A Way Out of the Kavanaugh Debacle

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Before Dr. Ford's allegations about Judge Kavanaugh became public, Kavanaugh was poised to be confirmed. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, a large percentage of the country is going to thing it was rammed through without a proper investigation of serious allegations of sexual assault. If his confirmation is voted down, an equally large percentage of the country is going to believe he was illegitimately denied a seat due to a last-minute character assassination campaign.

There is a plausible way out of this, though I don't think either side would agree to it. Democrats agree to confirm Barrett or Kethledge, the runners-up this time. This would be a good-faith show that they are really concerned about the allegations against Kavanaugh, and are not simply trying to run out the clock. Kavanaugh agrees to withdraw, with a statement from both parties that the allegations against him have not been proven. The FBI launches full investigation of all charges against Kavanaugh. Trump publicly vows that if the FBI cannot corroborate the allegations, Kavanaugh will be nominated for the next vacancy.

That the best-case scenario I can think of as far as reducing tensions go, but I'm not holding my breath, as neither side's base would be satisfied with this outcome.

Advertisement

NEXT: Republican Senators to Plow Ahead With Kavanaugh Vote: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shame Trump didn’t do the thing America’s needed for awhile and appoint a state appeals court judge instead of a federal one in the first place.

    1. Why is that something that “America’s needed for awhile”? What makes you think that a state appeals court judge will automatically be better qualified than a federal one?

      Not that there aren’t some very good state appeals court judges out there. But by definition, they won’t have as much experience dealing with federal issues (something the federal Supreme Court kind of does a lot). And isn’t the normal path if you’ve got a good reputation at the state level to get nominated to a federal judgeship where you can get some experience before being called up to the big leagues?

      I’m not saying that it’s a bad proposal – but I don’t see why it’s necessarily better than the current process.

      1. We need some diversity on the court.

        Except for Ginsburg from Columbia, every justice has Yale Law or Harvard Law. [and she attended Harvard Law for two years] Then each clerked. Then each was a circuit judge

        Two of the justices [if Kav wins] went to the same prep school and 7 are from either Greater DC or NYC.

        I think 7 or 8 have Ivy undergrad too.

        1. What Bob said: too many justices with the same education and experience produces too much sameness of thought. Especially the education thing, since they may well have had the same professors even if they weren’t classmates. For state court service in particular, I agree with Justice Thomas’s overarching point when he dissented from denial in Strange v. Searcy and Maricopa v. Lopez-Valenzuela and I think not having any former state court judges is a contributing cause. Plus there’s nobody with first-hand experience applying Federal court rulings in state court, which I expect lessens the quality of SCOTUS opinions as far as providing useful guidance.

          1. So it has nothing to do with individual qualifications but with the Court’s compositional needs… I think the Court’s gotten to be too much like an NFL team that’s used all its draft picks on star wide receivers every year so its receiving corps is best in the league but its defense and its O-line are a shambles. Doesn’t matter how good the wide receivers in the draft are this year, taking one of them is the wrong move.

          2. I see no reason why a Supreme should have ANY judicial experience. The details are what clerks are for. A person with broad life experience would add a much needed diversity of outlook to the court. A former entrepreneur, a military lifer, even a state governor would do just fine. If you put one non-judge in the room with eight judicial lifers, I’ll bet that the judges would benefit more than the outsider.

            I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that there are a thousand people in the country who would do as good a job on the court as any of the knuckleheads who have sat on the court over my lifetime. There have been many, many grotesque decisions over the years – it’s a low bar I’m setting.

            1. Indeed; Byron White, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Fred Vinson, Lewis Powell, William O. Douglas, etc., etc.,
              Not hard to find good nominees who are not sitting judges.

              1. Dalai Lama!

            2. “…I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts….”

              Have you bought donuts lately? This is about even odds.

              Try dollars to pesos, o maybe dollars to yen. Not nearly as mellifluous, but more accurate.

            3. It’s not a new idea. Back in the day, I wanted Buckminster Fuller to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Whether he would even have accepted such an appointment, I don’t know. But as a practical matter, you probably want someone who at least has a law degree and has experience practicing before appellate courts, if not necessarily being a judge in one. Knowing the major precedents that might relate to cases he/she is hearing is kind of important.

        2. I agree totally with this.
          For a guy who wants to appear to be this brash swashbuckling guy, Trump’s judges are very vanilla–quite good in terms of resume’, overall–but very vanilla.

          1. Vanilla…. dog whistle/code words for something? You think maybe his nominees should be Chocolate or Cosmopolitan instead?

            1. If you’re the only one who hears the dog whistle, chances are you’re the dog.
              “Vanilla” in exactly the sense that Bob outlines.

              1. I think BillyG was joking.

                I laughed, at least!

    2. What about Circuit Judges with previous state court experience–Joan Larsen or Allison Eid?

      1. They’d be fine. It’s not like circuit courting negates their state courting.

  2. You’re obligating future Senators who may be elected in November–and who may oppose the judge.

    1. The biggest problem. Probably makes it pointless. On the other hand, the gang of eight did hold to their promise for a while, and the budget deficit cap did hold up for a while.

    2. Yep, not to mention the other Senators who will change their minds after the shocking revelation that the new nominee has ____ in his or her past

    3. You’re obligating future Senators who may be elected in November–and who may oppose the judge.

      The only obligation Bernstein is suggesting is that current Democrats obligate themselves to confirm Barrett or Kethledge in the current session. But the scheme would work without this since Republicans outnumber Democrats in the current session.

      Unfortunately, such an FBI investigation would have exactly the same impact as the FBI investigation in the Hill-Thomas case: it would be inconclusive and would not silence the Kavanaugh attackers. How could it be otherwise when Ford says that she told nobody else about it until many years later? If anybody knew about it at the time it would have to have been from Kavanaugh or Judge. Is the FBI going to interview every acquaintance of theirs and ask if either one ever admitted to attempted rape? Anybody who says ‘yes’ is going to get the Ford treatment. Are they going to also ask if anybody ever saw Kavanaugh being ‘pushy’? If so, will that validate the original charge? Why is it so difficult to uncover other similar behavior from him during high school?

      1. The whole thing is bullshit. Just confirm Kavanaugh and be done with it. No more compromise.

    4. I thought about that, too. But the premise isn’t particularly good either.

      Here’s a better one: all current sitting senators agree to confirm Kavanaugh at the next opening unless the FBI can corroborate the charges. That’s a reasonable compromise. Agreeing that he’ll just get a floor vote next time around is no big whoop–the dems will still vote against.

  3. This solution coming from an attorney? What about due process? What about the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence against Kavanaugh? Is the practice of law about “reducing tension” or about protecting peoples’ rights? Or is it about publicity and making money?

    I’m glad this guy isn’t my attorney.

    1. Political appointments have nothing to do with due process.

      1. Is that so? You completely missed the point. If there is any legitimacy to Ford’s accusations, Kavanaugh is entitled to due process just like anyone else and the proper place for the accusations to be investigated and tried is in a court of law in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred. Being forced to withdraw because of baseless accusations is not due process and it’s not civil. He should not have to withdraw because Ford and the Dems created a political circus shit-show. Just because this is a high-profile and political issue doesn’t change those facts. It’s appalling that an attorney would make such a suggestion.

        1. Kavanaugh is entitled to due process if he is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Confirmation to the Supreme Court is none of those things. If it were, Merrick Garland would have had a slam-dunk case.

          1. And even were he entitled to due process, “due process” just means “the procedures you’re entitled to”. So… what procedures haven’t been performed that he’d be owed?

          2. Also completely missed the point. IF there is any legitimacy to Ford’s accusations, she should go to the local police in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime supposedly happened and file a report so that charges can be brought; not gin up some BS and send it to Die Feinsten in an attempt to stop Kavanaugh’s nomination. Due process. Not leftist BS.

            1. How’s that, exactly? Do you think every crime goes reported to the police, and every criminal who commits a crime that isn’t reported to the police has suffered a violation of due process?

            2. She has free speech and may petition Congress for redress of a grievance. That her accusation is of a crime doesn’t change this. People accuse each other off crimes outside of law enforcement reports quite commonly, and listeners have the freedom of conscience to believe or disbelieve them. We’re Americans, not computers designed to limit our inputs and outputs to approved channels.

          3. The accusation of attempted rape has deprived him of future ability to make a living, not the least of which is that he would, more likely than not, lose his current job, had he not defended himself so ably. Just because it’s the wrong venue, doesn’t mean a fair hearing by both sides (which is all he asked for) is not deserved under the principle of due process.

            As for Garland, that’s not even decent whataboutism.

            1. True, the better whataboutism is Gorsuch: if this is all made up to sink or delay the nomination, why not use it on him?

              1. There is no at stake now as Kennedy was viewed as a swing vote.

            2. An accusation doesn’t deprive someone of due process, and doesn’t deprive him of his ability to make a living: he has, after all, a lifetime appointment to the D.C. Circuit, and still has it notwithstanding the accusation. If he lost that lifetime appointment without a hearing, _then_ he would have been deprived of due process. It’s legitimately surprising that this needs to be explained to someone on a legal blog.

              And the Garland note isn’t “whataboutism” at all. If Kavanaugh has had his due process right violated because of these accusations made against him at a hearing (before he was giving a chance to rebut the accusations), then someone who didn’t get any hearing on his nomination whatsoever would have a far worse violation, by the same logic.

              1. The two nominations are very different.

                Garland did not face what looks like a character assassination.
                He was blocked for purely political reason that did not reflect on his character, competence or judicial philosophy.
                If Obama wants to inject himself into the conversation, he can assert that he was denied any process. That point is obvious.

                1. That’s an odd position. So you’re saying that denying someone for political reasons is not a deprivation of due process, but holding a hearing for someone where an accusation is made that you don’t like is a deprivation of due process?

