Comments regarding the Kavanaugh nomination

[Virginiá]

Is Graham auditioning for the mob or something?


"Gee, that's a fine Supreme Court nominee you have there Democrats. It would be a shame if they assaulted someone."

[Virginiá]

At this rate, the GOP needs to get Kennedy to revoke his retirement if they want a conservative-leaning Justice on the Court through 2021

At this point I wish he could do that, but his retirement has already gone into effect some time ago. He is no longer a justice and would need to be re-confirmed

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1045366225075720192

We heard this after the pussy tape too

Not necessarily stating that I agree with the tweet, but the national environment isn't the same, both in which way the winds are blowing and the fact that it's a midterm not a presidential election, so the focus isn't all on two people at the top of the ticket. That makes major events like this potentially more instructive.

[Virginiá]

Why do people not consider that not confirming BK will actually turn out Republican's even further in the midterms as a backlash to what the R's will see as a partisan hackjob of false accusations and furthering sickening tactics by  the left?

Yea that sounds like a big stretch. The people who be most motivated over the courts on the right are already voting. Otherwise, the idea that the courts motivate leagues and leagues of Republicans seems a bit played out and unproven if you ask me.

[Virginiá]

Well dems, you just turned what could've been a center-right justice into someone who's gonna now be a Scalia/Thomas rehash. Let that one sink in. This is on y'all

Wait, what? If that were even true (it isn't - he isn't center-right), then why nominate someone who is going to rule a certain way out of spite and revenge? That completely goes against what Republicans try to paint themselves as regarding the courts.

[Virginiá]

Because @realDonaldTrump and the Senate Republicans refuse to allow my client Julie Swetnick to testify, we will be taking her story directly to the American people this weekend. This is about a search for the truth. Details to follow.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching @LindseyGrahamSC perform for @realDonaldTrump yesterday according to script. Watching him lick Trump’s boots while auditioning to take Sessions’ job as AG was great theater.

Senator Grassley just outright lied to the American people. See the emails I posted yesterday. These men have no shame. They will do anything and say anything to install Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court so he can trample women’s rights. This is an absolute disgrace.

.@realDonaldTrump @LindseyGrahamSC @ChuckGrassley and all of the other GOP misogynists in the US Senate can attack me all they want. I will respond in kind and then some. These old white men still don’t understand that assault victims and women deserve respect and to be heard.

Avenatti vs rapist Kavanaugh & GOP rape supporters.

You really need to use the [quote][/quote] bbc and provide a link to whatever you're quoting.

[Virginiá]

Cory Gardner is apparently undecided. Take it with a grain of salt.

https://twitter.com/KassondraCloos/status/1045450703672676352

Well that is good to hear. It never made sense to me how he could think he could just vote for Kavanaugh and get off scott free on that decision. Colorado is pretty much a light blue (red) state now and only getting more so, and voting for a possible rapist judge would end his Senate career in 2020.

Ironically, it would give his 2020 challenger the material they need to finish Udall's endless "war on women" campaign from 2014

[Virginiá]

You guys, Donnelly would be denied Priorities  money (remember Guy Cecil's tweet) if he voted Yes...but would be villified by conservatives if he voted No and would have been a vote sinking K. So, this tells me the Pact already are at a Yes, and let Donnelly off to vote his conscience and secure the Priorities money.

What is Priorities money?

Priorities USA. Guy Cecil is the head of that PAC. He said he would not help anyone who voted for Kavanaugh. Priorities USA has re-tooled itself as a major player in digital advertising for midterms, so it is fairly important.

[Virginiá]

The problem I have with Kavanaugh is that regardless of his guilt or innocence on this matter, he chose a calculated set of lies that, while not absolutely provable as falsehoods, are so implausible as to beggar belief, _especially_ in regards to his drinking habits. In addition, would any Republican want a liberal Supreme Court nominee that had a partisan outburst like Kavanaugh did within 100 yards of the Supreme Court building?

This is a review for whether the man is fit to serve a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land, if due process is really so critical for Republicans, maybe they should take the time due process actually requires. That doesn’t involve trying to ram him through on a party line vote as quickly as possible. Anything other than Kavanaugh being withdrawn will damage the public’s view of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. Beyond him simply being rewarded for lying and partisan rancor, more fanning evidence could literally drop _the very next day_ regarding the allegations. The gamble Republicans are trying to pull here is unbelievably short-sighted and damaging to the health and public trust of our institutions.

