Kavanaugh may well be voted in. Here's a post I just made on The Hill.

[PatrickforO]

(I made this post in response to the criticism being levied at Cory Booker for releasing those emails).

When Obama put forward the nomination of Merrick Garland and McConnell purposely did not allow any 'advice and consent,' it made a mockery of Senate precedent. Garland was qualified, but McConnell showed he cares more about the political advantage of his own party than he does about this nation or its people.

Then, in 2017, he ramrodded the vote on Neil Gorsuch, and now he's trying to ram Kavanaugh, who is even more partisan than Gorsuch, down our throats. This in spite of the fact that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in at least eight counts of money laundering and bank fraud, and in spite of the current constitutional crisis where members of Trump's own administration think him incompetent and are purposely sabotaging his agenda.

In light of the latter, the nomination of Kavanaugh should not even be considered.

When the Democratic party takes power again, which it will, I'm going to be advocating impeaching these two justices, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, and bringing back Merrick Garland as the nominee - because there is NO NO NO excuse for McConnell to fail to do his job and not allow the advice and consent of Garland.

In addition, I believe McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate should be the subjects of ethics investigations because to my mind the partisanship they displayed by not considering Garland was despicable.

[Dawson Leery]

1. k/r

[RhodeIslandOne]

2. What are the grounds for impeachment of a Supreme Court judge?

I'm curious if groundwork is already being laid.

[john657]

3. The one that comes immediately to mind,

lying under oath, the problem would be getting the 67 votes to convict and remove, and I just don't see that happening.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Rachel Maddow just said that he can be impeached

for lying to the senate in the past and they have proof of it!

[john657]

6. Very true,

but try to get 67 Senators to convict and remove him.
Not going to happen in our life time, at least not in my life time.

[lastlib]

9. Whatever Congress says is grounds for impeachment.

I'm not trying to be flippant. Anything that's not "good behavior" can become a basis for impeachment. Constitution specifies that federal judges hold their seats "during good behavior". The House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate has sole power to try impeachments. That's pretty much the whole Constitutional framework, so it falls to Congress to define what is impeachable.

Fifteen Federal judges have been impeached. Eight have been convicted and removed; four have been acquitted, and three have resigned before trial in the Senate. Causes have ranged from intoxication on the bench to mis-use of office to perjury, bribery, tax fraud, judicial misconduct, etc. Perjury and lying to Congress may be the operative offenses in regard to Kavanaugh, with maybe some judicial misconduct thrown in for good measure.

[forgotmylogin]

11. True - I believe a SCJ cannot rule during impeachment proceedings?

I thought I read that but I may be wrong. If there's a mountain of evidence that could drag on for a year-long investigation and spill details of Kavanaugh's entire career, he might just resign.

[appalachiablue]

5. K & R. Good job. Mitch expects Senate to vote Sept. 21, Kav in Oct. 1.

Sept. 11--9/11 is next Tuesday, sigh.

[Ilsa]

7. I was listening to Thom Hartmann today and he commented

that Justice Roberts lied under oath as did Thomas and others on the Court. He seemed to think that nothing would happen regarding lying under oath. It's a new norm for judges now, just like politicians.

[Codeine]

8. Of course he will be. There was never any question.

Did anybody really think the Republicans would vote otherwise?

[Hortensis]

23. Yes. AK and ME both are 2/3 pro abortion.

Murkowski and Collins are lying through their teeth right now, pretending they believe Kavanaugh would protect the right to abortion. They're claiming to protect women's rights while intending to vote for a man they know would criminalize abortion, with probable very lengthy prison terms resulting in many states.

Strip away the plausible deniability Murkowski and Collins have tried to create, and both will be in grave trouble if either votes to confirm this weasel. Democrats are working hard to do just that. I'm guessing if one broke, the other would have to. She can't have her new identity for life be the woman who took down Roe v. Wade.

Blabby Trump isn't helping them. He's going around saying he's appointing antiabortion ("pro life" ) justices.

Then there are the other issues. It's become clear the reason, or a huge one, Kavanaugh wasn't on either of the first two Heritage Foundation lists is his very dirty and extensively documented background, both illegal and unethical acts and extremist views. That's why all they're hiding everything they can about who he really is and what's he's done. And why we're exposing it.

The vote is expected to come some time after September 20 and before the new SCOTUS term begins October 1.

[Hortensis]

24. NYT Editorial Board: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can't Be Trusted

A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth.

In a more virtuous world, Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be deeply embarrassed by the manner in which he has arrived at the doorstep of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

He was nominated by a president who undermines daily the nation’s democratic order and mocks the constitutional values that Judge Kavanaugh purports to hold dear.