                  Does “due process” mean anything to you other than “outcome I approve of”?

              2. Admittedly, I sound like a living constitionalist here, but due process (at least a fair hearing) and the presumption of innocence while not part of the advise and consent text of the constitution, under-girds our entire system of law. That this needs to be explained to someone on a legal blog is surprising.

                Your rebuttal of my charge of whataboutism starts from a false premise. Namely, that no charges were ever leveled at Garland, therefore he was not entitled to a fair hearing.

              3. And the Garland note isn’t “whataboutism” at all. If Kavanaugh has had his due process right violated because of these accusations made against him at a hearing (before he was giving a chance to rebut the accusations), then someone who didn’t get any hearing on his nomination whatsoever would have a far worse violation, by the same logic.

                So when Democrats denied a vote to Estrada solely because he was Hispanic, was that wrong?

            3. mad_kolak: “had he not defended himself so ably”

              That’s not the performance my wife and I saw. I thought it was the self-destructive action of a man who was falling apart and no longer in control of himself.

              And I write this as a person who thinks there are serious problems with Ford’s accusation (and hers being the only credible one).

              1. Then, Pox, you and your wife are imbeciles.

                If somebody said you raped somebody and you were calm and cool about it — I’d think you were, at best, a sociopath.

          4. The Republicans didn’t destroy Merrick Garland’s life. Last I checked he was still the chief judge of the most influential and prestigious court (outside SCOTUS) in the land. There is no comparison between what the Democrats have done to Kavanaugh and what the Republicans did to Garland. That is a joke.

            1. Kavanaugh is still a judge on the DC circuit as well.

              The main difference seems 1) the Senate allowed no hearing or process at all, and 2) no one came forwards to say Garland assaulted them, followed by increasingly unbelievable categorical denials from Garland.

              1. To make it analogous, you would have to say someone came forward and said Garland assaulted him with no credible evidence, then follow it by increasingly unbelievable compounded accusations.

                And we will never know, because he is going to a Justice before the end of Saturday, but it is doubtful that Kavanaugh would be able to maintain his position as a DC circuit judge. Democrats are already planning on continuing an investigation and impeaching him. Had he just stuck with being a DC circuit judge, the rapist charges wouldn’t just go away ya know. Odds are he would be asked to step down and given a highly paid job somewhere at a think tank as a consolidation prize.

                1. “someone came forward and said Garland assaulted him with no credible evidence”

                  This may come as news to you, mad_kalak, but sworn testimony from a victim is in fact evidence. Heck, there are even model criminal jury instructions stating that the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

                  1. And it may come as news to you, Glaucomotose, that eye witness testimony is very unreliable. Furthermore, Ford’s was 36 years ago, and has holes in it that you could drive a truck through.

                    Your reply was the perfect example of motivated reasoning.

                    1. eye witness testimony is very unreliable

                      This very true, way more true than people think.
                      And yet it is indeed valid evidence. we still use it in trial all the time.

                      Careful, some of those straws you’re grasping have some collateral damage on them.

                    2. Your mistake is thinking that it is grasping at straws to point out that 36 year old eyewitness testimony with no corroboration and no details is unreliable. It’s even more unreliable than regular eyewitness testimony. But as to you point about the justice system sending people to prison with it, yea, I concede the point, but that’s a problem with prosecutors.

                    3. This is kind of like how Comey sucks but Trump firing him to obstruct the Russia investigation was still bad.

                      I would like nothing more than for our society to stop relying on eyewitnesses so much everywhere from criminal to administrative hearings.
                      But to suddenly bring it up to impeach Ford as witness in this case? Get that cherry-picking BS outta here.

                    4. This is kind of like how Comey sucks but Trump firing him to obstruct the Russia investigation was still bad.

                      Yet he didn’t try to end it or interfere. Even Comey has said that. The FBI doesn’t stop functioning when a terrible head of it is replaced.

                      But to suddenly bring it up to impeach Ford as witness in this case?

                      HER eyewitnesses don’t agree with her. Why is it only HER view that can be true, and not the people she NAMED as being there saying they don’t remember this at all?

                    5. “Your reply was the perfect example of motivated reasoning.”

                      Even Trump and his aides thought her testimony was credible. Were they “motivated” as well?

                    6. Even Trump and his aides thought her testimony was credible. Were they “motivated” as well?

                      They were being polite.

                      The woman has literally no credibility.

                    7. Yes, the woman who testified publicly before the world has no credibility, but we should take your opinion as credible, while you cower behind the shield of your anonymity.

                    8. Amd her bullshit story was even full of holes. The whole ‘fear of flying’ thing. Yet she flew everywhere else in the past.

                    9. My guess, mad_kalak, eyewitness testimony where someone claims sexual assault by a person who was already known to them will seldom if ever prove unreliable for reason of mis-identification. And mis-identification is the reason normally cited in those unreliable cases you mention. So I suggest you are looking at disconnected sets, featuring unlike attributes with regard to what you are trying to characterize.

                  2. Glaucomatose: Not the least of her accusations’ problems is that her good friend — who, being a good friend, says she believes Dr. Ford — says she was not at such a party and has not met Kavanaugh. That’s pretty hard to overcome.

                    I’m glad the Republican majority /finally/ did the wise thing of having a basic FBI (i.e., impartial and professional) look-see.

                  3. This may come as news to you, mad_kalak, but sworn testimony from a victim is in fact evidence.

                    This incident, from 36 or so years ago, happened somewhere at some time. The only person I told the person’s name to is my husband. I didn’t mention the name to literally anybody else. Ever”

                    Yeah, that’s evidence. But not of an assault.

                2. How about a SNL skit?

                  “I was gang raped by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

                3. said Garland assaulted him with no credible evidence

                  I welcome voluntary statements by conservatives along this line, especially a day or two after the nation watched Dr. Ford’s testimony. There may be a few women in this country who have not yet reached a conclusion about whether to support a political party branded by backwardness, misogyny, and other types of old-timey intolerance.

                  Carry on, clingers . . . and louder, please!

              2. “unbelievable categorical denials”

                How can he specifically deny an incident of unknown location and time?

                1. Good question, Bob. But he’s said that. Also that he never knew Ford.

                  1. “Also that he never knew Ford.”

                    That is a specific denial. I believe her friend who was supposedly at this party ha said she [the friend] has never met Kav.

                    My point is that he made the only denials he could based on the accusations. “I never assaulted her or anyone and I never met her.”

                    1. Yup. No one other than Ford is claiming that the two knew each other. The denials are only unbelievable to people who don’t think he should be confirmed anyway. And parts of her accusation are demonstrably ridiculous, like the lie that the hearing had to be delayed so that she could drive to DC because Kavanaugh rendered her unable to fly.

              3. Yes, but if the democrats truly believe Ford, then why aren’t they moving to impeach Kavanaugh. After all, if someone had established that a federal judge had attacked a woman as alleged (let’s say someone uncovered video of him doing it), then would anyone dispute bringing impeachment charges?

                1. Because they don’t have a majority in the House of Representatives and any attempt to push out articles of impeachment against Kavanaugh now would be futile. If the Democrats win control of the House in November, it will probably happen as soon as possible after the new session starts.

                  On the other hand, there are only 8 Republican held Senate seats up for re-election this November, and conviction(removal) on articles of impeachment requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

                  So even if they win a majority in the Senate and the House in November, odds are heavily against them being able to remove Kavanaugh, but I wouldn’t bet against them trying.

                  1. MaththewSlyfield: “Because they don’t have a majority in the House of Representatives and any attempt to push out articles of impeachment against Kavanaugh now would be futile. ”

                    Plus there just isn’t the evidence. You’d never get a majority even of Democrats to go for it.

              4. The main difference seems 1) the Senate allowed no hearing or process at all, and 2) no one came forwards to say Garland assaulted them, followed by increasingly unbelievable categorical denials from Garland.

                True, nobody made accusations of events over 36 years ago that occurred sometime at some place with all of their corroborating witnesses NOT corroborating them for Garland, true.

              5. ” increasingly unbelievable categorical denials from Garland.”

                Yeah, sure. Like Blasey Ford is remotely believable.

                Viewed in it’s totality her memories are beyond unreliable.

                She doesn’t remember the date, or even the year.
                She cant tell you where the house was, or even whose house it was at the time.
                Every person she has identified as being present has flatly refuted her.
                But she’s damn sure it was Brett Kavanaugh.

                I get that memory is imperfect. When an accusation includes a date, location, and an identity, but is hazy on what the accused was wearing that’s still credible.

                She’s been given credit for being right about one thing and one thing only, meanwhile either can’t remember or has mis-remembered every thing else. The weight of it all says it cannot be trusted.

                That you accept her accusation, while finding Kavanaugh ‘unbelievable’ is not remotely surprising, but it’s also not remotely meaningful.

                1. I don’t know – I want an investigation.

                  That you are convinced you know what happened is the telling certainty here.

        2. “If there is any legitimacy to Ford’s accusations”

          There isn’t. This is obvious. Her shaky word, her shaky memory, and obviously politicized timing are all she has to offer. So tough shit for her. At most he drunkenly groped her way back in high school. Every goddamn one of those democrat scum on the judiciary committee are guilty of far worse.

    2. Appointees to positions of great prestige and responsibility bear the burden of proof that they have the merit and character to fulfill those positions.

      1. Sure. And unfounded allegations don’t contradict that.

        1. Well, at least you’re not spewing this due process or burden of proof nonsense.

          Sheesh, of all the times to at least be (procedurally) on the same page of ARWP :smh:

        2. As with all “accusations” from the socialist party, it’s the SERIOUSNESS of the charge that is important, not whether or not there is any TRUTH to the accusation.

