I could definitely see Trump going that way, but Reagan said he was going to do the same thing following Bork and we got Kennedy. I think a lot would depend on the confirmation situation. If they try to jam something through quickly, it will probably be someone less disagreeable. If this drags into next term and the GOP holds the senate, then maybe a former Hitler youth.
I think, in a non-election year, they would be very likely to pick up at least one of the two on someone who is highly likely to overturn Roe so long as the nominee has not expressly said that they will. You haven't picked up on the fact that Trump loves giving out a good "FU" to folks that he thinks have wronged him? You'd get a conservative either way, but Trump's inclination thus far has decidedly not been to put up the most conservative person he can find. When he made this nomination, the hard right wing of the party's reaction wasn't "Oh yay, Brett Kavanaugh!" (although, ironically, Democratic opposition seems to have brought them around on the basis that if the Democrats act like he would be the end of the world he must be great). There are choices available to him who would definitely get that reaction and, although it would be a fight, he could most likely still get confirmed.
Probably the biggest slow down at this point was the Senate being in recess in August. The nomination was in July and they didn't schedule hearings until September. I don't even think were into unfamiliar territory here. Kagan took 87 days, Alito 83, Thomas was like close to 100, Bork's failed nomination was over 100 days.
Depends on what their strategy for moving them quickly is. One approach to that would be to try to bypass the Judiciary Committee and bring the nominee straight to the floor by picking someone who was just recently confirmed to another seat and saying that hearings would be a waste of time since they just went through them. If they went that route, I suspect you would get a real hardcore conservative because folks have the cover of not having a hearing to make the nominee look extreme and limited time for Dems to argue against them. If they wanted to follow normal procedure but move it quickly, the odds you get someone closer to the middle are much higher. (I think in general this discussion was in terms of a potential additional vacancy though, not a Kavanaugh replacement.)
Yes. 4 of Pence's 9 tie-breaking votes to date have been nomination related (1 cloture, 3 confirmation). Although all were executive nominations (DeVos, Brownback, and Vought), same procedure would apply on a judicial nominee.
Not floating dubious accusations of sexual assault from 36 years ago that nobody else is corroborating isn't being "extra nice". It's called "having a soul."
Is there a single issue of material political consequence that Kavanaugh wouldn't side with the conservatives on? Whether a nominee is super-duper conservative or just super conservative doesn't make all that much difference practically speaking. All the Republicans need is someone to vote with the Alito-Gorsuch-Thomas-Roberts block, which basically anyone that has a chance at getting nominated would reliably do. Anything more than that might raise the proverbial flagpole for many on your side of the isle, but it wouldn't represent some kind of catastrophic sea change. Even stuff like the dream of overturning Roe is more or less an empty threat, because in doing so the Court would effectively just sign its own death warrant (which even the hardest of hardcore Republican judges are smart enough not to do).
I dont remember every party I was at in high school. I do remember the parties I attended where I 'hooked up' with someone or had something memorable happen. I would definitely remember a party I was attempting to rape someone or was the victim of attempted rape. This accusation may not be able to be proven but that doesnt make it false and your characterization of "All four witnesses are corroborating Kavanaugh" is a lie.
Yup. I'd like to point out that this is not the argument you all are making. The argument you're making is that the majority of the country supports him. Its not the one you've pivoted to here.
Looks like the whole Dr. Blasey-abortion connection was another fabricated smear: No, Christine Blasey Ford isn't linked to abortion pill
I'm not tipping my hand on the playbook. But in all seriousness, I think religious liberty issues, potentially reigning in the commerce clause jurisprudence slightly, and a few aspects of gun laws are the three that come to mind where the current court could conceivably get to a more far-reaching opinion with someone more conservative than Kavanaugh. The other issues GOPers care about probably need an additional justice or more to get there. I think on the cases that are likely to get to the Court in the next few terms, he's probably not much different than many other conservative options at least in terms of votes. There are some issues that conservative groups may like to make a longer play on where I think, down the road, other options would give them better prospects than Kavanaugh does though, and I think there's a greater likelihood of somewhat watered down holdings on the issues I named with Kavanaugh than there would be with some others.
