President Trump is proving the Democrat’s greatest asset in fulfilling their agenda. The more he berates Judge Kabanaugh’s accuser the more likely that wavering Republican senators will support her. They may even switch sides which will take care of the majority. The best strategy may be to do nothing.
1
Brett Kavanaugh has not been defeated yet. Dr. Ford's testimony (if it happens at all) may be so flimsy that she is not believed and he is confirmed. She has not been convincing as to the facts of the sexual abuse allegations and so far no one has backed her up. Will she or won't she appear before the senate judiciary committee as there has been some doubt she will even show.
The Republicans will not wait forever for her to testify and may just vote. Judge Kavanaugh should go ahead with the questioning as he has wanted to do since the allegations. Let him testify and give his side of the story. If he sounds authentic, he should be confirmed.
6
If the Democratic dream is now simply to be obstructionist we are truly at a crisis point. The Republicans did everything they could to obstruct Obama for 8 years, culminating in denying Merrick Garland an opportunity to be considered for the supreme court. At some point, some one, some party needs to grow up, be a real leader, and think about the well being of the country, not just their party's agenda.
7
The Democrats have tried that; they lost, miserably, for the last 8 years. The system is fundamentally flawed at the root
3
Yes, the Democrats have a political strategy in opposing Kavanaugh and in 'trying to run out the clock'. But, I would hope that under a future Democratic administration, any nominee who had been accused of sexual attacks by a woman would be properly investigated, first by the FBI and second by a thorough cross-examination in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As a Democrat, I don't want a sexual predator sitting on the Supreme Court even if that person (man) always votes liberally. There are some things that are more important than party loyalty and respect for women and the law are paramount.
12
This is an important article. So much of Times coverage has taken this whole Circus at face value, when as this article points out - the entire thing has one, and only one goal: block Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court. Truth, due process, the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty - none of this matters compared to the raw political goal of the Supreme Court. Let's at least be honest about what this is: a raw power struggle between the two parties, and no weapon is too horrible to not be used.
2
Vote no for Kavanaugh
Vote no because we don’t have a complete record of his work history and papers
Vote no because of the way he ruled on the pregnant immigrant girl
Vote no because of his writings on presidential power
Vote no because of his partisanship
Vote no because he approved torture during the Bush Whitehouse
Vote no because of his association with the Ken Starr investigation
Vote no because he overdraws his accounts _ every month and presents a risk
There are so many reasons vote no on Kavanaugh - the women are the least of it.
42
If, as Mr. McConnell has maintained, the people should get to express their view on Supreme Court appointments, there are two situations in which they can do so, albeit indirectly: every four years when choosing a president and every two years when deciding the composition of the Senate. With a full year left in his term, President Obama was informed he needed to await "the will of the people." With a little over a month left until the Congressional election, shouldn't Mr. Kavanaugh have to wait? Of course, we know it isn't really about " the will of the people"!
87
If it's his word against hers Its almost a certainty all Democrats will vote against and most likely all or almost all Republicans will vote to confirm Kavanaugh. This seems to be to show it's all about wanting a conservative on the court or not and has little to do with Kavanaugh's behavior.If he had admitted to not remembering but possibly being guilty of what these women accuse him of while intoxicated in high school and at Yale I'm not sure it would change any votes
1
This is a pipe dream masquerading as analysis. "But if Democrats win, it would be hard for Mr. McConnell to proceed with confirmation during the lame-duck session..." How's that again? So you think McConnell would anguish over this inconsistency and then conclude that it just wouldn't be right to nominate a lame duck justice to serve for the next 30 years?
2
This isn't just about the Supreme Court - this is about the entire federal judiciary.
1
We live unfortunately in an era of win at all costs, and frankly, I am a little surprised that Democrats don't follow suit. Failing to do so is precisely why U.S. policies are dictated by a clear minority of Americans. Democrats need to be ready to deploy any and all means available to block Kavanaugh and any other Trump nominee. Should Kavanaugh be rejected by the Senate, the Democrats will need a plan to block any subsequent nominee if they win the Senate in November. The American people will have spoken but Republicans will nonetheless move to grab as much power as possible before they lose the opportunity unless Democrats find the will to enforce the will of the people. The notion that McConnel would ever be restrained by something as quaint as the will of the voters is cute. He never has before. Why would he start now?
2
The author writes that if the Repubs lose the senate in November they would hesitate to consider voting on another Trump nominee if Kavanaugh is not approved. This seems nonsensical. The author's reason for why would he thinks the Repubs would have any hesitation at all about pushing through a different candidate to replace Kavanaugh is absurd, given their willingness to ignore any standards of political good-behavior. The real question is why are Trump and the Repubs willing to sacrifice time and perhaps women voters to support a very damaged Kavanaugh nomination, when other staunch conservatives are available.
3
If the Republicans succeed in pushing Kavanaugh or any extreme conservative through to the Supreme Court after ignoring the Garland nomination it will help destroy the checks and balances that are the foundation of our government. The next step would be increasing the number of justices if the Democrats gain power, followed by another move on the part of the Republicans when they regain power. 'Oh what a tangled web the Republicans continue to weave, when first with Garland they tried to deceive."
1
Hypocrisy? " ... Republican senators took the extreme step of denying Barack Obama the ability to fill a seat ... " Indeed. That is not "advice and consent", that is abuse of power by Mr. McConnell. Even worse: "Cruz suggests leaving Supreme Court seat vacant if Clinton is elected" (Chicago Tribune, Oct2016) How blatant can they get putting party above country?
3
I don't understand why the Republicans don't ditch Kavanaugh and put forward another conservative judge without all the baggage. He wasn't even the preferred candidate of many Republican congressmen. It's almost as if Trump is determined to have his special guy on the Court, the one who has agreed to give him a pass on breaking the law.
In any case, if you think Mitch "Shameless" McConnell would be too embarrassed by his own hypocrisy to confirm a nominee during a lame-duck session, you haven't been following along. If Kavanaugh's nomination fails, I fear there is plenty of time to get another reliably conservative justice seated.
1
Not so much a Democratic dream as a Republican nightmare. They've been plotting, cheating, and lying for years to get to this point, and they'd rather see a(nother) doctrinaire sexual predator on the bench, than a moderate justice who might not be blindly devoted to conservative ideology. They want someone who justifies his conclusions, not someone who reaches them.
5
Assume that Kavanaugh’s nomination fails and a replacement cannot be confirmed before the election. It is ridiculous to believe that, should Republicans lose the Senate majority, they will be chastened by the election result and not push through another nominee in the lame duck session.
We have gotten to where we are because Republicans have abandoned governing norms and voluntary restraints on power whenever it has suited them. These are the same politicians who abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court confirmations. Forcing a nominee through the lame duck session is small ball in comparison.
2
"Of course, just as Mr. McConnell would have to explain a change in position........" Huh? Mitch McConnell doesn't have to explain anything because everyone already knows his shameless character.
The Republicans have already done a 180 degree turn from their Garland obstructionism that left a seat empty for a year. In an interview with Mark McKinnon, Senator Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana, said that they need to have a vote for confirmation by October 1, "because that is when the United States Supreme Court starts it's new term", and "There are supposed to be nine members on that Court."
This is brazen hypocrisy in service of an agenda to deny the rights of many, the prosperity of most, to shred protections for workers and the environment, and to protect a con man from an investigation into a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to subvert the essence of our democracy.
Mitch McConnell doesn't have to explain anything.
