# Dems should confirm Kavanaugh as soon as possible **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 10, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685 "2018-07-10T22:51:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/61 "2018-07-11T14:04:14Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > This shit crazy. Make Democrats look horrible and crazy? Compared to what? Trump? LOL. I can’t wait till we snatch the Democratic party from white folks. Ya’ll ruining it. Er… Pretty sure you’re gonna need us wypipo if you folks expect to be effective at… Well, anything. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/62 "2018-07-11T14:33:51Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > This shit crazy. Make Democrats look horrible and crazy? Compared to what? Trump? LOL. I can’t wait till we snatch the Democratic party from white folks. Ya’ll ruining it. And so your proposal to improve the Democratic party is to make it the anti-white party? Christ, if the right wing in this country ever had a political fantasy, you just sketched their centerfold for them. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2018, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/63 "2018-07-11T14:36:31Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 1. Midterms are all about turning out your voters. Maybe Presidential elections are about appealing to the median voter (although I believe this less as time goes by, but I digress), but midterms aren’t. Give Dem voters reason to show up and vote. > > 2. You don’t enthuse your voters by rolling over and playing dead. > > 3. It’s true that the Dems are unlikely to win this particular fight. But I’m with Josh Marshall: if you can’t win a fight like this, it’s important to lose well. This is a fight where the Dems can highlight the differences between the two parties. Not just _Roe_: Kavanaugh’s consistently ruled in favor of big corporations and against consumers, employees, unions. [Here’s a good example](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-seaworld): > Why should businesses be penalized if their whales have a persistent habit of eating the help? _Jeez._ > > Yeah, fight this one. Fight like hell. Demand to see all the Bush-era and Starr Inquisition documents Kavanaugh wrote or signed off on. Drag this out, every day or two, bring up a new example of when Kavanaugh voted for the corporations and against ordinary people, make sure the voters know exactly who the GOP is voting for, when it votes to put this horrible excuse for a human being on the Supreme Court. > > Maybe it’ll even give Collins or Murkowski enough indigestion to vote against him. (Not expecting it, but one can hope. But I don’t buy the argument that another nominee would be even worse - _how much worse can s/he be?_ This guy will vote the GOP-approved way 99.5% of the time.) > > Twenty months ago, I assumed Obamacare was doomed. (It’s in the intensive care ward, sure, but it’s still alive aenough to insure people.) But we fought the good fight last year, and kept Congress, at least, from killing it. And Dem approval went up, and GOP and Trump approval went down. > > Fighting the big battles is the right thing to do. I think this strategy, if employed to the fullest, is going to succeed in achieving two things: 1. polarization 2. convince the few remaining centrists left that the progressive left might be just as bat-shit insane as the political right. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/64 "2018-07-11T14:58:49Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I think this strategy, if employed to the fullest, is going to succeed in achieving two things: > > 1. polarization Can’t pretend to accomplish what’s already been done. > [@](#): > > 1. convince the few remaining centrists left that the progressive left might be just as bat-shit insane as the political right. What, “the few remaining centrists” are going to be convinced that the progressive left is bat-shit insane because we feel _people shouldn’t become orca lunch while on the job??_ You’ll have to excuse me for this, but I’m incredibly unconvinced. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/65 "2018-07-11T15:38:30Z")
Democrats can fight like hell - and I certainly don’t have a problem unanimously voting against Kavanaugh along party lines. But they’re not going to win. We’ve already seen how this plays out with Gorsuch. The real lesson here is that elections have consequences. If progressive voters and moderate voters can’t see the gathering danger 2 years into a Trump presidency, then no amount of obstructionism is going to help. Voters (and non-voters) gave us Trump, and they gave us a conservative supreme court. This is what they voted for. Don’t like it? Well, do something about it this November, and don’t complain because you don’t see your choice for a progressive all-star team in the lineup. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/66 "2018-07-11T15:44:17Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The real lesson here is that elections have consequences. Exactly. And another one’s coming, and we’d better make it count. > [@](#): > > If progressive voters and moderate voters can’t see the gathering danger 2 years into a Trump presidency, then no amount of obstructionism is going to help. Yeah, you’re right: nothing the Dems do between now and November can make a difference in how people vote. Maybe they ought to just go on vacation until November 7, amirite? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/67 "2018-07-11T15:48:15Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > We can’t keep Trump from nominating an ultra-conservative who wants to overturn Roe v Wade. We can’t stall a confirmation for two years. So Trump is going to get someone he picks confirmed. > > It could be a lot worse than Kavanaugh. At least he’s on record as saying under current law, the President is not protected against subpoena or indictment (he famously said he thinks Congress should pass a law that does just that). > > And the sooner, the better. Study after study shows that it’s easier to energize angry people than satisfied people when it comes to voting. If the confirmation is still pending in November, more Republicans will go to the polls than if it’s already done. And if it’s already done, more Dems will be angry. > > We can’t stop Trump from appointing a justice. We CAN stop Trump from otherwise ruining the country if we take over both houses of Congress this November. And the best way to do that is to get this confirmation over as far before the election as possible. If the Democrats had better leadership, they would use a losing opportunity to show class and dignity to the middle of the road swing type of voters and repudiate this in your face style of confronting public officials in public. But they won’t. Expect whinny double standards, even though Keagan was approved during a midterm election year. Kavanaugh is a pleasant fellow, with a sharp legal mind. He’ll breeze through the process, unless there is some major skeleton in a closet that no one knows about. