Should the White House pull down the Kavanaugh nomination — or postpone action on it?

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifying during the second day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Should the White House pull down the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, or at least postpone further Senate action until professor Christine Blasey Ford is given a chance to tell her story under oath?

On the merits, the answer is yes, obviously yes. When the accuser was unnamed, it was possible to think otherwise. But now we know her name, know more details of what she would say, and know that she is willing to come forward and tell her story.

If she is believed – and from what we have learned of her over the last few days it seems likely that she will make a very strong witness — it seems likely that Kavanaugh could not and should not be confirmed. And if she is believed, it’s also too late for Kavanaugh to excuse what may have happened as a one-time act of a drunken teenager, because he has already compounded the problem by lying about it now.

It’s really pretty hard to come up with a reasonable excuse to deny her her chance to tell her story, under oath, and for Kavanaugh to respond, under oath, before he is granted a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

But my gut still tells me President Trump will not pull it down, for fear of losing his chance of filling the Supreme Court vacancy until after the midterm elections, and for fear that Republicans could lose control of the Senate in those elections, which would colossally complicate the Republican dream of a solid five-member conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

One of the ironies of that path, of course, is that failure to give Ford a chance to tell her story, and for Kavanaugh to reply, could cause so much outrage that it will be the proximate cause of a Democratic takeover of both House of Congress in November.

Of course it’s cynical to allow such calculations into the mix, but the world in which we live suggests that such considerations will always be given tremendous weight.

Might be a good night to rewatch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Comments (80)

  1. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 09/17/2018 - 02:38 pm.

    Personally I would like to see Kavanaugh go away just based on his belief that the president is above the law. That is pure foolishness after a long life of being told no one is above the law.

    With regard to the sexual assault allegation, now that she has passed an FBI lie detector test Ms. Ford deserves to tell her story under oath. Apparently she has corroborating witnesses, does he? I suggest Mr. Kavanaugh should also submit to the same FBI test and testify under oath as well. Not doing so would lead me to believe he is lying and he should be dismissed from consideration.

    The GOP is in a difficult decision. A decision to do nothing can tick off at least half of America, the women. Trump will possibly come out an say Kavanaugh denies it so there is your truth – possibly another self inflicted GOP wound.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 07:17 am.

      The GOP cares not about ticking off half of America. They only care about motivating their base.

      It’s all about that base.

    • Submitted by James Drew on 09/19/2018 - 05:33 pm.

      To clarify, No president is “above the Law”. He (or she) however represents a Branch of Government and is immune from civil and criminal prosecution. Else any president could be litigated to death or run out of office on a whim.
      The House can impeach for practically any reason and the Senate can convict with the Chief Justice presiding. Once removed from office a (former) President is just like any other citizen…”under the law’.

      Don’t hold your breath.

  2. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 09/17/2018 - 02:58 pm.

    For the record, and without excusing the alleged behavior in the slightest, I nonetheless find it disturbing that an allegation of boorish behavior from 35+ years ago can derail a candidacy. Decades later, it’s an unresolvable “he said, she said” controversy that, in the absence of verifiable facts, will certainly stir up emotions at several points on the political spectrum. I’ve come across very few adult males who would have qualified for sainthood when they were adolescents. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination that have nothing at all to do with his alleged behavior at a party when in high school. There are also excellent and very practical reasons why our legal system emphasizes, and generally requires, proof of guilt. Innocence is, in most circumstances, impossible to prove or demonstrate.

    With the allegation made, and Kavanaugh damned if he did and damned if he didn’t, it may make very little practical difference whether he lied, or is lying, about the incident. Trump may view it, as he’s inclined to view everything, as a challenge to his ego, and thus feel compelled to try to force Kavanaugh’s nomination on the Senate, but it’s a tactic that could easily blow up in his face. With various rumblings about the possible consequences of the upcoming midterm elections, trying to force Kavanaugh down the Senate’s throat could well mean a Democratic Senate, or even House, if he angers enough women voters. It could still happen, of course, and my record for political prognostication is approximately zero, but at the moment, it looks to me like the Kavanaugh nomination is toast, and sadly, if that’s true, it won’t matter whether or not he’s been an exemplary husband and father as an adult, nor will it matter what his judicial temperament and philosophy might be, or that his judicial opinions have often verged on the bizarre.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/17/2018 - 04:06 pm.