3
Fair or not, a simple majority is the current rule for appointment to the Supreme Court. Alternative proposals are irrelevant. Assuming all Democratic Senators vote not to confirm, and there's no guarantee that will happen, Collins, Murkowski and Flake will decide the issue. Despite their "thoughtful" comments I'm guessing that they will vote to confirm. Given the Republican treatment of Garland and the refusal to even investigate the Kavanaugh allegations, this affair is plainly a naked, in your face exercise of Republican power driven by a base's irrational hatred for all progressives. This isn't politics, ideology or business, it's strictly personal.
@Michael I wouldn't be surprised if Flake votes no in a parting gesture to Trump. He has certainly stated that it's important to hear Dr Ford. More allegations and other reports of his then conduct by friends might sway Collins.
1
It’s grotesque that republicans think democrats are against BK solely for vengeance, or as a political ploy. Democrats are the only party with a whiff of morality left and the primary reason we oppose BK is that he is ideologically and (now clearly) psychically driven to harm others in pursuit of his goals.
This is just the wrong guy to be in one of the most powerful jobs in the land. McConnell et al should immediately start in with a new candidate who is less cretanous and hope to get him/her pushed through before November. It is disgusting that the reps in the senate have not come out against this man, shame on them.
The dems won’t win the senate, so it’s crazy that McConnell won’t give up on this guy. He’ll have another chance after BK withdraws for sure.
McConnell would push through a new nominee during the lame duck session even if the Democrats win the senate.
With all the gerrymandering and recent upheaval in Kavanaugh's nomination, this will galvanize Trump's base to get out the vote. They (Trump's base) will see this nomination process as obstructionist and the Republicans will portray this as dragging Kavanugh's face through the mud. They will also point out that although they denied Garland a hearing, they did not smear his character in the process.
Just sit back and have your popcorn. These midterm elections are going to a comedy of errors with more surprises in the coming weeks. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope that the justice system is fair to both Blasey and Kavanaugh, and that justice will be served.
Imagine if one of the parties actually nominated a “moderate” for SCOTUS - what a beautifully simple, elegant idea. Alas, today’s über nasty partisan politics does deal in elegant ideas - just MMA type political warfare, and Americans suffer.
@Linda Chave, The last nominee for the court was fairly moderate, Merrick Garland. Did you miss that?
1
There is no real impediment to McConnell pushing another nominee to confirmation during the lame duck session no matter whether the GOP loses the Senate in the November 6 elections or not. Especially now that filibusters are against Senate rules. So the Republican charge that the accusations against Kavanaugh are mere delaying tactics is groundless.
I don't appreciate the fact that this article, and most outlets, are glossing over the fact that no one can stop a lame duck Senate GOP from appointing a justice. It's a sad attempt to keep maximum viewership/readership by insinuating that the GOP has no recourse if Kavanaugh is not confirmed. They have all year and 20 days to get someone else in there.
1
Thanks for confirming Republican allegations that this entire hearing is a gigantic smear job against a choirboy simply for political gain. Your column is a bit tone-deaf about the immediate and real matter of alleged sexual assault and the life-long impact on its victims.
Of course there is a partisan political subtext behind most actions in Washington, especially this particular SCOTUS nomination. But Dr. Ford’s credible allegations against Kavanaugh should be more than a backdrop for highly speculative punditry and op-eds.
I’ve worked in Washington my entire life and witnessed 20 SCOTUS nominating hearings. Sadly, I can assure you that Kavanaugh will most likely be voted on to the Court, and that the Senate is highly unlikely to turn during the midterms. But none of those outcomes should detract from the one day focus on the Ford allegations, and Kavanaugh’s probable weaselly response.
1
Here is a novel idea: how about Mr. Trump nominates a moderate candidate for the court? A little bi-partisan spirit might go a long ways for both the GOP and the Democrats.
1
The vast majority of Canadians hope that scenario takes place. The US and Canada were once the best friends and allies with strong mutual respect. Thanks to Trump and his bully tactics, that relationship has severely deteriorated.
2
@Jack Noon
We’ll need to a lot more than that— the damage done by the Trump Administration and his enablers could be irreversible. Thank you though for not dismissing all of us for the actions of a hateful lunatic.
It's not just the Democratic Dream.
Millions of people want the return of democracy to the United States of America.
We will never give up.
Minnesota is not a safe Democratic seat.
Al Franken won over a Republican by only about 130 votes. But once in office, he became very popular, even up to his resignation.
It's possible that his Democratic replacement could lose to a Republican in November.
So it's possible that, by forcing Franken to resign, Gillibrand may have cost the Democrats the Senate, the Supreme Court, the right to abortion, overturning Citizens United, and the entire Federalist Society wish list.
@Norman It's possible, but most unlikely based on polling over the last couple of months. It would take a dramatic change in voter sentiment. Forcing Franken to resign, has allowed Democrats to maintain a moral distinction on the general issue compared to the GOP. He can also seek office again in the future.
“If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”
Going back to the status quo ante isn't good enough. The pre-Gorsuch court decided Citizens United and the cases that came up after it.
We need at least two more judges to offset the balance and hope to begin reversing some of the most harmful decisions that have been made in the last decade.
The Supreme Court has played no small part in the undoing of our democracy. Democratizing the court (in both senses) is a big step in the right direction.
In the future, however, we should consider a constitutional amendment that turns our judiciary into one that is based on the civil service and end the practice of politicians nominating judges and judges running for office. The rest of the world's justice systems are structured that way. They don't have the prison industrial system we do.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2ZW
4
Merrick Garland is too conservative. He would have been a good pick to replace Justice Scalia, but not Justice Kennedy. We need a court that will protect individuals against corporations, will stand with labor against capital, will preserve the universal franchise and fair elections, including the elimination of big campaign donors and heir influence.
If Democrats do take over the senate, let's hope they convict both Trump and Pence of high crimes. Then President Pelosi can fill supreme court vacancies.
2
@Occupy Government
I have that President Pelosi dream several nights a week. It feels so good, and then sadly, I wake up.
1
Kavanaugh will be tainted for as long as he sits on the SCOTUS. Regardless of whether he's actually (provably) guilty of what he's accused of, he'll always have a dark cloud hanging over him. He'll never outrun the stigma he'll bring to the court.
5
Republicans thought there would be no blowback for their Merrick Garland stunt. They were mistaken.
6
wouldn't it be better to require 60 or so votes for confirmation to force people to compromise a little bit? this is too partisan a process to claim the justices are neutral umpires calling balls and strikes.
4
@carrot
Ask that question to Chuck Schumer. He was told when Gorsuch was being considered not to filibuster. If the dems had given Gorsuch his seat without the filibuster, McConnell would not have gone nuclear. So the two people responsible for that change are both dems. Harry Reid for making it a 50 vote threshhold for all judges below the Supreme Court, and Chuck Schumer for filibustering Gorsuch. A bad decision made by a democrat underlies all of it.
1
If there is anything we know for absolute certainty, Bart is a drunk.
8
Another explanation of why the Kavanaugh accusers are nothing more than Democratic Party operatives seeking nothing more than their 15 minutes of fame and to delay the vote on the nominee. Certainly, Democrats have no problem with sexual harassment or rape, so long as it is a Democrat that is doing the harassment or the raping. See Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, etc.
2
And why they have a no win situation on their hands... of their own making
Write off Evangelicals or write off the women’s vote
Either way you will go down in November
in historic proportions
6
Donald Trump today accused Democrats of a "con game"regarding the issue of Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. The real con game has been playing out since January 2017 when Donald Trump was sworn in as president. And this con game continues with the kangaroo court that has been assembled by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley to hear Dr. Ford's testimony. And that is the full extent of what they will do. Their only objective is to get this judge confirmed regardless of what he has done in the past. And they know that their days of being in power are numbered, so they might as well take the last victory that they can grab for themselves.
It is my hope that when Democrats take the House and now very possibly the Senate, that they will show little or no mercy towards Trump and the gutless Republicans who have blindly supported him at the nation's peril .
