General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: They told Gore not to investigate the 2000 election for the good of the country.. [View all]JHB
(37,158 posts)...an action undertaken with dubious foundation -- when they knew they did not have the votes to remove him from office -- to pander to, as I like to put it, the Salome faction of their party, for whom they could not deliver his head on a plate.
I also think Kavanaugh's case is different from Bush's, since Kavanaugh's office is a lifetime appointment. I don't necessarily agree with you about how an impeachment of Bush would have played out -- nor do I necessarily disagree, either -- but that "off the table" business was the worst of both worlds.
I don't advocate doing nothing. Kavanugh's personal violations of the law and court standards should be one of the bass drums we thump, along with the corrupt manner in which he was installed on the court, the illegitimacy of him and Gorsuch, and the fact that no decision where they make deciding votes can be taken as precedent.
Can he be impeached more than once for the same offenses? I don't think so, but I'm not an expert. If I'm correct in that, then just going ahead with it would be toothless, and they'll brazen it out as they usually do. The impeachment option should be kept open. Not "off the table". Not "keeping our powder dry". Open and available, until the ground is better prepared to remove him other conservative judges with clear legal and ethical issues.
Now, there might be circumstances where moving ahead with an impeachment despite a likely failure to remove that might change my mind about when to do so, but that's going to require us retaking the House so that full, thorough, and unhindered investigation can be done.