Does not the McConnell rule apply?
Or is that a rule that only applies to nominations by presidents who are democrats? What’s the answer Mitch?
And there is no way a president cannot be indicted and stand trial. The argument that the government would be paralyzed is flat wrong…it’s why we have a vice- president who would take power under the 25th amendment if a sitting president were way too occupied by a trial. The Ship of State then would sail on.
Just the fact that the Mango Mussolini chose him is ample reason to show Kavanaugh the door…
Well the real McConnell rule is McConnell Rules, so yes and no. I this case McConnell will rule that they don’t have to wait because they have the President and congress he wants.
So then “the voices of the American people” really do not matter,…right?
It really is that simple. Of course, conservatives lie about anything and everything to hide their motives from the hoi polloi so it will be interesting/entertaining to hear if he actually acknowledges his prior crime and what kind of cockamamie story he comes up with.
But you’re absolutely right - the only rule is that McConnell rules.
Only the ones that vote R.
Due to his years in George W. Bush’s White House Counsel’s Office and as his staff secretary, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is likely connected to millions of pages of records, giving Democrats a chance to overzealously request documents and slow the confirmation process.
Is your use of the word “overzealously” your own personal assessment, Ms. Riga? “Zealously” would be an accurate prediction. “Overzealously” sounds like your personal opinion intended to negatively influence the readers’ perceptions of Democrats’ attempts to save the Republic. Not good, Ms Riga.
I’m going on record to say that delaying this past November is a bad idea. It will drive republican turnout and make it less likely that we’ll retake congress, and could further imperil red state dems. We’re extremely unlikely to take the senate so we can’t win this either before or after the election. Better to let it be done and focus on November.
Mitch McConnell has never taken a position that he would not immediately take the polar opposite of if taking such position suited him three seconds after taking the former. In other words, Mitch’ll flip flop on you so quick it’ll make your head spin.
Elections have consequences.
He’ll be confirmed. He’ll be seated on the first Monday in October.
JFC, if playing games is the only way dems think they can stop this rolling catastrophe, then fine. But it better fucking work.
Mango Mussolini. Stealing that right now.
Very sensible point. There are 6-7 Dems (MO, WV, FL, ND, MT, IN, possibly WI, possibly OH) who are in imminent peril. Anything which threatens them is not sensible. There is a slim chance, if the Rs run the table, that Dems will drop below 40. That would not be good.
The fact is there are no good options for the Dems here. Their only hope is expose all his baggage and hope that it will be enough to sink him
I’ve been concerned about the same possibility, and still don’t dismiss it. But I see a few possible counters to that point:
-
Dems need to show they’re willing to fight hard on this, to energize Dem voters and to make the stakes clear. Our voters have never prioritized the courts as the right has (which has long mystified and infuriated me), and it’s long past time that change.
-
The red-state Democrats may find a “no” vote is the politically smarter one. Those Dems especially need their base energized, or they don’t have a chance; and we’re seeing suburban women everywhere voting increasingly for Dems, galvanized by Trump but also voting on issues (health care, etc.) that Dems stand for. I hope Heitkamp, Donnelly, et al. take Manchin’s lead and put pre-existing conditions at the forefront of their SCOTUS messaging.
-
Finally, Mitch McConnell genuinely seems to want to get this done fast. McConnell is many things, but politically stupid isn’t one of them, so I have to wonder if he sees what some election results this year have shown: that when both sides’ voters are energized, Democrats win.
I’m not confident enough to lay odds either way if this becomes a protracted fight. But I do know Democrats have to make it a fight.
Sounds like another crack[ed] Democratic plan to me: wouldn’t McConnell be tickled pink if they slow the nomination? If they wait until almost after the election, the better it is for Republican voter turn-out – because the nomination would appear to be in play. So if it’s postponed right up to just before the election, they still get the voters and also the nomination. Forget about the Collins and Murkowski charade: that only helps the Democrats to foolishly believe that maybe they can win something. As despicable as he may be, McConnell is in charge, understands power, isn’t afraid to use it, and he’s no dope. And . . . he can blame the delay on the Democrats. Now that sounds like a plan.
“Dems need to show they’re willing to fight hard on this, to energize Dem voters and to make the stakes clear.”
If Dems are not already energized, there’s no hope for us.
They are; to make my point more accurately, if Dems don’t look like they’re fighting this with all they’ve got, that could serve to sap a lot of that energy.
It’s impossible to delay it past November, even the over-argued “quorum” discussion I see everywhere is a no go. What they can do is put enough pressure on a couple R’s to flip on Kavanaugh’s appointment and that requires time. The other thing they can do is win the messaging war and piss Trump off so he says something stupid, which will happen when he personally is not in the news.