Just pull him and nominate some other conservative judge.

Yes, even aside from the accusations of sexual assault, Kavanaugh seems to have lied about a plethora of small things that really call into question his answers on the other, more serious topics.

And that partisan outburst may have been theater for Trump but it really puts a big question mark over him of whether he can be impartial. Although I always thought that was not possible for him, given his past work for Starr and GWB. He's a partisan operative-turned-federal-judge. It's bad enough he is in the lower federal judiciary.

[Virginiá]

I cannot believe the way liberals take something, and spin it to the most extreme level possible.

A woman makes an uncorroborated claim against a guy when he was a minor 36 years ago, and that becomes "A rapist is being put on the Supreme Court".

You wanna talk about "hyperbole". Good grief.

I can't believe you are still quoting and talking about how you didn't even know what "hyperbole" was. It's a completely normal word that is regularly used in every day life, as people engage in hyperbole all the time.

[Virginiá]

Jeff Flake looks so sad, ashamed, and defeated about his decision to fold.

He should be ashamed. Voting for Kavanaugh after everything that has happened is a partisan hack decision. Even if he must have a conservative justice, he can still vote Kavanaugh down and vote to confirm another one - one we know that McConnell will ram through.

This whole ordeal and Flake's decision to vote Aye perfectly captures his completely spineless nature, even as an outgoing Senator with presumably little to loose.

[Virginiá]

even as an outgoing Senator with presumably little to loose.

Plum lobbying gigs where he'll get paid exorbiant amounts of money to hang out with his friends.

I thought about that, but I don't buy the idea that this would deprive him of all those extras. Maybe some of it, but not all. He certainly won't be hurting.

But it would be pretty telling of his low character if he voted Aye just to secure an extra 0 or two on his bank account balance.

Jeff Flake looks so sad, ashamed, and defeated about his decision to fold.

He should be ashamed. Voting for Kavanaugh after everything that has happened is a partisan hack decision. Even if he must have a conservative justice, he can still vote Kavanaugh down and vote to confirm another one - one we know that McConnell will ram through.

Can McConnell do that before the mid-terms?

He can do whatever he wants. Usually it takes months to confirm someone, but there is no reason they can't just ram him through in a few weeks or even less. It would be totally unprecedented for a new associate justice, but conservatives have established for a long time now that they don't care about any past traditions or rules if they get in the way of obtaining and consolidating power.

But if they were to do things the "proper" way, that means that if they vote down Kavanaugh and immediately someone else is nominated, they would technically have enough time to do a full (or semi-full) confirmation process, so long as they work straight through October-end of December.

[Virginiá]

I'm not so sure Flake's delay for a quickie FBI investigation is super great news. One week isn't enough to run down every possible lead in a case of attempted rape / sexual assault over 30 years old. They may come back with some new information that may or may not indicate Kavanaugh is possibly guilty, but it is unlikely they find anything in just a week. Republicans will use this to spin it as a one week quickie FBI investigation = fully conclusive that Kavanaugh is innocent unless multiple witnesses come forward with video evidence or something else like that.

And if that is the case, it gives people like Collins, Murkowski and Flake all the cover they need (if they weren't already going to vote Aye anyway).

[Virginiá]

Look at how much happened in a week.

In the past week, Ramirez and Swetnick came forward

A week from now, something else may come up that blows up the entire confirmation.

Maybe, maybe not. Part of what I was saying was that even if they find something out that is not definitive proof but further deepens suspicion of Kavanaugh, Republicans can still use that as a way to argue that even after a """full""" FBI investigation (they will spin as much as possible), nothing conclusive was found and Kavanaugh must be confirmed.

So yes maybe it uncovers something or maybe it doesn't and gives the handful of Republicans on the fence the little bit of cover they need to rationalize a vote for him. I'm betting on the latter.

[Virginiá]

If Trump would have dropped Kavanaugh and nominated Hardiman, Kethledge, Thapar, or Barrett, this could have all been avoided...

It’s too late to look back, though Kavanaugh was my least favorite of the shortlist, because doing so would destroy this genuinely good man’s career and reputation. Everything’s on the line. It’s all or nothing now.

