# 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:** 5
**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, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/81 "2018-07-11T21:18:45Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > 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? I believe that’s his story: that he saw, first-hand, what happens when a guy gets investigated and spends key presidentin’ time playing defendant; and that caused him to realize, _now that Obama is president, I want to advocate for a change in the law so a commander-in-chief can make decisions when minutes count and doesn’t have to busy himself with a headache like I could tell you tales about._ ---
**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, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/82 "2018-07-11T21:19:58Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > 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? From what I’ve read about Kavanaugh, he changed his mind about the whole issue while he was working for the Bush administration. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/83 "2018-07-11T21:27:39Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I believe that’s his story: that he saw, first-hand, what happens when a guy gets investigated and spends key presidentin’ time playing defendant; and that caused him to realize, _now that Obama is president, I want to advocate for a change in the law so a commander-in-chief can make decisions when minutes count and doesn’t have to busy himself with a headache like I could tell you tales about._ Don’t you mean, now that \*Trump \*is president? Okay, sure, he can make that argument. But any Dem senator worth her cafeteria pass should be able to tear it to shreds. Turn this into an inquisition on the Mueller investigation and things could get juicy. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/84 "2018-07-11T21:30:29Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > How many times did Republicans vote to abolish Obamacare when it had no chance of passing the Senate? Like 50? > > And where did that get them? _Majority control of the entire federal government._ **Smapti** gets it. ---
**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, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/85 "2018-07-11T21:34:23Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > It worked because Republican voters are more committed for their causes than Democratic voters are. I agree. I think that one way you fire voters up about issues is, as shown by the GOP’s example of the past 2 decades, you show that you as a party are fired up enough that you won’t compromise. The Democratic Party doesn’t stand behind it’s own issues; why would I seek them to stand behind me on my issues? ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/86 "2018-07-11T21:35:03Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Don’t you mean, now that \*Trump \*is president? No, I don’t; that’s my whole point, and presumably his: the article in question came out in 2012, smack dab in the middle of the Obama administration. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/87 "2018-07-11T21:43:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, I don’t; that’s my whole point, and presumably his: the article in question came out in 2012, smack dab in the middle of the Obama administration. Actually, [2009](http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf). ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/88 "2018-07-11T21:44:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, I don’t; that’s my whole point, and presumably his: the article in question came out in 2012, smack dab in the middle of the Obama administration. My bad – thanks for the correction. Still, Dem senators should be able to make a pretty good case that the current president is in the crosshairs of a serious investigation, and _isn’t it convenient_ that he’s nominated someone who _just happened_ to come around to thinking presidents should be shielded from such investigations? And they can still brand every Republican who supports this nomination as a hypocrite, since their party so gleefully investigated a former president for much slighter reasons. Make this nomination process a referendum on Trump’s obstruction. _Look how far he’ll go to protect himself! What on earth is he so afraid will come to light?_ ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/89 "2018-07-11T21:46:52Z")
> [@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. > [@SingleMalt](#): > > 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. > [@Akaj](#): > > 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? > [@SingleMalt](#): > > From what I’ve read about Kavanaugh, he changed his mind about the whole issue while he was working for the Bush administration. Yes, the paper in question was published in May of 2009; Kavanaugh’s first footnote says > [@](#): > > This Article is adapted from remarks I made at the University of > Minnesota Law School on October 17, 2008 … [http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh\_MLR.pdf](http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf) So, not really about Obama. It’s legitimate to ask what experiences in the Bush Administration may have helped inspire his newly-minted belief that Presidents–and presumably Vice Presidents?