MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

If Brett Kavanaugh Drops Out, Will Trump Pick Amy Coney Barrett?

Understanding what happens next if the Kavanaugh nomination falls apart.

Gage Skidmore / Flickr.comGage Skidmore / Flickr.comWhat happens if Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh drops out of consideration, or is voted down outright by the U.S. Senate, over the sexual assault allegations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford? What does President Donald Trump do then? Specifically, who does Trump pick to replace Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy?

One name among the rumored finalists on Trump's SCOTUS shortlist jumps out as a likely contender. That name is Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Barrett, 46, was confirmed to the 7th Circuit just last October after an extremely contentious confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In particular, Barrett, a committed Catholic who has written frequently about matters of faith and law, was sharply queried by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) about whether her religious views would prevent her from serving as an impartial jurist. "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country," Feinstein declared.

Feinstein's remarks transformed Barrett into an overnight folk hero among social and religious conservatives, who saw the Democratic senator as launching a repugnant attack on one of their own. Those same conservatives would undoubtedly relish the opportunity to see Barrett square off against Feinstein again in the context of a Supreme Court confirmation battle.

What is more, in an ironic twist for Kavanaugh's liberal opponents, folks on the left may well view Barrett as the more "conservative" of the two.

What I mean by that is that while Kavanaugh took great pains during his confirmation hearings to sing the praises of stare decisis and spoke repeatedly of respecting Supreme Court precedents like Roe v. Wade, Barrett is already on record in favor of the controversial idea that the Supreme Court may overturn a precedent simply because a new majority disagrees with the methodological approach of its predecessor.

As Barrett argued in a 2013 Texas Law Review article, given the sharply competing interpretive methodologies on the current Supreme Court, "a more relaxed form of constitutional stare decisis is both inevitable and probably desirable, at least in those cases in which methodologies clash." She added: "I tend to agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it." Statements like that from Barrett will be music to the ears of anti-Roe activists.

In short, if the Kavanaugh nomination falls apart, Trump has a ready replacement whose elevation will undoubtedly thrill many of his supporters on the right.

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.

  • Zeb||

    What are they supposed to do? Pretend that the biggest news story of the day doesn't exist? Silly as it may be, this is the world we live in. And Kavanaugh's nomination falling apart seems to be a real possibility, even though there seems to be no corroborating evidence for the accusation.

  • John||

    If Kavanaugh's nomination falls apart, the story will be that anyone's career can be ruined by any allegation no matter how absurd. And it won't matter who is appointed in his place because the Democrats will do the same thing to that person.

    Beyond that, the tone of this article treats the allegation with a seriousness it doesn't deserve.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    No, the tone of this article is a threat by Trump to call their bluff: Take this guy you don't like but is ok, or take that woman you hate. And the GOP and their base are too pissed right now to do anything but cap in glee. If the Dems dump Kavanaugh, the GOP will force Barret down their throats.

  • Nardz||

    Just how the Rev likes it!

  • Robert||

    STEVE SMITH APPROVE!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    We can't force Barret down their throats. Flake probably wouldn't let us, and there's nothing we can do to Flake.

    John's right: The only thing you can do in response to a smear like this is ignore it. If you give into it, you'll just cave easier the next time, and there WILL be a next time.

    This is what the Republicans earned by caving on Roy Moore. Digging up somebody willing to accuse the nominee of doing something nasty decades ago, with no or forged evidence, is now part of the Democrats' SOP.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Mitt Romney's dog says this stuff didn't start with Roy Moore.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The charge isn't absurd, it's unspecific, unsubstantiated, and unfalsifiable. Which is much worse.

  • RoyMo||

    Well I look forward to hearing about Amy Coney Barrett committing sexual assault back in the 1980s

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you think it's a good look for a libertarian publication to only focus on what major news outlets have determined are the important issues at hand? "We're an alternative, because we view things differently, but not really"

  • Zeb||

    Do they only focus on that? I thought H&R was for commentary on the news of the day. In any case, this post at least is about what might happen with SC nominations, which is something that seems to be of great interest to a lot of libertarians.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    There are literally millions of government crap H&R could flap about. No matter what they do pick on, there are millions of other stories left unreported. How do you propose getting around that?

  • Moridin||

    Just like the media said Hillary had a 90% chance of winning the election. It was a "real possibility."

  • Zeb||

    Well, prove that she didn't have a 90% chance. Things with a 10% chance of happening happen fairly often.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That is how odds work, actually. If a ten to one football match was won by the underdog would you say everything was wrong as well?

  • Cy||

    Technically, nothing was wrong. It's just whomever was giving you the estimate stats's model didn't calculate properly or have all of the factors.

  • wearingit||

    You can't explain to a moron that a 70% chance of winning doesn't mean someone will garner 70% of the votes.

  • The Last American Hero||

    If I was a big fan of the favorite, I'd be claiming bias by the refs for not throwing a Russian interference flag and allowing the underdog to steal the game.

  • Zeb||

    Also, what is just like that?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    WELL THE WORLD WE LIVE IN SUCKS!

  • Flinch||

    ...makes too much sense. There's no journalism today, just a high school like atmosphere vying for eyeballs at the expense of all else.

  • Tony||

    Nobody seems to want to entertain the remotest possibility that the allegation is true. And it's not baseless. It would be baseless if there weren't a first-person account of the alleged incident, which there is.

    One of the two is lying. Kavanaugh is a known and practiced liar, for whatever that's worth. This woman, who knows. But this isn't dog catcher he's up for. There is absolutely no justification for simply sweeping it under the rug. Your conspiracy theories are not correct until proven otherwise.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Tony the true team player.

  • Cy||

    It's moments like these that he plays his hand to obviously. He is a sock puppet troll and nothing more.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Half-educated right-wing bigots are among my favorite faux libertarians.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Half-educated, elitist left-wing bigots are my least favorite anything. Say goodnight, Artie

  • JeffreyL||

    Go read David French over at NRO. She may be recalling "incorrectly". She may believe something that did not happen the way she thought it did. 30 plus years has that affect.

  • Tony||

    What possible reason do I have to give a nominee for the Supreme Court who will ruin this country the benefit of the doubt on fucking rape accusations?

  • Fancylad||

    who will ruin this country
    Oh wow!

