Note: Excerpts below are from the authors' words except for subheads and Editor's notes" such as this. This summary of U.S. Supreme Court and other high court cases encompasses news stories and commentary in 2018. For our complete listing of periods extending back to 2018, kindly visit these links: 2018, 2019 and 2020.
2018
December
Dec. 31
SCOTUSblog, The chief justice’s 2018 year-end report: The federal judiciary and #MeToo, Amy Howe, Dec. 31, 2018. Chief Justice John Roberts released his annual report on the 
federal judiciary today, focusing on the judiciary’s response to allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Roberts had discussed this issue in his 2017 report, after several female law clerks accused Judge Alex Kozinski – then a prominent judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit – of inappropriate sexual conduct.
A working group created to review the safeguards in place to protect law clerks and other employees concluded, Roberts reported, that “inappropriate workplace conduct is not pervasive within the Judiciary, but it is also not limited to a few isolated instances involving law clerks” and “frequently goes unreported.” Roberts endorsed the recommendations made by the group, which included making changes to the codes of conduct for both judges and employees to make clear that both harassment and retaliation against employees who report misconduct are prohibited.
Roberts observed that he was “pleased” that the judiciary has “mobilized to ensure that” it is “the exemplary workplace that we all want,” but he added that “the job is not finished until we have done all that we can to ensure that all of our employees are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect.”
Dec. 28
SCOTUSblog, Civility and collegiality continued to be a theme in the Supreme Court justices’ appearances this month. Victoria Kwan, Dec. 28, 2018. On a December 7 visit to Duquesne University, Justice Sonia Sotomayor recounted a conversation about civility with the other justices. Previous justices were at times openly hostile to one another, and the court’s current era of collegiality is perhaps more of an exception than the rule.
According to Sotomayor, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (right) was in large part responsible for this change, initiating traditions such as justice lunches and making sure to speak to Chief Justice John Roberts, before she left the bench, about the importance of maintaining collegiality. Coverage of the event comes from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
While recent headlines about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have focused on her health – namely, her recovery from a fall that resulted in three broken ribs, followed by an operation to remove cancerous nodules from her lungs – the justice still found time for multiple public appearances this month, including two events to promote the new biopic “On the Basis of Sex.” On December 11, Ginsburg participated in a Q&A session with NPR reporter Nina Totenberg prior to a screening of the film at the National Archives Museum in Washington. “I’m feeling just fine,” she reassured the audience, according to Variety. “I am meeting with my personal trainer tomorrow.” Additional coverage comes from The Hollywood Reporter.
On December 18, Justice Samuel Alito (left) gave a lecture on globalization and the enforcement of human rights at the Europa Institut at the 
University of Zurich. Alito spoke of the collision of abstract rights and tradition in the Supreme Court’s rulings on “liberty,” comparing the outcomes of the court’s assisted suicide and same-sex marriage cases.
Asked to comment on the perception of warring conservative and liberal wings of the Supreme Court, Alito answered: “There are cases in which we divide five to four… but when that happens, it’s based on differences in our ideas about how the Constitution should be interpreted and how statutes should be interpreted. It’s certainly not based on the party of the President who appointed us.” The University of Zurich posted video of Alito’s talk online.
Mueller's First SCOTUS Test
CNN, Government files sealed response to Supreme Court in mystery grand jury case, Mary Kay Mallonee, Dec. 28, 2018. The federal government responded Friday to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' issuance of a temporary pause on an order holding an unnamed, foreign government-owned company in contempt over a mystery court case related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
The government response was filed under seal ahead of Monday's deadline.
The company asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court ruling that ordered the company to comply with the subpoena, which required it to turn over "information" about its commercial activity in a criminal investigation. The Supreme Court action also paused fines the company was facing for every day of noncompliance.
Roberts could now refer the matter to the full court to determine the next step.
It would take votes from five justices to keep in place the pause of the contempt citation if the Supreme Court decides to take up a full review of the lower court rulings.
The company's challenge of the subpoena appears to have begun in September. In its ruling this past week, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia offered few clues about the company and its country of origin or what Mueller's team sought.
This is the first known legal challenge apparently related to Mueller's investigation to make its way to the Supreme Court.
Roberts' original order put on hold the contempt citation issued by a DC federal judge against the company for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena, but only long enough for the justices to decide whether they want to intervene.
Dec. 23
New York Times, Analysis: Roberts, Leader of Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority, Fights Perception That It Is Partisan, Adam Liptak, Dec. 23, 2018. “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” he has said, a theme he has returned to while trying to strike a delicate balance as the chief justice.
In his first 13 years on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s main challenge was trying to assemble five votes to move the court to the right, though there were only four reliably conservative justices.
