The Kavanaugh hearings took the top spot on my ever-growing list of most disappointing moments in recent politics. The initial hearings put on bright display some of the most unnerving trends in modern partisanship, from the fight over the release of documents to Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) open revolt against Republicans.[1] The vitriol between the parties became so outrageous that semantics and jeers all but replaced legitimate questions for the then-nominee. Furthermore, blatantly disqualifying aspects of Brett Kavanaugh’s character were ignored by Republicans in favor of sticking with their party or getting reelected.
The Kavanaugh hearings clarified and exacerbated problems that have been worsening over the last few years in America. From the very start, Brett Kavanaugh was the least popular Supreme Court nominee on record.[2] In July it was reported that just 41% of the public was in favor of Kavanaugh being appointed.[3] Similarly unpopular judges either withdrew their nominations (Harriet Miers in 2005) or were ultimately not confirmed by the Senate (Robert Bork in 1987).[4][5] Three months later, another poll found a similar percentage of people in favor of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, but a rise in the numbers opposing him. At this time, 55% of women opposed his confirmation to the Supreme Court.[6] The fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court brought about our worst partisan tendencies, and resulted in the confirmation of a man whose qualifications and temperament were highly disputed to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. Worse yet, the troubling way we went about the confirmation set a precedent, and could be replicated for other divisive nominees going forward.
The Republican Mission
Beginning in early 2016, a high priority for the Republican Party has been to confirm conservatives to the Supreme Court, no matter the cost. This was evident when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to hold a hearing for any of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, saying only hours after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death that “the American people should have a say in the court’s direction.”[7] With nearly a year left in Obama’s presidency, Senator McConnell argued that whomever Obama nominated would not reflect the people’s values. The Republican-controlled Senate held the seat open for months, betting everything that their party would win the 2016 election. McConnell said in a speech in his home state that his proudest moment in politics was when he told President Obama that he “[would] not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.”[8] Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the court on March 16th, 2016, and 293 days later, Garland’s nomination expired–the longest pending nomination to the court in history.[9][10]
Republicans got a second unexpected chance to fill a vacancy when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier this year. President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat. Senator McConnell initially didn’t support the idea of nominating Kavanaugh, due to Kavanaugh’s lengthy “paper trail.”[11] According to The New York Times, McConnell was worried about “the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh [had] created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.”[12] Republicans wanted to get the confirmation through before the midterm elections, and Kavanaugh’s large volume of documents would delay the process.
Kavanaugh’s nomination forced Republicans to change strategy. They didn’t push back Kavanaugh’s hearings to accommodate the millions of documents members of the Senate had to analyze. Despite only recently holding a Supreme Court seat vacant for nearly three hundred days, they insisted that this new seat be filled immediately. They then marked many documents as confidential, preventing the public from forming an opinion on Kavanaugh or helping the Democrats sift through the files.[13] Their main goal, again, was to get a conservative on the court, no matter the cost.
The Democrats protested each move. They pleaded for more time to read Kavanaugh’s opinions. They demanded to know why benign documents were being kept from the public. The Democrats’ objections were ignored. Republicans wanted a speedy confirmation process that would be completed by the midterm elections.
Kavanaugh’s Honesty
One of the initial arguments against Kavanaugh had to do with his connection to a 2003 Republican spying case. When Kavanaugh was working under George W. Bush to get right-wing judicial nominees confirmed, he received emails from a colleague detailing a “mole” who was working to find out how the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were strategizing. This mole downloaded and printed over 4,500 files concerning Democratic strategy.[14] As revealed by recently-released files, Kavanaugh received an email titled “spying.”[15] The first line of the email read, “I have a friend who is a mole for us on the left.” At the time, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called the secret surveillance “calculated, systematic and sweeping in its scope.”[16]
During Kavanaugh’s hearings to become a federal judge in 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asked about the spying operation. Under oath, Kavanaugh responded, “I was not aware of that matter in any way whatsoever until I learned it in the media.”[17] He included that he did not receive any such stolen materials. At the time, the public wasn’t aware of this email chain in which Kavanaugh was explicitly told of the “mole on the left.” Kavanaugh could hide behind public uncertainty about his knowledge of this spying operation. According to John Lovett, former speechwriter for President Obama, “[Kavanaugh] is clearly not just unaware, not just forgetful, not just misunderstanding the question, he is lying, and he has to be lying.”[18] Lovett argued that Kavanaugh is simply too smart to “have forgotten or not to have understood why [the email] mattered,” and that the information was so blatantly stolen (the email’s subject line was “spying,” after all) that there was no way Kavanaugh could have misinterpreted the situation. If Brett Kavanaugh was willing to allow and later lie about a “sweeping” partisan surveillance effort, he shouldn’t be a judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. This series of events displays disturbing moral questionability.
