Can someone tell me what options the Democrats have to stop confirmation of

[bluestarone]

Brett Kavanaugh? Can they ask him to recuse himself from Muellers investigation? How many votes needed to confirm? TY in advance!

[Amishman]

1. Options? none. The Pubs can do it without any democrats voting

There are no procedural hurdles that can be mounted.

The only thing we can do is try to make Kavanaugh look so terrible that one or more Republicans has an attack of conscience. This will be difficult as while Kavanaugh is objectionable as a person, he is qualified when measured strictly in terms of credentials and experience.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

3. You maybe mistaken amishman.. for sure if we knew, we wouldnt telecast it to every repub

lurking on a highly intelligent liberal page. We arent doing their work for them anymore...hopefully.

[john657]

8. there really isn't any obstacle to throw in the path of Kavanaugh's confirmation,

the pubs have the simple majority they need and probably 2 to 3 dems will vote to confirm also.

[Amishman]

15. i'm not mistaken. They need 50, and there are 50 republican senators

If McCain's seat is filled in time, then they have one to spare.

There are no procedural tricks that will work. The quorum one which has been floated several times would not work, as one of ours would need to be present to call quorum into question. If we tried calling the vote and running, the Sergeant at Arms will just follow and forcibly bring the Senator to the floor (it's been done before).

We are at their mercy on this one.

[Towlie]

61. There must be something because they're running a TV ad pleading their case for Kavanaugh.

Why would they spend money airing a testimonial if they didn't see a need for public approval? I've seen it on MSNBC.

[john657]

62. Probably to encourage the citizens of red state dems to call

their Senators to vote for Kavanaugh.

[Amishman]

65. I see those ads as using Kavanaugh to motivate their base for Nov

Conservatives care a lot about filling the courts with right wing judges. Making court appointments a focus of conversation helps motivate their base and turns discussion away from the dumpster fire at 1600 Pennsylvania

[john657]

2. Barring a major scandal on Kavanaugh's part,

not much they can do to stop it and, it takes only a simple majority of Senators to confirm an SC appointment.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

4. Really?

Welcome to DU.

[john657]

5. Yeah really.

And thank you for the welcome.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

6. We shall see.

[john657]

10. Yes, we shall.

I fervently hope he isn't comfirmed, but I'm also a realist, there isn't a damned thing the Dems can do to stop it unless they can get a few pubs to flip, and at this point, that's unlikely.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

12. You dont know what you dont know john.

[john657]

14. I'm very well aware of the procedure of confirming a SC nominee,

and I say with great confidence that there's really nothing the Dems can do to stop a vote on BK's confirmation.

[WillowTree]

18. You seem to think there's some magical way to block confirmation by the Republicans.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

19. i dont know what i dont know....as well.

least i can say that.

[john657]

20. This poster is just blowing smoke, IMO. N/T

[WillowTree]

25. You will find that I never argue with you when you're right. :-)

[john657]

28. Ditto. N/T

[FSogol]

39. There is but it involved everyone getting off their ass and voting for HRC in the last election.

A lot of people couldn't be bothered.

[john657]

41. This.

The time to stop him, as one poster already said on this thread, was in 2016, and we blew it big time.

[GulfCoast66]

7. Not a damned thing.

[Frustratedlady]

9. If Kavanaugh is so qualified, what are the Republicans trying to hide?

The Democrats can't get the documents they request. Why? It sure smells fishy.

Isn't there some other way they can get them?

[john657]

11. Not really. N/T

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

13. damn john...where have you been? we need an answer guy like you.

ahem.

[john657]

17. Well, you seem to have an answer,

why don't you tell us how to stop his confirmation?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

16. A foia request from the post office revealed a persons security clearance form...but

ZOTS on old kavanaugh. the dems arent going to show their hand. this is wayyyy too big to give out the goods like we always do.

[john657]

21. Uh Huh. N/T

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

24. Is there a point to this johnny?

maybe you can go down the ops and answer everything bc we need somebody like you, a revolutionary thinker. Ill wait to see what else you can do. GREAT answers so far. cheerio.

[john657]

27. Well, I've given more answers than you have,

so far, all you've offered is, well, nothing, except a vague innuendo on how to stop his confirmation, but when pressed to clarify, you come up with snark, nothing more.

[FBaggins]

30. How many documents involved in that FOIA request?

And how long did it take to receive the response?

If you knew the answers to those two questions (and the comparable numbers for the Kavanaugh request) you would realize that there is no chance of that being useful in stopping him.

You can play “not going to show their hand” games all night, but the simple fact is that the ONLY way he gets stopped is if two or more Republican senators vote against him... and right now we aren’t sure that there aren’t a handful of Democrats voting for him.

[bluestarone]

32. I'm sure your right BUT

It really blows my mind why ANY DEM would consider voting for this asshole!!!!!

[FBaggins]

45. That's easy enough

They prefer to keep their seat representing a state where the majority of their constituents WANT them to vote for him.

[WillowTree]

46. Which answers the question from another thread.......

…….as to why the administration is running "support Kavanaugh" TV ads. To urge people to press their Senators to vote for him.

[bluestarone]

22. When we win the house can we issue any subpeona's

to investigate his background?

[WillowTree]

26. If he's already been confirmed and seated, what would be he point?

[Recursion]

23. None. This was why our hair was on fire in 2014

Not a damn thing they can do in this case.

[emulatorloo]

29. The day to stop Kavanaugh was Election Day 2016.

[Grasswire2]

31. refuse to constitute a quorum

No quorum, no vote.

Of course (and there is precedent) the U.S. Marshals may be sent to find the Senator and bring him to the chamber. (Foot first, once)

[bluestarone]

33. If this would work to stall till after midterms THAT

would be awesome!! Each Democratic senator take a turn???