  • Tony||

    Everything Trump touches turns to shit.

    Remember that when you look around and see nothing but shit where a country used to be.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Yeah, like the coming end to the Korean War. Total shit show. And the US leaving Syria after 7 years of murderous meddling. A full blown catastrophe! And lest we forget, a rising stock market!!!

  • Uncle Joe||

    Sure, call the Korean war over & let Kim keep his nukes. #winning

  • The Last American Hero||

    It's South Korea's PM that's calling the war over.

  • Don't look at me.||

    LOLZ

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Here's a doll: Show us where he touched you.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Not everything looks like San Fran, and until progressives take full control nothing will.

    I seriously doubt Tony is ever honest, rather an asshole contrarian getting people fired up. Don't get me wrong, I find it entertaining, but it's somewhat sad to see real people replying to a fake person like they're thoughtful ideas matter to Tony.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, You amd your friends are the ones who hurt this country.

    Fortunately things are finally getting better.

  • Zeb||

    Because then all it takes to derail any nominee is for one activist to come up with a story of a 30 year old assault. I don't think that's a good direction to go in.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Heck, Clinton got the benefit of the doubt. Cosby didn't, 'cuz black.

  • markm23||

    Tony, you just admitted that the real reason you oppose Kavanaugh is not that you believe the allegations.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    So an accusation without any shred of corroboration possible isn't baseless to you because the accusation exists?

    Is this plateau retard or what?

  • Tony||

    This isn't a court of law dude, it's a process of determining whether someone's fit to be a supreme court justice.

    Again, one or the other is lying. You've obviously taken your side. I don't know the truth myself. I just don't think Kavanaugh is owed a seat on the most important court in the world, at least not quickly.

  • Tony||

    Oh it's much more certain that he will ruin the country than that he held down and forced his crotch on that girl. He wasn't on the Republican shortlist for no reason.

  • NashTiger||

    Yeah, THE PROCESS is he is nominated, there is 3 months of vetting, and then a week of hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, complete with witnesses. That is what The Process is for, to discover and address this stuff.

    Feinstein and the Ds short-circuited The Process by holding this back until the process had run its course.

    So Fuck Off, you snivelling douchebag, this is a new low in politics

  • Flinch||

    It's a blend of the Napoleonic and fascism: no evidence of a federal crime having been committed, democrats insist the FBI investigate. Pitiful.

  • Fancylad||

    Admit it Tony, if the Republicans had pulled this exact same insane stunt with Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan or Merrick Garland you would have been ballistic.

    And no Kavanaugh isn't a liar, but Feinstein and Ford sure as fuck are.

  • Mickey Rat||

    At best it is a 35 year old case of "she said, he said" where she is very vague on many important details. She cannot prove her assertion, so there really is not much for him to argue against. There is no way an outside person can cast judgement upon it and say with any certainty what is the truth.

  • Tony||

    Well they're both testifying before the senate so we'll get a good in-depth investigation of what he and she said.

  • Rockabilly||

    Tony, when I was a porter at The Fairmont in San Francisco, Diane Feinstein grabbed my cock and said to me " I like you big boy and I want to ride that big cock of yours until I can't come anymore."

    Well, I thought, 'Man, she is one ugly bitch so I said' - "go away, you're gross."

    She said - "I'll have your job, you don't know who you're messing with!!!"

    The following day I was fired - the manager said _ "An esteemed guest said you tried to touch her private parts, your fired."

    #MeTooTony

  • Ann NY||

    I totally believe you!

  • El Oso||

    Well, Tony, I think we already know what they said, and are going to say: She says yes, he says no...

  • Ann NY||

    He says he wasn't at a party at some unspecified place at some specified time, and she says he was. She remembers nothing about it other than it was him, a guy she really doesn't want on the Supreme Court. If the left gets away with this, no man is safe.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There will not be an "in-depth" investigation, there really is not any substantial facts to investigate, and a Senate committee is no really the place to investigate a criminal allegation, despite the body's pretensions.

  • Tony||

    All that needs to be investigated is whether two senators will get cold feet in the coming days.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Which is why this is merely ugly gamesmanship by the hack Feinstein.

  • GeoffB1972||

    There at last is a true statement. This has nothing to do with Kavanaugh or Ford and everything to do with a vote denying Trump his nominee. Feinstein doesn't even regard these folks as actual people. They're just tokens to move around in her quest to defend her left flank against Kevin De Leon.

  • Flinch||

    Does Ford have an ethics clause as part of her employment? If so, we may never see her in front of committee... assuming she has any brains.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Actually Tony, your first sentence should read: "Nobody seems to want to entertain the remotest possibility that the allegation could possibly be shown to be true," because by the way things look now, it's a she said, he said that can never be verified. We see this immediately (you don't, I guess because you so desperately WANT it to be, and shown to be true) and treat it with the irrelevance and disdain it deserves.

  • Brendan||

    She had 8 weeks to bring it up. Dianne Feinstein had 8 weeks to bring it up. The revelation was timed as an ambush, nothing more. Why not bring it up ONCE during that circus of a confirmation hearing?

  • ||

    How do you defend against something you didn't do? Someone has already said he didn't do it.

  • BILKER||

    dates,times and what was lied about. till you publish examples of your claims you're acting like a typical lying democrat instead of just a dumb f'ing democrat.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If our legal system were based on showing "the remotest possibility that the allegation is true", we'd be the Soviet Union.

    -jcr

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    " What's with all the think pieces on this completely baseless allegation? McCarthy would be proud."

    Joe !McCarthy was a good !man who rightfully went after real threats to America. He was nothing like democrat scum, who are actual communists, and who demonize decent people.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Ironically, with their red-scare politics today the Dems would welcome McCarthy with open arms

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    McCsrthy hated communists. You are obviously filed with democrat propaganda and can't see McCarthy for the American hero he was.

    We need ten thousand more like him now.

  • Nuwanda||

    It's as if Reason would prefer Kavanaugh be gone.

    I can't quite recall if he has a particular position on immigration...

  • BILKER||

    women have memories like elephants. they never forget esp. when they were perhaps rejected as a girlfrien. The most revenge minded 13 year old girl rejected in this way will , 30 years later, find a way to get even.