The real stench is coming from the White House, and it always has, since January 2017.
2
Vetting Kavanaugh thoroughly should not be a matter of political expedience or partisan biases.
It would appear Kavanaugh may be, or may have been, a serial sexual predator. No man of this sort should be allowed on the Supreme Court. But if we don't get beyond our partisan loyalties and insist on nominees of strong character, either side of the aisle, there's no guarantee that Democrats won't choose someone similar.
Misogyny is a nonpartisan, equal-opportunity phenomenon. The stupidity of choosing on the basis of criteria that seem inevitably to lead to the congressional boy's club has to be abandoned. We need someone of good character with a brilliant legal mind. Being a strong Democrat is far less important to me than other qualifications.
I've met Republicans of very good character and Democrats with no character whatsoever. And certainly the reverse, again and again. We do NOT need a Supreme Court justice installed just because s/he has a partisan bent. We need people who have integrity. If they are lacking in that trait, how are we to install someone fair, impartial, rational, thoughtful, articulate? Though this will, given the irrationality of our country right now, be steeped in a strongly partisan process, that's not the ideal scenario at all.
1
Dear Democrats,
Do whatever it takes to beat the terrorists in expensive suits known as Republicans at their own game. When they go low, you go lower. This is a fight for the future of America. This is not a time to take the moral high ground only to lose!
7
Kavanaugh -- unfortunately for the cultural Marxist #MeToo mob -- is only "damaged" in the minds of those who "believe" that Ford's last-minute reshaped vaporware from 36 years ago is both fact and evidence, which, on its face, is irrational, especially with the ostensible, uncorroborated data point of one. But in left-wing politics, it's dogma that matters.
So what follows when he is confirmed and goes to the Court? Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor resign in protest?
3
I find this headline, "The Democratic Dream: Defeat Kavanaugh, Win the Senate and Stop Trump Supreme Court Picks" problematical. Democrats can only dream, when it comes to action they take the so-called politically safe route and lose. The last time the oldsters in the Democratic establishment had an innovative thought was probably in the dial up AOL days and some of them even the rotary phone days. We are now in a fast moving world outside of Washington and they are an anachronism.
Secondly this, "Democrats historically have had trouble maintaining the sort of party discipline in the Senate that Mr. McConnell has enforced on the Republican side."
This is easier, progressive democrats have shared beliefs. When you add the "blue dog" and the Wall Street Democrats we have right leaners, almost the old republican crowd. You can't hold them together, its like trying to herd cats.
On the GOP/Trump party side if McConnell asked them to go over a cliff, they will, like the mythical lemmings. Which is why we are not shocked when there are "safe 49+1" votes for Kavanaugh, even with members who are retiring. They will not put the Nation ahead of Party. Its tragic.
Kavanaugh is hardly a "damaged candidate". It now quite clear that he did nothing to be embarrassed about, Despite a concerted effort to smear him, he came and through with fortitude and grace.
From this trial by fire, we can now be confident that he has exactly the integrity that is the most important qualification for a seat on the Court.
7
The Republicans are in a double bind.
They can try to:
Force Kavanaugh onto the SCOTUS without a careful, complete investigation of his alleged history, and run the risk that
1. millions of women (and the men who love them) will NEVER vote Republican again
2. at some later date, the truth does come out, and shows that Kavanaugh lied during his confirmation andor the allegations of sexual misdeeds are supported, which then leads to his being impeached.
OR
Wait for the investigation is completed, which may run past the November 6 election with the chance that the Democrats flip the Senate, with the possible result that:
A. the investigation sinks Kavanaugh's chances or
B. the Democrats control the Senate and vote Kavanaugh down.
So many unknowns, so little time.
Which way are you going to jump, Mitch McConnell? How brazen and hypocritical are you going to be?
3
@Joe From Boston
There is no bind here. Those millions of men who have women who love them care about those men being falsely accused and having their careers and lives upended as a result. You really think all the Mothers, Daughters and Wives of the men at risk of charges like this will be happy to see a good man taken down for political gain? You willing to be the future of your party on it? The Dems leading this fight seem to be. Maybe you should ask them to rethink it?
The article says that "..it would be hard for Mr. McConnell to proceed with confirmation during the lame-duck session given that he blocked Mr. Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland before the 2016 election by arguing that the vacant seat should be filled according to the will of the voters."
.
*Why exactly* would it be "hard"? If you're referring to McConnell and the Republicans not wanting to be hypocritical, that's not even an issue - they've proven they have no, absolutely no qualms about being hypocrites. That's not even on the radar of concerns for them. I think it's more than likely that even if the Kavanaugh nomination is delayed and defeated, the Republicans will nominate the next guy on the list and push them through during the lame duck session.
2
And yet, Gallup is measuring republican party favorability (sic) at its highest level in seven years (https://news.gallup.com/poll/242906/republican-party-favorability-highes....
I am afraid the Democratic party is moving away from its ideological foundation of equitable and just wealth redistribution, instead adopting identity politics as its philosophical compass, in effect alienating large swaths of white, lower middle-class America.
Are we prepared for another shocking November night, where hopes are replaced by despair?
1
This article is a good explanation for the bad faith smear campaign that the Democrats have orchestrated against Judge Kavanaugh.
2
Mr. Baker shows that he is a part master at stating the very obvious.
Yes , the Dems are angry and rightfully so. They have been cheated by McConnell's absolute annihilation of his prescribed Constitutional powers. They have been cheated by the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, And they have been robbed by an electoral victory comprised of a handful of votes , that overturned a 3 ,000,000 popular vote win for Clinton.
Never again will a president's SCOTUS nomination be honored if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition party.
As for the Constitution: It has been trashed beyond recognition by Russian interlopers and a president who rightfully belongs in a geek show on the stage in D.C.
3
The Democratic dream evidently has nothing to do with qualifications, truth, or anything else but politics. They are no better than Trump .
1
If Dems gain control of the Senate, they can re-institute the filibuster against judges. Then they can safely oppose any of Trump's picks without letting the Republicans pressure vulnerable Senators.
3
@alan
If Dems gain control of the Senate it means we live in Bizarro World and anything is possible. Dems won't regain the Senate though so then what?
I suppose this is what it's come down to. Presidents won't be able to get their picks confirmed unless the Senate is their own party.
2
Part of the message of MeToo is that sexual harassment and abuse, including what strike me as minor offenses, often have a poisonous life long effect. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the female libido. And many of the reactions, to flashing or childhood experimentation, for example, seem way out of proportion to me. And it is particularly difficult to understand that it is a sign of a woman’s strength to claim extreme vulnerability.
I am being asked to believe that men. who are clearly guilty of criminal assault are also committing grave sexual offenses with zippers closed and no sign that anyone is aroused. The sexual suggestion is obvious but there is nothing approaching consummation. I get that this is offensive and plenty unpleasant. I don’t get that it is traumatic thirty years later.
I have counselled my daughter on some of this and I was very proud when she spoke out against a professor and brought the guy down, but only after his misconduct was clear and well provable because she kept all the emails and personal notes. I probably won’t be around to assess the effects after 30 years. But I suspect that her smart and effective response will be the key to keeping perspective and moving on.
2
Kavanaugh cannot defend himself. GOP senators have to bail him out of uncomfortable questions, he drags his wife on to Fox News, he needs the president to engage in insulting rhetoric against his accusers, and, to me, most telling, he and the GOP don't want an FBI investigation of the accusations. How is he going to defend the US Constitution? He is merely a well-trained tool of a conservative judicial cabal. The people of the United States deserve a more independent judge, whether conservative or liberal.
4
It's not "the Democratic (Party) Dream": it's the small d "democratic" dream.