Pfft, no it isn't. Trump picked a bad nominee and team R isn't willing to own up to that and you guys are trying to ram through a flawed nominee. If you just picked someone else you could get them in before the end of the year, probably without any major issues.

This idea that the president picks someone and that person is confirmed no matter what (aka rubber stamping) needs to die and die hard. Can we not just accept that from time to time, a nominee is going to turn out to be unacceptable and that someone new is picked? What is wrong with that? Trump has a huge list just waiting for this.

[Virginiá]

Part of an interview Flake gave with Atlantic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does he think that is? Our system of picking judges has turned into a high-stakes game of theft, with the latest round devolving into Republicans stealing over 110+ judges and a Supreme Court justice from the last Democratic president, in addition to ramming through who might be a rapist justice all because they can't fathom the idea of not having absolute power that is unchallenged.

If all these senators are so beside themselves over the lack of trust and breakdown of civility, why not try to reform the system? It could be done fairly... If they just put a little effort into it.

[Virginiá]

Consider that Obama may have chosen not to nominate for those 50+ positions because everything ahead of it was frozen by McConnell and being nominated with no chance of approval is a cruel experience for the judge.

That was my assumption. If Democrats had controlled the Senate or if Republicans had been confirming judges without delay, I'd bet that he would have nominated as many as possible. Especially if Democrats were ramming judges through day and night like Republicans.

[Virginiá]

I think it's foolish to assume that Republicans wouldn't have just jettisoned the fillibuster for Supreme Court nominees regardless of anything Democrats did years beforehand. They had the votes, they had the will, they felt they had the mandate, they were going to put a nominee in Scalia's seat, no matter what. It might be a hypothetical, but could anyone really imagine Trump, McConnell, let alone the other Republican Senators just shrugging and moving on until they get 8 Democratic votes?

Any who, I see this is a smart move politically.

On the off chance that there's another vacancy before January 2021 and that Democrats control the Senate, it means a majority of Democrats could filibuster any Trump pick without forcing the likes of Donnelly or Manchin to constantly stick their necks out to vote no.

It's only smart insofar as Democrats are prepared to jettison the filibuster again if Republicans proceed to abuse it whenever a Democrat flips the White House and has a Democratic Senate to confirm judges. Otherwise, Democrats are forcing themselves to adhere to one set of rules while Republicans completely ignore them.

But what you said does help red state Democrats under Trump. It's just criminally stupid under a Democratic president.

[Virginiá]

Even if that is true, isn't it brazenly hypocritical to chastise her for possible perjury, only to give Kavanaugh a pass?

[Virginiá]

This isn't about playing by the rules. It is a cynical political move and applaud Schumer for putting it on the table.

Yea, after thinking about it more, this really does make the most sense. The only time to really call him out for it is whenever Democrats next have a Democratic POTUS and Senate with a USSC vacancy. So long as they are willing to remove the filibuster then to get a nominee through, it doesn't matter if they restore it under Trump. I know some Democratic Senators are naive and want to believe they can bring back old traditions, but I also know the majority of them are not naive and they know Republicans won't respect this rule if they hold the Senate with it in place. Democrats wouldn't let a Supreme Court nominee of theirs be blocked any more than Republicans would have with Gorsuch. Not after Garland and not after Gorsuch/Kavanaugh.

The more immediate question if they flip the Senate should be what they plan to do about Trump's lower court nominees. The base by and large doesn't want them to confirm any of them, and while I can see them confirming a few moderates here and there to keep the lights on in the judiciary, they will be expected to block most of them until at least 2021. So we'll see what happens with that, if they do get the Senate.

[Virginiá]

Aside from a possible deal regarding the unusually large number of vacancies in the 9th Circuit, Circuit court nominations will come to a complete standstill - though that's partially due to the fact that the number of vacancies in the circuit courts will be unusually low on a national scale.

On district courts, Schumer has seemed to indicate in floor statements and deals he's struck with McConnell that if the nominations are non-controversial, he's not going to Stonewall for the purpose of pleasing the likes of Gillibrand, but I don't expect the number confirmed to be anything particularly impressive.

Hmmm, we'll see. That could be the plan, but there might be a considerable backlash to that among the base, and that might eventually push Schumer to either reverse course or demand that Trump nominate moderate judges. There is a lot of hatred among the left over what McConnell did to Obama, so I don't think it's a given that such a deal would pan out long-term. At least with the terms you described.