Now he faces a very different problem. With the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and his replacement by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the chief justice has the votes he needs on issues like abortion, racial discrimination, religion and voting. At the same time, he has taken Justice Kennedy’s place as the swing vote at the court’s ideological center, making him the most powerful chief justice in 80 years.
But all of that new power comes at a dangerous time for the court, whose legitimacy depends on the public perception that it is not a partisan institution. “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” Chief Justice Roberts (right) said in 
2016, and he reiterated that position in an extraordinary rebuke of President Trump last month.
He seemed to underscore that point again on Friday, joining the court’s four-member liberal wing, all appointed by Democratic presidents, to reject a request from the Trump administration in a case that could upend decades of asylum policy. This month, he drew sharp criticism from three conservative colleagues for voting to deny review in two cases on efforts to stop payments to Planned Parenthood.
Dec. 21
Washington Post, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has surgery for malignant nodules in her lung, Robert Barnes and Laurie McGinley, Dec. 21, 2018. The 85-year-old Supreme Court justice, right, is “resting comfortably,” and “there was no evidence of any remaining disease” after the surgery, the court said in a news release.
Dec. 20
New York Times, Opinion: A Supreme Court Divided. On the Right, Linda Greenhouse, Dec. 20, 2018. Is there a split among conservatives between ideology and the court’s long-term legitimacy? The Supreme Court’s docket-setting process, by which it selects less than 1 percent of the appeals that reach it every year, is a black box. The justices almost never explain at the time why they agree to hear one appeal or turn down another.
But in the case of the efforts by Louisiana and Kansas to “defund” Planned Parenthood — shorthand for disqualifying a health care provider from reimbursement eligibility under a state-administered Medicaid program for low-income individuals — the court’s three most conservative justices did us a great favor.
In a dissenting opinion that can only be described as snarky, Justices Clarence Thomas (left), Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch did more than permit some light to enter the black box.
They trained a spotlight on the court’s most private proceeding, the weekly closed-door conference at which the justices, unaccompanied by law clerks or secretaries, meet to set the country’s legal agenda.
Based on the court’s online docket, we could deduce during the run-up to last week’s action that the cases were controversial inside the court....In other words, we have three conservative justices calling out two other conservative justices as wimps at best, unprincipled strivers for public approval at worst. And this may be just the tip of the iceberg.
Dec. 6
SCOTUSblog, Argument analysis: Majority appears ready to uphold “separate sovereigns” doctrine, Amy Howe, Dec. 6, 2018. When Terance Gamble was pulled over by police in Alabama three years ago for having a faulty headlight, he probably didn’t think that prosecutors would make a federal case out of it. And he certainly wouldn’t have imagined that his case would make national headlines – not so much for its own sake, but because of what a win for Gamble might mean for prosecutions arising from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Both of these things did happen, but after nearly 80 minutes of oral argument this morning, Gamble seemed unlikely to prevail on his argument that the federal charges against him violate the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which would in turn preserve the ability of state prosecutors to bring charges against defendants in the Mueller investigation even if they receive pardons from President Donald Trump for any federal charges brought against them.
Dec. 2
Washington Post, Supreme Court to consider case that could affect potential Manafort prosecutions, Robert Barnes, Dec. 2, 2018. The Supreme Court next week takes up the case of a small-time Alabama felon, Terance Gamble, who complains that his convictions by state and federal prosecutors for the same gun possession crime violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
But likely to be watching the proceedings closely will be those concerned about a big-time felon, Republican consultant and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was prosecuted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for tax fraud.
With President Trump keeping alive prospects that he might pardon Manafort, Gamble v. United States might be redubbed Manafort v. Mueller, joked Thomas C. Goldstein, an attorney who regularly argues before the Supreme Court.
The outcome in the case could affect nascent plans by states to prosecute Manafort, left, under their own tax evasion laws — New York, in particular, has expressed interest — should Trump pardon Manafort on his federal convictions.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution’s 5th Amendment prohibits more than one prosecution or punishment for the same offense. But the Supreme Court since the 1850s has made an exception, allowing successive prosecutions and punishments if one is brought by state prosecutors and the other by the federal government. (One early case from that time involved counterfeiting; another was prosecution of someone harboring a fugitive slave.)
In Gamble, the court is reconsidering these precedents. Almost none of the briefs filed in the case speculate on how a presidential pardon of a federal conviction would affect prosecutors at the state level should the so-called separate sovereigns doctrine be renounced.
November
Nov. 28
Washington Post, Kavanaugh worried scandal would end his coaching days. Now he’s back on the court, Ann E. Marimow, Nov. 28, 2018 (print edition). The Supreme Court's newest justice has returned to lead his daughter’s basketball team.
