Mike, I'm confused. It appears that you would only approve of the way these specific people voted had they voted against his appointment, regardless of why, just as long as they voted against him.
I say that because you are all over the map with your "reasons" this one voted this way and that one voted that way. EX: "Heidi Heitkampt (D) - voted her conscious against Kavanaugh, knowing full well that this would probably cost her a Senate seat." TRANSLATION: The majority of her constituents were for his appointment, thus her vote could cost her her Senate seat.
Then: "Lisa Murkowski (R) ... and what her constituents wanted. For once, actually doing her job" TRANSLATION: Voting as the people you represent have expressed that they want you to vote is the right thing to do (but only since it was a vote against).
Then: "Susan Collins (R) - voted for Kavanaugh, despite the fact that her constituents were opposed. ... They've finally figured out that she's a GOP hack." TRANSLATION: She towed the party line, it had nothing to do with her conscious or the fact that she did not believe that he was the one attacked Ford based on what she heard from both of them (because it was a vote for his appointment).
Etc., Etc. [The trend is clear so no need to continue with the rest of the examples]
Then you bemoan the tribal nature of our current political atmosphere based on such observations as these you presented regarding this vote??
Based on his judicial rulings on several cases that I found while reading about him, I had, and still have, concerns about him being on the SCOTUS. Based on that alone, I wished that he had not even been nominated and thought that there are so many other people that Trump could have picked that would have been a better choice, but that is just my opinion. I think his record, nothing else in this specific case, should have prevented him from becoming a member of the Supreme Court. Did several Senators vote because their party leaders said to vote that way? I have no doubt that happened, ON BOTH SIDES.
As to Ford and her accusations, I think that something may have happened to her, as a teenager or maybe even later, however, I did not believe that he was the person who attacked her (for a number of reasons).
I also think that Feinstein's claim that she kept the letter secret from the committee for nearly 7 weeks because Ford wanted to remain anonymous is pure BS on Feinstein's part. When she announced the existence of the letter and allegations on the eve of the original date of the final vote, she did so while still withholding Ford's name (could have did the same thing in closed door sessions during the actual hearings). Ford's identity was revealed several days later after she had accomplished what she, Feinstein, wanted to do, delay the vote. Feinstein's actions were 100% political and she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it, imo. |