      2. Appointees are not owed anything, and can be rejected for any reason or no reason. But that does not mean that the Senate is not obligated to be fair with regard to serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

        Having made the decision to hear Dr. Ford, the Senate owes the public an explanation as to why her testimony should be considered relevant without any corroboration, especially given the prejudice to Judge Kavanaugh resulting from her delay in reporting or even documenting key facts.

      3. A spotless thirty year career of documented success and the ABA stamp of approval do not outweigh a vague and unsubstantiated claim of a juvenile offense????

        1. Spotless? Read the first ABA appraisal of Brett Kavanaugh.

  4. That would look like an admission of guilt by Kavanaugh. And after the ridiculous behavior by the Dems even prior to the allegation, I doubt the terrain is ripe for a good-faith compromise. And the Dems don’t feel they should make good faith compromises because of Garland.

    1. *ding* we have a winner!

      My leftist friends can’t understand why he won’t withdraw, or that Trump doesn’t just nominate someone else. It’s because it would be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as admitting guilt.

      1. It would also encourage the Dems to engage in lord knows what kind of antics to delay the confirmation of the next nominee.

        1. *ding* another winner. What my “I hate politics” friends understand, is that the tactic worked against Roy Moore, and that it didn’t work against Trump because everyone already knew he was a sleaze when it came to women and had made up their minds to vote for him already.

    2. If the Democrats were looking for a way to compromise we’d already know it, and it certainly would not come via David Bernstein.

      The only time they would be amenable to this approach would be once they knew the Republicans had their fifty votes.

  5. Thank you David. I finally feel like I’m not the only insane person so stuck to their side as to be unable to compromise. That is the definition of compromise isn’t it, both sides leave unhappy. You cheered my day up with a little non-partisan rationality.

    1. ‘Rationality’? Try ‘Pollyanna-levels of naivet?’.

      Even completely ignoring the damage a successful attack like this would do to the nomination process, it presumes that Democrats would not oppose a different candidate. On top of that, it presumes that Democrats would not oppose Kavanaugh again if an ‘FBI investigation’ didn’t find anything.

      Do you think Democrat Presidential hopefuls like Harris or Booker would behave like that? It’d ruin their support with the base.
      Do you think Republicans Graham or Sasse would trust them? It would ruin their support with the base, even if they were justified.

      The possibility for compromise ended on September 14th, when these impossible to prove or disprove allegations were first embraced by the Democrats as a reason to oppose Kavanaugh.

      1. America is at war with a malignant Marxist insurgency that calls itself the democrat party.

        No more compromise.

    2. Non-partisan rationality does not play in Washington D.C. Sure, you can occasionally find examples of non-partisan (or rather bi-partisan) action, but that is only rational in the sense that both sides see the cooperation as improving their own re-election chances, if the “public good” or “public interest” were the test, those bi-partisan moments are rarely (never?) rational. See, for example, McCain-Fiengold, labeled as a “campaign finance reform” Act and held up as a great example of the parties coming together to solve a problem of too much money in politics; but it was only bi-partisan because what it REALLY accomplished was increase the power of incumbency for the “ins”, and make it much more difficult for challengers to try to take away their seats in Congress. The only compromises which will even be discussed are those which will help the career pols on both sides get re-elected. A compromise in which both sides betray their base constituencies? Ain’t gonna happen.

      1. I would go even further and note that there is no such thing as the “public good”…it’s an illusion. The “public good” is the policy interests of the dominant ruling coalition at the time.

    3. You cheered my day up with a little non-partisan rationality.

      Because if there is anything the Volokh Conspiracy is known for, it is non-partisan content.

  6. There is a plausible way out of this, though I don’t think either side would agree to it. Democrats agree to confirm Barrett or Kethledge

    I don’t get this part. The GOP doesn’t need any Dem votes to confirm Barrett or Kethledge. Maybe it would be nice if they were confirmed by wide margins instead of ~55 (or ~60) votes, but that’s neither here nor there.

    What’s the purpose of the agreement then? It doesn’t appear to give the GOP anything they can’t do themselves. Nor does it appear fair to the Democrats that they agree not to oppose other nominees about which they might have serious objections.

    1. The two proposed replacements are both known now. Future hearings won’t change anyone’s mind.

    2. Right, he just needs Susan Collins.

      When he was appointed and continuing now, hers is the key vote. 49 other sure GOP votes + Collins + Pence and it does not matter what Murcowski thinks.

      No one remembers vote totals and he is a justice [or not] no matter if its 50+Pence or 100 votes.

    3. How about just attempting to ratchet down the anger and divisiveness? As Dr. Bernstein writes, he’s trying to reduce the tensions that are getting out of control.

      We need to try something to just lessen the anger. We’re approaching a “cold civil war” in this country. We need to think of things to at least keep it “cold” if not stop it completely.

      1. An agreement that doesn’t deliver anything is not going to ratchet down anger.

        This is a bit of the problem with Reid’s nuclear option. The majority party gains the power to confirm nominees without help, but this also makes them vulnerable because they have no one else to blame for their exercise.

      2. I’d love a “hot” civil war. We’re armed to the teeth, and the left has sex toys, marathon running sneakers, fair trade granola bars, and seitan meatloaf. Screw them.

        1. Hey now, don’t go knocking seitan. It’s pretty much the only “fake meat” that’s even remotely tolerable.

          1. Those black bean hamburgers are pretty good too, with the fixings under the bun that is.

            1. Fixings like real bacon…

          2. Try the Impossible Burger. I am a lifelong carnivore and I was well impressed.

        2. The Man Of Many Names, like too many disaffected right-wing bigots, is itching to go “the full LaVoy” . . . but only in the all-talk tough guy division.

          1. I have over 50,000 rounds of 5.56. Do you?

            1. I have the ability to make friends. Do you?

            2. .308 is better.

              1. Ehh, my ammo stash is to defend myself against liberals when they inevitably start rioting and trying to take our stuff. I don’t hunt.

            3. I have over 50,000 rounds of 5.56. Do you?

              If I observe that those rounds mean nothing other than that you are a gun nut and disaffected loser, will you cry like a Brett Kavanaugh?

              1. Arty, you’re a riding lussy progtard that will likely cower behind old women when you amd your friends push too far. If you think otherwise, I would be delighted to meet you amd set you straight.

                But you would never have the guts for that. Guns or no guns, your choice. Because you’re just another pussy progtard. You’re not a real man.

          2. When Arthur L. Hicklib experiences “the full Kent State,” the last thing to enter his mind, besides the National Guard rounds, will be to wonder how the agents of the government could have betrayed him so.

      3. Approaching?

        No, we are in one. It just hasn’t gone hot yet.

        I give it one more attempted mass assassination event before things boil over.

        1. In the likely event of Kavanaugh joining SCOTUS, I predict another leftist shooter like the one that shot Rep. Scalise.

          Which is why a lot of,progressives belong on watch lists. Nothing but violent subversives.

    4. I don’t get it for the simple reason that it contradicts itself: if he thinks they won’t agree to it, how can he think it’s plausible?

    5. Dems aren’t going to agree to it because they want to be free to bring out a last-minute witness who will claim that Amy Barrett once used the n-word, or yelled mean things at a patient while picketing an abortion clinic.

  7. I have a better idea, advise and consent to the nomination before them.

    Up or down and then accept the consequences, political and otherwise.

    If the people don’t like it they can vote accordingly in November and 2020.

    1. Bob,

      I agree with you.

      More investigations and more hearings will only prolong a process that has become extremely bitter and pointless. Regardless of what FBI questioning finds, no D announced to vote against BK is going to change their mind. Likely no R will either.

      The best thing for the country is an up or down vote. Those few who actually had an open mind prior to yesterday will vote “no” and the nomination will fail. Just as Bork’s did. Trump needs to have another name to submit on Monday evening. That can be pushed through politically before January 1 in a lame-duck session.

      This will be unsatisfactory for BK because he does not get to clear his name any more than yesterday’s testimony. But it is as fair as fair can be at this sorry point.

      About this process for BK, I certainly do NOT believe Feinstein. Every development in this has the earmarks of an orchestrated hit using Ford’s highly credible story.

      1. “Those few who actually had an open mind prior to yesterday will vote “no” and the nomination will fail.”

        Failure or success depends on Susan Collins alone. There are 49 sure Yes votes now that Flake has committed.

        I have no idea how she will go. Neither does anyone else.

      2. “Every development in this has the earmarks of an orchestrated hit using Ford’s highly credible story.”

        Are you being sarcastic when you say “highly credible”? Literally none of Ford’s own named witnesses corroborate her story

      3. If BK is not confirmed then the republicans need to pu ish the democrats horribly. They must be taught their place.

  8. Here’s a compromise for the evil lying leftists. F*** you.

    1. Yes, this is basically the GOP’s platform now, which is why honest conservatives should work to reform. If done well, people like you will be marginalized out of the political dialogue and let us move forward as a nation.

      1. There’s no reason conservatives should play nice with lying, thieving, bad faith traitors. Screw civility. The only way to “move forward” as a nation is for leftists to be out of power, or better, in graveyards.

        1. Amen. Enter twenty million dead progtards subversive than the ‘oss of our constitutional rights.

          1. Yawn

      2. It’s a prisoner’s dilemma, in that if the GOP plays nice, all it can do it hope the Dems will too. If both sides did, then we could have this mythical comity that everyone was talking about at McCain’s funeral. But because it’s a prisoner’s dilemma, one side or the other will break first. Recent history has indicated that its the Democrat party that has broken civility standards. The last time the GOP did it was the 1994 take over of the House, and even that was just tit for tat after decades of being treated like unwanted step-children as the minority.

      3. I notice you’re not talking about honest liberals in the DNC. Wonder why, it’s not like they’ve covered themselves in honor here.

    2. I reject your compromise.

    3. And it has the merit of sounding exactly the one Mark Tushnet was proposing, back when he was sure his candidate was going to win in 2016.