There has been debate about whether Kavanaugh’s performance during his confirmation hearings constituted perjury (most people seem to think he didn’t perjure himself), but that’s beside the point.[19] The answer to whether a judge should have allowed or lied about a spying operation between political parties is very clear. It’s sad enough that Kavanaugh doesn’t seem to have the moral compass to serve as a judge, but it’s even sadder that Republicans weren’t disturbed enough by the story to act.
Dr. Blasey Ford’s Allegations
The debate came to a halt when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her went public on September 12th.[20] The California-based psychologist alleged that at a party in 1982, when she was fifteen, a seventeen-year-old Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly tried to force himself on her. The proceedings dramatically shifted into an investigation of Kavanaugh’s character.
The White House released a statement from Kavanaugh: “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes… to anyone.”[21] Kavanaugh followed the now-common playbook of deny, deny, deny. Since Dr. Ford’s letter to Senator Feinstein (D-CA) describes Kavanaugh as someone who becomes belligerent when drunk, Democrats decided to investigate this side of the then-nominee.[22]
They first turned to Mark Judge’s 1997 memoir, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, for answers. Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh and the other person in the room during Dr. Blasey Ford’s alleged assault, writes about a character named Bart O’Kavanaugh, who frequently got drunk and even vomited in a car.[23] When Senator Leahy asked if “Bart O’Kavanaugh” was a pseudonym for Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee deflected, saying “you’d have to ask [Judge].”[24] Kavanaugh felt comfortable distracting because there was no definite proof that “Bart” represented Brett. But on October 2nd, The New York Times published a 1983 letter written by Kavanaugh himself, which he signed as “Bart.”[25] The Times reported that Kavanaugh was given the nickname “Bart” after a high school teacher mispronounced his name. Kavanaugh’s inability to admit the connection or volunteer the fact that he even called himself “Bart” shows a fear to confront or reveal his past.
In that same letter, Kavanaugh describes his own friend circle as a group of “obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us.”[26] The letter supports that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in high school, and the reference to vomiting connects him to his equivalent in Judge’s book.
Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry is another place to look for evidence of his character.[27] The excerpt “100 Kegs or Bust” references, according to Mark Judge’s memoir, their friend group’s effort to drink a total of one hundred kegs of beer during their senior year. Also written in the entry is “Beach Week Ralph Club – Biggest Contributor.” Kavanaugh said this was in reference to his “weak stomach” and not a reference to vomiting from drinking too much. Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) asked directly if this excerpt was a reference to alcohol, and Kavanaugh deflected again, saying “I like beer. I like beer. I don’t know if you do.”[28] Kavanaugh made numerous other attempts to dodge questions related to his drinking habits as a young man.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry contains numerous sexual references. When asked about the meanings of excerpts from the entry, Kavanaugh deflected or gave improbable answers.[29] Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry, and the entries his friends, painted an image of a group of boys boasting about their sexual conquests. According to Aaron Blake of The Washington Post, “the veracity of claims involving yearbook entries from 3½ decades ago sound trivial… but they importantly speak to Kavanaugh’s credibility – and they’re rather easy to disprove… [Kavanaugh’s claims] have left plenty wondering why [he] would say such things.”[30]
It’s important to remember that the Democrats weren’t trying to disqualify Kavanaugh for underage drinking. Kavanaugh protested numerous times that his yearbook was irrelevant to Dr. Blasey Ford’s claims. Senator Orrin Hatch likewise criticized Democrats for looking at information from Kavanaugh’s “teenage years.”[31] However, the reason people scrutinized Kavanaugh’s past so intently was to see if he was the type of person who could have committed the sexual assault. What it revealed is a man who liked to drink and party…and a man who is afraid to confront his past.
