Ford invites a detailed FBI investigation of her claim. Kavanaugh refuses to do so. That makes it clear who seeks the truth and who is willing to use any evasion to avoid his past coming to light. Add to that the many lies in which Kavanaugh has been caught, and the case is clear as day.

It would also be a psychological question. Children are immature and shortsighted. Even more so if they are intoxicated. If they made a mistake would it be okay to punish them considering they have been good citizens for the vast majority of their life and show no signs of it being an issue?

Maybe he doesn't want his nomination to be pushed back and then post midterms voted out? Maybe that's a concern? Both sides would agree to temporary recognition of the vote while setting up an FBI investigation, if they were interested in the truth. Both aren't. It's all politics. If the investigation shows he's guilty you just remove him without a vote. If he's innocent then just go on as normal. There. Fixed.

It's not a punishment to not be granted the honor of sitting on the highest juridical seat in the land while - what? slumming it? - as a federal judge in the meantime.

This idea that the withholding of privilege constitutes some kind of punishment is one among the more insidiously imbecilic tropes that seem to have emerged in the wider debate.

If he is willing to sacrifice a determination of the truth to the expedient end of being on the court a few days earlier, he does not have the temperament to be a judge. The FBI investigation in the Anita Hill case took only 4 days. Suppose his took 10 days. Is that too much to ask?

Why risk the reputation of the court by putting him on it now as opposed to delaying 10 days? Also, there is no process of "reversing confirmation." The remedy would be impeachment. The only reason to rush is to prevent the truth from coming our before he is confirmed.

Because there is no guarantee it would take that long. All you have is their word. Which in politics is useless (especially when you don't trust the other side). In the same way the democrats would not have held onto the information until the last second had they actually wanted the truth. They obviously wanted it to be about pushing it past midterms. What other reason would you hold it? If it passes midterms there is a 100% chance he isn't confirmed because the republicans will not have enough votes to get him there. It's all politics. The other alternative is that he is guilty and he knows it so they investigation would ruin him regardless and he is trying to sneak in.

See my comment on the investigation above. I know there isn't but there should be in this case. It's not a typical case. The fact that we hold so stringently to rules that weren't meant to deal with complex things like this is the problem. My suggestion would be the best of both worlds. Both sides would get something and if he's not guilty the republicans win outright. If he is guilty, well then he didn't deserve the nomination anyways. If there was a way around the 2/3rds majority in this case both sides wouldn't be able to just push politics to squeak out the result they want. Another instance of bureaucracy failing miserably and partisanship winning the day. Wonderful.

Another example just for affect. IF a supreme court judge was found of guilty of murder I feel I could about guarantee he wouldn't get 2/3rds of the vote for impeachment now, regardless of the political party. That's how toxic the climate is.

They're delaying it a week for an investigation. No more, no less. Perfect. Hopefully we find out more and we can move on. Thank you Senator Flake.

Just amazing politics to watch - Seems a shoe in now that Flake is getting ready to be the moderate republican to challenge Trump in 2020. And hopefully a successful one.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Flake v. Elizabeth Warren. That would be interesting, although likely a Flake win. The problem is that "Republican" is no longer a useful descriptive term, except to describe a vicious, unethical, immoral opportunist. It's too bad; it used to stand for worthwhile ideas. Consider William F. Buckley: what do you imagine he'd have to say about Republicans today - he had trouble enough with Ford, Reagan and Bush. No wonder he said, near the end of his life, that he was tired of life. He'd been driven from his ideological home by scum — tim wood

that right there is the Flake platform - and it has my vote

As an aside - I still find the National Review a valuable read

and the Democrats are against the confirmation because they believe that he's guilty. — Michael

You really think the Democrats are against the confirmation for that reason? They don't want him because of how he might vote as Supreme Court justice. This is just a way for them to try and prevent it, or at least make the Republicans look bad and gain seats in the midterms.

This is all political, as far as the two parties are concerned. To think otherwise is naive.

I’m naive.

I'm surprised at that, or maybe I'm just incredibly cynical about politics. I hate both parties and most politicians.

Because there is no guarantee it would take that long. All you have is their word. — yatagarasu

It's being done, and with a 1 week deadline.

From the perspective of political theater, Republicans look stupid for repeatedly saying they couldn't make the FBI do an investigation. Technically, they can't order it - but obviously they could ask the White House to order it, as they are doing.

From the perspective of looking for truth, this is a good outcome. It remains to be seen if there's more evidence to be had.

I hope they bring in Mark Judge. I understand he's a recovering alcoholic. If he's in a 12-step program and taking it seriously, step 8 is a pretty big deal: "Make a list of all persons we had harmed, and be willing to make amends to them all". This could either result in his spilling the beans (if Kavanaugh and he are guilty), or in if they're innocent it could result in some compelling testimony from him if he expresses his commitment to this.

I'm just incredibly cynical about politics. I hate both parties and most politicians. — Marchesk

Apathy kills

Flake v. Elizabeth Warren. That would be interesting, although likely a Flake win. — tim wood

hahahahaha

Anyway the last week, the previous two days in particular, has been utterly draining. Curious to see how next week will play out considering the FBI investigation appears to be a go.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Not sure the population size of "red necks", but Obama was nevertheless voted in twice. Flake is popular with no one.

If either Flake or Warren are nominees I'll eat my hat, tassles and all.

Apathy kills — Evil

Nah, that's just a BS mantra by society to try and shame people into doing what the collective wants them to do. So basically you should vote for the less terrible candidate instead of abstaining or voting for the desired candidate who has no chance to win, because everyone else reaches the same conclusion that voting for the lesser of two evils is the way government ought to work.

It's also an abuse of language. Killing kills, just like power is power, not knowledge.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Apathy kills — Evil

And if we're going to be abusing terms, then it's not apathy that does the killing, it's ideology. Apathetic people are too apathetic to get worked up to do bad things to their neighbor. It's always some passionate desire to recreate or cleanse the world that inspires the killing.

Passion is what kills. Of course it's the wrong kind of passion, but then again, all things in context. Some philosopher wrote an article in the NY Times about how cats were selfish narcissists except when it comes to their young, but at least you don't see them committing mass murder, since cats can't be convinced to care about that sort of thing.

I really don't know. It seems slim pickings atm, but any anything could happen. I suspect the democrats need to have a good and proper implosion before anything interesting will happen.

Maw is right about Flake IMO. No chance.

Anyone who thinks Republicans will nominate a "moderate" Republican like Flake or Kasich in 2024, after voting in Trump and nearly nominating Cruz is light-years removed from the current state of the GOP.

Anyway, the who-will-be-nominated game that's been played in the last few elections have nearly always been wrong, so I personally don't see the point. I would like the Democrats to nominate Warren, personally. Trump need to lose to a women, or a person of color, or both.

It's not a punishment to not be granted the honor of sitting on the highest juridical seat in the land while - what? slumming it? - as a federal judge in the meantime.

This idea that the withholding of privilege constitutes some kind of punishment is one among the more insidiously imbecilic tropes that seem to have emerged in the wider debate. — StreetlightX

It's the apotheosis of white male privilege.

Yeah. When you're so privileged that not being granted more privilege is a grevious injustice.

Yes. I'm glad it's happening this way. We will see how it develops. Hope they bring in Mark Judge as well. Could help get closer to truth. Only when they voice a limited investigation can you hope they'll get it done in a reasonable time. Anything else and politics takes over.

Absolutely, Dems should nominate a woman.