Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Ghost of Hairy Reed wrote:

60 Senators wrote:

Nope. charged the requirement from 60 to 50 votes. That is why there is a mess. With 60 votes required Kavanugh's name never gets considered.

PS. .

Also, with 60 votes, NOBODY gets considered.

Not true. The only two would have fallen short on a 60 vote are two conservative members, both at 58.

Neil Gorsuch - approved by a unanimous voice vote.

Elena Kage - approved 61 to 31

Sonia Sotomayor - 68 to 31

Samuel Alito - 58 to 42

John Roberts - 78 to 22

Stephen Breyer - 80 to 10

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 96 to 3

Clarence Thomas - 58 - 42

also

Anthony Kennedy (retired) - 98 to 0

TheOhioState wrote:

www dailywire com

A hardcore Trumper website. ... Fake News.

Listen, the 60 vote requirement was not what you think it was. It used to be possible to filibuster a nominee for the Supreme Court if they lacked 60 votes to invoke cloture, to stop debate, and vote. That didn't mean that the nominee would get 60 votes for confirmation. It meant that 60 had agreed to allow the vote. Mitch McConnell scrapped the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, so that all they need is 50 votes to bring it to a vote and confirm once it is approved from committee.

vcxcvxcxv wrote:

Listen, the 60 vote requirement was not what you think it was. It used to be possible to filibuster a nominee for the Supreme Court if they lacked 60 votes to invoke cloture, to stop debate, and vote. That didn't mean that the nominee would get 60 votes for confirmation. It meant that 60 had agreed to allow the vote. Mitch McConnell scrapped the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, so that all they need is 50 votes to bring it to a vote and confirm once it is approved from committee.

Look, Seven out the last Nine SCOTUS justices RECEIVED MORE THAN 60 votes. The other two received 58 votes.

All of this goes over right your head. More moderate nominees get seated. Extreme cases like Kavanaugh never get on the SCOTUS. So, always pick someone leaning away from the extremes. This concept really bothers you.

Not a conservative wrote:

60 Senators wrote:

Nope. McConnell charged the requirement from 60 to 50 votes. That is why there is a mess. With 60 votes required Kavanugh's name never gets considered.

PS. You are an obvious Trump supporter.

There it is! How did I know I would get called a Trump supporter when that isn't close to the truth. I voted for Obama, didn't vote for Trump (didn't vote for Hillary either), and wasn't planning on voting this year until this week. Also by blaming it on the needed votes you just proved my point that this is about politics and not sexual assault...

Genuinely intrigued by this. Your thought process has gotta be in the minority. So you're mad that the Democrats want to slow things down here so that they find out the truth into sexual assault allegations but were you not mad when Republicans would not call a super qualified individual (Merrick Garland) for a hearing for an entire year? The latter is entirely about politics. At least Democrats here are saying that maybe we should not have someone on the bench who has committed sexual assault. But the Republicans not putting Garland up for a vote, a political move, did not have you firmly in the Democrat camp?

I have no idea what the Republican Party is hoping to gain with all of this. Young people and women are paying attention to the way they have responded to sexual assault allegations. If your instinct is to vote Republican, I think you'll find a lot of women and young people voting blue this November and beyond. White women delivered Trump to America. Why in the world are they trying to drive that demographic away. Going to be more and more difficult for them to count to 270.

Hardloper wrote:

If Republicans allow these weak allegations and obvious delay tactics obstruct their Supreme Court pick then they are worthless and deserve to suffer in the election. Just confirm him already and let Democrats have their hissy fit... They're going to melt down no matter what anyway!

If they vote to confirm, they will retain both houses. Y'all heard it here first.

Traditional conservatives don't like Trump, he's not one of them and they don't like his manners. They've been turned off by the negativity surrounding him which they blame him for. That's what was threatening to suppress GOP turnout in November. But Kavanaugh is one of their own, acts like a nice guy, and they will vote in droves now no matter what. If the confirmation fails, the red-state Dems up for reelection will all lose. If it succeeds, all GOP senators will be viewed as heroes by their base and they'll get a big surge out of it that will work downballot, helping their house candidates.