Kavanaugh’s Temperament
The final question was whether Brett Kavanaugh could have been an aggressive drunk, one who would forcibly push someone into a bedroom and sexually assault them. Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, who released a sworn statement saying she had seen Kavanaugh and his friends try to get teenage girls “inebriated and disoriented” at parties in the 1980s, called Kavanaugh “a mean drunk.”[32] One of Kavanaugh’s friends from Yale said that “when Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive.”[33][34] While testimony from people who knew or met Kavanaugh are certainly important, a better way to examine his temperament might be to look to his testimony from September 27th.
Contrasting the calm and collected Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh was angry and shouting. He glared at the Senators opposite him and accused the Democrats of treating him unfairly.[35] The Kavanaugh we saw was an angry man who believed that he was being robbed of something he deserved. Appointment to the Supreme Court appeared to be something to which he felt entitled, rather than an honor given to our most morally upstanding and sharpest legal minds. Saturday Night Live mocked Kavanaugh’s angry performance two days later, bringing in Matt Damon to portray a seething, yelling Kavanaugh.[36]
In some instances, Kavanaugh directly rebuffed Senators’ lines of questioning. The most shocking example came after Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) asked Kavanaugh if he had ever blacked out from drinking. Kavanaugh responded, “I don’t know, have you?”[37] Klobuchar asked Kavanaugh to answer the question, and Kavanaugh again responded “I’m curious to know if you have.” Kavanaugh also dodged one of Senator Whitehouse’s drinking questions by directing the question back at him. After a short break, Kavanaugh apologized to Senator Klobuchar for his statements.
Partisanship
Kavanaugh’s September 27th testimony also shed light on his partisan attitudes. In his prepared opening statement, which The Washington Post called a “45-minute conspiratorial broadside against Democrats,” Kavanaugh made multiple references to a Democratic plot against his name and career.[38] At one point in the statement, Kavanaugh called the hearings “a calculated and orchestrated political hit” brought about by anti-Trump sentiment and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”[39] This wasn’t an off-handed comment or response to one of the Senators’ questions. This was a prepared statement that Kavanaugh himself wrote the day before and had time to edit. Kavanaugh believes and argued that Democrats opposed his appointment to exact revenge for his involvement in the Starr Report.[40] Kavanaugh dismissed the anger over his potential views, his history of lying to the Senate, and the accusers, instead blaming his misfortune on a Democratic plot. “You’ve given it your all,” he said, eyes on the Democrats.[41] These partisan comments and conspiracy theories garnered criticism on both sides. Conservative legal scholar Benjamin Wittes, “I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger… But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial.”[42]
Republican Responses
Republicans were hard-pressed to defend Kavanaugh amid all the controversy. After all, Neil Gorsuch did not receive anywhere near this amount of attention when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2017. Most of the Republican attacks were directed at Dr. Ford, who was treated as if she had a secret political agenda. They questioned the credibility of her polygraph test and implied that her fear of flying was an excuse to delay Kavanaugh’s appointment.[43] Senator Feinstein was also attacked, being accused of using Dr. Ford’s story for political gain. In late September, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) announced an investigation into whether Senator Feinstein or a member of her staff leaked Dr. Ford’s initial letter—anything to distract from the main issue at hand.[44]
Republican Senators spent much of their allotted time during the final hearing praising Kavanaugh’s character and refusal to withdraw. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sympathized with Kavanaugh, saying “This is not a job interview. This is hell.”[45] Rather than ask questions, Senator Graham used his time to rant about Democratic efforts to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The entire confirmation process was designed so that the American people could have confidence in Justices of the Supreme Court. The Republicans failed to use their time to help inspire this confidence.