      “I’ve come across very few adult males who would have qualified for sainthood when they were adolescents.” I certainly don’t make any claim that my adolescent behavior qualifies me for sainthood, but I can say that I never tried to rape a young woman, with or without help from a friend.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 07:28 am.

      Ray, the concerning thing here is that Kavanaugh is absolutely denying this. And if he is lying today, not 30 some years ago, that completely disqualifies him from a lifetime SCOTUS seat.

      If Kavanaugh had admitted this, and never done anything like it again, that would be different.

      That is what matters here, did he lie?

      His coming out has been carefully choreographed, presented to us as a choir boy. Devoted to all the women in his life, serving at the soup kitchen, coaching hie daughter’s basketball team, and speaking high praise for his Jesuit education.

      His handlers have made his character an issue. So yes, sexual assault and the ensuing lie are very pertinent here.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/18/2018 - 08:34 am.

        It’s unlikely that he’ll be proven to be lying.
        That would required objective proof (like photos) that the events alleged by Ford actually occurred. 35 year old memories are not proof.

        • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 10:01 am.

          There is some corroborating evidence. Ford mentioned the assault to a therapist in 2012.

          Also, there was someone else in the room. A friend of Kavanaugh’s who has since gone on to write about detailing the alcohol-infused hi-jinx of himself and his high school mates.

          • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/21/2018 - 06:03 pm.

            Mention to the therapist said it was 4 boys, and didn’t mention Kavanaugh.

            The supposed witness has said it never happened.

            There is no evidence. None.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/18/2018 - 10:33 am.

          He has been lying under oath throughout these proceedings. His credibility is pretty well shot for those who still believe there is such a thing as the truth.

  3. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/17/2018 - 03:14 pm.

    Pulling down the nomination now is not going to happen. That would be tantamount to admitting that Trump was wrong to pick him and wrong to support him during the hearings. How likely is that?

    I don’t know if the Senate has much choice but to delay the vote. Control of the Senate is at stake in a few weeks, and forcing a vote through without at least hearing Professor Ford’s testimony is not going to look well. Many–if not most–women have had an experience similar to Professor Ford’s, and sweeping it under the rug isn’t going to look good. Trump can rage and scream all he likes, but he’s not the one running this year. The fact that it would work to his benefit to delay a vote would be lost in the tantrum.

    The downside to delaying a vote is that the right-wing slander machine will have time to kick it in high. Every indiscretion in Professor Ford’s life will be brought up and paraded around. There will also be plenty of mockery (Donald Jr. has already started in on this). The Republicans will be incapable of stopping, or even denouncing, this kind of behavior. While it might provoke giggles among certain types, it’s not going to go well with people who have any level of decency left.

    • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/17/2018 - 07:25 pm.

      “Every indiscretion in Professor Ford’s life will be brought up and paraded around.”

      Oh, I see what you did there!

      • Submitted by Brett Adams on 09/19/2018 - 12:19 pm.

        And oh, I see what you did there! Has Professor Ford been accused of attempted rape? Or lying, unless by the rabid GOP, intent on getting this court packed before the election? Is she running for the highest court in the land? She passed a polygraph test, and Kavanaugh’s buddy from the incident has refused to testify. Hmmmm.

  4. Submitted by Joe Musich on 09/17/2018 - 03:22 pm.

    In a word yes. This will not go away in today’s world. With a report like this there maybe others. Coupling the gruesome reports from Dr Ford with the prurient line of questioning he was stopped from pursuing in the Starr investigations there seems to be red flags with this nominee. Don’t you think ? How sensitive and empathetic is this guy ? Seems to me in order to be an officer of the SCOTUS both of those characteristics need to available in Supreme amounts.

    • Submitted by Tim Smith on 09/17/2018 - 07:42 pm.

      Judge Kavanaugh is qualified, period. What your politics and wishes are irrelevant. If you have proof of something he has done wrong, show it now.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/18/2018 - 09:31 am.

        “What your politics and wishes are irrelevant.” Please cite specific constitutional language to support that assertion.

        • Submitted by Tim Smith on 09/18/2018 - 05:11 pm.

          No thats really not necessary, thank you. Liberal dem opposition to him is based on their politics, not his qualifications which is traditionally how it is supposed to work. Common sense and all that inconvenient stuff.