  • I can't even||

    I don't know. Did she ever go to a party in high school?

  • Don't look at me.||

    He should pick a Coney Dog, that will blow their minds.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know if they have Sonic's out in DC.

  • John||

    They don't and it sucks. Sonic is awesome.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nobody needs 25 choices of frozen Slush.

  • Just Say'n||

    Watch it. That sounds like a backhanded insult toward socialists. Just stop, OK. Not cool, man

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Like, if they can't bring up how socialism has denied someone frozen treats since I started typing this response, then it's just old news.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's what they're going to do and you know that. They're going to bring up people starving under socialism. That's not OK to bring that stuff up. Be better to socialists, bigot

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I have a guy online who said he saw literally several people in Venezuela sucking on ice as recently as 20 years ago. Like, does that look like socialism denying people their polar pops?

  • Just Say'n||

    At least with socialism we'll still have ice. Capitalism caused global warming that is going to kill everything- including ice.

    #bebettertosocialists

  • El Oso||

    Polar, it was damn good beer, and drunk out of those mini-bottles that stayed cold until the last drop...

  • I'm Here, for MOAR Hihn||

    The problem with your statement is, real socialism has never been tried before. So there isn't anything to prove.

    Good try though

  • ||

    If real socialism hasn't been tried before then apparently there is some mechanism that causes the implementation of a false socialism every time people wanted to implement the real socialism in the past. And that mechanism clearly makes trying to implement real socialism very dangerous.

    If we are even to entertain the idea of implementing real socialism this mechanism must first be identified and the steps to prevent this mechanism from kicking in detailed.

    Because if the wrong socialism has been implemented in the past it isn't as simple as that they picked the wrong recipe from a book and we just pick the right one this time around. They'd have figured that out the 2nd or 3rd time socialism descended into mass murder.

    So in the end it does not matter whether the socialism in the past was real socialism that leads to mass death and suffering or that implementing real socialism invariably leads to implementing a false socialism that leads to mass death and suffering. Unless someone can first identify where real socialism turns into a false socialism and a realistic way of preventing this it's all the same.

    And I believe the realistic way of preventing this is the key, as I suspect the mechanism is "human nature".

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Blame "human nature" if you like, but the real mechanism lies in trying to forge what Marx and Engels envisioned as a post-capitalist society out of primitive, barely capitalist societies and therefore having to impose barbaric state regimes to hold everything together. And by the time any given country gets wealthy enough to meet Marx's model of making socialism possible that country is governed by monopolies and a centralized state itself that it too makes socialism impossible. Socialism is a pipe dream, plain and simple.

  • Don't look at me.||

    I would buy their products if they dump,the two idiots they use in the commercials. It's insulting.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I like Peter Grosz myself.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The idiocy of the two males being exceeded only by the idiocy of the two women.

  • Vernon Depner||

    She raped me at a frat party 40 years ago.

  • Zeb||

    And then had an abortion. Let's make this a fake scandal everyone can enjoy.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Had an abortion and sold the fetus to a Russian mad scientist.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Facilitated by an illegal immigrant.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I don't have anything to add to this.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    WHO WAS GAY MARRIED!

  • Ann NY||

    And voted for Trump.

  • ||

    ...so he could eat the brains to make him smart enough to figure out a way to influence the 2016 election in favor of HRC.

  • esteve7||

    That would be the most ridiculous own goal ever if Barrett was nominated. I preferred her over Kav anyway.

    Seriously though, if you are willing to ruin a man's career over a 30 year old allegation (where there is no way for him to prove his innocence), then you can go fuck yourself. You obviously don't believe in justice, fairness, or decency. All you believe in is RESISTANCE, and NEVER TRUMP. Individuals who've done nothing wrong can be railroaded just like the Duke Lacross team and the foreign student who's life was destroyed by mattress girl.

  • John||

    They will do the same thing to her. It won't be a rape it will be failing to pay taxes on a nanny or God knows what. Let this woman replace RBG. Kavenaugh needs to go on the court as a matter of principle.

  • ||

    That would be the most ridiculous own goal ever if Barrett was nominated. I preferred her over Kav anyway.

    I said as much when the shit show kicked off and we were still complaining about unsealed documents but fuck me if I can find it.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country," Feinstein declared.

    Like there shall be no faith based test for holding public office? No wonder Democrats harp about immigration without ever improving the system. They need some way to keep devote Catholics from leaving their party.

  • JonBlack||

    I can't believe that Reason allows Damon Root- a man who may or may not have been accused of sexually assaulting a girl in high school- to write for their publication.

    Have the Editors of this site no decency?

  • Don't look at me.||

    #himtoo

  • Homple||

    If Kavanaugh drops out (i.e. if the Democrats succeed in blocking him with this sad ruse) then whoever Trump nominates to replace him will be blocked in some other way.

    The GOP had better nut up and push this guy through because a big deal for 63,000,000 voters that the Republicans need to stay in office was Supreme Court nominations.

    Blow this one and the GOP starts its inevitable final descent down the drain.

  • Don't look at me.||

    will be blocked in some other way
    Why reinvent the wheel? Stick with what worked.

  • ||

    Why reinvent the wheel? Stick with what worked.

    Because (in the case of Barrett) a 15 yr. old Catholic girl getting drunk and groping another girl is woke.

  • NashTiger||

    She might even get her own HBO show that no one watches

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Especially if she rapes her baby sister.

  • Brendan||

    A third time might be a bit much. They'll also have do to it during the hearing/vetting process instead of the last minute ambush, so it will be a bit obvious.

    I'm thinking they paint her as a racist or homophobe. Black guy asked her out on a date, she harshly rejected it., shared 'hateful' jokes at a slumber party in junior high; possibly called a boy a "fag" or a girl a "dyke" or something like that.
    Whatever is tossed her way will be exceedingly vague in terms who(else), what where, when, and why.

  • JesseAz||

    Third time? Thomas, Moore, kavanaugh, plus numerous Senate and House bids.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Trump won in 2016 at least in part because he showed some spine, stood up and fought. If he shows spineless on this one both he and the GOP are done. Not necessarily a big loss, just sayin' ….

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Not a big loss? What do you think will happen when the communist democrats become the de facto single party of this country?

    You think you're going to be allowed to express libertarian ideas here? Or have any real freedom?

