Red state Democrats can easily oppose Beltway Brett Kavanaugh

[NY_20th]

(CNN) — Now that President Trump has bestowed the rose of Anthony Kennedy's Supreme Court seat upon Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the action moves to the Senate. Special attention there will be paid to Democratic senators who represent states President Trump won in 2016. Should they, as Jake Tapper asked me Monday, "vote with their caucus (in the Senate), against the nominee... or vote the way their constituents in red-leaning states would like you to do?"

Actually, this is an easy call. Red-state Democrats should oppose Kavanaugh, period. They should do so early and often; loudly and proudly. Here's why:

Kavanaugh is a total swamp creature. Rather than choosing a judge from Indiana or Pennsylvania or other heartland states, President Trump went with a Beltway Boy, born and bred. Kavanaugh got to where he is the Washington way: by loyally serving powerful figures in the party -- first special prosecutor Ken Starr in his pursuit of Bill Clinton, then as a legal hit man in the Constitutional drive-by shooting of Bush v. Gore. And then, finally, as an aide to Pres. George W. Bush in the White House. Bush rewarded Kavanaugh's service by placing him on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has consistently backed presidential power against the little guy or gal. Kavanaugh is the kind of guy who sucks up and spits down -- the epitome of a Beltway swamp creature. Nobody who rides a John Deere tractor all day will be able to relate to Beltway Brett.

No one ever got beat for opposing a Supreme Court nominee. When President Obama nominated moderate Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley refused to even hold a hearing. Despite the fact that Obama carried Grassley's state by six percent, Grassley refused to budge. It was a shocking breach, a dereliction of duty to refuse to even hold a hearing, much less a vote. After that unprecedented partisan obstruction, Grassley cruised to re-election. Other Republican senators from Obama states did the same, from Marco Rubio of Florida to Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania to Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

read more here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/opinions/red-state-democrats-can-easily-oppose-brett-kavanaugh-begala/index.html

[vi5]

1. This part was interesting/depressing....

"No one ever got beat for opposing a Supreme Court nominee. When President Obama nominated moderate Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley refused to even hold a hearing. Despite the fact that Obama carried Grassley's state by six percent, Grassley refused to budge."

This is 100% the truth. There are many cases where red state dems may need to vote against their party and for particular things that might be important to their constituents. But a world where this kind of insider baseball moves votes is strictly in the mind of the beltway media and overpaid strategists.

Someone for whom "opposing President Trumps court nominee" is an issue that affects their vote was never, no way-no how, no matter what anyone says going to vote for the Democrat. The type of "independent", "moderate" or whatever (to the extent that those types even actually exist at all) is not going to be affected by this issue.

[NY_20th]

4. Exactly. This will not be a deciding factor by any unbiased voter.

[DeminPennswoods]

2. Adam Jentlsen (Harry's Reids' num 2 staffer) and Ron Klain said

the same. There are many ways for "red state" Dems to get to no on Kavanaugh.

[AlexSFCA]

3. If anything voting yes may hurt them more

by de-energizing already small dem base. Voting no would energize them. And if he is confirmed without their votes anyway, there won’t be any consequnces cause they wouldn’t be the deciding votes.

[Kaleva]

5. Didn't Trump win Iowa, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?

From the article:

"After that unprecedented partisan obstruction, Grassley cruised to re-election. Other Republican senators from Obama states did the same, from Marco Rubio of Florida to Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania to Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. "

[NY_20th]

7. Yes, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court pick.

That's the point.

[Kaleva]

8. Opposing an Obama pick in a state Trump wins in 2016 has little consequence.

Opposing a Trump pick in a state he won in 2016 and most likely will win in 2020 could have serious consequences.

[standingtall]

9. Supporting a Trump pick could have serious consequences

this is not a Presidential election. The Senate race is going to be the big statewide race. We will essentially be asking pro-choice people in Indianapolis to hold their nose and show up to vote at the polls for the guy that voted for a supreme court candidate that was anti choice and people in Gary Indiana that care about voting rights to show up and vote for the guy on the supreme court that is hostile to voting rights. Democrats in West Virginia that like preexisting condition protection to show up and vote for the guy that voted to nominate the guy to the Supreme court that want to destroy the ACA.

[Kaleva]

14. I think the discussion is more about Manchin and McCaskill

Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, while not up for reelection, may well vote to confirm.

I've heard no talk about Senator Donnelly possibly voting for confirmation.

[NY_20th]

11. No one, and I mean no one,

who isn't already for Trump, is going to wake up in November and say, "You know, I was undecided, but this Supreme Court pick made me decide to vote for Trump."

[Kaleva]

12. But we are talkiing about Senate races here and not Trump himself.

I disagree with the argument that the author of the article is trying to make. While it's true that Obama won those states back in 2012, the author doesn't mention that Trump won them in the more recent election in 2016. So I'll go back to what I said before. There was little danger in opposing an Obama pick for a Senator from a state that went for Trump a few months later in the 2016 general election.

[NY_20th]

13. That's fine. I however stand by my opinion that no one will vote based on objection to a

Supreme Court pick.

Health care, economy, and many other issues that drive people to vote. Not Supreme Court picks.

[Demsrule86]

6. Why risk it? The GOP have the votes.

[standingtall]

10. We don't know with absolute certainty that they will have the votes

but if we allow Democrats to vote with the gop on this they surely will. Right now it is 50 to 49 we only need one republican to vote against this to stop this nomination if Democrats stick to together. Democrats voting for this nominee lets the 2 pro choice republicans off the hook. Then there is Dean Heller who is not in a primary if we get to September and he is behind in the polls he might vote against this nomination in an attempt to save himself either that or he just decides he going lose anyway and therefore votes to confirm. Still it's worth a shot.