  5. Submitted by Pat Berg on 09/17/2018 - 04:17 pm.

    This story also has a local angle.

    If it’s Keith Ellison, the Republicans are suddenly all about “Listen to the woman!”, especially if it gives them an opportunity to demonize Democrats.

    Will they be consistent and insist that Ms. Ford is also entitled to her hearing, regardless of the political hazard?

    Methinks I will smell a bit of hypocrisy in the air . . . . .

    • Submitted by Tim Smith on 09/17/2018 - 07:40 pm.

      Me tbinks you look at the world through your liberal glasses. The Kavanaugh accusation is a well orchestrated n timed smear by desperate dems playing to their hysterical base. Ellison is a recent charge, Kavanaughs 40 years ago in high school, hmmm

      • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 09:57 am.

        Yes, it was so well orchestrated that Ford mentioned the sexual assault to a therapist back in 2012. I suppose that Chuck Schummer knew all along that Kavanaugh would be nominated to this seat in 2018, so he found someone who knew Kavanaugh back in high school and convinced her to fabricate the incident in a session with the therapist, then just waited six years.

        Mmm-hmm.

        • Submitted by Tim Smith on 09/18/2018 - 05:14 pm.

          Why did she wait until July and only send letter to Feinstein then? Why did Feinstin wait until now? So she could smear him and stall the nomination thats why. Take Ellisons accuser, more recen transgression but the dems deal with it by shunning her. Nice crowd.

          • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/19/2018 - 08:42 am.

            Oh my, is stalling a nomination a bad thing? When will Garland get his hearing?

            You know Feinstein said she held the info based on respect for Ford’s wishes. Why pretend you haven’t read that? What is a bigger concern, the way the info has come out, or the possibility of an attempted rapist on SCOTUS?

            And what is the rush? Scalia’s seat remained opened for months on end.

            Ellison will face the voters for a 4 year term. When will Kavanaugh face the voters for a lifetime term?

    • Submitted by Tom Anderson on 09/17/2018 - 09:46 pm.

      Speaking of which, what is the latest on Rep. Ellison’s scandal? Old news I guess.

      • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 09:58 am.

        The voters will be weighing in on that in November.

        As far as the open SCOTUS seat, voters will be weighing on that next… oh wait… voters will not have a say on that at all. Guess we should wait until after the 2020 elections to fill that seat. Gotta let the voters decide.

  6. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/17/2018 - 04:36 pm.

    I would predict that the Republicans will try to ram it through.
    Boorish behavior and lying are par for Trump’s course.
    And of course there are echos of Clarence Thomas.

    And to be fair, there’s a reason for statutes of limitations; it’s very hard to prove that something happened thirty-plus years ago. So unless someone comes up with a photo or tape, I suspect that the Republicans will try to bull it through, unless somehow the votes are not there, which would mean that no Democrats supported Kavanaugh and at least a couple of Republicans switched sides.

  7. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/17/2018 - 04:47 pm.

    This is a ridiculous and desperate ploy. Most rational people are ignoring it completely.

    Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and will be an excellent Justice.

    • Submitted by Joe Musich on 09/17/2018 - 07:18 pm.

      Would you take a lie detector test regarding wether he would be a excellent Justice ? Just asking. The question is would he be a good justice for all. Even prior to the revelation there was plenty of doubt on the part of many. But if a person has a certain predilection for managing healthcare, taxes, environment, and power for king’s I guess he could be your patriarch.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 09/17/2018 - 09:40 pm.

      When the next Obama, Clinton, Beto O’Rourke, Oprah, or Kamela Harris becomes president, will you be so enamored of a Supreme Court that has by then laid out the supremacy and impermeability of the the executive branch ?

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/19/2018 - 11:03 am.

        Barring accidental death of a justice, the next opportunity to tilt the court left will come in about 30 years. In 30 years, whatever insults a leftist court does to society will have no impact on me. So yeah, I’m good.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 07:32 am.

      What concerns me is that voters have not been able to weigh in on this vacancy.

      We should wait until after the elections in 2020. That’s the new norm.

  8. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 09/17/2018 - 06:11 pm.