    Get real.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    If Kavanaugh goes, I hope he goes out with an Animal House worthy speech on the Senate Floor.

  • Ron||

    And that speech should roundly criticise the republicans for being fools to the left

  • Just Say'n||

    "Barrett is already on record in favor of the controversial idea that the Supreme Court may overturn a precedent simply because a new majority disagrees with the methodological approach of its predecessor."

    How is that controversial? That's literally what happens nearly all the time. It's weird how people want to create a super stare decis for Roe only.

  • esteve7||

    Reason: Just fucking be honest and say 'she might believe things I don't so she needs to be stopped'. Nothing controversial about her opinon at all. AT.ALL.

  • John||

    There is nothing controversial about it. What other reason is there for overturning precedent?

    Root is a complete fucking moron. He really is.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I've personally never cared for Roe myself. Let them grow into full size fish before we eat them, that's what I say.

  • John||

    Yeah I don't like sushi either.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Well then you haven't been served Roe, you have been getting Wade. Not the same at all. Go to a better restaurant that won't cheat you.

  • ||

    How is that controversial?

    We can't have women making decisions about their own reproductive rights without Damon Root's approval.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    In addition to having the desired outcome from a libertarian POV, the Roe v. Wade decision is based on rigorous logic and irrefutable Constitutional reasoning. That's why serious scholars (as opposed to hacks like Kavanaugh and Barrett) consider it a SUPER-PRECEDENT. Reversing Roe would absolutely be the worst thing the Supreme Court has done in at least 50 years, and possibly the worst thing ever.

    #SaveRoe
    #StandWithPP

  • Just Say'n||

    This is just really bad parody. Not even RBG thinks the Roe decision was sound

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's getting late in the day, try again tomorrow.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "How is that controversial?"

    Controversial means "contradicts The Narrative". It's like "racist". Or "nazi". Or "far-right".

  • NashTiger||

    but not for Citizens United. Or Heller. Or Hobby Lobby. Notice how they are never "settled law"

  • John||

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....mg00000067

    Remember the story that Reason hawked about the evil Trump denying passports to American citizens? It was a complete fucking lie. From the Huffpost of all places

    On Aug. 29, The Washington Post published a bombshell report alleging that the Trump administration had orchestrated a campaign to systematically deny passports to Latinos born along the border.

    "The Trump administration is accusing hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Latinos along the border of using fraudulent birth certificates since they were babies, and it is undertaking a widespread crackdown," the paper wrote.

    But the Post withheld key data, mischaracterized information and lobbed an allegation of fraud at a deceased doctor without speaking to his family members, who complained publicly, HuffPost has found. The piece has been substantially altered three times, including Thursday after multiple queries from HuffPost.

    I am sure Reason will be walking back on their absurd claims made as a result of this story real soon. Right?

  • BigT||

    Won't click a Huffpo piece, but there must be some other angle theyre playing. Huffpo is near the bottom of objectivity.

  • Just Say'n||

    When another illegal religious test is brought against her, I fully expect Reason to hem and haw about it or just parrot whatever the NYT says about the matter.

  • Just Say'n||

    Now imagine it was a Muslim justice being grilled about his/her faith. Then you better believe Reason would have something to say about it (unless the NYT tells them otherwise).

  • Eddy||

    "Everybody must get stoned!"

  • Jerryskids||

    In short, if the Kavanaugh nomination falls apart, Trump has a ready replacement whose elevation will undoubtedly thrill many of his supporters on the right.

    I am assuming you mean "elevated" as in lynched, because if the Dems can get Kavanaugh convicted on a mere unsubstantiated accusation there's nobody pure enough to pass their gantlet. Well, aside the eminent Constitutional scholar Barack Obama or the like.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    In particular, Barrett, a committed Catholic who has written frequently about matters of faith and law, was sharply queried by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) about whether her religious views would prevent her from serving as an impartial jurist. "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country," Feinstein declared.

    If Putin's Puppet even tries to put another dangerous extremist like Barrett on the Supreme Court, the progressive / libertarian alliance, led once again by Senator Feinstein, will find a way to prevent it.

    Furthermore, this process demonstrates a truth I've been stressing for months. The idea of a "Libertarian Party" might sound nice in theory, but in practice, libertarian principles can best be advanced by working with and voting for Democrats. What member of the Libertarian Party could have done as much as Senator Feinstein in defeating Kavanaugh's nomination, which is something all serious libertarians wanted? I can't think of any. In fact it was Democrats like Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, and especially Feinstein doing the heavy lifting to produce the correct libertarian outcome.

    #BlueWave
    #Resist
    #LibertariansForFeinstein

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country," Feinstein declared.

    I don't actually understand why they need to dress up that they disagree with her views and think she should be disqualified because of that.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, the super concerned civil libertarian writers here seem to have no problem with religious tests (at least not against certain religious adherents) so we should just ignore that clause in the Constitution.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think it's LESS insulting to say they disagree with her views then... whatever that is. Dressing it up in a vague anti-Catholic sentiment that comes off as more bigoted than just directly disagreeing with her beliefs.

  • Just Say'n||

    Agreed. Still think that the "no religious tests" ban in the constitution is there for a reason. A good reason that selective civil libertarians are ignoring so as to adhere to the status quo opinion

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Either her beliefs are reason to disqualify her, or not. If it is, be direct, if not, shut the fuck up Feinstein and focus on actual reasons to disqualify her.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Many people think a strict adherence to religious dogma is a sign of low intelligence, so.....

  • Just Say'n||

    Many people believe that questioning a persons judgement based upon their faith is bigotry, so......

  • BigT||

    Those people would be idiots. Zeus told me so.

  • ThomasD||

    There are few metaphysical certainties, but one is that everyone relies on faith of one form or another.

    You couldn't have an ordinary day if you didn't.

  • ||

    I like the absurdity that if you fight for a cause for a few years, it's valorous, but if you fight for a cause for two millennia and more, it's dogma. Geniuses have an exceedingly narrow and contemporary impact and only morons do stuff around the world and throughout human history.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Feinstein is cleverly emphasizing the fact that anti-abortion views are so absurd, so un-scientific, that they can only be the result of blind religious faith or a desire to punish pregnant people. In Barrett's case it's her religion that causes her severe internalized misogyny.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And I'm telling Feinstein to sack-up and call her out directly on those beliefs instead of misdirection non-sense such as this.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > I don't actually understand why they need to dress up that they disagree with her views and think she should be disqualified because of that.

