Manchin Defects, Collins Gives GOP The Votes Kavanaugh Needs

Judge Brett Kavanaugh (R-apey).

NBC News reports, it appears to be over:

Sen. Susan Collins, who had been the last undecided Republican vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, announced Friday she will vote in favor of President Donald Trump’s pick, virtually ensuring his confirmation when the full Senate holds its final vote on Saturday.

In a speech on the Senate floor that lasted more than 40 minutes, Collins, a Maine Republican, forcefully outlined her belief that Kavanaugh was well-qualified, that the Senate confirmation process “is not a trial” and that she “cannot abandon” the “presumption of innocence.”

It now appears that there will be 51 votes in favor of Kavanaugh, because Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia came out minutes after her speech in favor of the nominee, the only Democrat to back Trump’s pick.

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin’s expected vote for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation offsets the announced no vote from Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and barring any other last-minute swings that will allow Kavanaugh to be confirmed in a vote this weekend with the need for a tie-breaker by Vice President Mike Pence. The question now turns to what effect this battle will have on the upcoming midterm elections, which have been trending heavily against majority Republicans. The conventional wisdom among Republicans is that this battle has energized the Republican base, while Democrats look to outraged women voters to turn out against the GOP in droves.

And of course, in 2020 the bad faith shown here will be part of the discussion about Sen. Cory Gardner’s future.

But for now, what matters is that a man who has demonstrated frightful ill temperament and a partisan grudge-match mentality, in addition to the multiple ugly allegations of sexual misconduct against him, is about to receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. At age 53. The short-term political consequences will be history decades before the full impact of Kavanaugh’s confirmation is understood.

If you ever lacked an object lesson for why elections matter, you don’t anymore.


85 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavieDavie says:

    A picture (or two) is worth a thousand words

    Cartoon in cartoon carousel

    Cartoon in cartoon carousel

  2. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Prior to World War I, most leftists were loudly pacifistic.  But as the guns of August sounded, most succumbed to nationalist pressures and supported their country's war effort.  In the U.S., Diehard leftie Scott Nearing assailed one of these opportunistic Socialist leaders as "a pacifist between wars and a vegetarian between meals."

     And thus it is with Republican Party hack and ideological tease Susan Collins.  A pacifist between wars, a vegetarian between meals, a moderate between votes and the deciding vote that put a liar and a would-be rapist on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Take a note, Maine voters.  And don't get fooled again when she seeks re-election in 2020.

  3. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Maverick and Bipartisan

    Wasn't McCain, I mean Manchin, great standing up to those party bosses?

    What a statesman and leader.

  4. OpenSpace says:

    So who's defeating Gardner in 2020? 



    Stan Garnett?

    Cary Kennedy?

    Joe Neguse?

    Crisanta Duran?

    • The realistThe realist says:

      IMHO, the Dems should figure this out in the next 30 days and start making Gardner's life miserable.


      • DavieDavie says:

        I think Perlmutter is the most pragmatic choice, but if he doesn't want it, I would love to have Cary or Crisanta kick Con Man's butt.  He has worn out his welcome in Colorado.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          Cary Kennedy or Crisanta Duran.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            Skip Cary Kennedy. She's worn out her welcome. 

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              Not with me, she hasn't.   Cary is a very bright lady.

            • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

              CHB — I'd think that Kennedy has to go win a race and serve awhile before tackling another statewide run.  So, maybe mayor of Denver? DeGette decides to retire and we get Kennedy, the next bright woman to represent Denver for the next 20 years? Move east a bit and take on Ken Buck? Who knows.

              It is a shame she was narrowly taken out by Stapleton, Tea Party enthusiasm, and those "balancing" their ballots with Hick for Gov and the Republican for everything else.  It is worse that she tried to complete with Polis & his portfolio this year.

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        Perlmutter can have the CD7 seat as long as he wants it, they love him there.

        Neguse is just about Polis' hand-picked replacement in CD2 and it'll be his as long as he wants it. 

        Hick? Maybe, but it seems he has his eyes on 1600 Pennsylvania. 

      Garnett? Maybe. At least the Conman can't tag him with "soft on crime".

      Kennedy lacks any experience that recommends her. 

      From Statehouse Speaker to Senator would be an awful big leap for Duran.

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        I happen to live in CD 7, skinnycook. I vote for Ed. I don't agree with some of his "more liberal stances," as a Republican. But he serves his constituents well and I appreciate his positions on public lands and generally on the environment.

        Yes, environmental protection is supposed to be non-partisan. And Ed doesn't seem to be a "wild eyed crazy" on the setback issue.

        I've already noted my thinking on Cary Kennedy. I agree with you.

    • Genghis says:

      Perlmutter is a complete flake. That "I wanna be governor; nah, never mind, I'm tired of public life; you know what, fuck it, I wanna go back to Congress after all" horseshit was utterly disgraceful. 

      To paraphrase Andrew Romanoff, one of these days we're all gonna work for Joe Neguse. 2020 is too soon for a U.S. Senate run, though.

      Stan Garnett is a fine person, but not much of a politician. No way he beats Gardner in s statewide race. 

      Unless she's unopposed, Kennedy has no viable path to the Dem nomination, much less to the Senate. Damn shame.

      Hick is the only one on the list with proven ability to win a statewide race, but voting for him would be a "close your eyes and think of England" moment for me. 

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      Trish Zornio? Imagine:  a real environmental scientist making reality based decisions.

      A bonus: She’s a “college educated woman,” a demographic that really irritates Powerful Pear. 😉

  5. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    It used to be allowable for nominees to the Supreme Court to skirt the truth about their presumptions on issues which could come to the Court.  They could demur, saying they were umpires, waiting for the actual pitch to arrive before calling a ball or strike.

    With this nomination and confirmation, we've arrived at a new place. Individuals now apparently are allowed to avoid describing the specifics of any controversy in their past activities, to create a story of a pristine past, and to avoid thorough investigation of past events.  The nominee may unashamedly lie about conduct during the process and the motives of those presumed to be voting against confirmation.

    And Senators may say anything at any point, but 99% of them wind up voting as expected.

    • The realistThe realist says:

      And important to add, they may unashamedly lie under oath. They're now in a special category, even beyond #TrumpsterFire's teflon (though orange) exterior: They can re-create an entire fake lifetime, present themselves as without sin, and most of all once approved by the Senate, they can be a hyper-partisan voice on the Supreme Court. 

  6. Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

    Prior to the Iraq war I remember a news clip where Saddam Hussein was presiding over the legislative body. He proclaimed that there were some among the body he had heard were disloyal. As he mentioned the names, security came in an dragged the guy out and was never scene again. 

    The thread that keeps this nation from being a larger characterization of a tyrant controlled Iraq is, innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

    If you are dissapointed in the outcome of the Kavanaugh confirmation, remember the Mob has no loyalty, the next target is likely to be you.


    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      As a traditional conservative, I would liked to have seen a more "robust" FBI investigation. There seem to be several dozen people who said they had information about Kavanaugh’s past, but who were not contacted by the FBI. The White House clearly controlled the FBI’s scope of work.

      Kavanaugh’s performance before the Judiciary Committee was not a good sign. But no one with credibility ever said Antonin Scalia was “non-partisan” either. 

      The political quandaries of this administration are complex and numerous. As as example, Senator Sasse (R-NE) recently said that Trump is unfit to lead a divided nation. But he votes in lockstep without challenging. At least Flake and Murkowski had the guts to step up.

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

        Seems to me the Democrats got the investigation they wanted, just not satisfied with the results outcome. I remember when Michael Dukakis was asked a question  about how he would react to a rape and murder of his wife and he went into a policy explanation that was totally unbelievable. In contrast Kavanaugh exhibited the appropriate rate of an innocent man.

        Ben Sass is not to be trusted with anything of value.

        Several times I have heard the term “college educated women”, used in various campaigns. Coffman has used it and now the Senate Dems are using it, this special group of women, they don’t like Trump they don’t like Kavanaugh, they don’t like Christians, they just don’t seem to like anything. 

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          Like I said, I would have preferred a better investigation into the allegations about Kavanaugh. Do recall that he came off the list compiled by The Federalist Society. There are better jurists on that list than Kavanaugh. He strikes me as sort of a throwback to Clement Haynesworth, since you're going back in time to Dukakis.

          I like Ben Sasse. He will occasionally speak his mind, as opposed to some other Republican senators who are "yes-people" for Trump. As for college educated women, that is a demographic, one of many. As for them liking or not liking Christians, depends on the type of Christians one is talking about. The Christians who want to control other peoples' lives; the so-called religious right; may not be their "type" of Christian. 

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          "they don't seem to like anything"

          Quite the opposite. The "college educated women" like education, learning, science and evidence-based decision-making. They like the environment and worry about preserving it. They love their children and worry about sending them to school only to see or hear a news report that some nut job with a grievance has taken an assault rifle out in cafeteria.

      • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        The "investigation" the FBI was allowed to run in three days was such a sham that Cheetolini would have made his boy look better had he simply refused the demand from Sen. Flake and resigned himself to a "no" from the senator from AZ.

    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      Powerful Pear … There is a world of difference between a court of law (let alone a dictatorship with arrests of legislators and kangaroo courts) and a confirmation of someone to a life-time position on the Court.

      Nice to know that the Republicans, minus Murkowski, are settling for "bright jurist who hasn't been indicted and couldn’t be convicted" as their standard of excellence. When a former Supreme Court Justice, a quarter of the law professors in the country, AND a variety of people who socialized with Kavanaugh all come out in opposition, it should create some caution.

      But it didn't … and we now have a Supreme Court Justice who, before he opens the door on Monday morning to go hear arguments, has a variety of ethics complaints considered "credible" by a judge on the DC Circuit Court forwarded to the Chief Justice. Nice little hot potato for the Chief to figure out — does he ignore them? dismiss them because Kavanaugh wasn't a part of the Court when the action triggering the complaint happened? pawn them off to a small group of retired judges? rule on them, and say he's satisfied the statements weren't REALLY lies, or lies that mattered, or that Kavanaugh crossed his fingers, so the "under oath" thing doesn't apply?

      Somehow, I think we're going to be into a long and interesting ride with Justice Kavanaugh.

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

        Thankfully we are in for a long ride. A court that will interpret the Constitution and not make it into a living document held hostage to contemporary mob rule.

        Every legislator took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet they will author laws they know to be unconstitutional with the hope a leftist court will affirm.

        • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

          Be specific, Pear, if you dare. What exactly was "constitutional" about denying President Obama the opportunity to place a judge on the Supreme Court for a YEAR? And if your argument was that Mitch McConnell was correct in interpreting the Constitution that way in 2016, why was it correct for him and incorrect for Democratic Senators to block Kavanaugh for much better reasons in 2018?

          How exactly is denying immigrant children and families their due process rights under the 14th amendment "constitutional"?

          How is the "corporations are people, my friend" Citizens United Decision in any way consistent with the intent of the Constitution's framers?

          I'll give you a low bar… one, just one instance in which the Supreme Court has interpreted something unconstitutionally.

          Just one example of the Supreme Court giving in to "mob rule".

          With link and citation back to the Constitution. You wanted to be a representative of CD6. Step it up, man. Show your work, don't just blather Tea Party talking points.


          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            Pear might start here

          • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

            Article 1 of the Constitution, try reading it.

            “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.’

            You can’t like Roe V Wade and not like Citizens United. Ruled on by the Supreme Court with liberal judges.

            Try using the real classification, illegal immigrants.

            • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

              I see that you can't answer my questions, and reply with gibberish and talking points. Oh well.

              • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                Perhaps if you would take off your pussy cap and put on your thinking cap, you would understand the Constitution better. Not only that, you would be happier, prosperous and more productive.

                But then that is not your goal, is it?

                • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

                  is for nice nincompoop? 

                  • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                    K is for KOOKs.

                    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

                      You've already used that letter.  Find a new one?

                    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                      Perhaps Pear could enlighten us as to what is a "pussy cap?" And since Pear is preaching about the Constitution, I wonder how up-to-speed he is on the 200+ years of constitutional case law that interprets the Constitution? To save a little time, you can begin in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

                    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:


                      Here is a link, every well dress hysterical Democrat must have for the mid-term election and beyond. MJ may even have the concession rights for Colorado.



                      Embrace the “K” be the “K”, it is your destiny. FYI, I support the ballot measure on hemp.

                    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

                      I'm comfortable in my own skin, Pear! To be fair, there's an entire gaggle of old white guys in my hood that, like you, are comfortable in theirs, too.  They're having a terrible time getting over Hillary and that black Kenyan Muslim who was squatting at 1600 Penn for eight years.  The farm bailout welfare checks came last week so everyone is cheery.  For now.     

                      Thanks for the support on 

                • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                  I hear that there's an entire cottage industry making tiny little pussy hats for the Trump Toadstool. The ones made with rainbow-hued yarn are especially fetching.

            • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

              The Supreme Court has long had more nominations and appointments by Republicans than Democrats. In my lifetime, it has been 23 R to 11 D, I think. So much for "liberal" judges.

              Roe v. Wade in '73 was a 7-2 decision, clearly in the trend of privacy precedents.  Citizens United was a 5-4 decision, creating a precedent by overturning a history of probably 40 years.  There are numerous reasons for tolerating Roe and criticizing Citizens United. Roe was pragmatic, authorizing what was already happening in a number of states.  Citizens United appears to be based on the wishful thinking that "more money wouldn't make political corruption worse, but would put thing on a level ground.

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                "Liberal judges" is a phrase generally used by the far right wing when they disagree with judicial decisions. But let's go some years prior to Roe and check out Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965. Griswold, like Roe, was based on an implied right to privacy contained in the Constitution (3rd, 4th, 14th amendments). The decision overturned a CT law that banned sale of birth control even to married couples. Does Pear support Griswold?

                Where in the Constitution is there a credible link to Citizens United, implying that corporations are people?

                • RepealAndReplace says:

                  CHB, my guess would be no, he doesn’t necessary buy into that decision. The better question is whether he agrees with Brown v. Board of Ed. Or whether he was bothered by Dred Scott v. Sanford.

                  • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                    I also wonder if Pear would agree with the 1962 SCOTUS decision, Engel v. Vitale. This overturned state written & mandated prayer in public schools.

                    Since Pear says he is a conservative, he may want to read up on the conservative Christian minister, Roger Williams. Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, fled Puritan religious tyranny in Massachusetts Bay and was an original proponent of separation of church and state.

                    • RepealAndReplace says:

                      Pear is not that kind of conservative. Pear is theocratic nationalist.

                      As for Engel v. Vitale, I'm going out on a limb here but I would venture to guess that per Pear, that case is the root of all school shootings in this country because when Jesus was kicked out, the firearms came in.

                    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                      You guys are making my head hurt, too many big words, theocratic nationalist, have mercy!

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

       Seriously? You keep up that kind of stupid argument and they will not only demote you but won't let you into Waffle House anymore. No knuckleheads.

      The last two sentences of your first paragraph are a description of a T***p campaign rally. The Idiot President has now reduced himself to appearing only with his loyalists…his mob of loyalists that will drag you out and beat you if you protest. I think because his greatest characteristic is his truly profound cowardice.

      Mob? You are in it and don't want to admit that it is YOU. 

  7. itlduso says:

    This is all due to changing the cloture rule to fifty votes.  Fifty votes in today's Senate represents just 18% of the US population.  Yes, the change from sixty votes to fifty votes was done by Harry Reid and the Dems.  But, that was in response to McConnell and the GOP refusing to accept any of Obama's judicial nominations.

    So, here we are.  An angry, openly GOP partisan is now on the Supreme Court destroying its credibility.   

    Next up on our spiral down the toilet bowl — stopping the Mueller probe.

    Will Americans wake up in time to take back our democracy?

    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      For now, I think the 18% figure is hypothetical. For now, Republican Senators include 9 of 20 Senators in the top 10 states by population:  Texas (2), Florida (1), Pennsylvania (1), Ohio (1), Georgia (2), North Carolina (2).

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.