We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Full discovery. If this guy wants to be on SCOTUS, all docs have to be released and the other side given all necessary time to examine them.

The GOP's gamesmanship in this regard suggests there's something else here.

See, if people want to go full adversarial approach, I'd be fine with setting a higher standard and more due process protections for him.

It's a very different approach than my "job interview" approach, and I still prefer my job interview standard for what this is (and when there were 60 votes needed I think the process more often tended toward that standard, with a couple notable exceptions like Anita Hill), but it's the idea that they want to use a half-ass approach that protects him without subjecting him to the downside of the adversarial process that I object to.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The Dems aren't going to delay this process two years.

If, by some miracle this doesn't go to vote before (by another miracle) the Dems take the Senate, and the Dems don't outright refuse to give Trump a vote on any candidate he puts up other than Garland (because it should be the next President's pick), I will turn into the Incredible Hulk and smash everything.

I understand we will never be in that position, but I had to let that out anyway.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The GOP does not believe he did it. Not at all. They think this is engineered. They're just not taking any chances. It's a strategy. There are arguments for and against it. If I were their lawyer, I'd probably err on getting him seated. Get the win under the belt, then figure a long term strategy for addressing the fallout.

I don't see any evidence yet. I see an accusation and a denial.

It's just "horseplay" and "youthful indiscretion" are arguments based on the assumption that what she said actually happened. Refusing to let the FBI investigate is a strategy based in fear of what the FBI will find. They certainly do not firmly believe he didn't do it.

If you want to be generous, you can say they fear that no amount of investigation will clearly establish what happened so long ago, but even that requires a level of concern that he might of done it.

And of course he did. You have to be insane (and/or a misogynist) to think anyone would put themselves through this if he didn't.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That "it was someone else" defense is lunacy. I'd ignore it.

It is the first round in a coordinated blame the victim approach by Kavanaugh's defenders. Make no mistake, that salvo was coordinated with key staff for the Committee majority and the federalist society, at a minimum. And perhaps the White House too, though they were less overt.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I know. But you got a better fair solution? This senate hearing sure as hell isn't going to be one.

The FBI should investigate and update his background report. Then there should be a hearing at which all of the relevant witnesses should testify (and be subpoenaed if necessary).

If the GOP majority wanted to look like they weren't just being partisan, they could delegate the questioning at the hearing to staff or independent counsel. But of course they don't want to.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If, by some miracle this doesn't go to vote before (by another miracle) the Dems take the Senate, and the Dems don't outright refuse to give him a vote because it should be the next President's, I will turn into the Incredible Hulk and smash everything.

I understand we will never be in that position, but I had to let that out anyway.

TM

We only take the Senate (by a miracle) if we win places like Tennessee, and between Jones, Manchin, Bredesen, and a few others, Dems aren't going to delay for two years. Unless the Rs really fuck up and nominate a series of untenable candidates, which they could do.

The general public hates Kavanaugh. They think he's smarmy. This matters.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We only take the Senate (by a miracle) if we win places like Tennessee, and between Jones, Manchin, Bredesen, and a few others, Dems aren't going to delay for two years. Unless the Rs really fuck up and nominate a series of untenable candidates, which they could do.

The general public hates Kavanaugh. They think he's smarmy. This matters.

There are better odds of the Ds taking the Senate than of seat still being open when they are seated.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's just "horseplay" and "youthful indiscretion" are arguments based on the assumption that what she said actually happened. Refusing to let the FBI investigate is a strategy based in fear of what the FBI will find. They certainly do not firmly believe he didn't do it.

If you want to be generous, you can say they fear that no amount of investigation will clearly establish what happened so long ago, but even that requires a level of concern that he might of done it.

And of course he did. You have to be insane (and/or a misogynist) to think anyone would put themselves through this if he didn't.

I've not heard those defenses in detail because I try to limit my reading on this subject to credible sources.