The NYTimes has difficulty saying it- I don't. This presidency, and every aspect of it, including the SC picks- and the process of shoving them in- is a direct threat to democracy itself, not just the Democratic Party.
3
Democrats know that Kavanagh would be confirmed. They just want to lock-in women vote and will keep the issue burning until the eve of midterm Election Day. As per Kavanagh is concerned, he is most probably guilty based on the prevailing culture in those days. In the absence of hard evidence, which is generally the case in sexual assaults, one can only depend on likelihood scenario.
1
There is no presidential election. If Kavanaugh is defeated (as I would like), a replacement will be confirmed before the new senators are seated.
That's my dream too. Let's make it so.
2
Peter Baker is mistaken when he says that the Democrats’ Supreme Court plan was a “complicated two-step.” It was actually a complicated three-step. Before they could block Kavanaugh, they had to delay the confirmation long enough that Kavanaugh couldn’t quietly step down and give Trump enough time to push another candidate through the confirmation before the mid-term election. That’s why they sat on this issue as long as they did.
The Democrats have now joined the Republicans in no longer pretending that choosing Supreme Court Justices is anything other than a political process. How many of the sitting Justices lack strong party allegiance? Not many. The Supreme Court’s job should be ruling on existing law, not writing new law. That’s supposed to be the job of Congress.
The federal government used to made up of three branches. We’re rapidly moving towards a federal government that is instead made up of two parties. If we let that happen, it’s a small step to a federal government made up of one party. Does anyone really think we should model the US after Russia or China?
2
If Democrats can pull off a hat trick, win the House, the Senate and block Kavanaugh's confirmation, my faith in this country will be restored. I might even be inclined to give the notion of a benevolent, supreme deity the benefit of the doubt.
5
Go ahead Senator McConnell and have your vote irregardless of the results of Thursday's hearing and you may find that you've lost both senators Murkowski and Collins votes and possibly one or two male Republican Senators vote and there goes your Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.
3
How about this as a scenario, if the Democrats take the Senate this November:
Reject any Supreme Court nominee from Trump (or his successor, Pence) unless that nominee is a proven centrist who'll be a genuine swing vote. And suggest two names:
Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and retired Justice David Souter, each of whom would pledge to return to the Court only on an interim basis--say, until after a new president has taken the oath of office in 2021.
3
Remember, it is only during the Trump presidency that Supreme Court justices can be confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate (and therefore a party-line vote). Before Trump, presidents had to pick nominees that would acceptable to 60 Senators. The only way to save the reputation and effectiveness of the Supreme Court is to reinstate the filibuster rules that effectively requires Supreme Court nominees to be approved by 60+ senators. I believe this should be the goal for the Democratic party, not a tit-for-tat battle over nominees that increases partisanship and decreases the perceived independence of the Supreme Court.
43
@Steve, I fear this would result in no-one new being confirmed unless/until one party has both the presidency and at least 58, 59 seats in the senate. The age of moderates is over. The republican districts will increasingly primary anyone who votes against a hard-right SCOTUS nominee.
@Steve
That might be the mature thing to do, but it’s that kind of naive self-righteousness that leads to Democratic losses and Republican victories. Before any changes are made I want to make sure there is balance on the Court, which starting with Bush v. Gore has become a partisan adjunct to an extremist political party. If that requires adding seats, establishing term limits, or any number of other ideas out there, then let’s do that first.
I’m tired of being from the Party that rolls over and plays dead before even being asked.
@Steve
Democrats are not going to reinstate the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes for cloture unless they have 60 Democrat Senators.
It wasn't until the Obama administration that cabinet appointees and federal judges couldn't be filibustered so that the DC Court of Appeals could be stuffed.
If somehow the dems win back the senate, who really thinks McConnell would NOT push through a lame duck Trump nominee, anyway?
What, you think this man would be shamed by the hypocrisy? He's proven himself way beyond that.
19
If McConnell continues to push Kavanaugh down the public’s throat he will live to regret it. He is only an elected official and we are the people.The man was vetted dishonestly by McConnell and his hoodlum pals and should do prison time for breaking the rule of law.
3
Great idea! Stop the nom and for two years go 1) without a functioning Supreme Court, 2) not get Merrick Garland, and 3) give Republicans an issue to run on during an election where people are actually paying attention. Great plan.
6
Merrick Garland. Let the Republicans present a plausible defense of their complete inaction on Obama’s nomination in 2016 then a discussion can be had. Until then, no action on anyone nominated by Trump.
8
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block President Obama's Supreme Court nomination, saying the American people should have a "voice" in the process.
Let's follow the McConnell rule and add Kavanaugh onto the midterm ballot to see what the people have to say.
8
Well, as McConnell said when he refused to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, the voters deserve to opportunity to have their voices heard.
3
Harriet Miers was not withdrawn because of conservatives feeling she wasn't committed to the cause, it was because she could not answer simple questions about constitutional law. She had in fact never acted as a judge. It is true the GOP particularly conservatives were not hot on her but her lack of experience and knowledge is what did her in.
2
Meanwhile, out of the public eye and with no fanfare, Special Counsel Mueller digs deeper and deeper. Michael Cohen comes in and goes. So does Manafort and Flynn. In the foreseeable future Mueller will be ready. Everything going on now and heretofore will be nothing more than prologue. Trump's days are numbered. Democrats, hold the line against Kavanaugh. Mr. Garland, get your suit pressed, you have a Senate hearing coming up.
8
#mydemocraticdream:
1. To have a non-scandal president and presidency
2. To have respect for civil servants including their experience in their fields of work
3. To have leaders with enough empathy to understand their power can actually unite
4. To have leaders that empower voters to vote more not less.
5. To have justices termed so we don’t have to go so crazy about it.
4
The only logical explanation for the charges being presented in a way that's an insult to our intelligence, is that the people behind this campaign are openly demonstrating that they're bogus. If they can make the Republicans turn tail and run using brazen intimidation, the Republicans will be destroyed in the upcoming election.
@Johnny Orange
Oh, that's interesting. "Brazen intimidation." Have you also considered the brazen intimidation in question from 35 years ago? Is that an insult to your intelligence too?
You are right about the bogus part. Whatever could be the reason for not seeking all the facts from all the participants and witnesses?
If McConnell truly meant to let the voters decide, let him go by the polls giving negatives to Kavanaugh. We don't want him! How I long for the good old days when all of this brouhaha meant he would have withdrawn already.
3
I listened to McConnell castigating Democrats on the judiciary committee and accuse them of dishonesty and deception.Fairness and justice were nowhere to be considered in his speech.
Obstructing President Obama throughout his tenure refusing to consider Garland for
the court or even allow meetings with him
are footnotes that are easily dismissed by McConnell and republicans.
McConnell has practiced hyper partisan power plays throughout his tenure and is unlikely to change.Only changes in the House and Senate give hope for more sensible and more cooperative congress and with a chance to check an unpopular morally challenged president.
3
25 plus 45 equals zero. 25th Amendment on President 45 or a Double Blue Wave in November will see Merrick Garland filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Eventually. Tough luck McConnell.
3
@WATSON
So you think the 25th Amendment gives you a President Clinton? Ever heard of Mike Pence? Double Blue Wave? How could that happen with a platform of Open Borders and Guilty until Proven Innocent ( for white males at least ). Voters care about those things, a lot. They will show you how much in November.
1
I keep thinking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. How must she feel, after her professional lifetime of fighting for women’s rights, seeing the nominee Trump has picked to be her Courtmate. The pressure she must feel to stay healthy and ALIVE must be enormous. I don’t think she wants to retire, but there’s a difference between not wanting to and knowing she mustn’t retire. Keep going RBG! You’ve always been a champion, and we need and appreciate you more than ever these days.