[Grasswire2]

37. see the articles linked below for strategy nt

[john657]

34. You can bet that the pubs have already anticipated that

and are prepared for that scenario.

[WillowTree]

35. And how do you accomplish that?

You don't think that all remaining Republicans will make it a point to show up? Because they will know when a vote is going to be called and they know how important this vote is for them.

[Grasswire2]

36. No, no, no.

Of course all the Republicans are there. 49 of them.

But a few Dems just go missing.


Part one: ][link:https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/6/20/17480304/how-democrats-can-shut-down-senatehttp://|


Part two: [link:https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/7/3/17518824/democrats-shut-down-senate-supreme-court-quorum-breaking|

[WillowTree]

38. Count again.

[john657]

40. Your count is a little off,

there are 50 pubs, soon to be 51 after the late Sen. John McCain's successor is named.

That's your quorum,

[bluestarone]

42. The way there treating McCain maybe

His replacement will join to be absent? (wonder who it will be?)

[WillowTree]

43. They'd still have 50, plus the one Democrat who suggested the absence of a quorum.

Voila! There's their quorum.

[john657]

44. Highly unlikely,

the AZ governor will make sure to appoint a pub that's in line with Trump's agenda.

Also, there are a few red state Dems up for re-election that will probably vote for confirmation, as they did with Gorsuch.

[Recursion]

48. Sergeant at Arm's, btw, not US Marshalls

The other weakness of this idea is that somebody has to actually call for a quorum call, which means they have to be there.

[Grasswire2]

67. In 1988, it was the Capitol police.

"On February 24, 1988, in an attempt to establish a quorum on a campaign finance reform bill, Capitol police carried Oregon Republican Senator Robert Packwood into the chamber feet first at 1:17 a.m."

That's from the [link:https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Quorum_busting.htm|

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Not a gd thing. 2016 was the time to stop it, but many here & elsewhere declared they wouldn't be..

threatened into voting for the Democratic candidate because of what Trump might do with the highest court in the land. They thought they were teaching Democrats a lesson, but I fear they're the ones getting schooled right about now. No amount of screaming at Senate Democrats to do what could have been avoided will stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.

[oberliner]

49. Get Republicans to vote against him

[OnDoutside]

50. Would it not be possible for Democrats to blow up over the non handing over of all those documents,

with the threat that they would immediately launch an investigation into Kavanaugh, potentially leading to impeachment, when Dems retake the Senate, if those documents aren't handed over ?

I'd be laying the groundwork now, to a "WhatsHeHiding"/WhatAboutHerEmails" investigation into Kavanaugh ?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

51. Still need 67 votes to convict in the Senate

And that's not going to happen.

[OnDoutside]

66. At least his reputation would be utterly destroyed. I'd settle for that.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

52. None

It takes a simple majority to confirm.

Trying to deny quorum wouldn't stop it. Senate rules assume a quorum is present unless a vote is requested. No GOP senator will do that. It will take a Dem Senator to do that, at which point their presence along with the all the GOP senators, is enough for quorum. They could try to run out, but as a few already said, they would simply be chased down and dragged back into the Senate.

Dems could ask Kavanaugh to recuse, and he could claim he would, but there is no way to force him to recuse. SCOTUS is not bound by the US Code of Conduct for Judges. SCOTUS Justices have the ability to recuse, but it is entirely up to them do so.

[Trueblue Texan]

53. It's all well and good to keep spouting 2016...

...was the time to stop the Kavanaugh appointment. But it's not what was asked and it's a completely useless and discouraging answer. I still believe in the value of calling your senator. True they probably don't give a damn about your opinion if it doesn't match their own but you will be registering your complaints and letting them know where at least some of their constituents stand. It may be true there's not much we can do to prevent the appointment, but we should do what we can even if we have little faith in the efficacy of our actions. We cannot give up. No matter what.

[still_one]

55. All we need to do is elect the democratic nominee in 2016, and vote for those swing states

Democrats in 2016 againt the incumbent, establishment, Republican

We all know if there is no other issue to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, the Supreme Court would be that issue

[WillowTree]

56. And you can bet that the Supreme Court.......

.......was the one thing that ultimately decided the matter for people on the other side, too.

[still_one]

57. which people were that? The 47% who couldn't bother to vote? How about those self-identified

progressives that refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting. It wasn't important enough for them either I guess

[WillowTree]

58. I don't understand your post.......or your apparent pique.

All I was saying is that there were people, I know some of them, who will tell you that they didn't care much for Trump, but that they voted for him because they didn't want a Democrat, Hillary or any other Democrat, to appoint more SC justices. I wasn't challenging what you said at all.

[still_one]

59. I understand what they are saying, and I am saying if there was no other reason to vote Democratic

in 2016 the SC should have been reason enough. Hell, it should have been reason enough in 2000.

As to your assceretion that those people who voted for trump, some of them didn't care much for trump, and that may be true, but they also didn't bother them to vote for someone who was a racist, sexist, or bigot, and that speaks volumes to me about them.


and while I may offend some with my analogy, this was the same mindset of those in Germany in the 30's.

People can rationalize any excuse they want, but in the end they voted for a racist, and they can't run away from that.

and while I have nothing positive to say about the 47% who didn't vote, at least they didn't vote for a racist

[bluestarone]

60. I'm thinking is there ANYTHING in Kavanaugh's background that

Would derail his confirmation? ( with the papers they want released) NO chance at all?

[john657]

63. Only if it's a major scandal,

otherwise.............

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

64. Its possible

But I wouldn't hold my breath. This isnt the first time he has been vetted before. The DC circuit he currently sits on is widely considered the 2nd most important and powerful court after the Supreme Court. He was vetted for that appointment, then likely again before his inclusion on Trumps list. But there is always a chance something got overlooked.