Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

/eos wrote:No vote delay for the pro-Kava guy who is not there. It would be a 50 no to 49 yes vote and the end of Kavanaugh.

The problem with that theory is that McConnell has control over the timing of the final vote, and can delay it so that Daines is back.

I agree, Kavanaugh being confirmed is still not a sure thing, but they're another step closer.

/eos wrote:

Man Overboard wrote:

Good question.

Surprised that Manchin was a "yes" on this procedural vote. Hard to see him voting "no" later.

Easy reason. Vote yes to proceed which forces a definitive end to this sordid mess. No vote delay for the pro-Kava guy who is not there. It would be a 50 no to 49 yes vote and the end of Kavanaugh.

Yet to decide, regardless of today's vote are: Flake, Collins, Manchin.

Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:

Assuming Murkowski is a NO to confirm (maybe that's a safe assumption?) then I don't really see how they can proceed to vote tomorrow without Daines. That would be assuming Manchin would be a Yes on proceeding and a Yes to confirm. I've said all along I couldn't see Machin being the deciding vote...

I guess we will know with Collins today. I can see some logic for Collins and/or Manchin voting yes procedureally and then no substantively as it least it puts an end to things.

No way will the Democrat leadership allow Manchin to be a deciding vote. If he decided to vote yes as a deciding vote then he can kiss any future committee position goodbye. Would also probably lose most funding from the DNC.

Racket wrote:No way will the Democrat leadership allow Manchin to be a deciding vote. If he decided to vote yes as a deciding vote then he can kiss any future committee position goodbye. Would also probably lose most funding from the DNC.

Except the DNC need Manchin's votes on a lot of other issues, so it's not that simple. Same way the Republicans can't "allow" Murkowski to defect from their side either, but they really can't control what she does either.

It's all in Collins' hands now....

Racket wrote:

No way will the Democrat leadership allow Manchin to be a deciding vote. If he decided to vote yes as a deciding vote then he can kiss any future committee position goodbye. Would also probably lose most funding from the DNC.

Exactly right.

If Manchin is the deciding vote and he votes "yes", then Manchin will have to switch parties after the election. But that assumes he still holds on to win. In that case, I could see a slew of West Virginia Democrats stay home on election day.

Manchin simply can't afford to be the decider. It's way too risky.

Assuming Flake is a "yes", it all comes down to Collins. Murkowski just put incredible pressure on her today.

Still procedural and it isn’t over til it’s over. Mancin somewhat a surprise. It could flip tomorrow. Not likely but also very possible.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

So with the one Senator walking his daughter down the aisle tomorrow.....a Collins NO moves it to 50-49 against....unless they keep the vote open until he returns then we have a 50/50.

A SCOTUS confirmation has never been so partisan. It’s sad as hell.

Alan

Sad that your side made up crap.

I don’t have a side. Again, I’m less concerned about what he did as a drunk 17yr old. His performance in the hearing was partisan and lacked the temperament of a SCOTUS judge. Had he been less vicious and simply walked a neutral line I would be fine.

It’s now less about what he did or didn’t do and more about the reaction...the National Council of Churches....John Paul Stevens.....this confirmation has become too political, too partisan, and will negatively affect his ability to issue unbiased judgements on the court. What JPS said makes a lot of sense.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sad that your side made up crap.

I don’t have a side. Again, I’m less concerned about what he did as a drunk 17yr old. His performance in the hearing was partisan and lacked the temperament of a SCOTUS judge. Had he been less vicious and simply walked a neutral line I would be fine.

It’s now less about what he did or didn’t do and more about the reaction...the National Council of Churches....John Paul Stevens.....this confirmation has become too political, too partisan, and will negatively affect his ability to issue unbiased judgements on the court. What JPS said makes a lot of sense.

Alan

Too partisan you say, but you conveniently avoid the bogus alllegations that got us to this point.

I can’t wait until he’s sworn in.

Also too partisan from his days in the Bush White House. His true colors have been shown. Move on to another conservative judge with less baggage.

Iggy is just an old windbag spouting stuff from fringe sites. Sure does take up a lot of air time though! But best to move along from it and the likes of him.

The Supreme Court has always been a partisan body. Note the consistent pattern of decisions from each of the justices throughout history. This is another crap argument from butt hurt dems who are watching power slip from their grasp. Trace it all back to rigging the 2016 election for Hillary.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

theconservativetreehouse .com

^ Run by some "guy" with the name of Sundance (really?). A hardcore SJW Trumper, and fabricator of fake news,

"The Conservative Treehouse is biased in favor of right-wing nutty conspiracy theory."

This has definitely been a well planned, well deployed attack by the Democrats. They have stepped up their game since being made to look like fools in the Clinton e-mail leaks. They must have sat down and read the Art of War. Let's review the facts of the case:

- They wiped Blaseys internet presence clean to make her appear as honest as possible (no videos of old lectures left on the internet to judge her voice against in her testimony). Wiped her facebook and other social media platforms. Removed her high school yearbook from the internet.

- They steered her towards Democrat lawyers who did not act in her best interest, but in the interest of the party violating legal ethics and should face discipline from the ABA.

- They intentionally withheld evidence from the nomination process in the hope that they could push the nomination past the mid terms,

- They performed extensive research into Kavnaugh's high school friends and asked pointed questions about issues in Judge's book with the goal of catching Kavanuagh in a perjury trap (because they knew the allegations were meritless and would not have been heard in any courtroom in the land due to a lack of corroboration),

- They intentionally rejected forums that would have been private or would not require travel and intentionally leaked her allegations to the press in order to present their "Manchurian accuser" in front of a forum of old white men in order to paint the Republicans as racist and sexist right before the midterm elections.

- They attempted to intimidate a witness (her best friend) because her testimony was the nail in the coffin.

- They paid SJWs (upwards of $180k per year) to act like they were victims of sexual assault in an attempt to shame pivotal senators into voting against Kavanaugh.

An impressive attack, but ultimately fruitless as Kavanaugh will be confirmed and the backlash from the public for the use of such abhorrent tactics will only act to further distance the Democrats from the general public and cause them to become even less of a factor in the political arena.

The only people protesting against Brett Kavanaugh on the streets are people without jobs or those being paid by left wing groups who want to bring about a radical dismantling of the American Dream and replace it with a dystopian nightmare similar to what is happening in Venezuela.

God Bless President Trump

Support Brett Kavanaugh

Stand Up for the Kavanaugh Girls

Left Wing Women Don't Shower Enough

Jamin Needs A Date

Don't Trust Chinese Motherboards

joedirt wrote:

This has definitely been a well planned, well deployed attack by . . .

McConnell refusing to allow consideration of Merrick Garland.

(PS: The rest of your post is worthless.)

Ig is a bag of gas wrote:

Iggy is just an old windbag spouting stuff from fringe sites. Sure does take up a lot of air time though! But best to move along from it and the likes of him.

I’ll pass some gas just for you SJW.

joedirt wrote:

- They wiped Blaseys internet presence clean to make her appear as honest as possible (no videos of old lectures left on the internet to judge her voice against in her testimony). Wiped her facebook and other social media platforms. Removed her high school yearbook from the internet.

Do you have any evidence of this? Any at all?