Now he’s being rammed through his confirmation process with an unprecedented degree of secrecy and partisan maneuvering by Republican senators who, despite their overflowing praise for his legal acumen and sterling credentials, appear terrified for the American people to find out much of anything about him beyond his penchant for coaching girls’ basketball.

Perhaps most concerning, Judge Kavanaugh seems to have trouble remembering certain important facts about his years of service to Republican administrations. More than once this week, he testified in a way that appeared to directly contradict evidence in the record.

Continued at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/opinion/editorials/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html

This really is an extraordinary situation, that such an extremist dirtbag is actually in nomination hearings for a lifetime appointment to ANY seat. Dishonorable, archconservative Bork is looking like the fine conservative scholar Republicans like to claim he was compared to Kavanaugh.

[byronius]

10. I heartily agree. Let's restore democracy and get the Russians out of our politics.

Grrrrr.

[blue-wave]

12. Love Your Post!!!

And if it should come to it, you have my vote for the judicial impeachments. Although I think you're letting McConnell and others in the Senate off too easy. Charges of treason come to mind for some of them.

[Pepsidog]

13. Yes, I have been saying this. Rs tossed out the rules and norms, so impeach the bastards

[john657]

15. Impeaching him is the easy part, especially if we retake the House,

it's the Senate that's the problem, it takes 67 Senators to convict and remove, and that just ain't happening.

[Pepsidog]

21. I'm talking about a sweep of 2020. No impeachment 2018, you are correct

[DownriverDem]

14. Totally agree but

There is not "may well be confirmed". The repubs have the votes to confirm kavanaugh. It is sickening and sad, but many folks who were sucked in by trump were so blind. As Michael Moore warned: As bad as you think it will be, it will be way worse. Disgusting.

[McCamy Taylor]

16. Is it a federal crime to lie to Congress? If so, all you need is a US attorney general and a jury

to try and convict Kavanagh who then loses his license and gets sent to jail. Good luck trying to be a SCOTUS Justice from prison. Dems need to make clear that they will prosecute him the very second the DOJ is no longer in the hands of the Russian Mob. A far as I know, Justices do not share the president's exemption from criminal prosecution.

[ProudLib72]

17. I agree that it should happen, but I doubt that Gorsuck could be impeached

Most certainly Kavanaugh is impeachable. That's a given. But Gorsuck not so much. We may not like how he was appointed, but he must do something that is impeachable to be removed.

[BamaRefugee]

18. I grew up Down South with "IMPEACH EARL WARREN" billboards along every major highway anywhere...

...we went...didn't seem to work.

[url=https://postimages.org/][img][/img][/url]

[mr_lebowski]

28. Is that PO Box for realz?

Was it really 1337?

That has to be shopped, right?

[BamaRefugee]

30. I don't think so, this pic has been around forever. Why is 1337 significant?

IIRC there was always a PO Box on the signs or “John Birch Society” at the bottom.

[mr_lebowski]

31. Type 'meaning of 1337' into the googlez and find out ;)

[3Hotdogs]

19. Garland and Bret are on the same circuit.

They voted the same on ALL BUT one case.

What is to be gained by re-nominating Garland?

[PatrickforO]

22. It's the principle of it. Obama nominated Garland. McConnell didn't even allow

him to meet with senators, let alone be questioned or voted upon.

My inclination, I suppose, just because of my nature, is to make them go back and do it again, right this time. Garland might not be super-great, you know, but he didn't get the due process he would have had if the Republicans in the Senate actually cared about this nation or its people.

Maybe that's dumb. Maybe we would do better in terms of our platform by nominating someone different, but when it comes to the Supreme Court, I'm kind of old school. I'd rather have someone on there who will rule fairly and constitutionally on cases, not someone who will legislate from the bench.

Now, I liked Obama an awful lot, and in spite of a couple minor disagreements with him on policy, I damn sure trusted his judgment. So, for me, if we are to make the Senate take a 'mulligan,' then it is Garland.

[3Hotdogs]

25. The point is, an earlier poster said the Dem president with the next opening should

renominate Garland.

Bad idea. There would be two Kavanaugh's on the court.

[WillowTree]

20. In the 229 years since the Constition was ratified, only one justice was impeached.

That was over 200 years ago and he wasn't convicted by the Senate. That's a heck of a long streak and I just don't see it happening now.

[vlyons]

26. We don't need to impeach him; we need to CONVICT him

Lying under oath to congress is a felony. Once we have an honest AG at Justice Dept, Senators like Harris and Durbin can refer a complaint against him for his lies.

[democratisphere]

27. redumbliCON corruption is limitless.

[dlk]

29. Kavanaugh Should be Disbarred