My opinion is that this scenario has essentially zero chance of happening — boethius

completely agree

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the purpose of the FBI investigation was simply to buy time — boethius

completely agree

I also disagree that this this is about abortion — boethius

it is about the votes about abortion - not the issue, the votes. It is, and has been, about how 3 Republicans can vote against a pro life court member and get re-elected, or run for president, and how 1 democrat can vote no and not get beat in a Republican state by a republican.

Kavanaugh's nomination is about protecting Trump. — boethius

disagree - the beauty of the lifetime appointment to the bench is once on - Trump hold absolutely no power over him, none. It maybe about a constitutional issue of what can or can't be done to a president - but it won't be about Trump.

Trump has been finding by trial-and-error who's loyal and who's not. — boethius

I can help him there - none of them are, and that is exactly the loyalty he deserves.

as for all the other Trump stuff - let me restate what I said before - he is the worst human being to ever hold the office - and the sooner he an this mess leave Washington the better.

Collateral damage: victims of abuse are discouraged from coming forward because they will not be believed without corroborating evidence.

other than the rant by our idiot in chief - she seems to have been treated with the highest respect by just about everyone -

but I don't get the point of not believed without corroborating evidence - what are the correct actions that should be taken when with non-corroborated allegations ???

it is about the votes about abortion - not the issue, the votes. It is, and has been, about how 3 Republicans can vote against a pro life court member and get re-elected, or run for president, and how 1 democrat can vote no and not get beat in a Republican state by a republican. — Rank Amateur

Yes, if you're talking about the Republican base perception that Kavanaugh will change abortion precedent, not whether that precedent will actually change, then we are talking about the same thing. Of course, other judges would have fit that description too, why Trump chose Kavanaugh in particular is because he sees Kavanaugh best for him and knows, due to the abortion thing and his base supporting him, the senators can't do shit to change it even if they wanted too.

disagree - the beauty of the lifetime appointment to the bench is once on - Trump hold absolutely no power over him, none. It maybe about a constitutional issue of what can or can't be done to a president - but it won't be about Trump. — Rank Amateur

By about "protecting Trump", I mean that's why Trump nominated him, as he saw he's the guy most likely to protect him, whether due to leverage or just ideological compatibility or both.

I do not believe life long appointments really do free people from all leverage points and allows them to vote their conscience. Leverage in elite circles can be from all sorts of angles.

Yes, Kavanaugh will still be there after Trump, but this may play out poorly for Republicans.

Republican (establishment) ideology has become a cult of personal enrichment at the cost of everyone else including the state. Money equaling speech is a good example of how far the Supreme court is into this ideology even without Kavanaugh. The supreme court is vital to the state functioning, once the ideology of (what the rest of thew world calls) corruption is fully in control it could rapidly erode democratic processes to the point sufficiently many people simply no longer find those processes credible. What happens after is difficult to predict, but it's not good for anyone.

I can help him there - none of them are, and that is exactly the loyalty he deserves. — Rank Amateur

Some are loyal, like his family members, but I agree the term loyalty as we usually understand it isn't a good word for most. It's more brand loyalty, people who believe the Trump brand is the future of the Republican party and are staying on the ride, as well as people Trump has leverage on.

as for all the other Trump stuff - let me restate what I said before - he is the worst human being to ever hold the office - and the sooner he an this mess leave Washington the better. — Rank Amateur

I think the impeachment boat has sailed. The entire media, including Fox news, has tried multiple times to try to switch the narrative to "is Trump done, I think Trump is done, yep he's done ... oh look the polls haven't changed". Fox News has painstakingly taken the credibility of establishment media and given it, not to themselves as they imagined, but an organic mania machine on the internet.

Trump has created a new normal for the Republican base and party apparatus. The previous republican main players will find it ironic that all their effort into voter disenfranchisement, electronic voting machines without paper trails and supreme court precedent of recounts not being a thing (further strengthened by a 5 conservative justices) will be reaped by Trump, but they'll get their piece of the cake too and be happy about it.