    Because that by itself is not persuasive. Non-leftists already disagree with leftists. Feinstein needs to find some part of some belief in the non-leftist mind that disagrees with the nominee otherwise the argument has no purchase.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    OBL is correct: there are no real political strategists or even tacticians in the LP. Defeating Kavanaugh is a crucial objective in defeating Trump, and nobody in the LP would be conniving enough to concoct the tactics that Feinstein devised for Kavanaugh. Democrats understand that the ends justify the means and Democrats are unified in their opposition to anyone who objects to the progressive project in general. Everybody in the LP - both leaders and members - is focused mainly on defeating other libertarians that fail to pass purity tests.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Putin's Puppet" -- Red Scare demagoguery at its most blatant. And to think leftists used to criticize the right for stuff like this. How the worms have turned.

  • Tony||

    He still has to please Collins and Murkowski, which is why he picked Kavanaugh instead of a total wacko in the first place.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's funny how that total wacko is infinitely smarter and more accomplished than you

  • Tony||

    While I understand that intelligence can be compartmentalized, I come to the table skeptical when someone believes that a bearded man in the sky both created the cosmos and cares where we stick our dicks.

  • Yellow Tony||

    a bearded man in the sky both created the cosmos and cares where we stick our dicks.
    That gets me randy, baby.

  • ||

    While I understand that intelligence can be compartmentalized, I come to the table skeptical when someone believes that a bearded man in the sky both created the cosmos and cares where we stick our dicks.

    That's weird because I come to the table a believer and I get skeptical when people tell me that the totality of human understanding is just cosmic coincidence.

  • Eddy||

    If the universe were random it would have no sense of humor, and thus how could Tony have been created?

  • Tony||

    Whatever you think created humans and their capacity for thought must necessarily be more complex than humans. So what created it?

  • Don't look at me.||

    must necessarily be more complex than humans No reason think that is true. Could have made an error in our favor.

  • Tony||

    Ah, the error-prone god. You've solved theodicy.

  • Eddy||

    Wow, Tony, you've hit on a delicate theological question nobody thought about before!

    Congratuations!

  • Tony||

    It's not an especially hard problem. Today's theme is all about things not existing for lack of evidence, isn't it?

  • Eddy||

    "It's not an especially hard problem."

    (I'm trying to unlearn my sarcastic Internet habits, but this time I yielded to temptation)

    It can't be that hard if *you* figured it out.

  • GeoffB1972||

    Ok, that was reasonably clever.

  • Nardz||

    What is the correct ontology?

    The Illiad

    End of story (rather, constantly repeating cycle of story)

  • DenverJ||

    It's turtles all the way down

  • BigT||

    " I get skeptical when people tell me that the totality of human understanding is just cosmic coincidence."

    Flunked biology I see.

  • ||

    Flunked biology I see.

    Passed just enough schooling to type "Flunked biology I see." and not much beyond that I see.

  • lap83||

    As opposed to your religion, where bearded women in ivory towers care where you stick your dick?

  • Tony||

    You really shouldn't stick your dick where it's not wanted. Too much to ask?

  • lap83||

    And, failing that, be sure to vote Democrat

  • Just Say'n||

    Psst...idiot, he's a she

  • lap83||

    I'm one of those fake women that doesn't enjoy dressing up like a tv sex slave and voting for someone who should be in prison

  • Tony||

    Okay, then she shouldn't stick her dick where it's not wanted.

  • Tony||

    One point for the vocab word and one point for apt usage.

  • Tony||

    Do you have any friends?

  • Red Tony||

    Aren't you my friend, Past Me?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Do you have any ethics or morals?

  • NashTiger||

    You are such a religious fundementalist

  • Just Say'n||

    And she's still smarter and more accomplished than you

  • JesseAz||

    Is your intelligence compartmentalized up your ass?

  • JesseAz||

    Collins is asking for kavanaughs lawyer to cross examine Ford. Apparently liberals threatening to rape and kill her had a negative effect.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The Legal Advisor for Kavanaugh's Accuser Is a Big Time Democratic Donor, Thinks People Who Work for Trump Are 'Miscreants'
    Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."

    KAVANAUGH ACCUSER'S LAWYER: IT'S NOT HER JOB TO CORROBORATE HER STORY
    Camerota asked if Ford has tried to talk to any of the other partygoers to see if they will corroborate her story, but Katz declined to place the burden of proof on her client.

    "That's not her job to do that. If this is going to be investigated, it should be done by investigators," Katz asserted.

  • lap83||

    I've noticed that Democrats always find accusations of those they dislike that coincidentally fit in with their narrative. It's never something like flag burning or secret terrorist ties. It's too bad because the GOP, being the party of women enslaving rapists, is probably not going to care about this enough to pull the nomination.

  • JesseAz||

    Only think I've learned the last 48 hours is that not a single democrat understands what the word credible means.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    She is Catholic. Rape Culture!!!
    When Notre Dame law professor and possible Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was nominated for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, her affiliation with a religious group called People of Praise raised red flags. It was some sort of cult, they implied. Senator Dianne Feinstein famously reproved the nominee by intoning that "the dogma lives loudly within you and that's of concern."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    She raped STEVE SMITH two decades ago.

  • Nardz||

    SHE MAKE STEVE SMITH HAVE A SAD

  • Red Tony||

    STEVE SMITH HATE PUNY EMOTIONS. PUNY EMOTIONS REMOVE STEVE SMITH ALL CAPS TALK.

    this is what steve smith sound like when have emotions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country," Feinstein declared.

    If anyone knows about the threat of religious influence in politics, it's Dianne Feinstein. After all, Dianne Feinstein, like all the other progressive icons northern California from that era, was elected with footwork and fundraising provided by Jim Jones and his People's Temple.

    "Governor Jerry Brown sang the preacher's praises. Congressman John Burton, Phil's brother, lobbied the governor to appoint Jones to the high-profile board of regents, which oversaw California's sprawling public university system. San Francisco Supervisor – now U.S. Senator -- Dianne Feinstein accepted an invitation to lunch with Jones and to tour Peoples Temple.