This is exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's called dissociation. Here's a good article on the topic: How does your brain cope with trauma? According to McLaughlin, if the brain registers an overwhelming trauma, then it can essentially block that memory in a process called dissociation -- or detachment from reality. "The brain will attempt to protect itself," she added. "There is a belief that there is a threshold of trauma where the human brain cannot overcome without dissociation," McLaughlin said. "Age, genetic factors and environment can contribute to how high that person's threshold is and how their brain responds to severe trauma." These severe types of dissociation are frequently seen with someone who experiences significant trauma, and may not happen to everyone who experiences the same trauma. Dissociation can happen as a part of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but these conditions can also be independent of each other. Dr. Ford spend decades trying to disassociate from her trauma. She didn't tell a single sole until it came out during a therapy session, which by definition, is a safe space. One of the reasons women don't come forward after an assault is they will be forced to live their worst moments in life over and over again. It's likely Kavanaugh's name forced Dr. Ford to go to a place in her memory she never wanted to go again, and likely never wanted to relive in public. And it's also likely that if Kavanaugh had never been nominated to the SCOTUS, and his name became a household name, Ford would have kept quiet and gone to her grave telling only two people, her husband and therapist. For anyone else who thinks what Ford did is out of the ordinary for an assault survivor, try doing some research first.
yeah, I just saw something on Facebook that claimed to be a photo of Ford with George Soros. Naturally, the reactions were: "Yes, he's always behind this kind of stuff." Of course, it wasn't her.
Right, maybe Kavanaugh falls slightly to the left of the current group on certain issues and maybe he causes some kind of slight moderation in the language of some opinions as a result. Maybe. But it won't be anything major, and it's unlikely to be anything that the vast majority of the voting population would even understand, let alone care about when set next to the the politically-charged issue falling 5-4 in favor of the conservatives in the first place. If anything, Kavanuagh is slightly more concerning than a speculative uber-conservative would be, since said Roberts likely wouldn't allow said uber-con to write many (if any) consequential opinions in the first place. Kavanaugh on the other hand would likely have pretty good drafting opportunities, and might even get to write a landmark. An undesirable proposition to say the least.
My apologies then, most people that post stuff like the one I quoted are Leftist HRC diehards. I voted for Trump because he was the better choice between the two. I even voted for him in the primary, because I didn't think anyone else would have beaten HRC. With the exception of his tweeting, I do support him currently. Why? Because he hasn't done anything to make me not support him. He is the President of the United States and as such I will support him until I think he is doing a bad job. As much as I thought Obama was a worthless President, he was still my President. Even though I thought he was one of the worst in a while. Basically for me it comes down to my belief that our current system is broken. Can Trump fix it in one or even two terms? Probably not. Can he get the process started? Sure he can. Will he? That remains to be seen. Currently his stated objectives are some that I can agree with. We need to stop illegal immigration. We need to even out trade deficits, even if it will hurt in the short term. We need to make sure our allies can carry their own weight and are not just a drain on us. And if a little brash talking from someone that is not a career politician will do it, then so be it. We need to stop walking on egg shells in this country. Everyone is too worried about causing offense to someone to be able to actually get things done.
Don't entirely disagree but ………………. the accusers (esp Ford) should have gone to the entities with jurisdiction over such matters and not to politicians. And ….. the accusers have not been silenced …. hardly. If anything the politicization of their allegations have given the two accusers a huge platform from which their claims can be and have been broadcast. This entire episode reminded me of this song:
I’ve seen this theory floated by some friends on the right and while I don’t totally agree with all of it, it is still within the bounds of possibility at this point. The theory is that Difi or Democratic staffs convinced Dr. Ford to come forward publicly with her allegation by promising that she would not have to testify. That promise was based on the theory that other accusers would come forward if the hearing was delayed long enough. Once the other accusers came forward, Trump would have to pull Kavanaugh’s nomination. That would end the need for any testimony. All Dr. Ford’s legal team would have to do is ask for a delay and hold off making a hard commitment to a hearing by making demands the JC would have issues with. It’s Tuesday evening and there is still not a firm commitment by Dr. Ford’s team to testify. The second accusation has flopped and the accuser has started that she will not testify through her lawyer. Avenatti is still out there saying he has a third accuser at this point but has refused to work with the JC to make her available. If Dr. Ford is the only person slated to testify on Thursday, does she still appear?