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/68 "2018-07-11T15:50:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So what are you suggesting? That the Democrats should beat the Republicans by becoming just like the Republicans? If they do, why would it matter which party we vote for? Why are you unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between tactics and goals? Why do you think Democrats can’t say “fuck you; your ideas are stupid and would hurt people” and then NOT HELP THEM DO THOSE THINGS. Why do you think Democrats cannot stand on their principles _the same way that Republicans do_ without somehow also copping Republican values and goals? IMO that isn’t a reasonable view. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Democrats need to get the message out that there is a difference between the two parties. That the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong. And then they need to tell people why being right matters. Everyone knows there’s a difference between the two parties. The problem is that you are highlighting the wrong differences. The differences you need to highlight are this: The GOP is the party that doesn’t back down and WILL fuck you up if they get the chance while the Dems are the party that caves in on everything and has no clear policy goals of any kind. Fix that perception differently and maybe the Dems have a chance. But compromise, capitulation, a lack of goals and/or resolve are not the way to win enough votes to stop things from continuing onward as they are. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/69 "2018-07-11T15:52:08Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The real lesson here is that elections have consequences. Don’t you think McConnell changed that rule? > [@](#): > > Voters (and non-voters) gave us Trump, and they gave us a conservative supreme court. This is what they voted for. Well, a substantial minority did. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/70 "2018-07-11T16:00:06Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Democrats can fight like hell - and I certainly don’t have a problem unanimously voting against Kavanaugh along party lines. But they’re not going to win. We’ve already seen how this plays out with Gorsuch. > > The real lesson here is that elections have consequences. **If progressive voters and moderate voters can’t see the gathering danger 2 years into a Trump presidency, then no amount of obstructionism is going to help.** > > **Voters (and non-voters) gave us Trump**, and they gave us a conservative supreme court. This is what they voted for. Don’t like it? Well, do something about it this November, and don’t complain because you don’t see your choice for a progressive all-star team in the lineup. I disagree with the first bolded sentence and the second bolded bit is why. Obstructionism keeps the headlines “Dems fighting for their values” and “New SCOTUS pick a jerk, say Dems” going longer, which means more eyes see them. As in music, in society repetition lends legitimacy and Dems need to use that to their advantage _like Republicans have been_. The more people, especially people who did not vote in 2016, that see those messages the better and it’s better if they see them closer to the elections, so obstructionism IMO is _the_ way to go right now. Again: it’s worked for the GOP for the past 2 decades, hasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/71 "2018-07-11T16:19:54Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Everyone knows there’s a difference between the two parties. The problem is that you are highlighting the wrong differences. The differences you need to highlight are this: The GOP is the party that doesn’t back down and WILL fuck you up if they get the chance while the Dems are the party that caves in on everything and has no clear policy goals of any kind. > > Fix that perception differently and maybe the Dems have a chance. But compromise, capitulation, a lack of goals and/or resolve are not the way to win enough votes to stop things from continuing onward as they are. I understood your point the first time but I still disagree with it. I agree that the Democrats need to do a better job. But they do not need to adopt the tactics the Republican party is using, even if those tactics are working. What they should be doing is opposing the Republicans and their tactics, not imitating them. They should be out there telling people what the Democrats are doing that’s different and why what they’re doing is better. Mindless opposition to anything the other party does is wrong when the Republicans do it. And it would still be wrong if the Democrats started doing it. So instead of practicing mindless opposition, the Democrats should be telling people why mindless opposition is a bad idea. And when people understand that, they will choose the Democrats rather than the Republicans. But if the Democrats go for the easy answer and just adopt mindless opposition as well then they can’t claim to oppose the Republicans for their use of the tactic. If both sides are practicing dirty politics the only issue is who’s practicing them more effectively. And the answer to that is the Republicans have a lot more experience and practice with dirty politics. When it’s a choice between good and evil, pick good. But when it’s a choice between evil and other evil, you might as well pick the winning evil. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2018, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/72 "2018-07-11T16:33:46Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I disagree with the first bolded sentence and the second bolded bit is why. > > Obstructionism keeps the headlines “Dems fighting for their values” and “New SCOTUS pick a jerk, say Dems” going longer, which means more eyes see them. As in music, in society repetition lends legitimacy and Dems need to use that to their advantage _like Republicans have been_. The more people, especially people who did not vote in 2016, that see those messages the better and it’s better if they see them closer to the elections, so obstructionism IMO is _the_ way to go right now. > > Again: it’s worked for the GOP for the past 2 decades, hasn’t it? It worked because Republican voters are more committed for their causes than Democratic voters are. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/73 "2018-07-11T19:29:00Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > If the Democrats had better leadership, they would use a losing opportunity to show class and dignity to the middle of the road swing type of voters We had a Democratic President from January 2009 to January 2017 who had more class and dignity than any President in my lifetime, including JFK. Another great theory ruined by the facts, as my grandfather used to say. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/74 "2018-07-11T19:37:52Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > This shit crazy. Make Democrats look horrible and crazy? Compared to what? Trump? LOL. I can’t wait till we snatch the Democratic party from white folks. Ya’ll ruining it. Talk, talk, talk. If you can’t wait, _don’t_ wait. Are you going to run for office? Do you have a plan to organize the “non-white folks” and take over at a local, city-wide, county or state level? If you want to take the party over, you have to do more then talk about a vague future-show me something real if you want my vote. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/75 "2018-07-11T19:42:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I understood your point the first time but I still disagree with it. > > I agree that the Democrats need to do a better job. But they do not need to adopt the tactics the Republican party is using, even if those tactics are working. What they should be doing is opposing the Republicans and their tactics, not imitating them. I think it depends on the tactics. There are tactics that are just plain wrong, like spreading lies about your opponents. We don’t need to do that. Like Truman said in response to “Give 'em hell, Harry,” if we tell the truth about the GOP, it’ll feel like hell to them. Bullying and punching down is always morally wrong. Deceiving the public about issues and policy is wrong. We don’t need to do any of that. But fighting a Presidential nomination is neither right nor wrong in and of itself. Doing away with the filibuster and blue slips and all that other procedural folderol, ditto. Really the only question about tactics like these is, can we use them _effectively?_ That’s the distinction I’d draw on the question of tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/76 "2018-07-11T19:57:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yes, hence why I said “shouldn’t”, not “isn’t”. But judges base their decisions on the law, or the law _as they see it._ If Kavanaugh supports congress passing such a law, he is, in effect, saying he knows that it is not what the law is _now._ Since the word is that [Kennedy wants Kavanaugh](https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/), it should be considered. We \*know \*we are going to get a conservative Judge. That’s just the way it is. This may be the most _reasonable_ guy we’re likely to get. On a side note, does Raj Shah always look like such a doofus? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/77 "2018-07-11T20:36:29Z")
About Mr. K’s opinions about reserving a special immunity for the President, so that he is not distracted by the vexations of law. All of the names on the first draft list are vetted and approved by both the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. So, we may rest assured that they were all solidly conservative, if not reactionary. Of that bunch, are any of them on paper as approving of Mr. K’s…extraordinary?..reading of the perks and responsibilities of executive power? Has anybody _else_ advanced the theory that the President should be exempt from criminal investigations? Is he a _very_ original thinker, then? Because if he’s the only one, gotta say I would be a mite suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/78 "2018-07-11T21:00:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > About Mr. K’s opinions about reserving a special immunity for the President, so that he is not distracted by the vexations of law. All of the names on the first draft list are vetted and approved by both the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. So, we may rest assured that they were all solidly conservative, if not reactionary. > > Of that bunch, are any of them on paper as approving of Mr. K’s…extraordinary?..reading of the perks and responsibilities of executive power? Has anybody _else_ advanced the theory that the President should be exempt from criminal investigations? Is he a _very_ original thinker, then? > > Because if he’s the only one, gotta say I would be a mite suspicious. This is in line with a recent [Dahlia Lithwick](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-donald-trump-just-handed-democrats-a-gift.html) column, where she paints the Kavanaugh nomination as a strategic error, politically. All of these potential candidates were carefully vetted by the Federalist Society. God, guns, abortion - the positions on all of these issues were known and could be applied to anyone on the list; it wouldn’t have mattered which name Trump chose. One candidate, just one, has a trail of writings that support increasing the powers of the Executive, right up to the point of putting the President above the law. Select this one candidate, and it will look like this is _the_ reason for that selection, and that is the way it will be portrayed - over and over again through the election season. This, I surmise, is one of the reasons that McConnell opposed nominating Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was the one selection from that list that would make it look like Trump has something to hide. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/79 "2018-07-11T21:08:54Z")
Am I missing something here? Kavanaugh worked with the Starr investigation and has [written extensively about grounds for impeachment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/11/brett-kavanaugh-trump-and-what-the-starr-report-says-about-impeachment-annotated/?utm_term=.e5988d3f7bb0). Aren’t his current opinions that the president should be protected from investigations diametrically opposed to his previous actions and writings? In other words – can’t he easily be exposed as a hypocrite who’s OK with impeaching a Democratic president for lying about a blowjob but not with investigating a Republican president for potential treason? ---
**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:** [July 11, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/80 "2018-07-11T21:09:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > We had a Democratic President from January 2009 to January 2017 who had more class and dignity than any President in my lifetime, including JFK. > > Another great theory ruined by the facts, as my grandfather used to say. But if he could’ve run against Trump, he would’ve won. Uh, the classy guy, not your grandfather. Well, maybe your grandfather, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685.md?page=5)