for bipartisanship, myself.

If one of the democratic senators sides with the republicans on something, then it is up to their constituents to decide if that was a “betrayal of the party”, or acting responsibly.

This idea that a senator has to toe the party line is a relatively new one, and it is one that is pushed by the conservatives.

At this time, I disagree with the idea of democrats reaching across the aisle, as it does not seem as though they will be received in good faith, but if they feel as though doing so nets a positive, then I have no problem with that.

But you don’t seem to think that bipartisanship is ever a good thing. You are indicating here, with your posts, that you expect all the party to vote in lockstep. That is fine, but if you are going to broadbrush your party as being monolithic, then don’t criticize others for pointing out that your party is monolithic.

It shouldn’t be. Wonder why Ms. Ford is having so much reluctance to testify before the committee?

Regards,
Shodan

I was speaking generally, about having legit reasons to delay versus non-legit reasons. There are more reasons than just death threats.

However, it’s also true: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/christine-blasey-ford-to-speak-with-fbi-about-death-threats

They will realize it when they discover that not only has rape been decriminalized, but that they are required to carry their rapist’s baby to term, and that they will be required to give their rapist parental rights. Boys will be boys, after all, and as demonstrated, not only is there no punishment, but also elevation to one of the most powerful people in the world, and this is perfectly okay with people who start by assuming the allegations are 100% true.

Of course they don’t; they never have. Did Republicans seem particularly concerned if they ever found Iraq’s alleged arsenal?

I don’t want to be part of the problem. Help a fellow poster out and explain why giving her carte blanche to testify is an example of the GOP being “rotten at its core.”

Would you like me to dig up some examples of liberals insisting that senators tow the party line?

Not at all. I think bipartisan support of Justice Kavanaugh would be a great thing. Likewise, I think bipartisan support of Trump’s immigration reforms would be good. etc.

“expect”? No. “Hope” is the word I used. Just like many liberals “hope” that the moderate / red-state Dems will vote with the party against Kavanaugh, particularly if it were to be the difference between him being confirmed or not.

Explain this. We have wives, daughters, mothers, aunts, and other female relatives. You think we want them to be raped with impunity or no criminal penalties? Do you have a cite for anyone that has ever advocated legal rape?

Fairness in this process doesn’t exist anymore. What you get, what your side of the aisle DEMANDED be the limit of consideration is “Constitutional”.

It’s laughable that you want people to be “fair” to your candidate.

The POTUS—the top official of the Republican Party—tweets garbage like this:

…but you want to act as if Republicans are saints for allowing Ford to speak on Thurs instead of Monday?

Yes, you are part of the problem.

Extrapolate Trump’s remarks to anyone who has waited years before reporting sexual assault and rape, and you’ll see that he’s insulting millions of victims. Including victims of pedophilic clergymen. All in the service of politics and self-interest.

Which was a federal matter since it involved two federal employees in a federal entity. Not the case here. And the FBI cannot be given jurisdiction by the President, where they have none, contrary to what has been reported, all they can do is perform a background check, which they have done. Background checks don’t decide on guilt or innocence, they just get info and flag it.

I’m glad that you admit that your proposal is to be unfair to Kavanaugh. I have said throughout this thread that the proposals are unfair.

The GOP and Grassley should realize that these demands are simply to be unfair and should summarily reject them.

You know who’s a Senator capable of independent thought? Diane Feinstein. She chose NOT to bring this up during the hearings. This is a political stunt on her part and she should be censured for it.

As a judge, the gold standard for what his judicial views are, are his judgements from the bench. That is freely available.

Well just now it was a plate of Chicken Corden Bleu with Sauteed Vegetables, washed down with a very agreeable cocktail.

:rolleyes:
Maybe you’d do better if you saw the opposing side in this thread as merely having a different view, not being the spawn of Satan.

  1. I am not Trump’s agent or spokesman. You cannot impute his comments as if they are mine.

  2. Earlier in this thread, I expressed relief that someone had made Trump stay off Twitter about this.

  3. His comments are incredibly tone-deaf and I disagree with them in their entirety.

So, again, how am I part of the problem? What problem?

I’m not asking for the FBI to be given jurisdiction. As for the last part (emphasis added), I’ve posted exactly that a couple times in the last 24 hours. To investigate this as a “background check” is all we can expect. And it might be well beyond he timeframe they typically consider, but that doesn’t make it impossible to do. We know at least 4 and maybe 5 people who should be interviewed as a start.

If you’re not advocating that every Republican be extremely critical of President Trump’s bragging about violating the consent of women on multiple occasions, as well as demanding (and executing, since they have that power) investigations into the several credible allegations of sexual assault and rape, as well as supporting the Mueller investigation (and stating publicly that they support it and will not tolerate any efforts by Trump to end it), among many other things (cruelty towards immigrant families, incompetence in foreign policy re: NK and Iran, and much more that has nothing to do with conservative policy preferences), then you are part of the problem.

Yep, no question, Kavanaugh has been a total gentleman since graduating from Georgetown Prep.

According to the Washington Post’s Dan Eggen, “Kavanaugh grew frustrated [during the prep session for his testimony] when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities…He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal.”

Guess he’s forgotten about all those questions he wanted to ask Bill Clinton. In addition to those elucidator has already mentioned, who can forget hits like:

If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give her [sic] oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink of the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary’s office, would she by [sic] lying?

Boy howdy, he’s turned into quite the little snowflake, hasn’t he? Because it’s hard to imagine what they could have asked him that would be too personal, compared to questions like these.

Wow. You’re actually serious, aren’t you?

All I can say is, “True to form.”

Bye.

Note on the Guardian article that you linked to: Professor Chua herself says that it’s a blatant lie.