One key issue was whether the FBI should have investigated Dr. Ford’s claims. In 1991, the FBI investigated Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.[46] This was the only other time a Supreme Court nominee had been accused of something like this, making an FBI investigation the only precedent. Republicans opposed this move, saying it would only further delay a confirmation vote. Their desire to “plow right through” the confirmation process was too great.[47] Their other concern was that such an investigation would turn up new information or bring any amount of credibility to Dr. Ford’s claims. Kavanaugh may have claimed to support “anything the committee [wanted] to do,” but he was repeatedly unwilling to advocate for an FBI investigation.[48] Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) pushed hard on this question, but never got a straight answer from the nominee. Senator Flake eventually forced an investigation, which lasted under a week and interviewed nine people.[49] It does not appear as though Kavanaugh himself was interviewed by the FBI.
Going Forward
As the intense debate around this issue subsides following Kavanaugh’s confirmation on October 6th, there are a few important takeaways. First, the Judicial Branch will no longer be the one branch of government uncompromised by partisanship. Kavanaugh’s testimony featuring partisan rhetoric and conspiracy theories was a red flag for many, but was ultimately ignored by those who voted to confirm him. Republican Senator Jeff Flake made it known that Kavanaugh’s partisanship was concerning, but voted for him anyway.[50] A new precedent for Supreme Court nominees has been set. A new standard for what kind of body the Supreme Court itself should be has also been set. Are we willing to allow partisan figures on the court, making it yet another political body? Senator McConnell knew in 2016 that he could turn the court into another arm of the Republican Party, and he finally got his wish.
Second, the hearings gave another example of increased political polarization. Gallup reported on October 3rd that 84% of Republicans supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation while only 13% of Democrats did.[51] That 71-point gap in favorability is the largest ever recorded in regard to a Supreme Court nominee (the second highest was the 53-point gap for Neil Gorsuch).[52] Instead of looking at the issues objectively, Americans by and large chose to look at who their party supported (independents tended to favor midterm candidates who opposed Kavanaugh; this was especially true for women).[53] Party politics have clouded our collective judgment of important issues for too long, and the Kavanaugh hearings are a sign that the problem is only worsening.
Third, the hearings are another example of victims’ claims not being respected. Whether you believe Dr. Ford’s allegations or not, it’s impossible to say she was given fair treatment and that her story was investigated to the fullest extent. Her character was smeared at every turn and her story was discredited without a thorough investigation. Republicans chose to question unimportant parts of her story, such as the circumstances of her polygraph, instead of searching for the truth behind her allegations. After the Anita Hill hearings, the public was concerned about the lack of women in the Senate (only two in 1991).[54] More women were elected to the Senate in the following elections, and 1992 was dubbed “The Year of the Woman.” Yet the Kavanaugh hearings and confirmation proved instead that women still aren’t being heard. The slogan “Believe Women” has taken off since the Kavanaugh hearings, reflecting 1992 sentiments, although Kavanaugh was confirmed anyway.[55]
On October 3rd The New York Times published a letter titled “The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh.”[56] It was signed by over 2,400 law professors from around the country, over 30 of whom were from Yale (Kavanaugh’s alma mater) and over 20 of whom were from Northeastern. The letter cites lack of judicial temperament and a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry as two main reasons Kavanaugh shouldn’t have been confirmed. I would like to add my own reasons. By confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, we have normalized everything that was wrong with the hearings. From the dirty tactics of speeding up the process, to the way the testimonies with Dr. Ford were treated, we have set a new standard for getting Supreme Court Justices on the court. The Supreme Court is the final say in the most consequential interpretations of our Constitution, and appointment to the court requires thoughtful consideration and thorough vetting. Members are meant to be impartial and upstanding. By defiantly refusing to scrutinize Kavanaugh’s character, the Senate as a whole has set a new, dangerous precedent. Kavanaugh will be on the Supreme Court for life, but the consequences of these hearings will outlive his tenure on the Court.
[1] Heil, Emily. “Cory Booker explains the reasoning behind his ‘bring it’ dare at Supreme Court hearing.” The Washington Post. September 11, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2018/09/11/cory-booker-explains-the-reasoning-behind-his-bring-it-dare-at-supreme-court-hearing/?utm_term=.dfd57201d7f6.
[2] “Initial Views on Kavanaugh Confirmation Divided.” Gallup, Inc. July 17, 2018. news.gallup.com/poll/237251/initial-views-kavanaugh-confirmation-divided.aspx?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=o_social&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Bumiller, Elisabeth, and Carl Hulse. “Bush’s Court Choice Ends Bid; Conservatives Attacked Miers.” The New York Times. October 28, 2005. www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/politicsspecial1/bushs-court-choice-ends-bid-conservatives-attacked-miers.html.
