Defiance and Deflection: The Kavanaugh Hearing, and What's Next
The Senate Judiciary Committee's still scheduled to vote Friday on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, and he's already hired four law clerks for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court term.
September 27, 2018 at 07:20 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, abandoning their silence in questioning the woman who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, heatedly defended their U.S. Supreme Court nominee, who said his family and reputation “have been permanently destroyed.”
What had been a relatively calm and nonpartisan morning session, where Christine Blasey Ford recounted her claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in the 1980s, erupted into partisan rancor between Republican and Democratic members.
Kavanaugh and the Republicans accused Democrats of a political hit-job. Democrats focused on the “quiet and raw” testimony from Ford, a research psychologist in California who testified for four hours and spoke about how the alleged attack affected her life.
The 21-member committee—11 Republicans, 10 Democrats—is expected to vote Friday morning on Kavanaugh's nomination to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy. One key vote, Sen. Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican, said in his allotted time that ”in the end there is likely to be as much doubt as certainty.”
If reported out of the judiciary committee, Kavanaugh's nomination is expected to move quickly to the floor. Senate Republican leaders were reportedly meeting Thursday evening to discuss the next steps. The Supreme Court term starts Oct. 1. Kavanaugh said Thursday that he had hired, on a contingent basis, four clerks—all female—for the upcoming term.
What follows are five highlights from Thursday's hearing.
➤➤ Kavanaugh refused to say whether he would ask, on his own, the Senate or the White House to get the FBI involved to investigate the misconduct claims. Democratic members have emphasized the lack of an FBI investigation to collect facts about the allegations and the refusal of Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to ask President Donald Trump to direct the FBI to investigate the sexual misconduct allegations. During the hearing, Grassley insisted the FBI does not reach conclusions and make recommendations. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, repeatedly tried to get Kavanaugh to personally embrace an FBI investigation. Durbin asked Kavanaugh to turn around and ask Donald McGahn, the White House counsel, to ask for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh would not budge. He stuck to his line: “I welcome all the committee wants to do. I'm innocent. They [FBI] don't reach conclusions. I said I wanted a hearing.”
➤➤ Drinking was a central topic, and Kavanaugh wasn't eager to talk about it. Kavanaugh dodged and deflected and distanced himself from questions about how much he drank in high school and college. Alcohol was the element common to the three sexual misconduct allegations lodged against Kavanaugh. When pressed about his drinking in high school—the timeframe of Ford's sexual assault allegation—Kavanaugh said, “I like beer. Sometimes I had too many beers.” He denied ever drinking to the point of blacking out, passing out or not remembering where he was or what he did the night before. Kavanaugh was forced to apologize at one point after asking Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, about her drinking habits.
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
➤➤ Kavanaugh came out in fighting form. Kavanaugh was notably different at the hearing from his appearance Tuesday night on Fox TV. Gone was his calm plea for a fair process and in its place was an angry, defiant nominee who was dismissive and hostile at times to the Democratic senators pressing him. His demeanor reflected his comments in his opening statement in which he accused the “frenzy of the left” for turning the confirmation process into a “national disgrace.”
➤➤ Now, it's OK to talk politics and take sides. Just a few weeks ago, at the start of his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh said repeatedly he would not touch anything remotely political. Judges, after all, are nonpartisan. That position went out the door Thursday. Kavanaugh inveighed against Democrats and activists, holding them responsible for drawing attention to the sexual assault claims lodged by Ford and other women. “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” Kavanaugh said, in an extraordinarily political statement for a Supreme Court nominee. He added: “This is a circus.”
➤➤ Republicans ditched their outside counsel. During the first part of Thursday's hearing, when the committee addressed Ford, the Republican lawmakers on the panel ceded all their time for questioning to veteran sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell. When it became time to interrogate Kavanaugh? Mitchell began to pinch-hit for Republicans, but soon dropped out. Republicans used their allotted time to defend Kavanaugh—mainly speaking out and asking few questions. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, spent five minutes railing against Democrats, and described the Kavanaugh controversy as “the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250