Nov. 24
The Guardian, Opinion: If Trump is cornered, the judges he disdains may finally bring him down, Walter Shapiro, Nov. 24, 2018. The president thinks justice only matters as it affects him. As his defenders fall away, he may find this all too painfully true.
A rational president, who had just bludgeoned Brett Kavanaugh onto the supreme court, would not jeopardize the long-awaited conservative majority by picking a fight with Chief Justice John Roberts, right. But rationality has never been Donald Trump’s strong suit when it comes to dealing with the judiciary.
Many phrases might describe Roberts’ 13 years as chief justice since he was appointed by George W Bush, but “hot-headed” is not among them. It presumably took dozens of provocations before he yielded to the temptation to instruct the president that with an independent judiciary, “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
Trump’s concept of justice pivots around a simple question: “Is it good for me or bad for me?”
Nothing better illustrates Trump’s solipsistic approach to crime and punishment than the recent revelation by the New York Times that last spring he talked about ordering the justice department to prosecute Hillary Clinton and James Comey.
As he pursued such thuggish fantasies, it is possible Trump was influenced by Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who had imprisoned hundreds of his political foes in the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh. (That, of course, was the more benevolent version of Prince Mohammed, before he became closely associated with a bone saw.)
In the American version of such a dragnet, you might see Robert Mueller confined to a room next to Elizabeth Warren with a couple of dozen recalcitrant federal judges down the hall. Of course, the incarcerated would be residing in a Trump hotel – and the president would be billing the federal government at inflated rates for its use.
The final line of defense of democratic values are judges and top law enforcement officials who answer to a higher loyalty than fealty to Trump. It would be both bracing and ironic if the president were ultimately thwarted by black-robed figures.
Nov. 23
Washington Post, What Chief Justice Roberts could have told Trump but didn’t, Fred Barbash, Nov. 23, 2018 (print edition). The administration's extraordinary string of court defeats has come at the hands of judges across the country appointed by Republican as well as Democratic presidents.
As unusual as Roberts’s comments were, he could have said so much more, like maybe, you’ve got to be kidding, Mr. President, if you think your judicial problems are confined to “Obama” judges in a single circuit.
Nov. 22
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by GOP President George W. Bush (file photo)
Washington Post, Rebuking Trump’s criticism of ‘Obama judge,’ Chief Justice Roberts defends judiciary as ‘independent,’ Felicia Sonmez, Nov. 22, 2018 (print edition). U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday issued an extraordinary statement in response to President Trump’s criticism of federal judges, one day after the president blamed an “Obama judge” for ruling against his administration’s ban on asylum for those who cross the border illegally.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released the day before Thanksgiving. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
“That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for,” the statement concluded.
On Tuesday, Trump had told reporters outside the White House that he would file a “major complaint” against the federal judge who temporarily blocked his administration from denying asylum to migrants who illegally cross the southern border. See below for related articles on immigration and the courts.
Nov.18
Palmer Report, Opinion: You’d better believe Robert Mueller is investigating Anthony Kennedy’s connection to Trump-Russia, Bill Palmer, Nov. 18, 2018. Earlier, Palmer Report pulled together all the confirmed pieces of the puzzle when it comes to Donald Trump, Russia, Deutsche Bank, and retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, shown below left. We argued that while the mountain of circumstantial evidence doesn’t prove anything, it’s the kind of situation that calls for a criminal investigation.
Based on the pattern we’ve watched play out with Robert Mueller over the past year, we can virtually guarantee you that one of two scenarios is true. Either Mueller and his team began investigating the Trump-Kennedy-Russia connection the minute it showed up in newspaper headlines last week, or Mueller and his team already knew about it and their investigation into it is well underway. How can we be so sure?
We’re looking at a situation where a Supreme Court Justice’s son used his position at a major bank to steer absurdly inappropriate loans to Donald Trump, at the same time that bank just happened to be laundering billions of dollars of Russian money into the hands of clients in the city where Trump lived, even as Russia was working to get Trump elected President, and then that same Justice stepped down at just the right time to help Trump. You’d better believe Robert Mueller is looking into something that obvious and ominous – and if it is indeed a criminal matter, he’ll pursue it and expose it.
Nov. 8
Justice Hurt In Fall
New York Times, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized With 3 Broken Ribs, Eileen Sullivan and Adam Liptak, Nov. 8, 2018. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court, shown in a file photo, was hospitalized on Thursday morning, with three broken ribs after falling in her office Wednesday evening, a spokeswoman said.
Justice Ginsburg, 85, went home after her fall, but experienced discomfort over the night. She was admitted to George Washington University Hospital, where doctors found three broken ribs on her left side, Kathy Arberg, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said in a statement.
The next sitting of the Supreme Court begins on Nov. 26, and Justice Ginsburg’s history suggests the injuries are not likely to keep her away. She broke two ribs in 2012, without missing work. And she returned to work quickly after undergoing a heart procedure in 2012. She is also a cancer survivor and returned to work less than three weeks after having surgery.