    But no political figures were more gushing in their praise of Jones than Willie Brown and Harvey Milk"

    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/0.....francisco/

    Dianne Feinstein complaining about people letting religion influence their politics (or visa versa) is like a screaming banshee complaining about the loud music from the apartment next door. Talk about somebody who drank the kool-aid!

  • Eddy||

    I object to that - it was Flavor-Ade, or some such spelling, not Kool-Aid.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Money. It's all about money.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, Jim Jones was an atheist and a communist. His idea was to preach communism to religious Americans as if it were a religion. He could have done things that would have made him more money.

    You need money to function, but, for him, it was about power, and it was about spreading the communist gospel. He was a true believer but it wasn't in god. He was a true believer in communism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's why he supported the left of San Francisco. Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, Willie Brown, . . .

    Jim Jones and the People's Temple owned journalists in the press, too--and they all wanted socialism, so they all supported each other.

    After Guyana, suddenly everybody forgot all the associations between the Democrats and Jim Jones. It was like it never happened. Ask any of them today who Jim Jones was, on camera, and they'll be like, "Jim Jones Who?".

  • Don't look at me.||

    No, it's about how much money they give to Feinstein.

  • lap83||

    Interesting, I didn't know about that connection either. No wonder Sean Penn's portrayal of Harvey was so believable, they have a lot in common

  • Ron||

    I think Feinstein is the banshee she just hasn't accepted that she is already a dead soul

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Same shit, different day.

  • Tony||

    What kind of middle name is Coney anyway? Now I want a coney.

  • Rockabilly||

    How about a pony ?

  • Tony||

    With chili and cheese on it?

  • DenverJ||

    How the hell else would one eat a pony?

  • Red Tony||

    With bourbon.

  • JesseAz||

    The drink of rapists everywhere.

  • Rockabilly||

    If a meteor is going to hit the earth, who will be the super hero that knocks it off our path, saves the world, and marries the pretty lady?

  • BigT||

    Pope Francis?

  • DenverJ||

    Hitler?

  • Red Tony||

    Roy Rogers.

  • Frank Thorn||

    George Jetson?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Meat and cheese hero.

  • Rockabilly||

    When I was a porter at The Fairmont in San Francisco, Diane Feinstein grabbed my cock and said to me " I like you big boy and I want to ride that big cock of yours until I can't come anymore."

    Well, I thought, 'Man, she is one ugly bitch so I said' - "go away, you're gross."

    She said - "I'll have your job, you don't know who you're messing with!!!"

    The following day I was fired - the manager said _ "An esteemed guest said you tried to touch her private parts, you're fired."

    #MeToo

  • Nuwanda||

    That wasn't Diane Feinstein, that was Harvey Fierstein.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Kavanaugh drop out because of accusations that can never be substantiated?

    That's even more absurd than the Republicans refusing to confirm him because of accusations that can never be substantiated.

    Some of the people at Reason have slipped deeper into Bubble World than they were two years ago. I don't know if I'll ever take some of them seriously again.

  • Nuwanda||

    Obviously, Reason has information that a 17 year-old Brett Kavanaugh whispered breathlessly into the ear of a 15 year-old Christine Blasey Ford, "The borders will never open if I become a Supreme Court Justice. Never!".

  • ThomasD||

    Wishcasting, pure and simple.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Christianofascist artwork, posters and photo shoots outs top priority on fertile-looking females eager for men with guns to threaten Planned Parenthood physicians. This ambush of Kavanaugh may backfire even worse than the Carbon Tax and Church of Settled Climate Science dogma.

  • DenverJ||

    Hey, agile Cyborg!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Christianofascist artwork, posters and photo shoots outs top priority on fertile-looking females eager for men with guns to threaten Planned Parenthood physicians. This ambush of Kavanaugh may backfire even worse than the Carbon Tax and Church of Settled Climate Science dogma.

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh man, you sound more retarded than isual

  • Just Say'n||

    Trump needs to nominate a socialist. Be better to socialists, y'all. Listen to the Fonz

  • Nardz||

    The Rs already caved.
    Hearing scheduled for next week.

    Burn that bitch down!

  • esteve7||

    a hearing for what? what could you possibly hear there that would sway your vote on Kav? As usual the R's are completely useless in caving to the most despicable people.

  • DenverJ||

    I call it the "McCain Syndrome": forgetting your values in order to curry favor with people who will still hate you anyway.

  • esteve7||

    a hearing for what? what could you possibly hear there that would sway your vote on Kav? As usual the R's are completely useless in caving to the most despicable people.

  • Tony||

    Kavanaugh's wandering dick led the GOP into a no-win scenario. The only way they get through this is if the accuser shows up to the judiciary committee and says "Oops, wrong guy, my bad!"

  • Tony||

    Sure, I'd bet that he doesn't get confirmed, but let's raise the stakes to $10,000 cash.

  • Tony||

    I said cash and I meant paper money. Meet you in Times Square 24 hours after whatever happens happens.

  • Red Tony||

    But you live nowhere near New York, Past Me! You live in freaking Rowlett!

  • ThomasD||

    A hearing that Ford is apparently not willing to attend.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    All that's needed is for Trump to tweet something to throw fuel on the fire.

    "I grabbed a ton of pussy and look where I ended up, what is the big deal if Kavanaugh had a little fun in his youth? Confirm him now!"

  • Just Say'n||

    Except Trump actually did that. It's highly unlikely that Kavanaugh did.

  • Tony||

    How do you come to a measure of how likely it is? Because bitches by lying, especially academic bitches?

  • Tony||

    Everyone's screeching about lack of evidence when there is a polygraph, she told people about it long before the nomination, and Kavanaugh was in an environment where kids got fucked up and did fucked up shit all the time as detailed in the memoirs of his classmate.

    My question to you is: is this more about your desire to see a Republican appointee on the supreme court, or is it about your wanting to make the world safe for rape again?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, it's credible to believe accusers of democrats because your entire party is composed of sickos, perverts, pederasts, rapists, murderers, and sociopaths.

  • Rockabilly||

    #MeToo!

    I've been holding back too long and can no longer let the past ruin my life.