–should not be bothered with investigations into such minutiae as lies about yellow-cake and such. In fact, it’s perfectly legitimate for Congressional Democrats to ask questions about any or all of the documents generated by Judge Kavanaugh over the years. Note, for comparison, that during the confirmation process for Justice Elena Kagan, over 160,000 pages of records were requested for review by the Senate–and that was just from her four years working for the Clinton White House: > [@](#): > > …The Clinton Presidential Library is facing a mammoth task to prepare for confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan: processing about 160,000 pages of records from Kagan’s time as a lawyer and policy adviser in the Clinton White House. > > The staggering page count comes from a letter President Barack Obama’s White House Counsel Bob Bauer sent Saturday to Archivist David Ferriero, asking that the Archives expedite release of the files so the Senate can have them to consider Kagan’s nomination. > > “I understand that preparing these 160,000 pages for public release will require very significant efforts,” Bauer wrote. “Their availability, on an expedited schedule, is necessary to afford the Senate a reasonable opportunity to evaluate Ms. Kagan’s nomination.” … [https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2010/05/review-set-for-160-000-pages-on-kagan-027010](https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2010/05/review-set-for-160-000-pages-on-kagan-027010) Why shouldn’t Kavanaugh’s work for Bush and for the Starr investigation receive the same level of scrutiny? And, yes: the scrutiny should highlight that one little distinction between Kavanaugh and the other Federalist-Society/Heritage Foundation-vetted candidates: the opinions he’s expressed relating to the question: _ **Is a President above the law?** _ Yes, Kavanaugh’s consistently deferential stance toward the rights of corporations over individuals should be kept in the spotlight. Yes, Kavanaugh’s record on women’s reproductive issues and civil rights should have a major place in confirmation hearings, and in the public debate. But Congressional Democrats should highlight the question: was this man chosen because he could be counted on to help Trump escape justice? ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/90 "2018-07-11T21:47:25Z")
> [@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. So they should continue the strategy of the past 20 years, even tho it’s a losing strategy. We know it’s a losing strategy: look at the makeup of Congress, the nations Governors, state legislatures, etc. All GOP dominated, and heavily. Why do you advocate continuation of a losing strategy? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > They should be out there telling people what the Democrats are doing that’s different and why what they’re doing is better. How’s that working the past 20 years? :dubious: > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. Another losing strategy. You seriously overestimate the critical thinking skills and desires of the American public that made the Kardashians famous and important (they secure pardons from the POTUS now, remember?) and elevated sweatpants and clogs to a national fashion statement, I think. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. I have never once advocated for any form of dirty politics, so this is a no-go for discussion. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. Pithy but I think you’re still ignoring (and by that I mean not considering) certain points (which is co-mingled with your reference to “dirty politics”). It’s like you have a blind spot about how to be strong about a good goal; as if only evil goals can have real strength behind them or something. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/91 "2018-07-11T21:59:29Z")
> [@SingleMalt](#): > > Actually, [2009](http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf). Well, that’s what I get for trusting [NEWSWEEK](https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-trumps-supreme-court-pick-thinks-presidents-should-be-immune-1015521%3famp=1): “Writing for the _Minnesota Law Review_ in 2012, in an article titled ‘Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,’ Kavanaugh said his experience working for the Bush White House made him realize being president is ‘far more difficult than any other civilian position in government.’” ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/92 "2018-07-11T22:07:38Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, that’s what I get for trusting [NEWSWEEK](https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-trumps-supreme-court-pick-thinks-presidents-should-be-immune-1015521%3famp=1): “Writing for the _Minnesota Law Review_ in 2012, in an article titled ‘Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,’ Kavanaugh said his experience working for the Bush White House made him realize being president is ‘far more difficult than any other civilian position in government.’” I think the 2012 date appears in the PDF’s title–maybe that’s when it was uploaded. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/93 "2018-07-11T22:11:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, that’s what I get for trusting [NEWSWEEK](https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-trumps-supreme-court-pick-thinks-presidents-should-be-immune-1015521%3famp=1): “Writing for the _Minnesota Law Review_ in 2012, in an article titled ‘Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,’ Kavanaugh said his experience working for the Bush White House made him realize being president is ‘far more difficult than any other civilian position in government.’” OMG what a crock of shit. Like he had no idea, while he was trying to remove Clinton from office for lying about a blowjob, that being president was hard? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/94 "2018-07-11T22:13:15Z")