[5] Greenhouse, Linda. “Bork’s Nomination Is Rejected, 58-42; Reagan ‘Saddened.’” The New York Times. October 24, 1987. www.nytimes.com/1987/10/24/politics/borks-nomination-is-rejected-5842-reagan-saddened.html
[6]QU Poll. “QU Poll Release Detail.”Quinnipiac University. poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2574.
[7] Elving, Ron. “What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now.” NPR. June 29, 2018. www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Hurley, Lawrence. “Supreme Court Nominee out in Cold as Election Heats Up.” Reuters. July 19, 2016. www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-garland-idUSKCN0ZZ17L.
[10] Bravin, Jess. “President Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination of Merrick Garland Expires.” The Wall Street Journal. January 03, 2017. www.wsj.com/articles/president-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-of-merrick-garland-expires-1483463952.
[11] Haberman, Maggie, and Jonathan Martin. “McConnell Tries to Nudge Trump Toward Two Supreme Court Options.” The New York Times. July 08, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Kim, Seung Min. “Debate Boils over about ‘Confidential’ Kavanaugh Documents.” The Washington Post. September 06, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debate-boils-over-about-confidential-kavanaugh-documents/2018/09/06/24d2a69c-b1f2-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.93918b9bc876.
[14] Lewis, Neil A. “Report Finds Republican Aides Spied On Democrats.” The New York Times, March 05, 2004. www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/us/report-finds-republican-aides-spied-on-democrats.html.
[15] “Kavanaugh Tried to Downplay His Involvement in the Hacking of Democrats. It Was a Disaster.” ThinkProgress. thinkprogress.org/kavanaugh-leahy-stolen-emails-spying-manny-miranda-453b822fab39/.
[16] Lewis, Neil A. “Report Finds Republican Aides Spied On Democrats.”
[17] Matthews, Dylan. “The Brett Kavanaugh Perjury Controversy, Explained by 4 Legal Scholars.” Vox. September 07, 2018. www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury.
[18] Lovett, Jon, et al. “Barack to the Future.” Crooked Media. September 10, 2018. www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4lqEp-3oK4.
[19] Matthews, Dylan. “The Brett Kavanaugh Perjury Controversy, Explained by 4 Legal Scholars.”
[20] Watkins, Eli. “Timeline: How the Kavanaugh Accusations Have Unfolded.” CNN, Cable News Network. September 17, 2018. www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/kavanaugh-ford-timeline/index.html
[21] Morin, Rebecca. “Kavanaugh Says He’d Testify in Congress about Sexual Assault Allegations.” POLITICO. September 17, 2018. www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-denies-sexual-assault-allegations-826085.
[22] Hayes, Christal. “Read Christine Blasey Ford’s Letter Detailing the Alleged Assault by Brett Kavanaugh.” USA Today. September 24, 2018. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/23/christine-blasey-ford-letter-alleged-assault-brett-kavanaugh/1406932002/.
[23] Bump, Philip. “Mark Judge’s Book Validates Christine Blasey Ford’s Timeline of the Alleged Kavanaugh Assault.” The Washington Post. September 27, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/mark-judges-book-validates-christine-fords-timeline-alleged-kavanaugh-assault/?utm_term=.eece6e3fc6e8.
[24] Touchberry, Ramsey. “Brett Kavanaugh Fails to Answer Whether He Is the Drunk ‘Bart O’Kavanaugh’ Named in Book.” Newsweek. September 28, 2018. www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-refuses-bart-okavanaugh-question-1142733.
[25] Kelly, Kate, and David Enrich. “Kavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique.” The New York Times. October 02, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Lind, Dara. “Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Yearbook, Explained as Best Anyone Can Explain It.” Vox. October 02, 2018. www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17901368/kavanaugh-yearbook-boof-devil-triangle-renate-beach-week
[28] Ibid.