Regardless of ideology, everyone will have to admit eventually they're right to be pissed. Unsubstantiated claims are unsubstantiated, and the latest ones are completely off the deep end. It's clear to those who've retained their reason that there is no substance to them. Calling for an FBI investigation is just cheesy, too many people know how law enforcement works.

indeed he did wrote:

Man Overboard wrote:

There was never any Constitutional or Senate requirement for 60 votes to confirm a nominee. It's always been simple majority.

You're talking about filibuster rules of the Senate, which have gone back & forth many times over the years - changed by both parties when they needed to alter rules to suit their needs. McConnell did it. But so did Harry Reid just a few years earlier. Both parties are gulity.

Only when the votes were below 60. Several SCOTUS members have gotten far more than 60 votes.

Make it 60 votes to get a SCOTUS judge through. The problems go away because either side have to pick people who does not have extreme views.

You seem very confused about this. As "Man Overboard" indicated, sixty votes have only been required to override a filibuster under the Senate's own procedural rules. Confirmation requires only a majority.

The supermajority requirement for overriding filibusters may have worked reasonably well when members of both parties were ultimately willing to allow almost all matters to proceed to a simple-majority vote on the merits. But in recent years, both parties have abused the filbuster rule, and they haven't even been required to carry out their threat of filibusting, which would at least allow members of the public to witness and express outrage over the spectacle of U.S. senators standing on the Senate floor and reading from Dr. Suess books and telephone directories for hours merely to prevent the Senate from doing its job. I don't really have a problem with the decision to kill the supermajority filibuster rule in certain cases or categories of cases. I just wish that the majority of U.S. senators were better people.

Imagine a scenario where McConnell rams the guy through, and this drives more women voters to the election, Dems win the House and Senate. They'll impeach Kavanaugh and with a majority in the house, vote to remove him. Then Trump will have to nominate someone who can make it past a Democrat-led Senate.

Might be better to pull his nomination now, because it could help the Republicans keep the Senate. Then re-nominate him after the election, or find someone better.

Now the Republicans are starting to turn against Kavanaugh, Ann Navarro was just on TV and without directly saying it, seemed against Kavanaugh.

Ana Navarro

Maybe it would be better to find someone EVERYONE is happy with, someone that would get voted in 98-0 Like Kennedy was.

60 Senators wrote:

vcxcvxcxv wrote:

Listen, the 60 vote requirement was not what you think it was. It used to be possible to filibuster a nominee for the Supreme Court if they lacked 60 votes to invoke cloture, to stop debate, and vote. That didn't mean that the nominee would get 60 votes for confirmation. It meant that 60 had agreed to allow the vote. Mitch McConnell scrapped the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, so that all they need is 50 votes to bring it to a vote and confirm once it is approved from committee.

Look, Seven out the last Nine SCOTUS justices RECEIVED MORE THAN 60 votes. The other two received 58 votes.

All of this goes over right your head. More moderate nominees get seated. Extreme cases like Kavanaugh never get on the SCOTUS. So, always pick someone leaning away from the extremes. This concept really bothers you.

As far as I can tell, you (under various names) are the only one who is confused about this. I can't imagine where you're getting your information.

Neil Gorsuch did not get sixty votes, much less a "unanimous voice vote." He only got 54 votes. Clarence Thomas did not get 58 votes; he only got 52 votes, including only 41 votes from Republicans.

Not so fast bro wrote:

Imagine a scenario where McConnell rams the guy through, and this drives more women voters to the election, Dems win the House and Senate. They'll impeach Kavanaugh and with a majority in the house, vote to remove him. Then Trump will have to nominate someone who can make it past a Democrat-led Senate.

You really think that Congress will impeach and remove a sitting Supreme Court justice based on a smattering of allegations that he behaved badly when he was in high school and college? Why stop there? Why not impeach and remove Clarence Thomas based on allegations that he behaved badly when he was an administrator in the Civil Rights Division? (Admittedly, in a country where the star of "Celebrity Apprentice" becomes the president, almost anything is possible.)