Yes, if you're talking about the Republican base perception that Kavanaugh will change abortion precedent, not whether that precedent will actually change, then we are talking about the same thing — boethius

yes

I do not believe life long appointments really do free people from all leverage points and allows them to vote their conscience. Leverage in elite circles can be from all sorts of angles. — boethius

In general, and historically I have been impressed with how the court has decided many - most issues. Even rulings that I disagreed with. It is a human institutions, and there are exceptions to that, but in general they have been a reasoned body. I think the lifetime appointment is a critical part of that.

I think the impeachment boat has sailed. — boethius

Hasn't even left the dry dock yet. We have not had a direct serious charge yet against him - if such a charge comes to life - the Republicans in Wash will rush to the floor to start proceedings and do all they can to end this nightmare.

"I don't get the point of not believed without corroborating evidence - what are the correct actions that should be taken when with non-corroborated allegations ??? "
Kavanaugh's name has been dragged through the mud a bit, but he's compensated if he gets the job he wanted. Ford's name has also been dragged through the mud by Trump, Trump Jr, and many of their supporters. She must not be treated as a liar, because what she said is possibly true - and the possibility she is stating facts must not be dismissed. She should be shown respect for having the courage to come forward. Senators voting for Kavanaugh should express sentiments to this effect. Kudos to those who condemned Trump's comments.

It seems the FBI was told to look for corroborating evidence for sexual assault. It should've been "did he give false testimony before the senate". A sham. I still don't get why they simply won't get a less controversial candidate.

That would have been perceived as moving the goalposts. Nevertheless, the perception that he may have lied provides justification to vote against him - for those so inclined.

Not being a Republican or a Democrat, but an independent who thinks the system is broken - here is what I think would be a great ending. The Senate approves Judge Kavanaugh on Saturday - and on Monday he declines the nomination. And in declining he says the Senate has so politicized the confirmation process that his ascendancy to the Court could hurt its ability to act as a check on both the Administration and the Legislature. — Rank Amateur

That truly would be an awesome scenario. Unfortunately, the nobility of soul needed for such a gesture is completely lacking on both sides of the political aisle at the moment.

he may have lied provides justification to vote against him — Relativist

As far as I was concerned, Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh was the kiss of death. Kavanaugh could have walked on water, and it wouldn't have changed my mind. (Walking on water should be a bar to Senate approval, in any case.)

This is the "even if" argument now being proposed. That is, even if the Ford allegations were bullshit, Kavanaugh is disqualified because he denied it improperly. Even if it's all bullshit, he should withdraw to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. Even if it's all bullshit, some people remain unconvinced. My position is if it's bullshit, it's bullshit, which means that's the question we ought continue focusing on, not conceding it's not true but then arriving at other reasons why it doesn't even matter if it's not true. — Hanover

"Denying it improperly" is a curious way to elide the fact that he was openly partisan, excessively indigent (which he just admitted in an op-ed in the WSJ) and outright lied about his drinking habits, and several other details, as corroborated by nearly a dozen peers. So yes, even if Ford's accusations are proven to be totally false, there are still the above issues which should disqualify him from one of the most important, high profile, positions in the world.

So, could a democratic senate majority request an FBI investigation after his confirmation and impeach him if it turns out he lied to the senate during these hearings?

Here's an interesting poll:

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe accusers: 93% of Democrats say they believe the women alleging sexual harassment, compared to 78% of Republicans. Republicans are also twice as likely as Democrats to think that accused men are being unfairly treated by the media (52% of Republicans think the media coverage of the sexual allegations is unfair, compared to 20% of Democrats).

...

The differences between the parties are even more dramatic when the question turns directly to politics. Most voters in both parties agree that a Democratic congressman accused of sexual harassment should resign from office (71% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats). But when the accused congressman is a member of the GOP, just 54% of Republicans demand a resignation, compared to 82% of Democrats.

I wonder what explains this. — Michael

Double standards...

I still don't get why they simply won't get a less controversial candidate. — Benkei

The GOP is looking to overturn Roe vs. Wade...

