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

Brief news reports

1.   The Trump administration has a new policy on visas:   It will no longer issue visas to unmarried, same-sex partners of foreign diplomats.   Marriage is now a requirement to get a visa as the partner of a diplomat -- if they are same sex;  the article I saw did not address the question of opposite sex, unmarried partners of diplomats.
     I'm sure that Donald Trump doesn't care one whit about this -- except that it's a sop to his ultra-conservative base.    I'm strongly opposed to this move -- but, in truth, it's pretty far down the priority list of Trumpian offenses.   There's only so much room for outrage and action.

2.  It's remarkable to me how many of Brett Kavanaugh's classmates and even his supposed tight-knit circle of friends are making negative statements about him to the media, and hopefully the FBI.    They tend to be about the discrepancies between his testimony and how he actually behaved in high school and college -- or to defend another friend that has been demeaned falsely.  Even his close friend Mark Judge supposedly agreed to talk to the FBI as long as what he said would be kept confidential.   So will he confirm Christine Blasey Ford's allegations . . .  in private and under oath?

3.  In a very short time, over 800 students and alumni of Harvard Law School signed a letter asking that the course that Judge Kavanaugh has been teaching annually during winter quarter not be held this year.   This has been a very popular course.    However, even before the letter was delivered, the school had decided to cancel the course for this year.

4.  President Trump has said that, if Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to Congress, then that would disqualify him.   Sen. Jeff Flake has said that he is concerned about the level of partisanship Kavanaugh showed during last Thursday's hearing.   "We can't have that on the court," he said.

5.  Canada just eked out an eleventh hour agreement to join the U.S. and Mexico in a new version of NAFTA, which is to be called USMCA.   According to my liberal friends on MSNBC, most of what's in this agreement was in the TransPacificPartnership (TPP) that Obama had negotiated but failed to get approval from Congress.   Of course, Trump is lauding himself for his accomplishment, failing to address what some have dismissed as:    Sure, he resolved the problem with Canada that he himself created with his tariffs.   I'm not sure that's entirely fair, but then it's not an area I follow closely.

6.  On the subject of Trump's narcissism:   The special hour-long MBNBC program "The Meeting" centers on a long interview with Rob Goldstone, the British PR guy who set up the Trump Tower meeting at the request of the Russian father-son billionaire Agalarofs, who are closely connected with the Kremlin and Putin.  Goldstone describes the initial meeting between Trump and the Agalarovs, back around 2012, I think -- at least it was prior to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, which the Agalarovs co-sponsored with Trump.
     Goldstone traveled with the Agalarovs to Reno to meet Trump.  When they arrived at his hotel, Trump was standing at the far end of the lobby.   Recognizing them, he yelled across the lobby:    "The richest man in Russia has come to meet ME!!!"

7.   In the 'be careful what you wish for' department:   It's said that the most likely replacement, if Judge Kavanaugh withdraws or loses the vote, is Judge Amy Barrett.  It's also been said by some that Judge Barrett is even more conservative than Kavanaugh, at least on abortion and gay marriage.    But apparently not on presidential power and protection, which to me, at this point is the most pressing question of concern.  If Donald Trump is allowed to continue demolishing our democratic institutions, that may be hard to recover from.

We've been told before that Kavanaugh's position on presidential power and protection from prosecution or subpoena was the main reason Trump picked him.   His position is that the president is immune from any charges or investigations while in office.   And he was a late addition to the list submitted from the Federalist Society, apparently mainly because of this position -- so he could be picked to protect Trump from Mueller and other investigations.

8.  One person's view of the source of Mitch McConnell's anger over all this Kavanaugh thing is that he didn't want Trump to pick him.   I don't know what McConnell knew or what his objection was based on -- but now McConnell is having to deal with the fallout of what he himself would have avoided if they listened to him.

Ralph

Waiting for the FBI -- but ready to vote no anyway. . . . Plus Breaking News !

The past two days have been a confusing mashup.   President Trump claims that he wants the FBI to do its work, to interview anyone relevant (within reason), and to get to the truth.   Yet the FBI says it was asked to look at just four individuals.   Following widespread criticism for a whitewash "investigation," now the White House has expanded the scope of what the FBI can do -- or has it really?   It's murky.

Republicans in the Senate, led by His Obnoxiousness Mitch McConnell who still insists that there will be a vote this week -- are looking for cover to vote Yes on Kavanaugh.    Just don't uncover any smoking guns, they pray;  don't even find anyone who seriously challenges anything the judge has testified to -- or ranted against.

So, while we wait to see what the FBI really uncovers, if anything -- and what the Republicans actually do about it -- I share two letter to the New York Times that speak my thoughts exactly.

#1   From Todd R. Clear, Neward, NJ, a professor at Rutgers Law School:

     "Re 'High Stakes Deal of Tears and Fury Unfolds in Senate' (front page, Sept 28):

     "It is no longer necessary to decide who is telling the truth, Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh.   By his belligerence, wild claims of conspiracy and slippery partisanship, Judge Kavanaugh showed that he does not, on the basis of his demeanor or temperament, merit a lifetime appointment to the nation's most important deliberative body.   The Senate should vote no."

