Poor Kavanaugh wants to run for SC judge

It's official (almost). Collins is a Yes (she is saying "yes for now"... but she is just waiting until she gets a chance to speak this afternoon), Heitcamp is a No. And Flake is a Yes.

With Flake, Manchin and Collins all voting yes, Kavanaugh is in.

This picture made me chuckle (Feinstein securing the vote of Murkowski).

Is anyone else listening to Susan Collins' speech?

She is not only voting an emphatic "Yes", she is also smacking down what she sees as political dirty tricks by the Democrats.

It was an impressive speech. Collins isn't much of an orator, but her arguments were rock solid.

The carnival grinds on....

I disagree with you Finn. An impressive speech would have enlightened the argument on both sides.

Collins read a rambling list of partisan talking points stitched together with a pointed non-accusation launched at Feinstein. Her goal was to make people on the right to feel good (I am guessing she succeeded).

I don't understand Murkowski. Given the evidence versus the theatrics, lying, and attack of the rule of law, I don't know how any Republican could vote "NO" Frankly I don't know how any Democrat can put their party's power over honesty, decency and the rule of law, but at least they have something to gain. If Murkowski honestly believes Kavanaugh committed these crimes despite the total lack of evidence supporting the charges then she is too stupid and irrational to be a US Senator. I don't think any of the Democrat Senators actually believe the charges.

She might still vote "YES" tomorrow, but it's unlikely. What's more likely is that she will be switching parties. If the Republicans had refused to allow a 7th FBI investigation then I doubt Flake, Collins or Manchin would be voting "YES," and I can understand why. I don't think it would have been a legitimate reason to vote "NO," but I can see why they might think it was. They got the investigation they wanted and it didn't turn up anything new. Of course Democrats are claiming it was a sham, but if anyone thinks that the Dems would be satisfied with anything other than a withdrawal or defeat of Kavanaugh's nomination they are either being incredibly disingenuous or incredibly dense.

What though is Murkowski's game? Obviously, the left is going to sing her praises to the heavens and declare that she is the only Republican in the Senate with a sense of decency and justice, but that is pure nonsense.

She is not in a close race in Alaska that requires her to buck her party. If she thinks that Kavanaugh is professionally unqualified to sit on the USSC she is an utter idiot. If she so disagrees with his judicial philosophy that she is compelled to vote "NO," she doesn't belong in the GOP and should switch parties tomorrow. All that's left would be an acceptance of uncorroborated charges which, again, is expected of Democrats and there win at all costs strategy, but is not something that is going to sit well with Republican voters in Alaska.

I expect her to show as much courage as Susan Collins and take to the floor of the Senate and detail her reasons. The time for that may be up, but it's hard to imagine that she will vote "NO" and escape having to, eventually, explain her reasoning. She'll probably engineer a one on one, tightly controlled interview with a sympathetic news outlet, but she is going to be hounded for days by reporters who won't want to wait for her explanation.

By the time she is up for re-election she will be a Democrat. If the November elections result in a tied Senate (50-50) she will switch before year's end to give her new party the Majority in 2019. I can't believe that she is going to be universally applauded for her "courage" by her fellow Republican Senators. This nomination has seriously fractured the Senate and listening to folks like Grassley and Graham, there is bad blood that is not going to be filtered away anytime soon. If GOP Senators hold on to a seething resentment of the Democrats and their tactics, how are they going to feel about the traitor in their midst?

"Honesty", "decency".... you do realize we are talking about the U.S. Senate here, right. They all put power and party over decency.

Murkowski is a politician. Like all politicians, she was pressured by her constituents... and voted in accordance with her political reality. There is a large block of Murkowski's constituency that would have punished her politically for voting Yes, and so she voted No.

This is no different than Manchin voting Yes.

Both sides are lying.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford or not. Neither side cares. This is just another round of the political dirty tricks that each side does to grab power.

I don't know what "rule of law" has to do with it. Both sides played according to the law. No one really broke the rules in any way.

The game was played. This time the Republicans won. The Democrats will try to make political hay... but the political game here it the public opinion of middle Americans. By overplaying the outrage card, the liberals have given up the advantage they might have had.

This image is ******* brilliant.... the moment that gave Kavanaugh his seat on the Supreme Court.

This post is full of wrong.

And you appear, at the moment, to be right. However, before I throw in the towel completely, there is just one thing. I alluded before to the chance that Flake might pull a switch and vote NO, allowing Collins to vote yes and avoid the party's reprisals but still stopping Kavanaugh if all Democrats vote NO.

West Virginia Democratic Senator Manchin has announced he's voting yes, but it has been widely reported that his greatest desire is not to be the deciding vote. Manchin's state voted for Trump in 2016 by over 40%. Manchin is running for the Senate again, he doesn't want to buck that. Normally the party wouldn't mind if Manchin went along with Kavanaugh to help to get himself elected this year, but if Manchin is the deciding vote, the party might well hammer him.

Flake has said he would vote yes unless something new doesn't come out. There does not appear to be anything new coming out today.

If, however, Flake pulls a switch and votes NO anyway, then Manchin goes right back on the hot seat. Now Manchin's vote actually does decide. Under these circumstances only, Manchin very likely will vote yes. He won't say that's the reason he's switching, of course, he'll say something like Murkowski said, that Kavanaugh was not the right man for the court at this time etc etc.

Why would the pro-life Flake switch?

A. Flake is leaving the Senate because the partisan divide has become absolutely toxic, and while it was bad before, Trump has worsened it immeasurably. Flake comes from the same state as John McCain. Flake also has bipartisan tendencies, he was one of the people closest to Gabby Giffords after she got shot. The Senate used to be a friendly club. Now Trump has turned it into a kindergarten playground with the monitor assassinated.

B. Trump has made it clear he hates Flake, Trump made it clear it he hates Flake's friend John McCain, and this would be an immensely satisfying goodbye gift from Flake to Trump before Flake leaves.

So I will hold off on giving you your congratulations until after the final vote. So far everything you said has accurately worked out, but I'm waiting for the end. These days, you never know.

The vote is happening soon... I don't think that there is a chance of your wish coming true.

Murkowski is going to vote present (rather than voting "No"). She is doing this because another Senator is going to be walking his daughter down the aisle today, and she is covering for him.

Well, you predicted it correctly. Congratulations.

Just for the record... I don't feel great about any part of the result. This is going to enrage both the left and the right and bring out the worst in everyone.

Me neither, but I also wouldn't have been pleased if he had been rejected. I don't think any part of this has been good for us.

You're right 'maxdancona.' There was not substantial evidence to prove her testimony. I presume that, that FACT is very disappointing to many. But facts are exactly that, FACT. Responding emotionally doesn't change facts. It just means that your are responding emotionally, and more than likely, inaccurately. It is true that some people operate above the law and get away with it. Like the Clintons. Soooooo much corruption, all has been documented. Yet the previous obama administration did nothing about it. THAT is sad. To everyone else who responded to my post: Thank your for reading my post. It was rather lengthy. Some of you may be right about official antiquated old English. But maybe, not completely. I too read, Beowulf, A Mid-Summers Night Dream, and a few other Shakespeare pieces. Very complicated material and so hard to read. Nevertheless, what catches my attention in your posts is an undertone of emotional drama nearing vehemence. That's seems to be the norm for the less inclined logical thinkers. Very scary. But thanks anyway.

And thank you for the unintended, hilarious entertainment.

Less inclined to do what?

Put on jackboots.

His verbosity only accentuates his inability to construct a sentence. Expect more of the same rambling incoherent bollocks.