Senate narrowly votes to advance SCOTUS nomination to Senate floor debate

[This will be anticlimactic for those who know the outcome from the way senators have now said how they will vote on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for a life-time appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.   I wrote it during the day Friday as it was happening.    So, if you only want to read about the outcome, skip to the bottom.  At the time I was writing this, I didn't expect that we would know the outcome prior to the actual vote some time Saturday -- that is, until Friday afternoon when Sen. Collins said how she would vote.]

*     *     *     *

Friday morning:
By the slimmest margin of 51 to 49, the Senate voted for cloture to advance the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, in its process of "advise and consent," on whether to elevate the judge to the Supreme Court.   This means that the Senate will begin a prescribed period of up to 30 hours of debate before taking its final vote on the nomination.

That vote could take place Saturday afternoon, although it's complicated by the fact that one Republican senator is the father of the bride in a wedding taking place in Montana on Saturday.   Depending on how close the Republicans expect the vote to be, they might hold the vote open until Sunday morning to allow him to return to Washington in the wee hours and cast his vote.

But let's back up and consider the meaning of who voted how on "cloture," which this vote to proceed is called.    There were five identified senators whose vote was undecided and upon whom the final tally was thought to depend.   Republicans Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Jeff Flake;  and two Democrats who are in tight re-election bids in very red states:   Joe Manchin (W. VA) and Heidi Heitkamp (Montana).    Senator Heitkamp announced earlier on Thursday that she would be voting No on Judge Kavanaugh, leaving the other four as "the undecideds."

Now let's be clear on the meaning of a cloture vote.    It simply means that you're ready for the bill to move to floor debate, followed by a vote.   It does not necessarily mean that you approve of what's being voted on, although generally it correlates.   But someone could say, "I hate this bill and I'm going to vote against it;  but let's get it over with," -- and thus vote Yes on cloture to move it along -- and then vote No on the final vote on the substance of the bill.

With that clarification, here's where it stands, as of Friday morning:    The now four votes in question are:   Collins (although she says she will announce her decision Friday afternoon);   Murkowski, and Flake and the Democrat Manchin.  On the cloture vote -- to move along -- Collins and Flake voted Yes;   Murkowski voted No.

Republicans hold a 51 to 49 advantage, if everyone votes along party lines.   The predictive vote count -- putting aside these four undecideds (three Republicans:  Collins, Murkowski, and Flake;  and one Democrat: Manchin) -- would be 48 to 48.

Since Murkowski voted No on cloture, that's a likely No on confirmation, bringing the No's to 49.   If   Manchin also votes No and Collins and Flake vote Yes, then it's 50-50 tie -- converted to a win by VP Pence's tie-breaking vote.

But if Manchin and either Collins or Flake vote No, then the nomination is defeated by 49 to 51.   Some commentators say that they do not believe Democrat Manchin would want to be the vote that puts Kavanaugh over the top.

Both Flake and Collins have commented favorably, it seemed, about the supplementary FBI investigation, saying that no corroborating evidence was found.   But what about the question of Kavanaugh's truthfulness and his judicial temperament, which have become the more important questions for many people, even if all allegations about sexual misconduct and drinking were definitively refuted?    Either or both might decide to vote No on those grounds.  And you never know for sure until the last vote is cast.   

Friday afternoon:
Sen. Collins had announced that she would be speaking on the senate floor and would announce how she intended to vote at 3 pm.   Obviously this had been carefully planned and even staged.   The presiding member was a woman senator, and there was another woman senator sitting with her -- so that the TV scene showed Collins standing at the speaker's podium, with two women colleagues in the background.

The scene had the earmarks of professional strategy -- not Sen. Collins' style.  So I'm guessing that the White House had a hand in planning all this, including the importance of having a woman senator, flanked by two other women senators as the "closer" in the lead-up to voting on Kavanaugh's confirmation.   (Those three are half of the total of only six Republican women in the senate.   The Democrats have 17.)

Collins spoke for nearly 50 minutes, beginning with an extended critique of how the senate process of advise and consent on Supreme Court nominations had deteriorated in decorum and partisanship.   She hoped that what transpired in this case would prove to be the rock-bottom and that the senate would return to the non-partisan comity of the past.

Although she did not specifically blame the Democrats, her examples were pretty pointed in that direction.   She did not mention the blatant offense of not even allowing President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland the courtesy of a hearing because 300 days was 'too close to the election' in 2016 and, as Republican Speaker Mitch McConnell insisted:   "Let the people speak" through their votes.  Now, a week is as long as they can tolerate waiting to let the FBI investigate these charges.

Sen. Collins then gave a lengthy, well-referenced summary of Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record, citing cases that she said showed his mainstream judicial positions, as well as his lack of partisanship, his respect for precedent, and his lack of ideology when applying the law.   It all sounded good;   but they were selective choices, and others might have found other examples that painted a different picture.

By the time Sen. Collins finally got around to talking about the allegations of sexual assault, she tried to have it both ways.   She said she found Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony compelling and moving, and she believed that she had actually suffered a sexual assault trauma.    But, she also could not believe that Brett Kavanaugh had been the one who did it, as there was no corroborating evidence to back up Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations.

And then she talked about the principle of presumption of innocence until proved guilty.   That, she said, was what had ultimately guided her decision.   Although she believed Dr. Blasey Ford on the assault, in the absence of evidence and under the principle of presumed innocence, she concludes that it must have been someone else.  Dr. Blasey Ford must have been mistaken, even though she has said she is 100% confident it was him.  So Collins said she would be voting Yes to confirm.

Immediately after Sen. Collins finished speaking -- and having provided the cover that would allow Democratic Sen. Manchin to also vote Yes, without his being the one vote that clinched the confirmation -- Manchin announced he would also vote Yes, thus satisfying his strongly pro-Trump constituency.

Of course, Sen. Collins completely ignored the limitations placed on the FBI's investigation of these charges [presumably by the White House], including determining whom to interview, which did not include either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh, nor a long list of people who could provide some useful evidence but were not contacted by the FBI.   Of course, they found no corroboration.   Republicans didn't want the truth;  just a sham of pretending to seek the truth.

Senator Collins, in her otherwise very thorough and well-reasoned considerations, did not mention the issues that were so blatantly on display during the last day of testimony:  Kavanaugh's disrespectful, angry temperament and poor emotional control, his baldly partisan accusations of Democrats trying to smear him.  I watched that performance, and I was appalled.  It seemed as if he was trying to mimic Donald Trump -- except for the crying, which Trump doesn't do.    And then his rudeness to senators, turning their questions about drinking back on to them.  It was shocking and disgusting.     Collins did not mention any of this.

And then what about his small lies?   His obvious anti-Democratic partisanship, his contempt for "left-wing activist groups," his spinning a conspiracy theory about "revenge for the Clintons"?    Can he put that aside and impartially rule on any case involving the Clintons or the Democratic Party or the ACLU or Planned Parenthood?  Will he recuse himself from any such cases?

So, all in all, I would say that, if I knew nothing about this case except what I heard from Senator Collins, I would probably agree with her.    But WOW -- what she left out.  I watched, gavel to gavel, Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor and his temper tantrum and his dissembling and his rudeness to senators in that hearing on Thursday, Sept. 27th.    Sen. Collins' omission of any mention of any of that lowered my respect for her.   She began to seem like a party hack -- and that is not who I have thought she is.

And so I am deeply saddened and dismayed at the way one more of our democratic institutions and its procedures are being corrupted and diminished.   I know with my head that it's not all Donald Trump's fault -- but it does seem that everything he touches -- everyone who gets involved with him -- seems eventually to crumble and rot.    Think about it.

Ralph