Anyone offering those defenses is just a garden variety idiot. That only harms the Rs more, for the reason you cite. I'm willing to bet anyone saying that has received a call from the GOP leadership saying, "Don't speak on this issue again. Better yet, go on vacation. Now."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

See, if people want to go full adversarial approach, I'd be fine with setting a higher standard and more due process protections for him.

It's a very different approach than my "job interview" approach, and I still prefer my job interview standard for what this is (and when there were 60 votes needed I think the process more often tended toward that standard, with a couple notable exceptions like Anita Hill), but it's the idea that they want to use a half-ass approach that protects him without subjecting him to the downside of the adversarial process that I object to.

I think the docs should be out there in advance in any approach. Even for a mere Senate hearing, all docs conceivably relevant or dredged up in the FBI background check should be made public at least thirty days prior to the hearing. And as new stuff may be uncovered, it should be released within five days of discovery of its existence.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The general public hates Kavanaugh. They think he's smarmy. This matters.

If I'm a publisher, I'm locking down Ronan Farrow to do the book on what actually happened. If Kavanaugh gets in, it will be a monster best seller. If not, it'll still be a best seller for many months.

ETA: This could be a 6-8 episode Netflix or HBO documentary. It's got so many salacious angles -- sex, #metoo, privilege, political corruption.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It is the first round in a coordinated blame the victim approach by Kavanaugh's defenders. Make no mistake, that salvo was coordinated with key staff for the Committee majority and the federalist society, at a minimum. And perhaps the White House too, though they were less overt.

There's also a real question as to whether Kavanaugh himself was part of coming up with it. Whelan apparently claims to know where the unnamed female friend lived. How?

Also, if Kavanaugh does not remember or was not at the party, who told Whelan who the unnamed female friend is?

If Kavanaugh was part of accusing someone else of having done this, that's yet another judgment and credibility issue for him.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've not heard those defenses in detail because I try to limit my reading on this subject to credible sources.

Anyone offering those defenses is just a garden variety idiot. That only harms the Rs more, for the reason you cite. I'm willing to bet anyone saying that has received a call from the GOP leadership saying, "Don't speak on this issue again. Better yet, go on vacation. Now."

"[R]ough horseplay" was Carrie Severino, a lawyer for the Judicial Crisis network, a group backing Kavanaugh.

Follow the same link to see Sen. Hatch saying "We can all be accused of something" and many other "was it really so bad" statements.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The GOP does not believe he did it.

If this is true it's actually the scariest part of this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

There are better odds of the Ds taking the Senate than of seat still being open when they are seated.

Probably true. If I were a soulless Republican operative, I'd bring this to a vote right now but tell Heller, Collins, Flake, and all the other Republican senators who need to look bipartisan that they were free to vote the guy down. I'd bring it to a vote and lose, but try to shore up the Nevada and Arizona seats in particular in doing it. Then I'd tell Trump he needed to find a woman who is moderate right and not on the Federalist's lists and nominate them before election day, so the people running in those seats had real cover, but schedule the hearings for the lame duck session.

And then, with the senate under control, I'd find an excuse to yank the second nomination and put in a real asshole. Because no one cares what a Senator's votes are during an off year.

That is, if I were a soulless Republican operative. This could be the October surprise they've been looking for.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe watch Advise and Consent? I don't care if he makes it or not. but FWIW I think it inevitable that Trump will get someone on.

If there is an FBI investigation on something that happened a million years and we hear that it is likely something happened, and that means he should not be on the court, god bless. But we can't just say she said this happened so he's toast, right? Beyond him, you realize how this precedent stuff works?

Advice and Consent is a very good movie based upon a very good (Pulitzer Prize-winning) book. See the movie. Read the book, if you can get a copy - pretty sure it’s out of print.

Apropos of nothing (hi sock!), I think Drury’s later books were a little too reactionary for my taste, but YMMV, as the kids say.