Next Step in the Kavanaugh Confirmation: Pretending

Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the Senate. Everything between last night and that vote is theater and pretend.

President Trump made a solid pick in his choice of Brett Kavanaugh for the United States Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was not my top choice, and I do not think he is as Clarence Thomas like in his conservatism as some claim, but he will be to the right of Kennedy and another in a long list of sharp legal minds on the Court.

In fact, it is rare to see a judge elevated to the Supreme Court who has so influenced the Supreme Court. Both liberal and conservative justices on the Court have heeded Kavanaugh's opinions from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That's the sign of a great legal mind, whether or not you agree with Kavanaugh on any one decision. He is likewise highly regarded already by his future colleagues and others, including on the left, even though everyone recognizes he is on the right.

I say "future colleagues" intentionally because what happens next is Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed. But between now and his confirmation vote, there will be a grand and elaborate kabuki theater of pretend drama.

Democrats will claim to need more time to vet Kavanaugh, though they have already come out against him and declared their minds made up.

Republicans will first humor the Democrats' request for more information, but will eventually declare the Democrats are stalling.

Democrats will use allies in the press to run salacious stories selectively excerpting and mendaciously describing Kavanaugh opinions. Democrat groups will fundraise off all this. The Democrat base will take to the streets. The Women's March organizers, who sent out their press release with "XX" as the name of the nominee indicating they wrote it in advance, will take to the streets.

Then the red garments will come out as Democrats march in Handmaid's Tale outfits claiming Donald Trump and all the men on the Supreme Court will impose the Republic of Gilead on us, and women will be forced into homes and out of jobs.

Republicans will mock this and feminists will get angry at the deserved mockery. I'll make a coat hanger joke and be subjected to the "we respected you once" tweets from liberals who won't unfollow me.

Democrats will go through a dog and pony show in the Judiciary Committee where they ask tough questions of Kavanaugh to give them material for their 2020 runs. Kavanaugh will pretend to attempt serious answers and Democrats will pretend to not be reading their scripts getting ready for their next question while Kavanaugh talks.

Then they'll all denounce him again, say they won't vote for him, and demand delays while they fundraise.

And then… Kavanaugh will get more than 50 votes to be the next Supreme Court Justice. He'll be confirmed.

Everything between now and then will be about exciting the bases of the parties for November and Democrats auditioning for 2020. But Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and the confirmation will happen before the Supreme Court convenes again.

No. 1-13

@Spindletop, thank you for your reasoned and eloquent response. May I assume that you do not believe a nominee should be asked how he or she would vote on any issue?

The other day I saw a clip of RBG in her confirmation hearing when she was asked how she would vote on something and she basically told the questioner to go pound sand. It was a great response, and should just be played as a response every time a question like that is asked.

I suggest reading "Men In Black" by Mark Levin. I am not a Levin fan, when it comes to listening to his show. He is very smart and makes a lot of good points but his style is offensive to me. However, he is a very good author, and this was a really good book, well researched and well written, about the Supreme Court from its beginnings to the date the book was written, which was about ten years ago.

As for "lifetime positions" I think that has to change.


That's not what I'm implying at all. My point is that both houses of congress have long operated under a set of rules and norms that help to ensure that legislation isn't enacted and repealed every time control changes hands, and that unfit judges don't get appointed to lifetime positions (regardless of their political leanings). In the past 20-30 years we've seen these rules and norms slowly start to fall away as the parties try to one-up each other or exact revenge over past slights. Changing the rules governing judicial appointments, such as Reid and McConnell have done, is dragging the judiciary further into a partisan arena where it doesn't belong. Judicial nominees should go through the confirmation process and get up or down votes, regardless of who nominated them or who controls the Senate at any given time. This is not a partisan issue. This is a basic civics issue.


@Spindletop, there seems to be the impression that the seat was rightfully Garland's and that he was cheated out of it. His nomination was not "held hostage". It was never his position.

You also seem to be implying (and correct me if I am wrong) that the goal for the Court, to some people, is to be able to use it to enact laws that have not or could not be passed by Congress. To shore up the Leftist agenda, so to speak.

I think it is this attitude toward the Court that is going to undergo a change, albeit slow one, over the years---at least if the justices write opinions cogent enough to be quoted and understood, so people can see that wanting a Court there just to rubber stamp agendas is not a good thing, but an objective Court applying actual Constitutional standards equally IS, even if sometimes there is a wish that the ruling had been different.

But as long as we have a strident Complicit Agenda Media telling the public what the Left wants it to believe, instead of the truth, nothing is going to change. There are people who still believe Roe legalized abortion. There are still people who believe Citizens United ruled that a corporation is a person.


This is the most likely scenario. Ultimately Schumer isn't going to spend too much time opposing a nominee who keeps the court roughly at equilibrium.

I do think, however, that the GOP will eventually pay a price for holding the Merrick Garland nomination hostage. Just like McConnell promised that Harry Reid would live to regret changing the barrier for lower court nominations from 60 to 51, McConnell will regret doing the same for SCOTUS when the Democrats eventually regain power and find a legislative way to add an additional 2-4 justices to the court.


It certainly won't be a 50-49 vote to confirm. (I don't expect Sen. McCain to set foot outside Arizona again). Either you'll get Collins or Murkowski to vote no in which case he will be rejected, or if the Republicans stay united, Schumer will give permission for the Red State Dems to break...