    “Ridiculous and desperate ploy”? I think not. Ms. Ford deserves a hearing and the public needs to hear from this nominee because it does reflect on his qualifications for high office. If, as I suspect, the CO’s enablers in the Senate will ramrod this nomination through, they will do so for the reasons Eric has stated in the hope of consolidating the long hoped for right wing majority on the US Supreme Court. Never mind that this will permanently damage the Court as an important symbol of national unity and trust.

  9. Submitted by Tim Smith on 09/17/2018 - 08:15 pm.

    Am reminded of Justice Thomas’ brilliant rssponse to the alt left smear campaign against him, the high tech lynching speech so right n so eloquent. Cant imagine a fine man like justice garland supports this divisive vindictiveness.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/19/2018 - 09:13 am.

      Today’s lesson in American racial semantics: Justice Thomas referred to his hearings as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.” When done by a Republican, this is known as a “brilliant rssponse,” and “so right n so eloquent.” If a Democrat were to say anything like that, it would be dismissed as “playing the race card.”

      Really, folks, why would you expect it to make sense?

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/19/2018 - 12:39 pm.

        Only a fool looks for sense in anything government does anymore. It is, in every sense of the word, a cold war. .

        Once you understand that short of bloodletting (much, at least), there are no rules in this war, you can understand the goal: “Anything that moves the agenda “I” approve of is a win.”

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/19/2018 - 02:31 pm.

          There is something amoral about seeing “winning” as the only goal.

          This is not “war,” Mr. Senker. This is the governance of a representative democracy, one that has prided itself for over 200 years on the stability of its institutions and the orderly functioning of government. There are rules that we follow for that reason.

          I am disgusted to see the enthusiasm with which my fellow citizens have greeted the degradation of our nation into a cage match. This is not how it was supposed to be.

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 09/20/2018 - 10:31 am.

          Thank you for your honesty: The word is machiavellian, the end justifies the means, Whatever it takes to accomplish your goal, as you said war! No rules, no adherence to laws, no ethics, no morals, no honesty. I agree with you the “R” party plays it well.

  10. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 09/17/2018 - 08:41 pm.

    This old school delay and deny technique being used because of one word – “abortion.”

    This proves once again that the abortion issue should have been decided legislatively – not by the SCOTUS. Mr. Black – who allegedly is a great believer of “democracy” should agree with the above statement.

    At least voters could have a say and let science inform their decision making process regarding abortion.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/18/2018 - 08:36 am.

      It has been.
      Medical science says that human life begins at quickening, not conception.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/19/2018 - 09:17 am.

      We have become used to conservative dismissals of sexual assault as being a big issue, and torture is, of course, now just too cool for words. I would, however, have thought that Judge Kavanaugh’s expansive view of executive authority would have given real conservatives pause.

      Abortion is, of course, important. Can’t let the women decide what to do with their bodies, can we?

  11. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 09/17/2018 - 09:34 pm.

    You might be missing the fact that this is an excellent opportunity for the Republicans to mobilize for the mid-term. Poor Mr. Kavanaugh beset with (credible) rumors of gambling debts, sexual misconduct and lying under oath from the godless hordes of the left–of course these are the end days and we must fight and push on…

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 10:11 am.

      Oh there’s more. As recently as 2014, he gave a speech regaling listeners with tales of drunken escapades with his privileged Yale Law School chums.

      We all have things in our pasts we are not proud of, and would not recommend to others. But persons of high character and moral fiber don’t give speeches boasting of those past misdeeds.

      What has been presented to us as a paragon of virtue seems to have once been an alcohol fueled part boy, who looks on those days fondly.

  12. Submitted by Brian Scholin on 09/18/2018 - 07:50 am.

    It’s hard in this climate to be above suspicion, but I’ve got to believe there are good, qualified, judges who are. Likely even some conservative Republicans.

    Try to keep in mind that being on SCOTUS is a high honor, privilege, and duty, and not anyone’s right. He does not “deserve” this position anymore than you or I, and now it seems likely less. Find someone new who is above reproach.

  13. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 09/18/2018 - 08:27 am.

    Republicans traded moral credibility for supreme court justices a long time ago. What we are seeing today is the fulfillment of that bargain. It’s ugly, but Republicans are convinced of their own righteousness and they will find a way to let themselves off the moral hook.