      1. I reject your rejection.

  9. That seems like a fair proposal, except that it seems to pre-judge the vetting of the runners up.

  10. In any event, I don’t see any reason to think that the Dem’s want an FBI investigation, any more than Dr. Ford wanted a delay so that she could drive to Washington. If they wanted one, they could have had one before the confirmation hearing.

  11. For non-rapey reasons I’ve opposed Kavanaugh. I don’t like the alternate choices presented. Willit, maybe.

    1. Barrett will bring forth a deluge of anti-Catholic sentiment that will be highly corrosive. I’d go with Joan Larsen.

    2. Indeed Barrett will be a MUCH bigger circus than Kavanaugh. Imagine a woman with 7 children who belongs to a hard core pro-life organization replacing, say, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg; the possibilities for left wing fulminations are almost unimaginable.

      1. I’ve gotten pretty used to seeing sophomoric name puns here, from “Obummer” to “Dump”, but yours is possibly the least coherent. No idea what “Buzzi Ginsburg” is supposed to evoke. But keep working on it; eventually you’ll find a good one and win over any politically-aware grade schoolers that may have been on the fence.

        1. I assume it’s supposed to be pronounced “Boozie,” a reference to her admitting she fell asleep at the state of the union (or whatever it was) because she’d been drinking—or, possibly, also to suggest a reason for her repeated lapses of judgment in commenting on political issues.

          1. It’s from Rush Limbaugh. Dunno what it’s supposed to mean, but then that’s not really the point.

            1. Children these days.

              Ruth Buzzi was an actress on Laugh-In. The character played a dowdy old woman.

            2. I’m showing my age: Ruth Buzzi is (was?) a comedienne on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In in the 60’s.

              1. Well into the 70’s, and then IIRC she became a regular on Hollywood Squares.

                It’s understandable that millennials don’t get the reference, but that should only remind us that there is a whole lot that millennials don’t know they don’t know.

        2. ” No idea what “Buzzi Ginsburg” is supposed to evoke. ”

          That’s because you are still quite young.

          1. Also, when people like Limbaugh use it they know they are not talking to you.

            But they know Bader Ginsburg gets the reference.

            1. …You think Limbaugh is talking to Ginsberg on his show?

              1. You think Ginsburg doesn’t hear about it?

      2. Oh come on!, really?
        No one gets that joke?
        No one watched Laugh In, and remembers the recurring character, Gladys Ormphby, played by Ruth Buzzi, who is a dead ringer for RBG? (Gladys usually appeared with dirty old man Tyrone, played by Artie Johnson)
        You people REALLY need to get out more.

        1. What decade was Laugh In aired?

          1. Late 60s to mid seventies.

            1. Seems a bit old for “Children these days” to apply.

  12. The problem here is with how long it would take to come to an agreement as to the scope of the FBI investigation. If this were a lawsuit, the defense would be entitled to Dr. Ford’s medical records–and not just the ones that she believes would benefit her version of the events.

    As one of the bloggers noted on this site earlier this week, it would necessarily include the other therapist that Dr. Ford saw and whether (and, if so, how) Dr. Ford’s recollection of these events was refreshed. Although her arguments for confidentiality would be deemed waived in most litigaiton by her voluntary disclosure of parts of those records to the media, it would seem likely that she would protest the production of some or perhaps all of those other records. Democrats would surely take up her side of the argument on this matter, thus frustrating access to relevant records and frustrating a complete investigation.

  13. Or, how about this? Senate declares a recess. Kavanaugh appointed as a recess appointee. Investigation and vote before the end of the year.

    I mean, while we’re being creative and unrealistic, . . .

    1. The Senate can’t declare a recess. A recess can only be called by agreement of both the House and the Senate.

      This is what sank some of Obama’s attempted recess appointments.

      1. Better BK be shoved down democrats throats. Fuck them.

  14. We’re well past that stage. Kavanaugh will be confirmed, the Supreme Court’s legitimacy will be further tarnished, and the next side to get a 60-vote majority in the Senate will pack the court the first chance it gets. This is the country we’re living in.

    1. Too late for that. The Supreme Court lost any legitimacy in 2003 when it ruled that the Due Process Clause gives a gay man a Constitutional right to insert his penis into another man’s butt.

      1. To be clear, the DPC also protects the right of a man to insert his penis into a (consenting) woman’s butt and also the right of a woman to insert a sex toy (optionally harnessed to her pelvis) into the butt of any consenting person.

        Let’s at least not sell short the liberty protected here.

        1. And a country where such liberty’s not protected isn’t a country worth respecting.

          1. Indeed, such rights are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

        2. Sure, in theory. But that’s not what the laws were about.

          1. Butt that’s not what the laws were about.

            FTFY

            1. Thread winner.

        3. Let’s not get anal about this.

    2. “the Senate will pack the court the first chance it gets.”

      It’s possible that the Constitution has evolved to the point that the size of the court is fixed at 9.

    3. We’re well past that stage. Kavanaugh will be confirmed, the Supreme Court’s legitimacy will be further tarnished, and the next side to get a 60-vote majority in the Senate will pack the court the first chance it gets.

      Why would enlarging the Supreme Court require 60 votes in the Senate?

      What would stop a House majority, a Senate majority, and a President from enlarging the Court?

  15. How about appointing Garland while the investigation is done and then promise to appoint Kavanaugh if he’s cleared? Cures two travesties at one time.

    1. The Martin-Quinn scores for Garland place him to the left of RBG. The R’s will NEVER agree to that.

    2. The GOP refusing to nominate Garland wasn’t a travesty, it was simple politics.

      1. You mean “vote on”; Obama nominated him.

    3. What makes you think the Democrats would accept Garland if Trump appointed him?

    4. “Cures two travesties at one time.”

      Beyond what BK was subjected to, what is the other travesty? And why should America Garland be put on the court for even a second? The democrats are owed nothing. Do you think if the situation were reversed that they would seek any sort of compromise?

  16. Confirm Kavanaugh. Then, if the allegations can be proved, impeach him.

  17. Oh HELL NO! This was a planned smear job. The “victim” is a socialist activist. Feinstein waited until the last minute to DELAY the vote. You don’t reward behavior like this. Schumer, et al, know Kavanaugh will rule against their anti-gun fantasy and make the Second Amendment the law of ALL the land. And Schumer, et al, know that their vision of a socialist utopia is impossible as long as the peons are armed. And with Kavanaugh on the court, it will be years before the gun confiscation laws they yearn for will be possible. Others have said this was a Stalinist show trial. I think that describes the baseless, cruel, demeaning manner the socialists on the committee used. If this is how the socialists want the future to play out, we will see how this ends.

    1. Did you watch the hearing?

      1. It was nonzenze.

      2. I watched yesterday and the previous hearings.

        The progression of events bear all the earmarks of an orchestrated hit. Once Ford’s initial accusation was in hand, there were already 40+ votes against the nomination and at least 48 votes in favor.

        A last minute ploy was essential to block the nominee. Ford provided that. I flatly do NOT believe Feinstein. If she did not yield the knife she handed the weapon to a colleague who would, The rest is history.

        There is no way out but for a full vote of the Senate. For what it’s worth, I note that I think the nomination should fail given all that has transpired.

        1. Why should it fail?

    2. In fact, if it were feasible, the republicans should demand the democrats sacrifice Durban for his impertinence. Allowing BK to put one in the back of Durbin’s Skull on the Capitol steps.

  18. How about just confirming Kavanaugh?

    The testimony does not constitute probable cause.

  19. Only if Barrett or Kethledge = Bork. For it to work, it needs to hurt.

    1. Isn’t Bork dead?

    2. Barrett needs better (scarier) facial hair.

  20. Sure, if the Democrats cooperate, which I suspect will be just after the head-death of the sun. So perhaps we shouldn’t wait on that to happen.

    1. (I’m assuming for the purpose of discussion that Kavanaugh self-sacrificingly consents to be thrown under the bus, and I presume the Reps would not dare go through with this if Kavanaugh, the proposed sacrificial victim, refused. Irrelevant in any case because I don’t see the Democrats confirming a Trump nominee unless they dig up William Brennan, and even then they’ll think Brennan has defected to the alt-right)

  21. Any prospective agreement would also have to include deadlines for Senators to produce evidence of matters that require investigation. No holding on to the evidence until the last minute just to delay the proceedings.

  22. I’m still confused by the calls for a “full investigation.” I’m a prosecutor and familiar with sex crimes cases. Your investigation would generally include:

    (1) A statement by the accuser — done

    (2) Investigation of any verifiable details the accuser provided to corroborate — done, because Ford has repeatedly failed to provide any verifiable details when given the opportunity. (Such as when and where it happened, so you can verify whether either of them were anywhere in the area at the time.)

    (3) Statements from anyone the accuser names as having information — done. Sworn statements have been provided by every person Ford named as being there, and they’ve all said they weren’t.

    (4) A statement by the accused — done

    (5) Investigation of any verifiable details the accused provided to corroborate — done, Kavanaugh’s calendars.

    What else do you want done in an investigation? Specifics. What should be done that has not been?

    1. Investigation of any verifiable details the accused provided to corroborate — done, Kavanaugh’s calendars

      I’m not sure if calendars exhaust that task.

      1. “I’m not sure if calendars exhaust that task.”

        Specifically which verifiable details do you not think covered by the calendar?

    2. Thanks – similar to the comment for a Dallas police investigator. – Very few police departments are going to investigate this crime (even assuming the crime was recent – ie within the last one month).
      Few details, no corroboration, all known witnesses denying event, description of event – more closely resembling teenage horseplay or boorish behavior than actual attempted rape.

      Adding the additional comment – that CBF came across as a little loopy from her testimony yesterday.

      1. The most depressing thing is that you’re probably right about what cops would do even though the described “teenage horseplay or boorish behavior” should be a life-ruining offense.