    When I was head porter at the Regency in NYC, Hillary Clinton grabbed my Johnson .

    She said she thought I was a 'strong and handsome alpha male' and said if I 'pleasured her,' my menial job would be in my past as I would be her official 'body guard.' She said this with a wink.

    At the time I was engaged to be married and am now presently married to this woman.

    I told Ms Clinton I was spoken for but thanked her for her offer.

    She laughed and said "don't be so square, your fiancé doesn't have to know.'

    I said 'but my heart will know.'

    She laughed again and said " if you're trying to turn me on you're doing it! "

    I told her I was being sincere .

    She said ' you'll regret doing this!"

    The next day the manager fired me for 'soliciting sex from a honored guest.'

    I tried to object but the manager was firm.

    I never told my fiancé but every time I saw Hillary Clinton in the news , shame would pour over my heart.

    #MeTooToo

  • Eddy||

    Same with me and a young Ruth Bader (later Ginsburg), except I took the bodyguard job and was about to "report for duty" when the alarm clock woke me up.

  • JesseAz||

    Liar. Rbg doesn't use an alarm clock. She wakes up from a hangover headache.

  • Tony||

    The freakish thing is that Donald fucking Trump is being more circumspect on this matter than most of you freethinking libertarians.

    Ask yourselves, what could possibly stay Trump's twitter fingers right now? Could it be because Kavanaugh is in real trouble for potentially good reason?

  • Tony||

    Being delusional about how the world should work is one thing, but being delusional about political reality gets you nowhere but crying into a pillow.

  • Tony||

    See above. There's a reason no one has ever loved or even liked you, you know.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You know that body pillow that you think you hear saying, "I love you, Tony," isn't real, right? Do you dress it up in black and call it antifa?

  • Tony||

    I don't require that level of intimacy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is about emptying his asshole with an enema and then being a cumdumpster for men.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, he likely is a sloppy bottom.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Why is Reason being so credulous about this nonsense? It's something that may or may not have happened over thirty years ago, before Kavanagh could even vote. The timing is obvious, the allegations are laughable. How can Kavanagh possibly defend himself if the default position is that he is guilty until proven innocent? He'll NEVER get a fair trial. This is pure character assassination. Are you all turning into Soave? Is that little retard the future?

  • BikeRider||

    Let's jump over the entire issue of whether or not something that happened 35 years ago should matter at all and deal with the credibility. Anyone who considers this accusation credible should be calling for Feinstein to resign in disgrace.

    She had the information in July and buried it. She knowingly covered up sexual misconduct. When she finally came forward with the information, she did it as a painfully obvious political ploy. Again, that shows incredible disrespect to the alleged victim because it invites skepticism.

    If she really believed in this victim, then she should have immediately come forward in July and said "Hey, I've go information that might disqualify the nominee. We need to look into this before we waste any time and money doing full vetting on this guy."

    She didn't do that. Therefore, she either doesn't believe the accusation or she covered up sexual misconduct. Therefore the Republicans should tell her that they'll re-open the committee hearings as soon as she resigns from congress.

  • Flinch||

    Based on timeline, Feinstein had very low confidence in Ford's claim. Looks like the plan was to spring it as she did knowing there would be only media narrative for the rest of the senate to ponder, and 2 or 3 republicans would show themselves for the jellyfish we know them to be. It's a percentage play which just might backfire, but we'll see.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Why is Reason being so credulous about this nonsense?"

    They're on Team Woketarian now. The Left believes in nothing but power.

  • NoVaNick||

    They're on Team Woketarian now. The Left believes in nothing but power.

    Its more pedestrian than that. Most of the Reason staff lives in DC, NYC, or LA, and if they write a single word that could be remotely construed as favorable to Kavanaugh, or the Trump administration in general, they will not only lose their cocktail party invitations, but will also be banned from all the cool hipster restaurants and bars, with Antifa standing watch waiting to punch them. So they will be forced to drink at Applebee's or TGI Fridays 40 miles outside the city.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Gillespie and Welchie Boy are both Robbie Soave senior.

  • DenverJ||

    This is all an attempt to delay until the midterms, when it's theoretically possibly for the dems to win the senate, at which point they force Trump to nominate a "centrist". It's a Hail Mary, since no one credible believes the Dems can take the senate, and many believe the Rep may actually keep the house.
    In any case, even the stupid party realizes that Kavanaugh must be confirmed before the midterms, and despite this delay, will confirm him before the end of October.
    This delay is too little to prevent Kavanaugh 's confirmation, and, by carrying the drama closer to the midterms, actually helps the Reps because it encourages turnout.
    Perhaps the "stupid party" isn't the Republicans.

  • esteve7||

    Repubs won't keep the house, but there's a good chance they keep the senate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its gonna be a Democrat bloodbath this election 2018.

  • buybuydandavis||

    All it takes is a couple NeverTrumpers to have "misgivings" and not vote for him.

    Or I should say, one *more* "Republican". Flake has already signaled he will betray the Republican base. Just need one more.

    I don't think it's about getting a "moderate" in as much as keeping a constitutionalist off the court while Trump fights the Deep State.

    The right wing of the Globalist Uniparty will sacrifice Kavanaugh for that. Hell, if they can't have the Republican Party, they're all for destroying it. Anything but let a nationalist populist party exist in America.

  • NoVaNick||

    I agree that this latest Kavanuagh drama could blow up in the dems' face, and it should. Not discounting what may or may not have happened 35 years ago (a different era , and when he was a teenager, and in a drunken haze, and there was no actual sex), but the fact that Feinstein sat on this for so long and the Ford woman reported her "story" to the WaPo makes it highly suspect, as in she may well have been paid off. However, the blue zombies are so far into TDS dementia that they don't see it for what it is.

  • Tony||

    This thread is the stupidest party.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Tony touched my wiener. Lock him up. I swear it's true.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony fucks goats. Disqualify him for Reason commenter.

  • esteve7||

    Democrats - Sore losers since 1860.

    Look at Clarence Thomas' 'lynching' speech before the senate, many of the same fucking players today were there then, like Biden. Such a sleazebag. Lie and defame and just railroad over anyone you don't like, when nothing they say or do will change your mind. These people are despicable.

    And people wonder how we got eh Salem Witch trials, with people like that, and people on Reason staff.