The House of Representatives, not the Senate, votes for impeachment. It only takes a simple majority - so yes, this could occur. But impeachment is analogous to indictment, it does not remove someone from office. It moves to the Senate for the decision to remove. That takes a 2/3 majority vote, so it would require 67 Senators to vote to remove him from office. So it's probably not going to happen.

This Wikipedia article on the impeachment of Bill Clinton makes the process clear.

seem likely in the house and — boethius

In general, and historically I have been impressed with how the court has decided many - most issues. Even rulings that I disagreed with. It is a human institutions, and there are exceptions to that, but in general they have been a reasoned body. I think the lifetime appointment is a critical part of that. — Rank Amateur

There is only one advantages of life-long appointments in my opinion, especially if the bar is high to get on the bench (not 51 senators as it is now). The main advantage I see is that the judge appointments are spread out over decades so this guarantees a minimum diversity, and political rot must set in over decades to make big changes. However, I don't feel "unaccountably" in the form of life long appointments somehow magically increases honesty, it's a similar argument to the "rich don't need more money so are less corrupted" which people made vis-a-vis Trump. If a judge isn't affected by lollipops of the prospects of their kids and nephews getting the jobs they want of VC financing for their startup or whatever, not to speak of direct bribes or direct threats or blackmail (even he it means resigning or possibly being assassinated), I would strongly guess it doesn't matter the format of the judgeship for this kind of person; a person who is affected by leverage of whatever kind out of weakness or even welcomes bribes and lollipops as "just looking our for number 1", I don't think lifelong appointment would cause some sudden change of heart.

In previous comments I've outlined the advantages I see in direct election of judges (with much higher bar that 51% first-past-the-post systems being available, as well as longer terms than a typical politician, for instance 10-20 years). However, the dutch system of judges selecting their replacements as well as the US system can work. It's a matter of potentially working better as well as being a better learning experience for society (to consider what the law is, what good judgement is, judging a judges record and voting, I feel is a positive experience for society as well as lending more credibility to the system; in particular in a direct-voting system, if corruption is perceived as a problem, the judge that really wants to fight corruption fiercely and face death-threats can present him or herself; also, in the Europe continental judicial tradition, such as in France, judges generally have power to investigate themselves police or political corruption or things they feel of extraordinary import, it doesn't happen often but they have the power, though this power can be done in the US or any system as well, it's another good thing in my view).

Hasn't even left the dry dock yet. We have not had a direct serious charge yet against him - if such a charge comes to life - the Republicans in Wash will rush to the floor to start proceedings and do all they can to end this nightmare. — Rank Amateur

I'm starting to really doubt this scenario. Trump has already essentially admitted to obstruction of justice on national TV, has scandals of affairs and payments to porn stars, separated children from families, which are just three incredible things more than enough to impeach on. A large portion of sitting US politicians hate Trump, for taking away their power as well as genuine disgust with how he acts and what he says. They've tried (with Fox news supporting) numerous times to trigger an conservative rejection of Trump wave, each time failing. High profile republicans have on numerous occasions made the case against Trump during the campaign. There's definitely enough republicans in the house that genuinely think Trump is bad for the country and the long term prospects of the Republican Party to impeach him ... but no demand from the Republican base, so it would be a short-term meltdown of the GOP and total loss of power of any Republican who participated. It would be similar to the assassination of Ceasar to save Rome from tyranny where every participant was hanged anyways regardless of if it was the right thing to do; there's not enough Republicans politicians that would but country before themselves (many genuinely believe that maximizing personal gain is maximizing society's gain and so if they would lose any power by opposing Trump it's by definition good for the country to keep supporting Trump).

I don't see Mueller being able to up the bar in terms of the scandal-meter, and even if he could the Republican base may not have any threshold where they would be calling for Trump's impeachment. Since impeachment is a political process, without public sentiment of the Republican base changing I don't think it will happen. Even if democrats get the numbers to impeach in both houses, which seems essentially impossible in the Senate at the moment in the midterms anyway nor in the event Trump is re-elected, they might still not impeach him without Republican support, as it would fire up the Republican base (if they still support Trump) and they may prefer Trump over Pence to erode the Republican base as a whole (which is definitely happening under Trump) so they may just dillydaddle and investigate and bring as much scandalous information to light as possible without ever actually impeaching Trump even if they could (i.e. same scenario as the Republicans who think Trump is terrible now: it might be the right thing to do but it's politically expedient not to do it).

edit: corrected implied super majority needed in congress to impeach, which is not correct.