Avocado's Number wrote:

Not so fast bro wrote:

Imagine a scenario where McConnell rams the guy through, and this drives more women voters to the election, Dems win the House and Senate. They'll impeach Kavanaugh and with a majority in the house, vote to remove him. Then Trump will have to nominate someone who can make it past a Democrat-led Senate.

You really think that Congress will impeach and remove a sitting Supreme Court justice based on a smattering of allegations that he behaved badly when he was in high school and college? Why stop there? Why not impeach and remove Clarence Thomas based on allegations that he behaved badly when he was an administrator in the Civil Rights Division? (Admittedly, in a country where the star of "Celebrity Apprentice" becomes the president, almost anything is possible.)

Exactly. There is a very bizarre psychology that is on display... complete irrationality, illogic, and delusion.

This situation is swinging the door wide open for a open season on anybody. Politicians etc will be avalanched with allegations.

They may have been the first to run it...but that chick loony as hell.

You are relying on turnout. That is fool's gold. Turnout does not win elections, which are decided by preference.

Republicans will hold the senate regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh. But they are considerable underdogs to maintain the House, even if I think the current 80% number is too high.

Independents preferred Trump in 2016. That's why Hillary never had any chance to win big. I wasn't posting here at the time but I was emphasizing it elsewhere.

Independents shifted away from Trump early in 2017 and have never returned. That is all the difference, and it is responsible for the ongoing comical denial by conservatives in general and on site after site. Somehow they mistook a technicality victory via 46% as universal love. The handful of sharp conservatives I know were immediately shook up by that 46% and what it meant going forward, given the very real demographic shifts. Dunce conservatives chirp in clueless cohesion. Hey, we managed 46% with independents, and now independents prefer the other side. What could possibly go wrong? Gillum here in Florida leads the governor polling specifically for that reason, a big lead among independents in a state where Trump carried independents by 4%. I could give countless examples.

Seniors have also shifted. I've detailed that countless times in the Trump thread. The Silent Generation born 1928-1945 was always heavily Republican. Now mortality realities make that block less influential and the young seniors from the early Baby Boom era are pro Democratic. Seniors will be worse for Republicans in 2018 than 2016, and in 2020 than 2018, and so forth.

I do agree that confirming Kavanuagh is likely to happen. I bet it that way. I bet more today when the price plunged on Predictit. I also agree that the GOP base will be more energized in November if he is confirmed. But none of that is going to deflect more important variables, like the widening gender gap and millennials with a 28% favorable rating of the GOP.

Last year at this time Trump's approval rating was 37%. Now up to 41.4% on 538. That variable impacts preference. The best path for Republicans to maintain the House is for Trump's approval to bump up another point or so by November. That is certainly possible. When Roy Moore lost the Alabama special election Trump's national approval was 37% and 35% in a new Gallup poll. Moore never would have lost that race to Doug Jones if Trump's approval number was 41%, like now.

***

BTW, if we had audio/video from the time period I have no doubt Kavanaugh did exactly what Ford is accusing him of doing. I read David Brock's great book "Blinded by the Right." The people recruited by the GOP in that '90s era were absolutely ruthless, and frothing at the Clintons. They were in their 30s then and 50s now. The stories in that book align with the type of behavior described. Like many powerful white males they have been protected all their lives, no matter what they did. Mark Judge running away to a beach house like a scared little boy is the greatest testimony of all.

I'm kind of amazed that this isn't common knowledge in the media; I honestly can't understand the bubble they live in.

I'm liberal. My lifetime presidential votes, including primaries, were:

Obama (primary)

Obama

Obama

Sanders (primary)

Clinton

This swiftboating (yes, a Democrat has also been a victim of close to the same thing in fairly recent memory) is the closest I've ever come to voting Republican; if Harris (or anyone else involved in this) is the 2020 nominee (assuming Trump isn't successfully primaried), I'll be voting third party, and I won't be voting for anyone who's done more than call for a fair hearing anywhere down ballot this year. This whole thing has been ridiculous.

Pat Buchanan weighs in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l4wHDvg0Kk