SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[hobbsyoyo]

Murkowski officially opposes Kavanaugh and will vote no on the final vote.

 

[sophie]

So we're just waiting on Collins, and she just had lunch with McConnell and he says he feels confident the confirmation will pass through. Well, Manchin hasn't spoken on his vote yet either, but if Collins is yes he'll almost certainly be yes too.

 

[bernie14]

....... Or perhaps you honestly believe that Donald Trump getting his "win" is a legitimate reason for Kavanaugh to refuse to support an investigation - to, in effect, debase and entirely de-legitimate the confirmation proceedings and by extension the Court itself?

..... reminds me of "the otter defense"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Flake confirmed he will vote Yes.

 

[sophie]

Flake confirmed he will vote Yes.

I'm anticipating Collins announcing she'll vote yes at 3 with Manchin's yes soon to follow. I don't see Flake voting to confirm unless he's also confident the others will follow suit.

 

[Sommerswerd]

IDK how good the Rasmussen poll is

It's not. Rasmussen is well known to be junk-poll partisan hackery, that is FOX News' go-to when they need propaganda to support whatever point they are trying to make. However that does not mean that the overall end-result they give is necessarily wrong... even their made up "results" sometimes mirror the results of legitimate polls. In this case I think that the Kavanaugh hearings energizing Republicans is a real thing.

I'm actually okay with the "legitimate conservatives" being replaced by the reactionary and evil. The legitimate conservatives have long since demonstrated that they will go along with whatever the reactionary and evil want anyway, so long as they get an occasional bone...and the only bones they get are the ones that the reactionary and evil can get behind anyway. Shifting demographics will put paid to the reactionary and evil more easily than the "legitimate conservatives," so in the long run it works out better faster.

This is a perfect illustration of why I said I'm not particularly concerned with Manchin losing his seat to a Republican. His vote today confirmed what I suspected about him.

So we're just waiting on Collins, and she just had lunch with McConnell and he says he feels confident the confirmation will pass through. Well, Manchin hasn't spoken on his vote yet either, but if Collins is yes he'll almost certainly be yes too.

As I've said, Manchin will vote with the Republicans because that's the cynical self-serving thing to do. What's a little irritating is that Manchin's vote allows McConell to call the nomination "bipartisan", which he absolutely will do at the first opportunity.

I'm anticipating Collins announcing she'll vote yes at 3 with Manchin's yes soon to follow. I don't see Flake voting to confirm unless he's also confident the others will follow suit.

I never thought for a minute that Flake's vote was in play. He has been upfront from the outset that he 100% wanted to vote for Kavanaugh. He was just grandstanding and holding out for as big a bribe as possible, which has evidently, been delivered.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So we may inform them that Republicans hold a 51 seat majority, lost Murkowsky but gained Manchin and have to do without Daines tommorow (and likely will).

Daines has stated that he will vote. He will attend his daughter's wedding ceremony and then leave before the reception. A member of the US House from his State (Montana), Rep. Greg Gianforte has graciously offered Daines the use of his private jet in order to whisk him back to Washington to cast a vote in favor of Kavanaugh.

Also, and I'm not trying to pick on you here, I'm still not clear on how you believe that the Democrats had any way to delay this past the midterms. The story broke publicly on Sept. 16th, or thereabouts. 7 weeks from the midterms. Time estimates on a thorough investigation with FBI buy-in on providing significant resources were 2 weeks. There is simply no credible claim to make that Democrats ever thought they could delay this past November, even if they got the investigation they requested.

As I've said, I think the only remotely plausible goal of a delay-to-the-midterms strategy would be as follows (Its convoluted so bear with me):

Delay the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing as long as possible through all available procedural vehicles (about 90 days). That gets you from July to October. Then defeat the nomination somehow, making the Republicans start over with a new nominee. That gets you to January, assuming that the Republicans are willing to keep Congress in session through the Thanksgiving and December holidays. Meanwhile, the Democrats win the Senate (highly unlikely, but stay with me on this) and the new Senate takes their seats on Jan 3.