32
I am positively buoyant in a sea of schadenfreude:
Mitch McConnell's power-at-all-costs strategy has truly blown-up, and every insistence by this cabal of angry, rich, old white men that a woman must be mistaken to report having been sexually assaulted, is an expanding insult to anyone with the ability to reason.
So, every contortion of this spectacle, every cowardly attempt by Chuck Grassley to avoid questioning Dr. Ford directly, every absurd turn of poor logic to dismiss the allegations hurts them in the eyes of a whole new generation of voters. They are truly playing checkers, and have been for some time...I just pray the Democrats can start playing chess...
76
@John, we'll have to see how things shake out after the Thursday hearings, but I'm not as optimistic as you. I think it's possible the hearings may be window dressing, possibly featuring a female lawyer doing the questioning for the camera, and the nomination going to the floor and passing by one vote. Even if that doesn't happen, and even if the Democrats take the senate in November, what's really to stop the Republicans from nominating the next guy on the list and pushing them through during the lame duck session? It seems to me like the Republicans still have more paths forward here than the Democrats.
Reading the comments, it seems people interpret that article as democrats ready to sit on any nominee whatseover for two full years.
The article said it was unlikely, because of a lack of unity among other things, and that the likely scenario would be a more moderate nominee confirmed.
The only way it would take two full years to reach this point would be Trump.
2
Given Mitch McConnell's malicious treatment of the Merrick Garland appointment, Democrats should do all in their power to block Brett Kavanaugh, up to and including slashing his tires and jamming a potato in the tailpipe of his car so he can't get to the Senate.
13
With everything new I read about Kavanaugh the less I like him, and Avenatti is supposed to come out with some new allegations today or tomorrow. Vote no for Kavanaugh.
8
Mr. Kavanaugh, perhaps you could profit from brushing up on your Shakespeare. You could start with "methinks he doth protest too much" just to see if it might apply to you or any of the current players who are in a hurry for confirmation.
And, since you seem concerned about the veracity of the growing crop of besmirchers, wouldn't the FBI, filled with conservative Republicans, or the Senate Judiciary Commitee, with subpoena power, be more useful to your cause than a calendar?
9
bad plan. the Cavanaugh hail mary is going to be intercepted and returned for a touchdown the other way.
4
As sweet of justice as that would be, I don't see conservatives that are currently disenfranchised staying home if there is an open seat on the Court. We have already seen how much they are willing to look beyond if it means getting a seat on the Court.
2
The Democratic dream is for our illegitimately elected president to be removed from office in favor of the rightful winner (or a simple do-over of the election),
for eliminating the useless Electoral College in favor of a popular vote,
for Gorsuch to step down and wait his turn,
for Merrick Garland to get a fair hearing and an up or down vote,
for the Senate filibuster to be restored for judicial and cabinet nominations,
for the censuring of Mitch McConnell,
for restoration of the Voting Rights Act,
for the outlawing of partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression activities,
for the reversal of Citizens United and related decisions allowing unlimited dark money in politics,
and for the restoration of the fairness and equal time doctrines in broadcast media.
These measures would go a long way to restoring balance in our representative democracy.
7
A reminder to Democrats and other voters -Kavanaugh can be impeach after the midterms even if the Republicans push him through now.
Also , while dreaming, don’t hesitate to use the Trump impeachment as a major election theme.
Of course this is the crux of the matter. And why Trump and the Republicans will push Kavanaugh through unless a last minute video of him "shooting someone on 5th Avenue" comes to light, and even then I doubt they pull back.
Unfortunately for the Dems (and America), the Republicans have the votes to confirm him, and so he WILL be confirmed. Even the "last, best hopes" of Collins and Murkowski will toe the party line given the importance of gaining that 5th conservative seat for decades. So the only path left is for the Dems to win control of both houses of Congress and then impeach Kavanaugh for lying under oath. For that to happen of course, people have to get out and vote blue. Let's hope democracy finally prevails.
1
The trouble with selecting Supreme Court Justices only from privileged Ivy Leage candidates is they will tend to vote to maintain & enhance the status quo. Why not a little bit of diversity? I would think the Supreme Court should be as diversified as the country itself.
4
This fevered narrative ignores the obvious -- there's plenty of time before the senate would actually change hands in January, even if the Democrats could win it.
The author tries to wave this away with "it would be hard..." no it wouldn't. There's a big difference between "it would be hypocritical" ... and "hard." Hypocrisy has never gotten in McConnell's way, and it certainly would not at a moment where McConnell is losing his domination of the senate.
Trump can certainly get a nominee confirmed, he need only pick one who isn't Bret Kavanaugh or clone.
Obvious suggestions would be Joan Larson, or Amy Barrett.
Amy Barrett's sympathy for right-to-life is apparent. This would please Trump's evangelical constituency, but take a risk that Collins and Murkowski might oppose. Even if that happened it could presumably be known quickly (even possibly before announcing a nomination simply by contacting the senators), and he could still nominate another before this senate ran out.
5
He could but...
the Federalist Society which pre approves dum dums’ nominations is now tainted
K is the best they can offer?
What will we find with any other nominations?
Stay tuned
Considering what they did to Garland, this is simply evening up the score. If you want to blame anyone for this mess, blame Mitch McConnell.
6
"The Democratic Dream: Defeat Kavanaugh, Win the Senate and Stop Trump Supreme Court Picks"
The strongest, and only weapon, they have is make believe fantasies of what Kavanaugh might have been up to as a 17 year old kid.
4
"But if Democrats win, it would be hard for Mr. McConnell to proceed with confirmation during the lame-duck session given that he blocked Mr. Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland before the 2016 election ...."
Hilarious! As if McConnell has any morals.
9
@JustInsideBeltway
For real. There is a 100% chance that Senate Republicans would confirm a nominee during the lame-duck session if they lose control of the Senate.
No Republican lets hypocrisy get in the way of winning. (And the smart Democrats don't either.)
These "news analysis" pieces have been just awful the past few days.
1
Having only 8 justices is not the end of the world. Republicans have said so much. Some even said 8 is better then 9. So I wouldn't worry about leaving a seat vacant for 2 years.
Now, even if Kavanagh is confirmed, there is a possibility of impeachment. Sexual assault and subsequent perjury certainly qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. That is why it is important to have Kavanagh state under oath that he has never sexually assaulted a women.
4
Dreams are sometimes achievable. This is not a dream, this is pure fantasy. Straight out of the world of Tolkien. No way Democrats will retake the Senate. Even if they do, that won't stop Trump from putting a 5th Conservative on the Court. Unless the Congress never again goes on recess. Obama chose not to fight McConnell's obstruction. Trump would never make that choice. Fantasies are fun when you know it is just imagination. When you confuse them with reality, they can lead to disastrous results and unintended consequences.
2
This would be encouraging except it is startling naive to think it would be hard for McConnell to push through another nominee during the lame-duck session if Democrats win control in November. McConnell eats hypocrisy for breakfast and would not hesitate for a moment to do just that. The best that could be hoped for is to prevent another arch-conservative who would overturn Roe and protect Trump above all.
5
I worry that the Democrats have no real end game. After Kavanaugh, it could become harder to block another choice, and it could be a more conservative choice such as Barrett, who would be more difficult to object to since she’s a woman – and she would highlight Feinstein’s anti-Catholic animus before the election. Or after the election, if Cruz loses and needs a job, would the Senate block one of their own? Justice Rafael Edward Cruz, aged 47 – good one Dems. And I am very leery of taking the advice of any “2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton” – that’s how we got here.
16
Maybe I'm wrong, but last check Democrats are not accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Allow the truth to be heard by all under oath. FBI reopens background check. Everyone who should, wins, right? Oh wait...that doesn't fit the GOP need here for political expediency.