> [@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. No…the Dems shouldn’t vote to confirm. They should put up a unified front to oppose the confirmation. There are times to concede and conciliate and times to fight, and right now, at this time the Dems should be fighting this administration on each and every thing it tries to do. And they should say why. This isn’t just a tit for tat strike back because of Obama going back and forth to Bush I, it’s a structured and open eyed refusal to deal with an administration that is taking this country off a cliff. I’m not a Dem, so grain of salt, but I think this is the time to show their true metal and fight, not cave in. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/95 "2018-07-11T22:20:21Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And they should say why. This isn’t just a tit for tat strike back because of Obama going back and forth to Bush I, it’s a structured and open eyed refusal to deal with an administration that is taking this country off a cliff. This. > [@](#): > > this is the time to show their true metal and fight Totally agree. (Nitpick: true _mettle_. :)) ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/96 "2018-07-11T22:34:39Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No…the Dems shouldn’t vote to confirm. They should put up a unified front to oppose the confirmation. There are times to concede and conciliate and times to fight, and right now, at this time the Dems should be fighting this administration on each and every thing it tries to do. And they should say why. This isn’t just a tit for tat strike back because of Obama going back and forth to Bush I, it’s a structured and open eyed refusal to deal with an administration that is taking this country off a cliff. > > I’m not a Dem, so grain of salt, but I think this is the time to show their true metal and fight, not cave in. Awesome post, **XT** , especially considering your perspective. BTW, [here’s one example of Democratic metal](http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/heavy-metal-singer-becomes-virginias-first-openly-transgender-legislator.html) from Virginia. [And from Albuquerque, New Mexico](http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/trivium-gets-introduced-by-albuquerque-new-mexicos-newly-elected-mayor-and-heavy-metal-lover-tim-keller-video/). [Another from NYC](http://www.metalinjection.net/latest-news/most-precious-blood-guitarist-wins-nyc-democratic-primary-election-for-city-council)! And one more from… what? Ohhhhh… “mettle”. That’s different; [Emily Litella]never mind[/Emily Litella]. 😛 ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/97 "2018-07-11T22:37:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No…the Dems shouldn’t vote to confirm. They should put up a unified front to oppose the confirmation. There are times to concede and conciliate and times to fight, and right now, at this time the Dems should be fighting this administration on each and every thing it tries to do. And they should say why. This isn’t just a tit for tat strike back because of Obama going back and forth to Bush I, it’s a structured and open eyed refusal to deal with an administration that is taking this country off a cliff. > > I’m not a Dem, so grain of salt, but I think this is the time to show their true metal and fight, not cave in. Yes. It’s an opportunity to both show our backbone and demonstrate that we’re the adults. Make this nomination a 100-vote referendum on every way this administration flouts the rule of law, up to and most especially including Trump’s self-dealing and obstructions. If we lose (and we probably will), at least we show that we’re not just holding our breath until we turn blue, but that our reasons for standing our ground concern the rights and future of every voter. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/98 "2018-07-11T22:52:54Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > How many times did Republicans vote to abolish Obamacare when it had no chance of passing the Senate? Like 50? > > And where did that get them? _Majority control of the entire federal government._ That is not a good analogy. They were voting FOR something, doing their jobs, advocating for their constituents (however misguided). That’s what voters like to see. I don’t think voters want to see gridlock and obstructionism. And don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are masters of obstructionism, but voting to abolish Obamacare is not an example of that. Refusing to fund Obamacare after it’s been passed would be obstructionism; refusing to enforce various aspects of Obamacare would be obstructionism, but attempting to repeal it is opposition, not obstructionism, and the difference is not subtle. And I now see that I wrote a terrible title for this thread. I did not mean to imply that Dems should vote for Kavanaugh. That would indeed be rolling over. I meant that Dems should not obstruct the process with delaying tactics, which is what many are advocating. By all means, let the Dems vote unanimously against whoever Trump nominates for anything. Let them vigorously debate his qualifications. But don’t put up a bunch of stupid delaying tactics that do nothing but piss off Dem and Rep voters alike. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/99 "2018-07-11T22:57:39Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No…the Dems shouldn’t vote to confirm. They should put up a unified front to oppose the confirmation. I entirely agree, as I said in my previous post. I apologize to one and all who thought I was saying Dems should vote for Kavanaugh. Of course they shouldn’t. What I was trying to say was that they should oppose, but not obstruct. Delaying tactics can only postpone the inevitable, and will hurt them at the polls. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2018, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685/100 "2018-07-11T23:03:19Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > OMG what a crock of shit. Like he had no idea, while he was trying to remove Clinton from office for lying about a blowjob, that being president was hard? The fact that he wrote his revised opinion early in the Obama admin suggests exactly that. So yeah, he’s slow. But not necessarily hypocritical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-should-confirm-kavanaugh-as-soon-as-possible/817685.md?page=6)