So in theory every day that the nomination drags into October brings the Republicans one more day into January, until eventually (which is right about today) you reach a point where the Democrats could theoretically delay a new nominee past the point where the new Senate, (which again, they would have had to have won for any of this to make sense) takes their seats, and promptly scuttles any pending Trump nominee and then refuses to give any additional nominees a hearing, until we "let the people decide" aka the Merrick Garland strategy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is a perfect illustration of why I said I'm not particularly concerned with Manchin losing his seat to a Republican. His vote today confirmed what I suspected about him. As I've said, Manchin will vote with the Republicans because that's the cynical self-serving thing to do.

Do you really think that if it comes down to Manchin's vote being the deciding vote that he would vote with the Republicans? On the other hand, if he is replaced by Morrisey there wouldn't be any question about which way it would go, deciding vote or not.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Do you really think that if it comes down to Manchin's vote being the deciding vote that he would vote with the Republicans? On the other hand, if he is replaced by Morrisey there wouldn't be any question about which way it would go, deciding vote or not.

It's not a question of "if". That's literally the situation we have right now. The count was 48-47 in favor. Heitkamp announced she was a woman no vote, making it 48-48, then Flake got the bribe he had been holding out for and announced the yes vote we all knew he was committed to making, bringing it to 49-48. Then Murkowski announced she was a woman no vote, making it tied 49-49. Any yes vote brings it to 50, which automatically confirms Kavanaugh cause Pence... so Manchin is literally the deciding vote now.

And yes he will vote with the Republicans cause like I said... might as well be Republican.

Also... I've got to hand the grandstanding crown to Collins, who is giving a big speech just to announce her vote. Jeez, what a circus.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not a question of "if". That's literally the situation we have right now. The count was 48-47 in favor. Heitkamp announced she was a woman no vote, making it 48-48, then Flake got the bribe he had been holding out for and announced the yes vote we all knew he was committed to making, bringing it to 49-48. Then Murkowski announced she was a woman no vote, making it tied 49-49. Any yes vote brings it to 50, which automatically confirms Kavanaugh cause Pence... so Manchin is literally the deciding vote now.

He won't vote yes unless Collins does, so that makes her the deciding vote.

 

[sophie]

No Susan Collins. You cannot have it both ways. Either you think she was telling the truth or you think she was lying.

YOU
CANNOT
HAVE
IT
BOTH
WAYS

 

[Sommerswerd]

He won't vote yes unless Collins does, so that makes her the deciding vote.

She won't vote no unless he does, which makes him the deciding vote.

FTR I think he might still vote yes, even if she voted no first.

 

[metalhead]

Daines has stated that he will vote. He will attend his daughter's wedding ceremony and then leave before the reception. A member of the US House from his State (Montana), Rep. Greg Gianforte has graciously offered Daines the use of his private jet in order to whisk him back to Washington to cast a vote in favor of Kavanaugh.
As I've said, I think the only remotely plausible goal of a delay-to-the-midterms strategy would be as follows (Its convoluted so bear with me):

Delay the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing as long as possible through all available procedural vehicles (about 90 days). That gets you from July to October. Then defeat the nomination somehow, making the Republicans start over with a new nominee. That gets you to January, assuming that the Republicans are willing to keep Congress in session through the Thanksgiving and December holidays. Meanwhile, the Democrats win the Senate (highly unlikely, but stay with me on this) and the new Senate takes their seats on Jan 3.

So in theory every day that the nomination drags into October brings the Republicans one more day into January, until eventually (which is right about today) you reach a point where the Democrats could theoretically delay a new nominee past the point where the new Senate, (which again, they would have had to have won for any of this to make sense) takes their seats, and promptly scuttles any pending Trump nominee and then refuses to give any additional nominees a hearing, until we "let the people decide" aka the Merrick Garland strategy.

That all hinges on actually defeating the nomination, which it appears they are not going to do.