      2. It’s unclear if Ford’s bullshit story even constitutes a crime. Her story is that it was a drunken underage grope of her jugs. Was that even a crime at that time and under the alleged circumstances?

    3. I want an investigation of the two blokes who say they were the ones who actually did it, which of course, assumes that Ford is making it all up, which is equally likely.

      1. whoops, that should say *isn’t* making it all up, which is equally likely.

        1. This looks extremely outcome oriented. So it’s a lie and if it’s not we should start searching for the Real Groper.

          You want an investigation of everything except what Ford said happened.

          1. Wrong. There is nothing to investigate from what we already know, that she said it happened and everybody else says it didn’t. What else is down that road but nothing? If that’s all they did, the FBI will just summarize what we already know. The only avenue worthwhile is if we investigate those who *did* say they did it. Furthermore, I would like to see those 2012 therapist notes, unlikely as that may be.

            1. The only avenue worthwhile is if we investigate those who *did* say they did it.

              I’m down. Though your calling it the only avenue is pretty amusing. Especially since below you want to investigate Ford as well.

              You are quite willing to say you’re not sure if Ford is lying, but you do know Kavanaugh is telling the truth…somehow. But also you want investigations of these other guys. And Ford, even down to her therapists’ notes! But gosh darn it there’s nothing to investigate Kavanaugh for!

              You’re textbook.

              1. She’s a liberal woman. Of course she’s lying.

          2. Sarcastro, you just keep repeating yourself – “let’s do an investigation” – while adamantly refusing to provide any details. Just how exactly do you propose such an investigation needs to proceed, given that all obvious routes have already been exhausted? Should the FBI get a search warrant to do a midnight raid on Kavanaugh’s home and office to go through every scrap of paper? Oops, that pesky 4th Amendment requires probable cause for that. Or maybe the FBI locates everyone who attended Georgetown Prep and Holton-Arms during the years 1982-85 and drags them in for a browbeating? Not enough? How about a police dragnet to discover everyone who owned a home within 2 miles of a country club in Montgomery County Maryland to find out if, at any time during the Summer of 1982, the parents of teenage kids might have been out while the teens hosted a drunken party? How about the FBI just drags Mike Judge into a darkened room and works him over with a rubber hose and jumper cables to the testicles until he confesses? Will that work for you?

            1. Dan, if you weren’t so heavily invested in your preferred outcome, I’ll bet you could imagine an investigation which could turn up enough evidence to block Kavanaugh.

              We have from Ford a smallish cast of characters. The house will probably be found to have a connection to one of them. Find out where they all lived in 1982.

              Ford has said she can draw a floor plan. Have her do it.

              Then take a look at the houses. If it turns up a reasonable match, use the names on Kavanaugh’s documents, including the calendars, as your reference to put the entire named group together at a specific place within the estimated time frame. Given the blanket denials already on the record, doing that would sink Kavanaugh. Ford’s evidence would be too strongly corroborated to deny.

              And of course, as the specifics fill in, more pressure to spill the beans can be put on anyone found to have been on the scene, especially with a grant of immunity.

              Maybe none of that can be found out for the Ford case. But the Yale case could be treated the same way. Who knows, maybe even the Avenatti case could pan out?maybe with details less lurid than described, but still damning.

              Investigations are about covering the ground, putting together details, and working from one to another. Everyone knows that. Why do you keep saying it couldn’t happen?

              1. Shorter Stephen: Moar fishing!!!

    4. I think Ross Douthat made sense when he said interviews with those who made sworn statements are in order, as well as others. The calendar suggests a particular weekend that needs followup investigation.

      1. Blasey Ford needs to make a criminal complaint in the jurisdiction.

    5. What else do you want done in an investigation? Specifics. What should be done that has not been?

      Reputations of each party in the high school community at the time. Similar actions by Kavanaugh or complaints by Ford. Is there anybody who remembers Kavanaugh or Judge talking about this or any similar event?

      1. “Reputations of each party in the high school community at the time. ”
        Proof we are Devolving

        1. That’s what we need – sworn statements from all classmates of both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh characterizing everything they have said about each.

          That’ll get us some justice!!

          /sarc

          1. It has value in that it’ll give cover to the fence-sitting Senators to vote in favor of confirmation.

  23. The investigation should begin anyhow, for the reason that even when Kavanaugh is appointed to the high court the Democrats will clamor continually for his impeachment. I would suggest the following guidelines for an FBI investigation:

    (1) The vetting of agents to be assigned to insure that they are unbiased, professional people of true integrity, not the type of agent likely to turn a blind eye to persons of interest if they are active in one political party or over-investigate and charge them if they are in another party.

    (2) A thorough investigation of the political backgrounds of Kavanaugh’s accusers, including unsealing their closed Facebook and Twitter records. Possible political motivation must be accounted for and ruled out.

    (3) A complete inventory must be compiled of all students in the area of the alleged teen parties and comprehensive interviews under oath must be conducted of all of them From that data a list of all possible parties and their exact locations must be reconstructed with likely attendees of each one. Yes, that would be a monumental task. Expense be damned, Kavanaugh faces professional ruin.

    (4) A comprehensive and detailed history of all the twists and turns of accuser Ford’s life must be compiled, to include her behaviors BEFORE the alleged party and all therapist notes and records that she has generated since.

    1. Michael,

      Your list is improper at best and can only be justified if its goal is to make the inquiry an endless task.

      1. The smearing of Kavanaugh is going to be an endless goal for the Democrats. He faces not only possible impeachment if he should be a judge at any level, but having the doors closed to him to resume teaching at law schools.

        Besides that argument, I am old fashioned enough to believe that this is a historical instance where the truth must out. Justice, imperfect as it may be, must be done.

    2. While we’re at it, let’s have a look at Kavanaugh’s memos and emails – you know, the ones that have been deliberately concealed. Just to check his statements, you know.

  24. Democrats agree to confirm Barrett or Kethledge, the runners-up this time. This would be a good-faith show that they are really concerned about the allegations against Kavanaugh, and are not simply trying to run out the clock.

    You can’t be this naive.

    1. Yes. This, unfortunately, is what Trump is for. He’s a jerk, a blowhard, an ignorant pocket Napoleon, but he lacks the pre-emptive cowering instinct of almost all Republicans. Which is why he got elected. Bernstein is no liberal but his instinct is to “cool things” and make peace with the folk who started the war and have no intention of retreating one centmeter. You make peace with people who desire peace.

      Aside from the extraordinarily bad policy of rewarding the Dems with Kavanaugh’s scalp for their hit job, what possible reason would the Rs have for believing that the Ds woud keep their promise. Schumer managed to break his first promise (to nod through Pompeo’s nomination) of the Trump Presidency on inauguration day itself

  25. Here’s a better way.

    Defer the vote until a full investigation is conducted. More than three months remain before the new Senate, whatever its composition, is seated. Plenty of time.

    The issue is that the GOP doesn’t want an investigation. They are blocking all the information about Kavnaugh they can, blocking witnesses,concealing documents, etc.

    Meanwhile they yelp about “uncorroborated” and “due process” and so on, while they are the ones preventing careful fact-finding.

    They are utter lying hypocrites, like their nominee, but they seem to have conned a lot of people.

    1. You cant prove a negative, no investigation will ever be able to fully clear the judge. At best it will simply say there are no verifiable facts that this occured other than the accusations.

      So what is the point of an investigation if it will only sum up what is already known?

      Both sides are hypocrites. The dems were a no before a name was even picked. If you were going to vote no, there is no other document you need, no other investigation warranted. There is not a “hell no” option above just no. To claim you need these thing to be able to offer your advice and consent is just a lie. They just want to delay it in the hope of regaining the majority.

    2. bernard,

      There is no point to another background check as no votes will be changed.
      Plus there is no federal crime alleged.

      There are only four people for the FBI to talk with. And Judge will likely insisted to be questioned in the presence of his lawyer. The R’s might have offered a delimited FBI action. (The President can certainly order such a limit). They are stupid not to have done that 2 weeks ago.

      1. Judge will just refuse to talk to the FBI. You do not have to talk to the FBI.

        1. Bob,

          You’re correct, because the investigation (if it happens) would only be an extended background check and NOT a criminal investigation.

        2. Bob,

          You’re correct, because the investigation (if it happens) would only be an extended background check and NOT a criminal investigation.

          1. You don’t have to talk to the FBI in a criminal investigation either.

            1. The difference is in a criminal investigation the government could seat a grand jury and issue subpoenas. In a background check investigation, it can’t. And as you said, even if he was subpoenaed (by a grand jury or by Congress) he can invoke the 5th.

        3. “Judge will just refuse to talk to the FBI.”

          You think Blasey Ford is going to have an open ended discussion with the FBI?

          Should the FBI ask her to take a polygraph from someone not employed by her lawyers?

          Should the FBI ask to see her therapists notes?

          Should the FBI interview the person who did perform her polygraph?

          Who really wants a ‘full’ investigation of this situation???

    3. *Earth to bernard11, come in bernard11*

      Coms: “Sorry sir, he’s officially entered the Twilight Zone, and we can’t raise him on all subspace frequencies”

      Ah-hem, the Dems had plenty of time for a full investigation, but they played games instead with an 11th hour surprise. Given the only evidence, putting it charitably, the foggy brained recollection of a committed partisan with inconsistencies that you could drive a truck through, why have an investigation. And for what it’s worth, the Judiciary Committee’s work *was* an investigation….just not one up to your standards I suppose.

      1. “Ah-hem, the Dems had plenty of time for a full investigation”

        Newsflash… the Dems don’t control the Senate or the Presidency, so how were they supposed to conduct this investigation?

        ” And for what it’s worth, the Judiciary Committee’s work *was* an investigation”

        Well, I’ll concede that it was an “investigation”.