[29] Bump, Philip. “Here’s Where Kavanaugh’s Sworn Testimony Was Misleading or Wrong.” The Washington Post. September 28, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?utm_term=.8d5e5b7b6cd3.
[30] Blake, Aaron. “Brett Kavanaugh’s Anger May Be Backfiring.” The Washington Post. October 03, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/03/brett-kavanaughs-anger-may-have-backfired/?utm_term=.257628badb13.
[31] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.” The Washington Post. September 27, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.42434ab07220.
[32] Fandos, Nicholas, and Michael Shear. “Before Kavanaugh Hearing, New Accusations and Doubts Emerge.” The New York Times. September 26, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/kavanaugh-calendar.html.
[33] Forgey, Quint. “’He Was Very Aggressive’: Kavanaugh Accuser Describes His Behavior at Parties.” POLITICO. October 01, 2018. www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/swetnick-kavanaugh-aggressive-855650.
[34] DeBonis, Mike, and Josh Dawsey. “Fight over Kavanaugh Intensifies amid Confusion over Limits of FBI Sexual Assault Investigation.” The Washington Post. September 30, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/administration-says-white-house-is-not-limiting-fbi-probe-of-kavanaugh-but-is-against-fishing-expedition/2018/09/30/aa7b796e-c4bb-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.f45889f1033c.
[35] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[36] Itzkoff, Dave. “’S.N.L.’ Has Matt Damon Play Brett Kavanaugh in Season Premiere.” The New York Times. September 30, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/arts/television/snl-matt-damon-brett-kavanaugh-kanye-west-rant.html.
[37] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[38] Blake, Aaron. “Brett Kavanaugh’s Anger May Be Backfiring.”
[39] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[40] Liptak, Adam. “Brett Kavanaugh Urged Graphic Questions in Clinton Inquiry.” The New York Times. August 20, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-clinton-starr.html.
[41] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[42] Blake, Aaron. “Brett Kavanaugh’s Anger May Be Backfiring.”
[43] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[44] Klimas, Jacqueline. “Cotton: Feinstein to Be Investigated over Leaked Letter from Ford.” POLITICO. September 30, 2018. www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/cotton-feinstein-ford-leaked-letter-854019.
[45] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[46] Liptak, Kevin. “The FBI Did Investigate Anita Hill’s Accusation, and It Took 3 Days.” CNN. September 20, 2018. www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html.
[47] Murdock, Sebastian. “Mitch McConnell Says Republicans Will ‘Plow Right Through’ Confirming Kavanaugh.” The Huffington Post. September 21, 2018. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-republicans-brett-kavanaugh_us_5ba50039e4b069d5f9d23b27.
[48] U.S. Government. Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg. “Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript.”
[49] Lucas, Ryan, and Philip Ewing. “Who Talked To The FBI In The Kavanaugh Case – And Who Didn’t?” NPR. October 04, 2018. www.npr.org/2018/10/04/654345903/who-talked-to-the-fbi-in-the-kavanaugh-case-and-who-didnt.
[50] Daniel, Annie, et al. “How Every Senator Voted on Kavanaugh’s Confirmation.” The New York Times. October 06, 2018. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-live-vote-senate-confirmation.html.
[51] “Americans Still Closely Divided on Kavanaugh Confirmation.” Gallup, Inc. October 03, 2018. news.gallup.com/poll/243377/americans-closely-divided-kavanaugh-confirmation.aspx.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Bump, Philip. “Another Sign That the Kavanaugh Fight Is Energizing Republican Voters.” The Washington Post. October 03, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/03/another-sign-that-kavanaugh-fight-is-energizing-republican-voters/?utm_term=.bdbf51d14172.
[54] “‘Year of the Woman.’” U.S. Senate: “Year of the Woman.” web.archive.org/web/20180927065453/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/year_of_the_woman.htm.
[55] Justich, Kerry. “’You Are Our Heroes’: 14 Men Protest Outside the Supreme Court, Chanting ‘Believe Women! Believe Survivors!’” Yahoo!. October 05, 2018. www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/heroes-14-men-protest-outside-supreme-court-chanting-believe-women-believe-survivors-202838242.html.
[56] “The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh. Signed, 2,400 Law Professors.” The New York Times. October 03, 2018. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage.
