but going back to the Amar article, I think this is especially naive.
Although Democrats are still fuming about Judge Garland’s failed nomination, the hard truth is that they control neither the presidency nor the Senate; they have limited options. Still, they could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible.
This would be a mistake. Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. So I propose that the Democrats offer the following compromise: Each Senate Democrat will pledge either to vote yes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation — or, if voting no, to first publicly name at least two clearly better candidates whom a Republican president might realistically have nominated instead (not an easy task). In exchange for this act of good will, Democrats will insist that Judge Kavanaugh answer all fair questions at his confirmation hearing.
Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.
I can’t help but believe that Amar is still smitten by the idea of “good faith.” Even if it could be relied upon in years past (itself a highly debatable matter), the republicans govern as if kindness, decency, and trust are delusions practiced by naive marks.
There’s been some effort to connect Kauvanaugh back to torture (and, if you still believe that “norms” still matter, back to signing statements)
https://www.justsecurity.org/60238/brett-kavanaugh-risk-return-torture/
but of course, the relevant records are being withheld.
https://twitter.com/danielsieradski/status/1028785316067454976?s=21
https://twitter.com/danielsieradski/status/1028785847859130370?s=21
—
Good related thread:
Best bit:
From 2008, when I was still abled enough to protest these fascists.
Worthwhile thread, still under construction: