[flagged]
The Democrats helped force a Democrat appointed supreme court justice out in 1969, over a similar but lesser situation, even though Nixon would get to appoint a replacement.
> In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign after his financial relationship came to light with businessman Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas to consult for his foundation. Fortas was a Democratic appointee, but the scandal led to a bipartisan call for his resignation — even though his replacement would be named by Republican President Richard Nixon and shift the balance of the court [0]
I definitely don't see today's Republicans doing that. Eleven months before an election they unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's nomination of Garland [1] to the Supreme Court, but afterwards they were ok breaking convention and approving Barret and other judges as lame ducks after an election where they lost their senate majority [2].
This is quite the change from several decades ago when Nixon resigned because he knew that some Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach him. I guess that back then our constitution and institutions were more important than party and power [3].
[0] https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_f...
[1] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unco...
[2] https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame...
[3] refer to the book "How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months.
Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.
Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
The second issue is that people deserve a hearing after nomination -- failing to give Garland one was intensely disrespectful. If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination.
There was nothing mild about it. It was Mitch McConnell playing politics and overturning established precedent for the sake of a political result. It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.
What evidence, exactly? In the case of Kavanaugh there was literally none beyond mere accusations (including some that were entertained on mainstream news that ended up being exposed as fraudulent).
> If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination.
You are right that politics is always going to require a thick skin. But platforming baseless, sensationalized accusations of criminal conduct (the kind that would never turn into actual charges) is the kind of thing that is going to prevent anyone with any kind of reputation worth protecting from seeking office. This seems like a bad equilibrium state.
> It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.
I'm sure Democratic politicians will use any excuse they can to capture more power, just as most all politicians do. But you are in no position to make such threats, and I am in no position to respond to them. We are just two people with different beliefs arguing on the internet. Let's focus on the arguments.
Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination.
I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.