The GOP is looking to overturn Roe vs. Wade... — creativesoul

I'm really not sure they will actually do this. It's very convenient for Republican politicians that the Justices took care of this issue rather than legislation. Their base gets to feel victimized and there's none of the nuances, compromise and progressive implementation, planned or through reforms at various time, that the legislation process creates. It was illegal and a big problem issue for Republicans in less social conservative areas, and then went to just being completely legal and something Republicans politicians don't have to worry about.

So the situation is sort of best of both worlds for conservative politicians (assuming they don't care at all about the underlying issue, just pandering to their base, which is my general assumption). They get the outrage support from the pro-life movement (some who might otherwise be social-democrat, supporting health-care etc.) without losing swing-voters that are pro-choice but otherwise more conservative. My guess is the farthest a conservative SCOTUS will go is just not interfering in state level anti-abortion initiatives, which is essentially status quo at the moment anyway.

It takes 2/3 of the Senate to impeach. I'd think they'd go after Trump first. Maybe if one party gets 2/3 majority one day, they'll impeach every opposing judge, senator, and congressman. Why not?

Cloture? Really? Who misspelled closure and wasn't man enough to admit to the mistake?

It's French.

Clôture is French. Cloture is bad spelling.

There had to be something bad about it. :razz:

Do you think it'll be harder for you guys to say Justice Kavanaugh than it was for you to say President Trump?

Sometimes it's better just to have a result even if it's not the one you want just so you can have some cloture.

I'm so depressed. Gaaawd.

At least this should be just another catalyst for a blue turnout

It might galvanize the True Blues to vote; let us hope. However, the Raging Reds are also galvanized by Ford's testimony and Kavanaugh's heated denial. They are sensitive to the sounds of fighting: it arouses them. The protests of wounded women arouses them.

The Raging Reds (and the extreme left) is where American mobs are coming from: the campus left turns out small mobs that are obsessed about very narrow issues, and the angry conservatives can field large mobs obsessed with their much broader issues. A plague on both their houses! But the angry white right wing mobs stand to be a lot more dangerous. The right has fielded a number of bad mobs: the post WWI mobs that attacked organized labor (Red Scare); the Jim Crow white mobs; the anti-communist mobs of the 1940s and 1950s reacting to the New Deal; the mobs of better off working class or sort of middle class voters who have been working for decades to defeat Roe vs. Wade, and so on.

They are reactionary. They are more volatile than liberals in the offense they take at changes in society.

Liberally idealistic people must become better organized, more strategic, more pro-active, more volatilely action-oriented, more effective.

The GOP is looking to overturn Roe vs. Wade...
— creativesoul

I'm really not sure they will actually do this. It's very convenient for Republican politicians that the Justices took care of this issue rather than legislation. — boethius

All the more reason to appoint someone like him...

Republican (establishment) ideology has become a cult of personal enrichment at the cost of everyone else including the state. Money equaling speech is a good example of how far the Supreme court is into this ideology even without Kavanaugh. The supreme court is vital to the state functioning, once the ideology of (what the rest of thew world calls) corruption is fully in control it could rapidly erode democratic processes to the point sufficiently many people simply no longer find those processes credible. What happens after is difficult to predict, but it's not good for anyone. — boethius

Legitimized oligarchy. It's already been accepted throughout American culture.

Only in America. :rofl: Well, it's a nice dose of schadenfreude and I'll use this example each and everytime a US company suggests to apply US law and jurisdiction to a contract and why we aren't accepting it. Thanks for making my professional life easier I suppose!

The bit about perjury being OK, but only for judges, won't go down too well anywhere in the developed world outside the US for sure.

Eh, you can read Susan Collins' statement. If you dont understand 'we won't be served by abandoning the presumption of innocence' you're in the legal stone age.