Building on a comment I made in hummingbird4015's excellent diary, here are some thoughts on the Kavanaugh Thing and where we go from here.
As has been extensively diaried, the Kavanaugh Hearings have so far been every but bit as much of a dumpster fire as the rest of this flailing administration. The major surprise (to some) has been the good kind; Democrats in committee have been very strong and co-ordinated in their attempts to, if not derail, at least delay the proceedings and put down a marker for their opinions on the matter. Opinions, it must be said, that reflect the views of the majority of Americans.
However, let us not fool ourselves; despite this showing, Kavanaugh is still very likely, if not all-but certain, to get through, thanks to majority rule, Republican corruption, and, well, the Orange Stain.
How, then, to proceed? Well, here is a little thought experiment, taking hummingbird' s idea and giving it a couple of other bones.
In 2006, Senator Richard Durbin (IL) asked then-nominee-for-DC-Circuit-Court Kavanaugh about his work as an associate in the office of White House Counsel between 2001 and 2006. In keeping with Dubya' s ethic at the time (see Meyers, Harriet), and no doubt impressed by his staunch work defending what freedoms the President enjoyed in the Oval Office, he was nominated in 2003 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate was, perhaps understandably, given that it was less than 8 years after Kavanaugh's "work" in the Ken Starr investigation, and there being a few nascent rumblings regarding the constitutionality of indefinite detention and torture, took something of a dim view of his nomination and rushed to place it firmly on the back burner.
By 2006, however, it was back to the front again, and the hearings commenced.
Senator Durbin was, to say the least, unimpressed. In 2003, he referred to Kavanaugh as the "Forrest Gump of Republican politics," and things didn't improve in the intervening years. At the hearing, Durbin was forceful, direct, and aggressive in his questioning of Kavanaugh's ethics and judicial leanings.
At one point, Durbin asked of Kavanaugh "pointed" and "direct" questions regarding the White House decision to brand all prisoners taken in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, as "enemy combatants" and the use of that marker in later denial of rights, denial of due process, and torture. At the time, Kavanaugh denied playing any role in that decision, as detailed in the infamous Yoo Memos.
Information came to light after Kavanaugh's confirmation suggesting that, at best, Kavanaugh had been less than forthcoming. Perturbed, Durbin wrote to Kavanaugh personally:
I wanted to trust you—last time you testified before this committee in 2006 …
[snip]
...But after you were confirmed at the D.C. Circuit, reports surfaced that contradicted your sworn testimony.
Needless to say, Kavanaugh never responded. And why would he? He had his, and after a brief investigation (with or without quotes around the word), "insufficient evidence" was found to result in a felony charge of lying to Congress and impeachment.
Of course, all this was forgotten, Kavanaugh carried on as a small but persistent stain on the bench (fortunately held in check by better, less ideological judges), and time passed on its merry way.
And now here we are. Kavanaugh may well end up on SCOTUS, and we're left wondering, sickly, what happens next.
Well. I'll tell you.
We win the House. Forget the Senate right now; yes, it would be better, but we just need the House.
Durbin can make a formal request, based on Kavanaugh's previous evasion (pronounced "lying"), a House Judiciary Committee investigation. Since impeachment proceedings originate in the House, this is procedurally correct; it is the right venue for such an investigation, and it will be thorough, unlike recent "investigations" by the current GOP House.
Additional information regarding the selection criteria, Kavanaugh's background and his White House tenure under Bush then become subject to subpoena. Kavanaugh's past is blown wide open, and it has nothing to do with Trump!
The beauty of this method is that it can expand to the current railroading of Advise and Consent under the Republicans, but is not based on it. It also gives "soft" Republicans the cover they may need to vote for impeachment if it comes to the Senate (Yes, "if" can be in quotes if you like). They get to squawk "We had no idea!" to their constituents in an attempt to save their electoral hides, Democratic opponents get to hammer them on their complicity in the original process (if they were present) AND the current one, and it becomes a wider-ranging investigation that not only encompasses Trump's corruption and subversion of justice, but also Bush-era torture, and SCOTUS stacking as well!
To cap it all, there is a remote possibility that, if Senate Dems were to hint to Grassley that this was on the table, there may even be a delay or pause, since the last thing they want is a clean investigation that incidentally reveals their morally-barren motivations on the national stage.
Well, that's my idea. Discuss.