        1. Newsflash, James, the Republicans offered several ways to investigate this, including going out the CA. This all could have been hashed out in private, thoroughly. But Feinstein played a funny game, and Ford stalled so they could cook up some more allegations.

          While I don’t know if you, specifically, have made the argument that there are no such things like presumption of innocence and due process in Senate confirmation hearings, other have, so it’s awful funny to hear you say that there is an FBI standard somewhere in our rulebook about how investigations need be done.

          1. ” I don’t know if you, specifically, have made the argument that there are no such things like presumption of innocence and due process in Senate confirmation hearings”

            I haven’t, but I could. They aren’t debating whether to remove him from his position. They are debating whether to give him a new one. This is a political decision, not a judicial one.

            ” it’s awful funny to hear you say that there is an FBI standard somewhere in our rulebook about how investigations need be done.”

            I’d settle for a dictionary-definition version of one. Find the evidence (whatever remains) and bring it forward. Not “plow through this”, the stated process of the Senate leadership.

        2. “the Dems don’t control the Senate or the Presidency, so how were they supposed to conduct this investigation?”

          Release the Blasey Ford letter to Grassley as soon as they got it, rather than sit on it for weeks on end.

          1. Because Chuck “We don’t need no stinking emails” Grassley is all about a thorough investigation.

            He could have had one now if he wanted one.

      2. the foggy brained recollection of a committed partisan with inconsistencies that you could drive a truck through,

        That sounds more like Kavanaugh to me. Memories befogged by alcohol, rabid partisan, inconsistent stories. Dubious statements on other matters.

        Ford is a “committed partisan” because she gave $100 to Democratic candidates? Yeah right. what next? That mortgage bullshit the right tried to pass off as something?

        All I know is that one side wants to explore the accusations and the other side doesn’t. A ten-year-old could draw the right conclusion from that.

  26. What jurisdiction does the FBI have in investigating a state law matter?

    Even if you call it a new background check, that would be a non-criminal exercise, what power would they have to force disclosure of medical records and things like that?

    It seems to me that all the puzzle pieces that will be available to the FBi are already on the board. You dont need to have someone else assemble it for you.

    1. From what I hear, the FBI does investigations of federal nominees at the request of the President all the time. They already did one of Kavanaugh before these allegations became public.

      1. Sarcastro,

        Your correct. The FBI did do a recent background investigation.

        They have done full background checks of BK dating from ’92 (or ’93). The time of that check would have been close enough to BK’s high school and college years, that any indications of alcohol abuse and its consequences would have been uncovered.

        Substance abuse and criminal or near criminal behavior were then and still are a strong focus of background check and investigators are persistent in asking abut these.

        Little was said yesterday that would provide meaningful new avenues for investigation. And at this point any interviewee (especially Mark Judge) would be wise to have an attorney present.

        1. The FBI isn’t magic. They can poke around but they can’t investigate an incident no one tells them about.

          Perhaps they know he was a heavier drinker in his youth than he testified, but I don’t know if that’s something that would make it to the committee.

          1. There is alread a large file about BK dating from ’92.
            The earliest background checks will be the most revealing about BK’s drinking and character in high school and college.
            That file will be reviewed.
            The few people whose names came up will be questioned. It is up to those people to agree to talk with the FBI.

            1. And yet the GOP is resisting doing even that.

              1. Because the Dems could have done this back when they got the allegation, and done it without Ford’s name being outed. And what are the odds the Dems would not redraw the line after another FBI investigation? Very slim.

                But then again, latest news might prove you wrong too.

                1. The President is the one who requests that from the FBI. But yeah, the timing is hinky. Doesn’t mean seeking the truth no longer matters and you get to skip an investigation into this, for perception as much as anything.

                  If an investigation happens, it’s because Flake is forcing the GOP into this, don’t pretend this is some Republican concession or good faith.

                  1. If Flake thinks that the press and Dems are gonna give him some love and respect for this, he’s wrong as can be. To harken back to our earlier debate, he’s never going to get that commentator job at MSNBC, and if he somehow did (improbable at best) he will be just a court jester.

                    1. Yeah m_k, Flake bad, so he’s motivated by getting Dems to love him.

                2. Possibly, I don’t know if Ford even wanted an FBI investigation at that point, it’s hard for the FBI to investigate without things leaking to the press. Not just from the FBI itself, but from all the people being interviewed.

                  As for re-drawing lines, well it really depends on the result of the investigation. It’s hard to see Kavanaugh being exonerated without the FBI uncovering some major credibility problems with the accusers, but there’s certainly a lot of ways for them to find evidence to against him.

                  1. It’s impossible to see an FBI investigation confirming the accusation, no matter how much time they are give. That’s the problem, the only possible result of an FBI investigation will be “inconclusive”.

                    1. “It’s impossible to see an FBI investigation confirming the accusation”

                      True enough. Since the FBI won’t be allowed to investigate the accusation, it’s impossible that they’ll confirm the accusation is accurate.

                    2. Even if they were allowed to investigate the accusation and given a 30 year deadline, the probability of any result other than “inconclusive” would still be 0.000

                    3. They don’t have to confirm the accusation. They just have to find enough factual evidence to corroborate people, time, and place, and put them together. Given the blanket denials already on the record, that would be enough to sink Kavanaugh.

                    4. “They just have to find enough factual evidence to corroborate people, time, and place, and put them together.”

                      Given that the alleged events occurred 35+ years ago, the probability that the FBI could accomplish that much, no matter how much time they are given to investigate, is approximately 0.0.

                    5. “They just have to find enough factual evidence to corroborate people, time, and place, and put them together.”

                      Given that the alleged events occurred 35+ years ago, the probability that the FBI could accomplish that much, no matter how much time they are given to investigate, is approximately 0.0.

    2. A background check cannot compel disclose of personal information of those interviewed except for the person about which the check is being done.

    3. Excuse me, J. Edgar Gunstar. Maybe we should find out form the FBI if all those things are true or not.

  27. Why does the idea of compromise involve the Democrats making a major concession so that Republicans do the right thing?

    The GOP held a seat open for over a year on the grounds that “it was an election year”. Now they’re rushing a nomination BECAUSE it’s an election year and they might be voted out of office. And now they’re saying they don’t have time to investigate because they want to rush the process.

    1. “The GOP held a seat open for over a year on the grounds that “it was an election year”. Now they’re rushing a nomination BECAUSE it’s an election year and they might be voted out of office. ”

      Oh noes, they are playing politics. Unprecedented!

      1. If the Democrats were to get a 60-vote majority in the Senate after the 2020 election and added six new seats to the Supreme Court, would you say they were just “playing politics”?

        1. Yes.

          Of course I have no objection to Court packing.

        2. If they win the Congress, they don’t have to pack the court. They can impeach Kavanaugh.

          If the public thinks the confirmation is rushed, and the investigation short-circuited in order to confirm Judge Kavanaugh before they lose the Senate, they’ll probably buy into it.

          1. Even if they impeach, they won’t have 67 votes to convict, absent some other evidence that he’s guilty, because the Senate won’t flip majority Dem but by a couple seats (if it even does).

            1. True, but maybe they can subpoena the records the GOP has concealed, which will prove what an effing liar the guy is.

              1. I think this is an underrated risk for the GOP, confirming a justice who is subsequently proven to be guilty of sexual assault, if not rape.

                What do you do then? Impeach? Dig in your heals and end up with a 25 year scandal?

            2. “Even if they impeach, they won’t have 67 votes to convict”

              A careful reading might reveal that I said they’d impeach, not impeach and remove. It doesn’t take any votes in the Senate at all to impeach, genius.

              1. But if you can’t convict, what’s the point of impeaching?

    2. “The GOP held a seat open for over a year on the grounds that “it was an election year”. Now they’re rushing a nomination BECAUSE it’s an election year and they might be voted out of office.”

      No; they held it open because it was a Presidential election year in which the Justice would be replaced by a member of the opposite political party, something that had not happened in ninety years (IIRC). In fact, we hadn’t even had a Justice replaced by a member of the opposite political party, Leap Year or not, in over twenty years.

      Besides, Obama filibustered Alito based purely on politics. Think of it as following Obama’s precedent, without wasting anyone’s time on a hearing.

    3. Yes aluchko
      It does your argument no good that you appear unable to read a calendar: if the nom had been 60-90 days later, no reasonable person could have expected a vote.
      You also resolutely ignore the Biden Rule.

      1. So because someone once said something that you further mischaracterized your team is given license to be massive hypocrites?

        Read carefully, Biden doesn’t say Bush can’t nominate anyone, he says wait until after the election.

        Now,
        1) You can reasonably assume he further meant to kill the nomination if Bush were a lame duck, though that wasn’t actually the rule, and he seems to say that wouldn’t be the case.
        2) Biden was just one person talking about a hypothetical, that was not a position adopted by the party.
        3) If you think McConnell wouldn’t happily confirm a Justice on the last day before Trump left office and the GOP lost its majority I have a bridge to sell you.

        And I have no idea why you’re talking about

  28. Clearly, more than a few (when perceiving personal, political notions to be in jeopardy) are eager to trash the ancient Anglo Saxon principle of fairness, i.e., accusers have the burden of proof, . . . might it be because progressives have been in control of “education” for many years?

    1. Maybe they’re so eager to overturn this principle because it isn’t the one that applies in the first place?

      The burden of proof doesn’t lie with the accuser, because this isn’t a trial.

      President Trump has proposed that Judge Kavanaugh should be seated on the Supreme Court. The burden of proof is upon him to prove that his nominee is, in fact, a proper choice. Judge Kavanaugh isn’t entitled to the seat, rather we, the people, are entitled to a well-qualified Supreme Court. That is what the Senate is supposed to be ensuring.