  • Tony||

    Biden is not in the senate, and he is widely credited with dropping the ball during the Anita Hill saga, something for which he has apologized. Clarence Thomas is despicable and has a lifetime appointment and hasn't apologized for any of the sexual harassment he committed.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Don't stop... go on. What else leaves you butthurt?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Goebbels would be proud. What a good little fascist you've turned out to be. Just keep repeating the big lie and eventually they'll believe it.

  • Tony||

    So what is this? A guy shares your political beliefs and thus can't have sexually harassed anyone? Do you see me denying Clinton and Lewinsky? Or are you just generally into sexist conspiracy theories?

  • NashTiger||

    I know when I ambeing victimized, I make sure to follow my victimizer from job to job

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    The left sure as hell denied Clinton and Juanita Broadderick, and they're suspiciously mum on Keith Ellison and Karen Monahan. But Anita Hill and this Ford woman are presenting 'credible allegations'. Hmm, I wonder what the common thread is there...

  • Tony||

    That rightwingers will never drop their "two wrongs make a right" philosophy?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, as usual, that's you and your traitor friends.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "So what is this? A guy shares your political beliefs and thus can't have sexually harassed anyone? Do you see me denying Clinton and Lewinsky? Or are you just generally into sexist conspiracy theories?"

    How about all of Bill's serial rapes?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Democrats - Sore losers since 1860."

    Nice

  • chipper me timbers||

    "Statements like that from Barrett will be music to the ears of anti-Roe activists."

    You don't have to be an anti-Roe activist to like the idea of Judges upholding the constitution over ceding to precedent.

  • JeremyR||

    Should have picked her in the first place.

    Besides the fact that she's just as qualified and more conservative, at some point the Republicans do need to nominate someone other than a white guy just for political reasons. Firstly, to help the party's image and secondly, to show women (and minorities) that they have a future in the party

  • Trigger Warning||

    The Party doesn't have a future.

  • jay||

    Clarence Thomas is still black isn't he?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Damn my slow computer.

  • epsilon given||

    And I think Sandra Day O'Conner is still a woman.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Didn't help Clarence Thomas.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just ignore the Lefties and Democrats. They are lying turds and should not get to play real life with adults.

    Straight vote tomorrow and let Pence break any ties in the Senate.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If there had to be another Supreme Court pick, let it be Janice Rogers Brown and then sit back and watch the "inclusive" and "diversity" left really lose their minds.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Much as I'd love it, the window has passed. She's too old.

  • Jerry B.||

    If Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is derailed and Trump proposes Judge Barrett, the Democrats will examine her past with a microscope to try and find some instance when she was in the same location as one of the Democratic faithful who'll perjure themselves to accuse her of something.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ^this.

    Ignore the Democrats and vote. Lefties are at war and will do anything to win. The sooner Americans realize this, the quicker the lefties will lose.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    He's not going to "drop out".

    Quit trying to manufacture and spread fake news you jerk, you're not supposed to be a CNN clone.

  • Dadlobby||

    And she has the "pussy pass" to excuse any past indiscretions, fabricated or not.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Republicans don't get that pass.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    It won't be her. I don't know what she said to Trump when they met, but she was shown the door in about 20 minutes when they met. He doesn't like her.

  • ||

    @PaulTheBeav: The Amy Coney Barrett scenario falls in the "be careful what you wish for" category for Democrats.

    I hope you are correct, and while I'm not in sync with his record, Kavanaugh is eminently qualified for SCOTUS — unless a reasonable case is presented Monday that he is lying about this incident.

    BFF Mark Judge's book, "Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk" doesn't exactly help Kavanaugh's case. After he and his friends had polished off 62 kegs in their senior year, Mark Judge wrote:

    "For the past four months, we had thrown parties every weekend as well as after school... We were going to be graduating in May, and now that football was over, we had one objective: 100 kegs."

  • Alcibiades||

    We're gonna have the hearing on Monday, show up if you want to, or not, your choice.
    Enough with the enabling of these Dem temper tantrums.

  • ThomasD||

    Ford will only show up in the Senate when they call the vote. Then there will be histrionics demanding that she "not be silenced."

  • Dillinger||

    oy. the hope against hope is like fucking syrup.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    Last I heard, she was still a female, so Trump's not going to nominate her for SCOTUS. She's on the short list to create the impression of inclusiveness and gender/race blindness. There's a short list in his head, and those are on the *public* one... along with as many people he's not going to pick that he cares to throw on it. I told you this before he picked Kavanaugh.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Quit listening to the noises coming from your ass. Trump was saving her so when RGB keels over, he can replace a female justice with a female.

  • The gouch||

    She was Trumps alternate pick..

  • Mark22||

    If Kavanaugh drops out, he needs to nominate a black female; that's the only kind of person who is even remotely resistant to character assassination by Democrats.

  • vek||

    Won't work. Being black or even a woman doesn't prevent the Dems from slandering you horribly... It might make them look even more absurd, but it won't save them on its own.

  • vek||

    If K doesn't get in, Trump should find somebody even MORE ridiculously over the top hardline conservative to nominate, just to make their assholes twitch. A 2nd false rape accusation in a row just won't hold up!

    The funny thing is, they'd probably lob one anyway, even if it's a chick like Barrett! The only real question is, will it be her having raped a man, or another woman???

    They've gone so off the deep end I don't even know...

  • CharlesSwVA||

    .
    Save her as a replacement for Ruth Badder Ginburglar. RBG has frequently and consistently broken her Constitutional Service Limit of "during good behaviour".

    Rep Brag, (R-VA), wake up. Intro the RBG impeachment.
    /

  • Flinch||

    She should have never been confirmed, telegraphing her intent to reach into international law. Republicans owe America an apology.

  • Flinch||

    I don't see Kavanaugh dropping. He's already stained [right or wrong], so may as well run the gauntlet.

  • Brendan||

    Let's do FBI probes into asylum seekers before they're allowed to enter the country.

  • tlapp||

    If so will democrats show they are both anti-Catholic and hostile to women if she is nominated.

    What a clown show our government has become.

  • Jacky888||

    oppo a11w firmware flash tool gofirmware

  • Jacky888||

    oneplus firmware ipad gofirmware

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online