@Len319 Sending Cruz to supreme court for lifetime appointment is too cruel for the other 8 Justices. I can see all 8 resigning within few years.
This is not the "democratic" dream. This is not about republican/democrat. This is about saving OUR United States of America and democracy around the world.
I am happy to report that if The Con Don fires FBI Deputy Director Rob Rosenstein, or forces him to resign, there is a MASSIVE march in the planning stages. It's called Trump Is Not Above The Law and over 400,000 people around the world have already signed up. The link is below. Look at the "partners" - the top democracy-building organizations in America are promoting the march.
WE THE PEOPLE must show The Con Don and his International Mafia Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys and Girls Cabal brethren that they will NOT destroy OUR United States of America and OUR world with their insatiable, mentally deranged lust for power.
Not now. Not ever again.
https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-respons...
20
The Republican Party has hijacked this country destructively rightward for decades.
They run all three branches of government by via grand political larceny.
Brett Kavanaugh is just the last Republican straw to break the American republic's back and shatter any semblance of government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The 2000 Presidential Election was an outright Republican theft of democracy; the 2016 Presidential Election was a similar one dressed up in fake populism, 'voter ID' suppression and black-box-computer vote-counting.
The House is a gerrymandered right-wing farce.
The Senate and the Electoral College are essentially giant Confederate monuments that refuse to be toppled.
The Supreme Court is one partisan radical Republican hack away from flushing American justice down a Robber Baron toilet.
The refusal to grant Merrick Garland a Senate hearing was the the Republican refusal to consent to the will of the people and the outright rejection of representative government.
When you have one political party - the Republican Party - that is so deeply committed to Grand Old Power, oligarchy and tyranny of minority at all costs, then actively resisting their piracy, greed, hypocrisy and profound corruption is nothing less than an act of great American patriotism.
Off with the Russian-Republican party's political heads !
November 6 2018
Vote !
113
Yes, Socrates, and if The Con Don fires Deputy Director Rob Rosenstein, or forces him to resign, there is a massive march planned. It's called Trump Is Not Above The Law and 400,000 people around the world have already signed up. The link is below. Check out the partners. Democracy-loving organizations have signed up to support the march and WE THE PEOPLE must hit the streets when the call comes out:
https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-respons...
2
This is going to backfire on the D's.
3
@Scott
Wishful thinking!
Plus, it's not the Democrats who are doing this. It's Kavanaugh who is.
It's his own past and rotten character coming back to haunt him, his repeated lies under oath, the RIGGED, rushed confirmation process, and his out-of-the-mainstream, far rightwing, anti-women, pro-corporate, judicial philosophy.
He whines that he wants a "fair process". Fine with that!
Release his White House documents, emails, and memos.
Let the FBI investigate.
Let the other women come forward.
Call the other witnesses, especially Mark Judge.
What are they hiding?
With their total lack of regard for women, their rank immorality and their monumental hubris, the GOP, with the selection of Kavanaugh for the SCOTUS, may just give the Democrats exactly what they were praying for.
24
McConnell's handling of Merrick Garland wasn't a "perceived injustice." The act was an injustice. I'm not a Democrat either. McConnell stole a seat and now he's trying to ram through a compromised candidate. That's injustice.
The interesting part is how each side's immediate goals are at odds with their their longer term success. If McConnell succeeds in seating Kavanaugh, he will forever be tainted as a Justice. He was bad before the attempted rape accusation. He's political poison now.There is absolutely no way anyone in the younger generation will respect Kavanaugh's tenure. The blame will fall squarely on Republicans as well. Young minds have long memories.
The Democratic situation isn't quite so perilous but they're still in trouble. If they fight and win, they have the Republican counter wave to handle. If they fight and lose, they have a disappointed base to handle. Hell hath no furry like a woman's scorn but Democrats might deflate other parts of their party infrastructure in the critical windup to the general election. You don't want a depressed volunteer squad out on the street. It be might hard to bounce-back quickly enough this close to an election.
3
It seems that we are turning into the Third Republic of France
which bickered about anything and everything while
Nazi Germany was preparing for World War II.
So while we wonder who, if anyone, is telling the truth
from 36 and 34 years ago, China determinedly goes about
its plan to Militarily and Economically dominate the world.
13
This is the Garland appointment coming back to bite Republicans in the butt.
It is also destroying, irreparably in my opinion, any semblance of the Court being an apolitical body. This is why I had such a problem with the straight up blockage of Mr. Garlands appointment. This tactic of delay delay delay, when possible, will become the norm.
31
Lol.
That is about all you can say to this cheerleader piece. Lol.
He will go to the SCOTUS, It will be a red November, and the DNC will have to come up with a 2024 candidate. Not a GOP fan, but also not delusional.
5
At least this article is honest. The real goal here is to derail Kavanaugh's nomination by any means necessary. I don't blame Libs given what was done to Garland.
But at least Republicans were honest with their tactics for Garland.
Here, the allegations against Kavanaugh should be laughed out of the room. I mean, here are the facts: accuser can't remember place, can't remember time, 36 year old allegations, Kavanaugh was a minor who couldn't have even been charged at the time, accuser never told her mom, never told her dad, never told her best friend, best friend says she never partied with Kavanaugh, not a single shred of corroborating evidence (no texts, no phone records, no rape kit, no hospital record, no photo, no surveillance video, not even a stained dress).
If uncorroborated testimony and flimsy 36 year old allegations can derail judges, senators, etc., then in this partisan environment, no one will ever get elected and the government will be even more useless because there are millions of crazies on both sides that are willing to lie through their teeth to get their desired result.
10
@Jay Lincoln, Here are the facts: Republicans were not honest about their blockage of Garland. They never discussed him or addressed his nomination any coherent way.
2
@Jay Lincoln Good job keeping an open mind before hearing Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testify under oath.
1
@Jay Lincoln The only logical explanation for the charges being presented in a way that's an insult to our intelligence, is that the people behind this campaign are openly demonstrating that they're bogus. If they can make the Republicans turn tail and run using brazen intimidation, the Republicans will be destroyed in the upcoming election.
In two years the Democrats could take back the White House and win enough seats in the Senate to do whatever they wish with the SCOTUS, including impeaching Kavanaugh and the illegitimate Gorsuch and put just Garland on the bench where he belongs.
8
Cancel your retirement Justice Kennedy. Enough is enough.
10
43 more days until the Mid-Term Elections on November 6, 2018.
Get out and vote to show Trump and the world what America really stands for!
8
This is a handy recap of the Stop Kavanaugh Strategy. As the Times notes, this has nothing to do with progressive concerns over #MeToo or Dr. Ford's mental well being. This is all about controlling the Supreme Court. The Times' clarity on this is appreciated.
7
"Clearly the ultimate goal of Senate Democrats is to avenge the perceived injustice of Merrick Garland" said Republican Josh Holmes. First, it's not a perception problem that the Democrats have, not giving Judge Garland a fair hearing was an abdication of the Republican's constitutional responsibilities and should have led to the impeachment of Mitch McConnell for dereliction of duty. Second, if this were some sort of revenge fantasy wouldn't that have applied to Neil Gorsuch as well? The Republicans are trotting out all sorts of excuses to defend their unvetted Supreme Court nominee. They refuse to do their jobs for Garland and didn't do their jobs responsibly with Kavanaugh and then blame the Democrats for the consequences. Infuriating, hypocritical, lazy and, saddest of all, typical.
15
"That scenario helps explain why President Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell are determined to push through Judge Kavanaugh rather than replace him with a less damaged candidate."
Said another way "That scenario explains why Senator Feinstein and others are determined to potentially falsely accuse a career public servant and throw out any presumption of innocence against the accused"
8
Merrick Garland.