  29. The Democrat left in the Senate would have voted against confirming Kavanaugh no matter what for political and ideological reasons. This whole circus about what the nominee allegedly did 30+ years ago is for the purpose of not having to explain to their base those political/ideological reason. Withdraw Kavenaugh, and any of the other potential nominees on Trumps “short list” will be subjected to some similar smear campaign. Again, to obfuscate the ideological reasons for opposing him/her.

  30. Barrett is the one that I always wanted — Kavanaugh seemed like a squish (though I suspect that he may have been radicalized by the evil that the Dems have done.)

    Let’s save her to replace RBG.

  31. The problem is that there simply is not anything to investigate. There are claims about sexual assault, but she cannot give an approximate date, a day of the week, a time, a location, or even a single corroborating witness. The people she named all do not think such a party even took place (i.e. they do not think they were all together at such an event). Absent falsifiable evidence, an investigation is fruitless.

    A Supreme Court confirmation hearing is not a legal proceeding, but the theory behind the statute of limitations applies here: it’s simply too far back for anyone to be able to make an accurate determination of what happened.

  32. I think Flake may have saved Kavenaugh’s confirmation with this move, because otherwise there would have been enough caterwauling about the lack of a proper investigation that Collins and Murkowski would have spooked. I can’t see that anything will come of the investigation because it won’t result in Judge being brought in to testify about drinking to blackout or some such thing. It probably will bring out several more crazies but that was going to happen anyway.

    1. I am inclined to agree with this.

  33. Delay will only generate more speculation, accusations, and political smear tactics. I’m confident the left wants to keep Kavanaugh off of the Court for the October 1-2 arguments. They just succeeded with Flake. From this point forward, every textualist-leaning male SCOTUS appointee, unless replacing another GOP appointee on a liberal majority Court, will face similar allegations. Kavanaugh, by all credible accounts, is a boy scout. These false allegations–concealed, presented and intended for maximum destruction–will forever haunt the Supreme Court.

    In the long run, the only plausible solution is to repeal the 17th Amendment. The 17th’s intended and unintended consequences have squeezed the life out of federalism and civility in the Senate and federal bureaucracy. It was an ill-conceived shift in course, and we’re at a dead end.

    1. Surely not by ‘all credible accounts’ . . .

      1. I don’t find Ms. Ford credible. Perhaps accuser 2 is credible, but I have my doubts given her choice of counsel

      2. I don’t find Ms. Ford credible. Perhaps accuser 2 is credible, but I have my doubts given her choice of counsel

        1. The accounts of Kavanaugh’s Boy Scoutitude are pretty disputed.

          1. Lots of boy scouts are treasurers of their local branch of the 100 Kegs club, brag in their yearbook about how they and a bunch of friends all hooked up with the same girl, and are known for vomiting from excess alcohol consumption, didn’t you hear?

          2. Lots of boy scouts also get diddled by their pederast scoutmasters, too. Probably more since the Boy Scouts of America was guilted in to accepting openly gay scout masters. Any future nominee who was a boy scout can now be rejected by Democrats on the basis that such diddling has permanently scarred his psyche, making him unfit for office. Or, failing that, the the Boy Scouts is a religious organization, and that any former member is certain to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and therefore complicit in the GOP war on women.

            1. This is the worst whattaboutism I’ve yet seen.

              1. I am an Eagle Scout, really enjoyed my time in the Boy Scouts, had a gay assistant scoutmaster, everything turned out OK.

    2. “From this point forward, every textualist-leaning male SCOTUS appointee, unless replacing another GOP appointee on a liberal majority Court, will face similar allegations.”

      Odd that Gorsuch didn’t face similar allegations. Or Alito. Or Roberts. Or any other justice other than Thomas, for the very good reason that none of them attempted to rape anyone or left a pubic hair on their coke can.

      “The only plausible solution is to repeal the 17th Amendment.”

      What would making the Senate even less representative than it already is solve, exactly?

      1. Being that none of them were changing the makeup of the court, it’s really not that odd.

        1. That makes no sense. If the liberals are so evil, why wouldn’t they pull out all the stops to get their liberal majority?

          1. You’re attempting to make a logical argument in an emotional debate. I don’t guess it will work well.

    3. Better idea. Repeal the 19th. Women have demonstrated over the past century that they have no business voting for Rotary president, much less any important political position.

  34. For now, simply put, the Democrats are trying to run out the clock.

    1. They won’t be broken-hearted if they win control of Congress before the open position is filled.

      But “running out the clock”? It’s over 2 years until a Democrat could possibly be making the nomination. There’s no reason to believe that Trump will make a “better” (from the Democrats’ POV) suggestion if Kavanaugh is blocked. For all we know, Kavanaugh made the short-list that also included Ivanka and Eric.

  35. The allegations wouldn’t be enough to remove Mr. Kavanaugh from the job he has. But the R’s aren’t pushing forward because they want this guy and nobody else… there’s lots of other folks who’d make fine Supreme Court Justices in their (collective) opinion.

    What they’re afraid of, if they don’t push SOMEONE through in the next month and half, they’re going to lose the ability to push ANYONE through.

    Some people might form the opinion that if you have to rush what you’re doing before the public can vote you out, it’s a sign that you aren’t doing what the public actually wants you to do. Which is fine for lots of people, but not legislators. I’d suggest that finding out what the public actually wants you to do, and then doing THAT, might mean that you wouldn’t have to rush anything, because your job(s) would be safe.

    1. Yes, I’m sure people are worried about a blue wave because voters are unhappy with Gorsuch. Try to think your posts through before making them

      1. “Yes, I’m sure people are worried about a blue wave because voters are unhappy with Gorsuch.”

        Huh? Nobody’s worried about a blue wave because of Gorsuch. They’re worried about a blue wave because of McConnell, who isn’t even on the ballot this year.

        “Try to think your posts through before making them”

        Because people who don’t think clearly will be confused by them? I figure that’s YOUR problem.

        1. No, what you said was clear, even if you can’t understand it. The Republicans have done stuff. People don’t like that stuff, so they’re going to vote them out. Therefore, they should stop doing that stuff, and that stuff specifically includes nominating judges.

          1. Your argument is literally that you know what I meant to say better than I know what I meant to say.

            Do you understand why I’m laughing at you?

            1. Do you understand why I’m laughing at you?

              I’m laughing at the passive-aggressive question-begging that characterized your OP.

            2. No, not what you meant to say. Trust me, I know you’re not that competent. I just know what you did say, and pointed it out in detail.

  36. When Trump replaces RBG, will Dems be acting even more insane? Or will they have peaked and calmed down?

    1. If RBG goes away, the circus will be 100x worse, especially if Coney Barrett is the choice.

      1. Barrett murdered me!

        I got better

  37. On the other hand, perhaps a week of FBI investigation into Ford’s reputation for honesty and stability would be enlightening. In particular, I would like to know why her mother and father did not sign the statement attesting to her truthfulness and reliability (her in-laws apparently did sign). Also curious was her emphatic ‘no’ answer when asked whether, when she recently visited her mother, she informed her of these events. Why not?

    And perhaps if the FBI in one week turns up nothing but glowing statements about Kavanaugh’s good character this will turn down the shrillness of his detractors. It looks like Flake and the others might be guaranteeing that they will vote for him if a week turns up nothing damaging. Of course, all the FBI does is report what people say, leaving it for others to judge credibility.

    From next Friday October 5, 2019 to January 3, 2019 is 90 days, enough time to nominate and confirm someone else even if the Republicans lose control of the Senate in the mid-terms. And maybe the prospect of a Justice Barrett will help Republican turnout.

    1. Yes, we should put the alleged victim on trial.

      You’re like a trophy villain from some drama set in the 1970s.

      1. Yes, we should put the alleged victim on trial.

        Does this mean that you believe that whether he is telling the truth should be the subject of an FBI investigation but not whether she is?

        1. As I recall that’s the procedure followed in rape investigations.

          Otherwise, the incentives for victims to come forward get even worse than they already are.

          1. So they don’t cross-examine complaining witnesses in rape cases, they way they do complaining witness in all other criminal cases, in order to test their perception, sincerity, and memory?

          2. As I recall that’s the procedure followed in rape investigations.

            Would you agree that the following should be a part of any such investigation?

            Attempt to determine all circumstances before and after alleged crime, which may have a bearing on the case.

            If so, observe that by using the term “alleged” they are starting with the assumption that it is possible that there was no crime, meaning that they are also looking for any flaws in the alleged victim’s statement.

            Otherwise, the incentives for victims to come forward get even worse than they already are.

            Does this go for all people claiming to be a victim or only women claiming to be victims of sexual abuse? So in the case of arson victims no inquiry should be made as to whether the person himself started the fire in order to collect the insurance proceeds? In To Kill a Mockingbird do you find it immoral that anybody would question the story given by the woman claiming rape?

      2. Why do you think that it’s improper to try to establish if she has a strong enough political motive to lie?

        1. So now we’re moving beyond stuff I’ve had discussions with practitioners about.
          Complaining witness motive evidence seems to me a sketchy avenue to take at best (lots of other productive and more potentially probitive routs you can take than such a speculative and necessarily demonizing one), but certainly allowed in the ambit of a background investigation.

          1. Let’s just say that if her social media were opened and it contained things like this: “We should do whatever it takes, and bear any sacrifice, to make sure that these right wingers can’t get onto the Supreme Court and overturn Roe. And I do mean whatever it takes.”

            Would that have any bearing on the issue in your mind?

            I’m not talking about the usual lefty stuff; I would expect that. Actually looking looking back at that hypo that sort of is the usual lefty stuff, but be that as it may.

            1. Motive evidence to impeach a witness is allowed, but not the optimal rout to go to impeach a witness. As can be seen as you try and draw a line between motive and ‘the usual lefty stuff.’ That’s a very hard line to draw.