#2   From Mitchell Kapner, Cary, N.C. 

     "Before the senators vote on whether or not to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh, I think they should ask themselves the following:   In his sworn testimony on Thursday, did Judge Kavanaugh seem . . . judicious to you?  Did he seem to be a man who would be dispassionate, impartial and non-partisan in his opinions?   Did he seem to be a man who could rise above the petty politics of the day and render judgments fairly and objectively?

     "The answer to each of the above was, to me, clearly no, no and no.   And that is also how the senators should vote:  no."

In addition, we have the numerous ways in which Judge Kavanaugh misrepresented the obvious truth in small ways, from giving false definitions to references in his self-written, yearbook page to the dubious claims about the extent of his youthful drinking.

And now we have an explosive report coming out last night from NBC's national political reporter Heidi Przyby, who has information about some recent text exchanges between mutual friends of Kavanaugh.  They are from the same tightly-knit circle of friends at Yale, that included both Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez, the second woman who has made a complaint of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

The text exchanges between these friends refer to recent efforts by Brett Kavanaugh himself, as well as his "team," contacting them and asking them to "go on record to defend him."   The emails also allude to efforts to discredit Ramirez -- as well as efforts to get a copy of a picture in which they both appeared at a wedding of a mutual friend, some ten years after the alleged sexual misconduct occurred.   The two women friends, who were at the wedding and who exchanged the texts, say that Ramirez had seemed extremely uncomfortable being around Kavanaugh at the wedding and that she tried to stay as far away from him as possible, clinging to the woman friend.

Part of the problem is that in his testimony, Kavanaugh had (1) implied that he hardly knew Ramirez;  and (2) had said that he knew nothing about her allegations until it was published in a New Yorker investigative article, whereas these texts predate that publication date, suggesting that Kavanaugh tried to enlist his friends in a cover up before the publication came out.

At this point of vetting this latest information, these efforts could be anything from mild suggestions to actual potential witness tampering.    Either way, experts have said it is a terrible PR strategy in such a situation and that is likely to backfire and hurt Kavanaugh.

There is another news story about Kavanaugh having been involved in a bar fight. while at Yale, where police were called; he was questioned but not charged.   There is an existing police report about their being called to the bar because of the fight.   Not in itself disqualifying -- but it certainly pokes holes in the picture he painted of himself:  devoted to his studies, sports, service projects, and church -- and an occasional beer or two.

I'm struck by how many negative stories are coming out now from friends of Kavanaugh, many of them saying that they are responding because of the false picture he has given of himself in the hearings -- and they want to correct the record.

And then there are the ultra-conservative policy positions on abortion, gay marriage, and presidential power and protection.    No, no, no -- a thousand times no.

How many reasons does a senator need to vote no on Kavanaugh?

Ralph

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) saves the day . . . sort of.

It took a little explaining and cogitating to really get what Jeff Flake is trying to do.   But in the end, it was effective and, just maybe, turned down the rhetorical heat in the Kavanaugh confirmation process (no thanks to Lindsey Graham, who has been frantically turning up the heat in his bid for Trump's notice).   Here's the way I understand it.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have a one-vote majority (11 to 10).  It takes a simple majority for the committee to recommend that Judge Kavanaugh's name be forwarded to the entire Senate for a confirmation vote.  At present, they have the one-vote majority if Flake votes Yes.

Sen. Flake, the only Republican on the 21 member committee that might vote No, thus scuttling the majority, had already announced publicly that he would vote Yes to confirm Kavanaugh.   Then he had a tense encounter with two women as he was getting on an elevator.   They both told him they were sexual assault survivors and denounced him for not believing the women.

Sen. Flake, who seems to be a pretty decent man, actually listened.   When one of the women implored him to look her in the eye as she was talking to him, he actually did look at her and listen.    When he returned to the committee room later, he looked very troubled.   After a while, he and Democrat Sen. Chris Coons left the room for a talk.   Then one by one, or in small group, all the Democrats left the room.

When they all returned, Flake spoke briefly to Chairman Grassley, presumably asking for personal privilege time to speak to the committee, which Grassley granted.   Flake explained his plan.

He intended to vote to approve Judge Kavanaugh -- BUT with the stipulation that the committee would ask the Majority Leader to request that President Trump direct the FBI to re-open the background check of Judge Kavanaugh.   And Flake said that he would not vote on the procedural vote in the Senate to advance the confirmation vote until such an FBI check of the sexual allegations against Kavanaugh had been carried out on the "current" allegations and limited to one week's time.

Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Joe Manchin have all said that they join Sen. Flake in this -- which means that Mitch McConnell does not have the votes to push this through without the FBI check.  President Trump has directed the FBI to do just this, and presumably that has already begun.

That's where it stands.   Of course, an extra week not only allows the FBI to investigate the allegations;  it also gives Senators and all Americans time to digest and rewatch the two testimonies of Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh and think about the credibility displayed by each.   Then if any corroborating evidence or any refutation adds to understanding the truthfulness of each, a much better informed decision can be made.

Ralph