Kavanaugh: What's the Democrats' Endgame?

Capitol Hill Democrats and the broader body of leftists around the nation have made it clear there are but two acceptable outcomes to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the United States Supreme Court: either Kavanaugh is (one way or another) withdrawn from consideration or the Senate does not produce enough "yes" votes to confirm.  That's it.  They want him gone.

One can't help but wonder what the Democrats' endgame is.  Suppose they are successful in their efforts, and Kavanaugh is ultimately removed from consideration to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy's vacated seat.  Then what?  Democrats, you are never, ever going to get what you want.

As Barack Obama smugly said following his 2008 electoral victory, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."  He went on to tell Republicans, "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president?  Then argue for your position.  Go out there and win an election.  Push to change it, but don't break it."  Does that shoe fit on one foot but not the other?

What liberals ultimately want is for President Trump to nominate the ideological equivalent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Democrats want Trump to send them for SCOTUS consideration someone who has a lengthy track record of having supported abortion, a demonstrable LGBTQ warrior with multiple rulings in favor of gun control, and a history of being soft on immigration and border security enforcement laws.  Well, Dems, that's not going to happen.  Trump won.  It's his choice.

Should Democrats succeed in torpedoing the nomination of Kavanaugh, Trump is going to nominate and send to the Senate Judiciary Committee another Brett Kavanaugh.  Should they pull some more eleventh-hour shenanigans and get that nominee booted, he will nominate another, and then another.  There is no one on Trump's list who is also on Jerry Brown's.

The effort to get rid of Kavanaugh began long before an allegation that he once behaved inappropriately as a teenager came to the surface.  Before a single hearing, before a single question had been asked about his record, how he reached decisions, hypotheticals about cases that could come before the SCOTUS, it started.  The White House simply released his name, and before the man had a chance to get home and take his suit coat off, the wheels were turning to block him.

What Democrats truly want is this: We expect bipartisanship when we're in power.  We'll kick, scream, and resist to high Heaven when we aren't.

Kennedy's retirement marks the third Supreme Court vacancy in recent years.  Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama in May 2009.  There were no crazed conservatives storming the streets holding protests or senators giving speeches about how she was going to take away everyone's rights and could not be confirmed!

Sotomayor is a committed leftist (as anyone appointed by Obama would have to be).  She consistently injected race into her speeches and judicial qualifications by stating that a "wise Latina would reach better conclusions than a white male."

Imagine the firestorm if Brett Kavanaugh had been found to have said "a white male should reach better decisions than a Hispanic woman."  Yet 23% of Senate Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor.

Two years later, in May of 2010, Obama nominated Elena Kagan, also a committed leftist (as any president of the Harvard Law School would have to be).  Having a long history of LGBTQ activism, Kagan is credited with "the queering the Harvard Law School."  Kagan's confirmation hearing presented the Senate with a unique challenge, as she had no prior judicial writings.  As opposed to most Supreme Court nominees, who rise up through the ranks of the U.S. judicial system as local, state, then federal judges, Elena Kagan had never served as a judge at any level at any time.  She had no written opinions or prior case experience for senators to use in forming an opinion of her judicial disposition or qualifications.  Still, 12% of Senate Republicans voted to confirm Kagan.

Those days of bipartisanship seem gone, as today's Senate Democrats appear willing to march in lockstep and do any- and everything in their power to subvert the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.  But if they succeed, then what?  Dig up dirt (real or imagined) on the next nominee and hope to 86 him, too?  And the next one?  And the next?

Here's a novel idea opined by a former president: rather than crying and breaking the system, go out and win some elections.

Capitol Hill Democrats and the broader body of leftists around the nation have made it clear there are but two acceptable outcomes to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the United States Supreme Court: either Kavanaugh is (one way or another) withdrawn from consideration or the Senate does not produce enough "yes" votes to confirm.  That's it.  They want him gone.

One can't help but wonder what the Democrats' endgame is.  Suppose they are successful in their efforts, and Kavanaugh is ultimately removed from consideration to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy's vacated seat.  Then what?  Democrats, you are never, ever going to get what you want.

As Barack Obama smugly said following his 2008 electoral victory, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."  He went on to tell Republicans, "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president?  Then argue for your position.  Go out there and win an election.  Push to change it, but don't break it."  Does that shoe fit on one foot but not the other?

What liberals ultimately want is for President Trump to nominate the ideological equivalent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Democrats want Trump to send them for SCOTUS consideration someone who has a lengthy track record of having supported abortion, a demonstrable LGBTQ warrior with multiple rulings in favor of gun control, and a history of being soft on immigration and border security enforcement laws.  Well, Dems, that's not going to happen.  Trump won.  It's his choice.

Should Democrats succeed in torpedoing the nomination of Kavanaugh, Trump is going to nominate and send to the Senate Judiciary Committee another Brett Kavanaugh.  Should they pull some more eleventh-hour shenanigans and get that nominee booted, he will nominate another, and then another.  There is no one on Trump's list who is also on Jerry Brown's.

The effort to get rid of Kavanaugh began long before an allegation that he once behaved inappropriately as a teenager came to the surface.  Before a single hearing, before a single question had been asked about his record, how he reached decisions, hypotheticals about cases that could come before the SCOTUS, it started.  The White House simply released his name, and before the man had a chance to get home and take his suit coat off, the wheels were turning to block him.

What Democrats truly want is this: We expect bipartisanship when we're in power.  We'll kick, scream, and resist to high Heaven when we aren't.

Kennedy's retirement marks the third Supreme Court vacancy in recent years.  Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama in May 2009.  There were no crazed conservatives storming the streets holding protests or senators giving speeches about how she was going to take away everyone's rights and could not be confirmed!

Sotomayor is a committed leftist (as anyone appointed by Obama would have to be).  She consistently injected race into her speeches and judicial qualifications by stating that a "wise Latina would reach better conclusions than a white male."

Imagine the firestorm if Brett Kavanaugh had been found to have said "a white male should reach better decisions than a Hispanic woman."  Yet 23% of Senate Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor.

Two years later, in May of 2010, Obama nominated Elena Kagan, also a committed leftist (as any president of the Harvard Law School would have to be).  Having a long history of LGBTQ activism, Kagan is credited with "the queering the Harvard Law School."  Kagan's confirmation hearing presented the Senate with a unique challenge, as she had no prior judicial writings.  As opposed to most Supreme Court nominees, who rise up through the ranks of the U.S. judicial system as local, state, then federal judges, Elena Kagan had never served as a judge at any level at any time.  She had no written opinions or prior case experience for senators to use in forming an opinion of her judicial disposition or qualifications.  Still, 12% of Senate Republicans voted to confirm Kagan.

Those days of bipartisanship seem gone, as today's Senate Democrats appear willing to march in lockstep and do any- and everything in their power to subvert the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.  But if they succeed, then what?  Dig up dirt (real or imagined) on the next nominee and hope to 86 him, too?  And the next one?  And the next?

Here's a novel idea opined by a former president: rather than crying and breaking the system, go out and win some elections.