      3. Literally the only evidence for the claim is the claim itself. Her credibility. Every other thing cuts against it.

        So are you going to just assume she’s telling the truth? If not, what are you going to do about that?

        (for the record, I think she’s telling the truth but wrong, Mental illness and political partisanship is a hell of a drug)

    2. If you want to check credibility, do it for both. Let’s see all the memos and emails and what not of Kavanaugh’s that have been hidden, while talking to Ford’s mother. Oh, and let’s talk to Kozinski, while we’re talking to people, and get his email list. And if he scrubbed it all, ask him why, and then ask him some more questions. And Manuel Miranda too.

      My bet is that the GOP won’t go for that. And I know why.

      And perhaps if the FBI in one week turns up nothing but glowing statements about Kavanaugh’s good character this will turn down the shrillness of his detractors. It looks like Flake and the others might be guaranteeing that they will vote for him if a week turns up nothing damaging. Of course, all the FBI does is report what people say, leaving it for others to judge credibility.

      1. Meant to add:

        I mostly agree, but there are ways to check credibility beyond getting character references.

  38. The Dems have no leverage. Its like compromising with a robber who is already behind bars. There is no reason to give into to their obstruction and embolden them without something much sweeter for the pot. Say a guaranteed nomination and confirmation of Kav or some other rightwing pick when the Dems are in charge. Good luck getting them to agree though.

    1. And yet from the way the GOP is acting, it’s almost as though you’re wrong, and that they fear some political consequence for just going full partisan.

      1. They otherwise wouldn’t care but they want to appease sissyboy Flake and Co who love basking in the media glow for being a ‘maverick’. Not that they really really have to have them as there are Blue Dog mavericks on the other side that the media conveniently pretends don’t exist but its nice to have them around as reliable votes for issues you can’t attentionwhore about.

        1. sissyboy Flake

          First, you are a stereotype of a time gone by.

          Second, I don’t think the hearing was to please Flake. And if it was, it backfired a bit, no?

        2. “sissyboy Flake”

          I’ll bet the dude drinks soy milk.

    2. They have leverage. The Rs don’t have a true majority. All these calls for “take the vote” are dumb. That will lose as of this moment and may lose anyway but accommodating the undecideds is smart and Grassley has played it perfectly. The latest concession was absolutely necessary to avoid losing.

  39. History has shown that absolutely no concession will ever placate the left. They just take the benefits of the concession and demand even more. If you give an inch, they take a mile. Every Damn Time.

    1. History is full of compromises, dude.

      1. Yeah, and the US’s first was on slavery — Democrats don’t change much.

        Which state secedes 1st when Roe is overturned?

        1. The funny thing is: any state that wants legal abortion can have it, even if Roe is overturned. So secession would make no sense.

          Of course, it didn’t make any sense for the South to secede in reaction to the election of a Republican president, who promised not to interfere with slavery in the Southern states but merely to block its extension to the territories. It’s not like, being out of the Union, and leaving the territories under control of an even more solidly Republican U.S. government, they’d have a *better* chance to extend slavery to those territories.

          1. A VERY accurate description of history!!!

            Democrats LOVE abortion the SAME way they loved slavery … and act accordingly.

    2. This isn’t to placate the left, it’s to placate potential yes votes that are undecided. You can be pissed off and lose or keep your head and win, maybe.

    3. Which is why the only real solution is for every conservative to agree liberals as traitors, and start exterminating them.

      1. And you wonder why they make you sit by yourself at all the meetings.

  40. But for the fact that the Senate would probably prefer, all things being equal, a full court on opening day, I would consider delaying the floor vote until late October; let the Dems trot out ever kookier accusers, and get the Dem nominees in Trump states in even hotter water.

  41. I’m not sure which I find more interesting, the fact that Ford lied about needing to delay the hearing so she could drive to DC, or the fact that this whole allegation came about so she could get her way in a disagreement with her husband about a home remodel.

    1. Come on, TIP, just because it came out in couples therapy doesn’t mean it was some tactic.

      1. Hey, it got her a second front door, and now it might get her a say in who gets to be on SCOTUS. I’d say that she’s doing pretty good with it.

  42. Heh. We can only imagine the lies that the demoncrats will generate about Barrett.

    And just why should ANY Republican trust a promise by the demoncrats? Like Reagan did with immigration reform? Like Bush Sr. did with tax reform? Like Trump did last year on wall construction?

    The demoncratic leadership is beyond mendacious: They are evil.

    1. We can only imagine the lies that the demoncrats will generate about Barrett.

      FFS.

  43. Bernstein’s proposal is unacceptable because it makes two assumptions:

    1. That the Republicans are entitled to fill the seat. They are not, though I assume they will if Trump nominates a respectable individual.

    2. That even if they fill it with someone else, Kavanaugh is entitled to another seat if he is shown to have been truthful, because denying it to him would be unfair.

    Gee, play that violin a little louder. Life has not been unfair to Kavanaugh. The belligerent drunk has a lifetime appointment on the federal appeals court. Besides, if anyone is entitled to a SCOTUS seat as a matter of fairness, it’s Merrick Garland.

    Bernstein’s proposal is a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition to the Democrats. It’s ludicrous.

    1. “Gee, play that violin a little louder. Life has not been unfair to Kavanaugh. The belligerent drunk has a lifetime appointment on the federal appeals court. Besides, if anyone is entitled to a SCOTUS seat as a matter of fairness, it’s Merrick Garland.”

      It has to come out sometime: the reason that Mitch McConnell refused to hold the hearings on Garland was that a woman lawyer came to him and told him that Garland fondled her at an event back in the mid-90s. She was in high school at the time. The details are fuzzy – trauma does that – but she remembers him grabbing at her, petting her, and saying he wanted to have sex with her. No one can corroborate this story and save the young woman the trouble of testifying.

      (This is sarcasm aimed at the Left, for those who can’t tell.)

      1. Every time I see a clip of Dr. Ford’s testimony in a campaign advertisement, I will think of this comment . . . and a young, educated, tolerant women in America will get her voting wings, for life.

        Carry on, clingers. With a bit more disrespect of women, please. After all, some women need to be beaten regularly . . . like a gong, as a Georgetown Prepper might say.

        1. The Ford bitch could not even provide the location of the crime scene.

          At least Paula Jones’s accusation was detailed.

    2. To paraphrase the Emperor Palpatine:
      “…good, good…let the butthurt flow through you…”

  44. There is no best case scenario which degrades Kavanaugh without evidence.

  45. Republicans need no Democratic assistance to swap Barrett or Kethledge (or anyone else) for Kavanaugh.

    For that matter, they need no Democratic assistance to confirm Kavanaugh.

    In current circumstances I see no reason Democrats should cooperate with Republicans in this context. Just as I perceive little to no reason Democrats should devote much attention to Republican preferences when Democrats have the votes.

    I would not mind seeing Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, writing belligerent dissent after backward dissent on the wrong end of 6-5 votes for decades.

    1. It gets funnier every time you hear it.
      One thing, though: you are an aneurysm away from needing 13, rather than 11, when ACB replaces RBG or Breyer.
      That’s a 4-pack of additional seats: something which has never happened.
      But keep hope alive, pal.

      1. Ginsburg is in excellent health and exercises daily. Save your worry about an aneurysm for the obese rageaholic guzzling Big Macs from the Oval Office while watching Fox and Friends.

        1. Yes.
          Ruth looks like the kind of person who makes it to 100.
          And Drumpf is a stroke waiting to happen.
          I’m just jesting with Artie.

  46. Democrats agree to confirm Barrett or Kethledge, the runners-up this time. This would be a good-faith show that they are really concerned about the allegations against Kavanaugh, and are not simply trying to run out the clock.

    And if the Democrats all dress up in big purple suits, they can pretend they are Barney the Dinosaur, and then sing “I love you, You Love Me, We’re a Happy Family. With a great big hug from me to you, won’t you say you’ll love me too.” And David Bernstein would believe that.

  47. “not simply trying to run out the clock.”

    But they are. The whole point of this is to delay any confirmation until after Democrats retake the Senate.

    They would do the same for any replacement.

    Why is this not obvious? You can’t be that naive.

  48. Mr. Bernstein, you seem to mean well but you are assuming a fact not in evidence — namely, non-malice on the Democratic side of the aisle. I guarantee that they can and will find several similar false accusers of any would-be justice that President Trump proposes — even if it’s a woman.

    1. Yes, exactly as was done with Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch. People have such short memories.

  49. Dr. Ford is a mandatory reporter for child sexual abuse, an obligation that she accepted upon receiving her license to practice.
    She has maintained that she has been aware that a particular teen girl, at the age of 14 or 15, was alleged to have been the victim of a sexual assault, the details of which have recently been made quite public.
    Dr. Ford has not reported this sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities; the minority leader of the House not being an appropriate authority for executing such reporting.

    Ergo, Dr. Ford should be investigated for this ethical lapse, and have her clinical license revoked.

    1. The attacks on Ford get more and more out there.

      Can you name a previous example of a therapist’ license being revoked for not reporting her own sexual assault?

      1. On the other hand, he used the term, “ergo”, so, maybe we should listen to him.

        1. 😀
          Did you see the one on the other thread about the dream expert whose expert opinion is that Ford is just remembering a dream?

          We’re into a rather fun phase of this circus.

          1. Tell us some more about how memory repression therapy isn’t a borderline pseudoscience. I’m sure the Scientologists would love the validation.

            1. It sure is pseudoscience.

              But nothing indicates that’s what happened here.

              1. The woman literally said that an argument with her husband over putting in an extra front door triggered her memory.

  50. It’s not easy to accommodate the right’s apparent zeal to put a lying narcissist addict on the Supreme Court.

    1. Nor the left’s zeal to slander their political opponents without evidence.

      1. Sworn testimony is evidence.

        1. Right now, it’s hearsay with no corroboration.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.