Stopping Trump, Kavanaugh and the GOP isn't just a "Democratic dream," it should be the dream of any intelligent, ethical, patriotic citizen who wants to protect women, the environment, the rule of law, reproductive rights, and American sovereignty.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's obvious that Trump and his gang represent a dire threat to our republic. One has to hope that Republicans will join progressives and others in trying to stop Trump and his dishonest, theocratic Supreme Court pick.
The only president I view as a moral and good person in my lifetime is Jimmy Carter.
Trump is Caligula, not the kind of person you want in charge of your country!
11
If Kavanaugh is confirmed by the Senate, no doubt that Michael Avenatti will help one of his victims to file charges, as in Maryland there is no statute of limitations for sex crimes.
So, the GOP will have put someone on the bench who will be required to defend himself in criminal court. Nice optics, if nothing else.
5
Political expediency is not a valid justification for incomplete vetting of a Supreme Court justice. The credibility of the institution of the Supreme Court depends on public acceptance of the notion that the court will act in accordance with the law, without political malice. Further, the Court's credibility is also compromised when there is doubt about the moral fitness of members of the court.
I do not understand why all parties involved in the process are unwilling to commit 3-4 days to an FBI investigation which would provide at least some level of comfort on the issues at hand.
That said, I do not understand how Kavanaugh himself would not be the most ardent supporter of having the FBI probe what's been alleged.
A brief FBI inquiry would not prohibit a confirmation before the mid-terms, so there is no political risk to giving the judge the same level of vetting that was once granted Clarence Thomas (in a far more benighted time).
If the FBI finds nothing, Kavanaugh would advance to his news job with a level of moral authority that he'll otherwise lack forevermore.
There are only two reasons i can think of that would explain Kavanaugh's opposition to an FBI vetting.
The first is that the FBI may find other, problematic issues in his past. And, the second is that he does not trust in the ability of the FBI to do its job fairly and impartially.
Either of these two explanations is gravely concerning.
56
@Garrison1 There is a third reason. In the course of an FBI investigation, Kavanaugh would be questioned, as would be Dr. Ford. If these two individuals continue to tell diametrically opposite stories, one of them would be lying. Lying to the FBI is, of course, a felony. Dr. Ford has already urged the FBI to investigate, which suggests that she does not fear prosecution. Kavanaugh??
@Garrison1
I believe, and I think most people believe, that the Supreme Court lost all credibility in 2000 with Bush v. Gore.
I wouldn't be so sure that McConnell wouldn't feverishly try to push a second nominee through the lame duck session if the Democrats retake the Senate in November. It's a very short window for vetting, hearings, etc. but if anyone could get it done it is McConnell.
This guy pulls every trick in the book to get his bills and confirmations through and doesn't seem to care about public perception at all.
I hope I'm wrong.
72
@Gary Waldman
Biden was too honorable to do it for Garland when the Democrats were in the majority for a few hours before he swore in the new Republican senators. I wouldn't put it past McConnell.
No Democrat nomination will stand up to the new standard that the Democrats have set - statements that not only are not corroborated, but denied by the people claimed to be witnesses.
Especially not Kieth Ellison, lol. Have they disavowed and fired him yet? Maybe Kamala Harris should have said the bruise she wore was from Kieth.
Democrats have destroyed the process and will learn that what goes around comes around.
8
@dwb
Merrick Garland was a respected, moderate Superior Court judge, approved by the GOP senate. Then McConnell decided that Obama could not have a SC appointment during his 8 yrs. Garland was refused even a hearing. So, now McConnell et al want to push through a Catholic ideologue with a past which includes gambling debts, sexual assault on a 15 yr. old girl asleep in her cousin's home where Kavanaugh attended a party, and archived position papers written during the Bush/Cheney Administration supporting torture of enemy combatants. What goes around comes around. Looking forward to the mid-terms when Democrats will turn out to vote.
3
Keith Ellison is not being nominated to the highest court in the land. And neither is Hillary Clinton. So please stick to the question at hand.
1
Citing Garland is just sour grapes. Democrats destroying the process and a person in the process, "because Merrick Garland" with a smear campaign amounts to a 5 year old temper tantrum. And those don't end well for the child.
2
Actually this is the dream of all Americans who value rule of law, the constitution, due process, and democracy -- over greed and power (largely white and male). Thus, it is a non-partisan dream embraced by all genders, all creeds, all ages -- and while perhaps a majority of democrats and independents, a goodly and ever increasing number of republicans. We must out this current set of corrupt, largely republican, white male, politicians at every level of government and power and replace them with people who are not driven by such self-serving incentives. Our democracy depends upon it.
30
This whole discussion assumes that Republicans are under an obligation to postpone Kavanaugh's nomination. I'm guessing that if things get dangerously close to the mid-terms and there is elevated risk of losing the Senate, Republicans will simply ram through a vote.
8
@MatthewSchenker
Then we will have two GOP sexual predators on the Court: Thomas and Kavanaugh. We will have two corporate shills on the Court: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. If I were a GOP strategist looking at the long term, I might want to reconsider this appointment. The GOP is a minority Party clinging to power with gerrymandering and voter suppression. If they lose the WH, Senate, and the House, a real possibility at some future date, Kavanaugh's archived position papers supporting torture can be retrieved and made public. His position on the SC would be hard to keep, because he would have lied during his confirmation hearing. He is a terrible appointment choice pushed by the suspect Federalist Society and the Fox News "pundit" Hannity. The GOP wants another conservative Justice; however, they can't come up with a qualified individual who doesn't carry this much baggage? This smells like payback by a transactional President.
1
@Linda Miilu
I agree with you. My post was a way of facing the sad reality that -- at least for now -- the Republicans can legally put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court regardless of the allegations against him.
@MatthewSchenker
He must be desperate to claim a post he believes he is entitled to, because he comes from Georgetown Prep and a connected family. He has already risen higher than he ever should have done. His desperation was obvious when he dragged his wife forward while he whined. I can't imagine Obama dragging Michelle around that way. Not sure that Melania can be dragged anywhere she doesn't want to be. Bush didn't drag Laura around when he was under attack; he left her to her highway beautification and educational projects. There is something creepy about this guy, a weak character.
A pleasant fantasy to be sure, but the underlying political
imbalance in the Senate contests, when combined with all the
structural disadvantages resulting from voter turnout obstacles
and clueless younger voters, or thoroughly disillusioned potential voters ("what good can voting possibly do to improve my ability to get through the day?"), or disenfranchised by state law voters (e.g. felons who lose voting rights) keeps this "plan" firmly in the realm of fantasy.
Besides, have democrats given the largely indifferent/disengaged voter any clear and convincing reason to vote for their candidates, as compared to not voting for their enabling weasel opponents?
The only practical method I can see is that (i) the number of fired up anti you know who voters significantly outweighs the disillusioned suburban moderate voter who chooses to abstain in disgust; (ii) the number of minority voters far exceeds (somehow) their 2016 turnout in crucial swing states.
But there has been plenty to tut tut about for the suburban voter in those states whose taxes won't jump due to the tax cut obscenity, and who also have a nicely performing stock portfolio. Rather than sit out in protest, they may just
decide to renew support for their congressional enablers. That this is quite likely is one inference that can be drawn from
the longstanding and consistent tightness in the swing state Senate polls. Average people are just not as fired up as activists are.
2
@bl
Needless to add, though I'll do so anyway lest the reality get lost in the contemporary chaos...this would
not have needed to be relegated to the level of fantasy if
the party, and its legions of the very self righteous discontented, had conducted itself quite differently in 2016.
