Politics are always going to come into play during confirmation hearings, and occasionally it is ugly, but for the most part the senate has historically confirmed qualified justices in a bi-partison manner.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3.  So even conservatives who disagreed with her views voted to confirm her because she was qualified.  There are numerous exceptions, but that is how it works MOST of the time.  

Also, as Jascon Czeskleba mentioned in the other thread, McConnell is wrong.  Presidents have nominated justices during election years in the past, and those nominees have been confirmed by the senate, even when the senate majority and the president were from different parties.  Reagan nominating Kennedy was the most recent example.  

Republicans played politics in 2016, and that was the wrong thing to do.  Democrats want to play politics this time.  They want the Republican's political move from 2016 to be the new precedent (at least until the next time it doesn't work in their favor). 

Instead they should do the right thing now to avoid further politicizing the judiciary.  

That said, Trump rushing to come up with a nominee in a week or a handful of weeks simply to get one in before the election, as opposed to doing the groundwork to arrive at a suitable candidate would also seem to come under the same bracket of repeating the unscrupulous, politically-motivated moves.

If Trump could be trusted to pick a nominee in a non-rushed, non-politically motivated manner, then that would be fair. Or to pick a candidate that was inarguably worthy.

However, Trump's last candidate was accused by multiple women of sexual assault and the American Bar Association re-opened their assessment of Kavanagh's temperament for the position following those accusations -- something that was never resolved, as the senate voted before the evaluation was due.

Furthermore, 2400+ law professors signed a letter opposing Kavanagh's confirmation, citing his 'intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner' displayed throughout his congressional testimony. This categorisation doesn't seem unfair to me based on what I saw. 

Can Trump be trusted to avoid rushing it? By way of contrast, Byron White announced his retirement on 19 March 1993. Bill Clinton announced RGB's nomination -- to replace White -- on 15 June 1993. So, a full 12 weeks later. The same time-frame here would be December.

Can we trust Trump to steer clear of allowing the nomination to be largely guided by political motivations?

The democrats shouldn't play politics if Trump can be trusted to do likewise.

But we know he can't be trusted; we know he will play politics with his nomination.

If a justice is actually confirmed before the election, it will be the senate that rushed the process; not the president.  

I read the other day that it usually takes about 70 days to fill a vacancy on the SC.    

So if this was handled in the normal way, Trump would nominate a justice, and that person would be confirmed by the senate after the election.  If the nominee is not confirmed, then whoever is president at that point would nominate another candidate.

Based on his legal resume, Kavanagh was inarguably worthy when the nomination was made.  There was no hint of any accusations against him until after he was announced as the pick.  

If that's your position I disagree.  We'd never be able to approve anyone as a justice, because political opponents could immediately disqualify any candidate by making unfounded accusations against them.  That's why it was important that due process take its course here.  

As far as that goes, you are correct that multiple women accused Kavanagh, but only Christine Ford had even a shred of credibility, and then the problem was that Kavanagh was equally credible. I thought it was a close enough call that either side could reasonably justify their vote to confirm or deny him.

I don't give any weight to those who questioned Kavanagh's temperament during the hearings.  What temperament are you supposed to have when you're falsely accused of repeated systematic gang rape on national television? (I'm referring to the accusations made by Judy Leighton)

What should matter is his courtroom demeanor, which was not questioned.

 

In other words, hopes of a non-politicized judiciary is toothpaste out of the tube - and there is no getting it back at this point.  If we as liberals/progressives/Democrats take the high road and play by the old "rule book" that Trump has clearly thrown out the window, we will live to regret it for generations.

The best we can do is try our best to adhere to as much principle, sanity and decency as we CAN, while doing our best to prevent Trump and the Republicans from their scorched earth policy of governance.

Marc