  14. Submitted by joe smith on 09/18/2018 - 08:47 am.

    One question, if this is such a big deal why did Dianne Feinstein hold it until now.? She had the information in July. Please be specific because that makes no sense.

    • Submitted by Don Wallen on 09/18/2018 - 11:03 am.

      As I understand it:
      1. Senator Feinstein was asked to keep it confidential by Pof. Ford and she honored the request.
      2. She did not release it; it was leaked to an on-line news site.

    • Submitted by Hiram Foster on 09/18/2018 - 11:07 am.

      My understanding was that it was at the request of her constituent.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 12:22 pm.

      Mr. Smith, with all due respect, you seem to be suggesting that sexual assault is not such a big deal. Surly that is not what you intend.

      Would care to elaborate on that, please?

      • Submitted by joe smith on 09/18/2018 - 01:35 pm.

        No sexual assault is a big deal and that is why Feinstein should have released it. Who mysteriously leaked this info?

        • Submitted by ian wade on 09/18/2018 - 02:34 pm.

          Once again, you folks seem more outraged by the leak than the information contained within.

          • Submitted by joe smith on 09/20/2018 - 10:14 am.

            No I’m saying that if she wrote this letter with the intention of not being identified, why send it? First, Feinstein should not have leaked it, period! Secondly, without coming forward to explain herself, what did she expect would happen to an event she can’t remember where it happened, who was there and month or year it took place?
            Ian, I bet you would feel different if a person put your name out there to an event that happened 35 years ago without any facts that made you look bad.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/19/2018 - 09:20 am.

      Do you suppose this had anything to do with it?

      In the letter to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey’s lawyers said that she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats” since her name was made public on Sunday in an interview published in The Washington Post. Her email has been hacked, she has been impersonated online and she and her family have been forced to relocate out of their home, according to the lawyers, Ms. Banks and her partner, Debra S. Katz.

      You can spare us the “how about all the times leftists did stuff like that?” We’re talking about this occurrence now, not something you dredge up on conservativeswithhurtfeelings.com.

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/23/2018 - 09:38 am.

        And as with everything else related to this incident, we have nothing more that Ford’s uncorroborated word to take as evidence that any of this happened.

        It’s getting worn a bit thin.

  15. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/18/2018 - 10:12 am.

    Why the rush? SCOTUS seats can stay open for months on end. And as GOP senators told us in 2016, there is nothing that says there must be 9 justices.

    Let’s take our time and get it right. Let’s let the voters weigh in on this vacancy in 2020.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/18/2018 - 11:16 am.

      On off chance that no one has pointed this out yet, the White House won’t pull this nomination, it’s will up to the Senate, they’re ones who have to confirm him.

  16. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 09/18/2018 - 11:09 am.

    Timing is something we can always complain about because all events occur at some point in time. While it can be something that can be a factor in our deliberations, it is basic that truths are true no matter when we learn them.

  17. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 09/18/2018 - 12:08 pm.

    Just to add a woman’s voice to this discussion of whether it’s possible to hold accountable today–30-plus years later–a man who is accused of trying to rape a 15-year-old when he was 17:

    We women out here know that this Kavanaugh attempted rape is 99.99% certain to have happened. It happens all the time. Women keep quiet about their trauma, which marks them for life. Even an attempted rape marks them. For life. You never forget it.

    Some men get this. And some men know that they would never do, or countenance, the behavior Kavanaugh is said to have exhibited with Dr. Ford. An attempted rapist on the Court? Really?

    What appalls me is that the FBI has refused to investigate the claim against Kavanaugh (apparently, the excuse is that President Trump must issue the order to investigate, and of last night, he refused to order it), while the Senate GOP leaders are trying everything in their powerful white male book to prevent such an investigation or even an open hearing!

    Let’s not forget, too, that Kavanaugh has not been, from the outset, a strong SCOTUS nominee. Too many questions about his gambling and debts (who paid them, suddenly and recently?), his lying before the Senate in previous confirmation hearings and this set of hearings, his extraordinary and unnecessary prurience when he worked for Kenneth Starr, his outrageous behavior in the Garza case (he tried mightily to prevent a pregnant-from-a-rape Latina immigrant from having a legal abortion), and his Absolute Outlier stance on presidential immunity from any and all investigations.

    Maybe Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or Cornyn or Flake will find it in their GOP wisdom not to vote for him. And we can start over again with a decent candidate.

    • Submitted by ian wade on 09/18/2018 - 02:38 pm.

      Well stated, Connie. In my humble opinion, if a man has enough moral rot to attempt a sexual assault at any age, he’s not someone I’d want to pass judgement on others.

    • Submitted by Tim Smith on 09/18/2018 - 05:20 pm.

      He put season baseball tickets on a credit card for a group of ftiends(tickets for the Nationals are very expensive) and waited to pay it off until his friends paid him back. Whoopee !! Not that the truth matters.

      • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/19/2018 - 08:49 am.

        The questionable nature of Kavanaugh’s finances go far beyond Nat’s tickets. he has been living a lifestyle beyond his means, and he has not explained how he has managed to do that on a relatively modest judicial salary.

        A million dollar home, that has required extensive renovations, and membership in a private club that requires a $92K admission fee, two kids in a $10K/year tuition. It’s reasonable to ask how can afford all this, and if he has had a wealthy benefactor.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/24/2018 - 01:31 pm.

        In May 2017, Kavanaugh reported owing between $60,004 and $200,000 on three credit cards and a loan against his retirement account. By the time Trump nominated him to the high court in July 2018, those debts had gone away. He lives in an expensive house in an exclusive suburban neighborhood, has two kids in a $10,500-a-year private school, and is a member of the Chevy Chase Country Club reported to charge $92,000 in initiation fees, with annual dues of $9000.

        All on an annual salary of $220,600. The man must have some serious financial management chops.

  18. Submitted by cory johnson on 09/18/2018 - 08:49 pm.

    This is a hail mary attempt at delaying the vote until after the election. She and her Democrat activist lawyer are demanding an FBI investigation before she agrees to testify. Investigate a 30 year old he said/she said accusation? Ive got to admit the Democrats have played this perfectly for maximum effect. I assume every Democrat male ever accused of sexual assault will have to go away now?

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/19/2018 - 10:47 am.

      So, delaying the nomination of a SCOTUS nominee is a bad thing?

      You must have been really outraged by McConnell’s delaying Garland’s nomination. Oh wait, Garland was not delayed, he was outright denied. I guess McConnell “played this perfectly for maximum effect.”

      When will conservatives realize that when they trow out he norms, they don’t get to hold the other side to norms that no longer exist? Amy Klobuchar may play the game with one hand ties behind her back, but the rest of us won’t.

      • Submitted by cory johnson on 09/19/2018 - 11:15 am.

        The Republican majority didn’t try to destroy Garlands’s reputation using a dubious 30 year old unprovable accusation. But the Democrats have proven time and again there isn’t a low point. If this works I’d recommend all boys records every interaction they have for the rest of their lives.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/19/2018 - 02:25 pm.

          “But the Democrats have proven time and again there isn’t a low point.” You don’t think attempted rape is a lower point than that? Good Lord.

          “If this works I’d recommend all boys records every interaction they have for the rest of their lives.” Because you never know when someone is going to take an attempt to force a girl into sex the wrong way, right?

        • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 09/19/2018 - 02:56 pm.

          Channeling my inner John McEnroe, You cannot be serious!

          Don Trump bragged about grabbing a woman’s genitals. And you say Democrats have proven there is no low point?

          Right.

    • Submitted by ian wade on 09/19/2018 - 12:52 pm.

      It says a lot for what currently passes for conservatives that they’re okay with fast-tracking a SCOTUS nominee that might be a sexual predator. I recall when the GOP actually stood for something rather than backing liars, tyrants and corruption. Good times…

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/24/2018 - 01:25 pm.

        We old timers with a taste for the arcana of Senate judicial confirmations remember the strange case of Douglas Ginsburg, and why his nomination to SCOTUS flamed out so quickly.

        Of course, that was before judicial nominations became “war.”

  19. Submitted by Joe Musich on 09/20/2018 - 02:59 pm.

    Has the GOP gone lower today! But like what is said about the Minnesota weather wait 5 min.

  20. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/21/2018 - 05:59 pm.

    “now that she has passed an FBI lie detector test Ms. Ford deserves to tell her story under oath”

    Where do people come up with this stuff?

    She submitted to a friendly, private test. The FBI has no interest.

Leave a Reply