My discussion with El Mac was premised on Kavanaugh being totally innocent. He was claiming that an innocent Kavanaugh would nevertheless be understandably reluctant to call for a full FBI investigation of the allegations against him, because of it causing undue delay in him being confirmed.

My rebuttal is that there is NFW the Democrats could have pushed this to even past the midterms, let alone all the way to January, if Kavanaugh were innocent and they took the time to investigate. Thereby making the "he didn't want to cause delay" reason for Kavanaugh's refusal to agree to such an investigation BS.

I think Democrats were very much animated by the thought of defeating this nomination and then winning back the Senate on a moonshot, throwing a huge monkey wrench into the works of nominating judges and justices. But there is zero reasonable basis to conclude that Kavanaugh himself was opposing an independent investigation because he was innocent but worried it would take too long. Especially since, as he said himself, his reputation has been tarnished. An investigation clearing him could undo at least some of that damage. And yet?

 

[AdrienIer]

I think it's a mistake to be against red state democrats for not being reliable enough in their votes. Most of the 2010 and 2014 losses were in red states, and now the democrats are realizing that there just aren't enough blue states to have a majority in the senate. The current possible majority depends on people like Tester, Manchin, Donelly, McCaskill etc who aren't going to be super reliable, especially on more left wing policies like universal healthcare. But you're going to have a hard time getting senators from those states that are actual progressives (O'Rourke being a possible exception, but Texas is getting less and less red), so better them than a super solid republican majority.

 

[bernie14]

That's some hard-hitting analysis right there.

...and eloquently stated by senator collins.

Heres more hard hitting analysis, haters gonna hate

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it's a mistake to be against red state democrats for not being reliable enough in their votes. Most of the 2010 and 2014 losses were in red states, and now the democrats are realizing that there just aren't enough blue states to have a majority in the senate. The current possible majority depends on people like Tester, Manchin, Donelly, McCaskill etc who aren't going to be super reliable, especially on more left wing policies like universal healthcare. But you're going to have a hard time getting senators from those states that are actual progressives (O'Rourke being a possible exception, but Texas is getting less and less red), so better them than a super solid republican majority.

Meh ... death-by-Piano-dropped-from-10-stories, death by 1000 cuts... to-may-to, to-mah-to.

EDIT: Collins is officially a yes vote

 

[AdrienIer]

Meh ... death-by-Piano-dropped-from-10-stories, death by 1000 cuts... to-may-to, to-mah-to.

It sucks, but out of the Clinton states only 3 have a republican in the senate, the rest being 2 dems. There are just more red states. You could argue that according to the presidential results the dems could target a seat in NC AZ and maybe GA but that's it. The rest of the states are really red, and require either an extraordinary candidate or an unreliable centrist to win seats there, some of which already having one of those.

Is Flake the last republican who hasn't officially said he'd vote yes ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Meh ... death-by-Piano-dropped-from-10-stories, death by 1000 cuts... to-may-to, to-mah-to.

EDIT: Collins is officially a yes vote

Look at the Tennessee senate race. The Democrat would certainly be an "unreliable" vote. As governor he opposed the ACA, but once it passed did his best to make it work in Tennessee; his commitment on the environment is balanced against a commitment to Tennessee style energy, which is black and comes out of the ground; and that's pretty typical of his performance. On the other hand, the Republican openly states that she will vote however Trump tells her to vote. Legalize rape, she's in. Nuke Tennessee, she's in. Whatever Trump says goes. So, which sounds better to you?

 

[sophie]

It sucks, but out of the Clinton states only 3 have a republican in the senate, the rest being 2 dems. There are just more red states. You could argue that according to the presidential results the dems could target a seat in NC AZ and maybe GA but that's it. The rest of the states are really red, and require either an extraordinary candidate or an unreliable centrist to win seats there, some of which already having one of those.

Is Flake the last republican who hasn't officially said he'd vote yes ?

Flake said he'd vote yes earlier today. We're just waiting on Manchin, the Dem from WV, but his vote doesn't really matter at this point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is Flake the last republican who hasn't officially said he'd vote yes ?

I thought he went yes even before Murkowski went no.