How many well meaning and earnest democrats (in swing states) raised the issue of giving il duce the rights to at least one, but probably several more (sigh) supreme court picks ("and what about the SOTUS (for crying out loud)?") only to be met by a righteous sneer and contemptuous smugness?
“Despite the constant negative press Kavfefe..."
Republicans are pushing this idea of a Democratic plot far too far. They cannot seem to acknowledge that most Americans do not want someone on the Supreme Court who may have sexually assaulted a woman or been guilty of other sexual misconduct, or blatant partisan operative tactics in his past as with the hundreds of thousands of hidden documents, his history in Ken Starr days, etc.
This may simply be a gender blind spot for Republicans, especially for Trump. In the 16th century, Knox used the phrase "monstrous regiment of women" to decry the realms of various queens.
This disrespect for women won't work any better now.
26
The only way out of this mess in the long-term is to amend the Constitution to put the Supreme Court on 18 year terms. Many legal scholars have suggested this. One term expires every two years. In addition Senate must vote up or down on nominations within a fixed time period. this reduces the incentive to pack the court and play put a little games by delaying nominations incessantly waiting for a better election outcome.
32
@Ken L The time limit could be done with a Senate rules change.
1
@Robert David South ... Are you suggesting that the Senate could also simply vote to establish a retirement age for the SCOTUS based on the idea that the "good Behavior" of a Justice might cease at, say, 75?
Its not a dream. It could happen, though winning the Senate will be hard for the Dems.
The Republicans would not be pushing Kavanaugh so hard and standing by him, if they were not worried about filling the seat before the mid-terms.
17
Mitch McConnell held open the vacant Court seat in 2016, not to give the American people a say as to who should fill the vacancy but to impose his will that the late Justice Scalia’s seat would go to a conservative Republican.
McConnell should respect his own theory and allow 2018 midterm voters to determine Kavanaugh’s fate. That’s only fair. Qualifications and fitness, not a manufactured time frame, should be determined by voters, according to McConnell’s way of thinking. He shouldn’t be afraid to test his own reasoning this time around. This whole charade was of his own making.
28
McConnell doesn't believe in fairness. He believes in getting whatever he and Republicans want, even if that means ignoring the Constitution.
4
“But if Democrats win, it would be hard for Mr. McConnell to proceed with confirmation during the lame-duck session given that he blocked Mr. Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland before the 2016 election by arguing that the vacant seat should be filled according to the will of the voters.”
Hard? Why would it be hard?
I don’t think McConnell cares if other people think he is inconsistent. He will just plow through and do what he needs to do to appoint a SC judge.
10
The faction that used to be the Democratic Party is now as despicable as their counterpart. We’re life-long Democrats, but guess who won’t be getting our votes in November.
7
@Shenoa
How do you conclude from this article that the Democrats are despicable at all, much less at the same level as the republican party?
5
@Shenoa
Too bad, but your loss!
1
@Shenoa More detail please. To help us provide better service in the future.
1
"Now is the time for all good women and men to come to the aid of their country." Yes. Block Kavanaugh, register to vote, volunteer on behalf of House and Senate Dems, and above all, vote. Nothing could be more important in our lifetimes -- saving the SCOTUS and winning both Houses in November is our moral duty as Americans. Get to work -- there are 42 days 2 hours and 19 minutes until the midterms.
54
Merrick Garland is still available.
94
@Ying Wang
WHat ever happened to Merrick Garland anyway?
1
So the gloves are off and it's now a bare knuckle fight. The whole concept that a Supreme Court justice can be picked based on the way he's perceived to vote on future rulings is so wrong on many levels, but unfortunately it's come to that. The whole concept of a lifetime appointment was to remove the political aspect from the decision process that any justice would make. Having said that Kavanaugh is the wrong person for that position. He come across as a person that will lie, cheat or steal to get on the Court and I'm willing to wager that in the next couple of days there will be more allegation about his checkered past.This process needs to be slowed down or stopped completely he's not the right person for the job.
22
The people should demand the judicial branch use its power in providing checks and balances.
The Judicial branch needs to "order" an FBI investigation because the Kavanaugh backers are refusing to allow it.
Refusing to allow us to know the truth.
The gravity of voting on this nominee, if he is unfit, should be out of the hands of his partisans. To prevent a horrible wrong, an injunction to temporarily stop the appointment from being voted on is absolutely in order.
A thorough FBI investigation of these very serious allegations is needed, now more than ever.
Or..... Are we not free?
7
@Getreal We are not free. Or, we are hanging on to the last shred of freedom we have. That's the whole point of this fight. Who is going to order an investigation or impose an injunction? The Judicial branch, of which the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter. Once the Republicans get 5 reliable right-wing votes on the court, they can disenfranchise people, suppress votes, gerrymander, change any laws or rules they want, and it will all be declared "legal" by the Supreme Court. Ultimately they want to rewrite the Constitution to give them permanent control of all three branches of government.
1
All noble objectives in my opinion. But don’t stoop to the methods used by Trump. Don’t lie. Don’t engage in blanket character assassination. Use drama as a as a tool not a weapon. Lift people up. Set a good example. Fight fire with water. Take the high road. Don’t take another detour; put this country back on course.
19
It would be very surprising if McConnell and the other senate republicans did not push through a new nominee in the lame duck session, even if they lost the election. At this point, assumptions based on what’s proper cannot be made.
58
The Dream will never happen. There is no universe in which McConnell is not confirming an extreme Conservative Judge before January. He has the power to do this, regardless of the election outcome, and it will happen. No matter what.
The real play here is maximizing electoral damage for Republicans, hoping it will flip a few more Congress seats.
14
With two credible sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, the probability that he used - knowingly - stolen Miranda documents during his work under Bush II, the greater possibility that he committed perjury regarding his use of those stolen documents, the fact that there are still thousands of pages being withheld from his record, the GOP moderates - Collins, Murkowski and Flake - must not confirm Kavanaugh. It's imperative that such a tainted candidate - gambling, drinking and debt problems - being forced through the delicate process of being appointed to the highest court in the land, be stopped. We can certainly live with an 8 person SCOTUS, we cannot countenance such a dubious character as Kavanaugh on the court.
116
@Tony Cochran. Hugo Black was a Democratic Senator nominated to the Court by FDR. His vetting did not uncover his membership in the KKK. When that came out, Democrats were not phased. After all Black voted for the Democrat’s agenda.
1
We can wallow in partisan logjam or we can do the right thing. The stakes in who is appointed have never been higher. And what is right is not in question. The ninth justice should be a centrist swing voter. There are dozens out there and the most distinguished and the most reliably centrist is the best choice, pure and simple. Revenge may be sweet. But doing the right thing is just. And fealty to justice is always the right choice.
29
@michjas
What would happen if ALL the justices were centrist swing voters? Without the preconceptions and political baggage, wouldn't it lead to better decisions for "we the people"?
1
Let's hope the Democrats finally start taking SC appointments as seriously as the GOP.
72
@Pat
is this a joke? when have they not?
“Clearly, the ultimate goal of Senate Democrats is to avenge their perceived injustice of Merrick Garland,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Mr. McConnell.
Perceived injustice? Wow, the GOP has become nothing more than the party of lies and fantasy under Trump. There is nothing "perceived" about denying an eminently qualified nominee even so much as a hearing.
179
@Charles
The perception of Garland as a centrist would not have survived a hearing. He grew up in Cook County, the capital of Democratic machine politics. His hometown may have been 100% Democrats. He worked for the government when Democrats were in power. He left the government when Republicans were in control. He was a party guy through and through. He never would have been confirmed by a Republican Senate. It would have been better if he had gotten a hearing. But that’s all he would have gotten.
5
@Charles: Not to mention that the Republicans have become a party of sexual predators (the list is long starting with Trump and going through to Kavanaugh).