Even as Justice Ginsburg has shown she bounces back quickly from health setbacks, liberals have become jittery about how much more time she will be able to serve, particularly with the balance of the Supreme Court shifting to the right because of President Trump’s appointment of two conservative justices.
October
Oct. 23
Washington Post, Sandra Day O’Connor says she is withdrawing from public life because of dementia, Robert Barnes, Oct. 23, 2018. The retired Supreme Court justice (shown in a 2012 C-SPAN screenshot0, who was the first woman to serve on the high court, wrote in a letter that she wanted to “be open about these changes, and while I am still able, share some personal thoughts.”
Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who became the first female justice in 1981 and then one of the court’s most influential members, announced Tuesday that she suffers from dementia and is “no longer able to participate in public life.”
In a letter released by her family, O’Connor, 88, said she wanted to “be open about these changes, and while I am still able, share some personal thoughts.”
She added: “How fortunate I feel to be an American and to have been presented with the remarkable opportunities available to the citizens of our country. As a young cowgirl from the Arizona desert, I never could have imagined that one day I would become the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.”
O’Connor, shown at right in an official photo, was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan, who was fulfilling a campaign pledge to name the first female justice. She served for a quarter-century, leaving to take care of her husband, John, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.
O’Connor, who was born in El Paso, Texas, lives near her home in Phoenix.
One of her last interviews was in 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. She said she did not agree with the strategy of Republican senators to keep the post open until after the presidential election.
New York Times, Opinion: The Far-Reaching Threats of a Conservative Court, Eric Posner (professor at the University of Chicago Law School), Oct. 23, 2018. Will the Supreme Court wipe out the government protections that have shielded Americans from abusive business practices since the New Deal?
With the start of the Supreme Court’s new term, many people are wondering whether the conservative majority, which has taken a further step to the right with the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, will overturn Roe v. Wade.
But that’s not where the action is. As two cases argued before the court this month illustrate, the real question is whether it will undermine the system of government that has protected the public from abusive business practices since the New Deal.
The two cases might seem esoteric, and far removed from government protection of workers and consumers. Gundy v. United States involved a challenge to the attorney general’s extension of sex-crime-registration law to offenders convicted before the law was enacted. Nielsen v. Preap involved a government policy that deprived certain unauthorized immigrants of some procedural protections against deportation.
Liberals might root against the government — the immigration and sex offender policies are harsh. But they should be careful what they wish for. The conservative majority can, and most likely will, rule against the government using broad theories that would also eat away at the constitutional foundations of the New Deal system, which is essential for protecting health and safety, the environment and much else.
Since the New Deal, Congress has authorized regulatory agencies to make policy by issuing regulations. These agencies are now a familiar part of our government. They include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is currently aiding hurricane victims in Florida. Agency regulation became necessary as the problems of a modern industrialized nation overwhelmed the regulatory capacities of states, local governments and Congress itself.
The New Deal agencies initially encountered resistance from the Supreme Court, which was then, like now, a reactionary institution that frowned on novelty. For one thing, when agencies issue regulations, they make law, which was the traditional prerogative of Congress. Moreover, the agencies were mostly overseen by the White House, which is not supposed to make law. And Congress also gave many regulatory agencies some autonomy — protecting staff from removal, for example — that seemed to infringe on the president’s authority to supervise the executive branch.
By the 1980s, half a century after the New Deal, a political and legal consensus in favor of the administrative state had solidified. Left and right argued about how much regulation was needed, of course, but no one doubted the constitutional foundations of the administrative state — not even Justice Antonin Scalia, the leading conservative lawyer of the past half century and an academic expert on administrative law before he ascended to the bench.
But Brett Kavanaugh is a skeptic. And so are Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s first appointment to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas, who was appointed back in 1991. The views of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are less clear, but their judicial opinions point in the same direction.
New York Times, Young People Are Suing the Trump Administration Over Climate Change. She’s Their Lawyer, John Schwartz, Oct. 23, 2018. If all goes as planned, Julia Olson will deliver her opening argument on Monday in a landmark federal lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of 21 plaintiffs, ages 11 to 22, who are demanding that the government fight climate change. It is a case that could test whether the judicial branch has major role to play in dealing with global warming, and whether there is a constitutional right to a stable and safe climate.
But as of now, less than a week before the trial is scheduled to start in Federal District Court in Eugene, whether the young people will get their day in court is still an open question. On Friday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. granted a Trump administration request to put a brief hold on the proceedings to consider government filings that could derail the case.
The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, is the most visible case for Ms. Olson and her nonprofit organization, Our Children’s Trust. The group is involved in similar legal actions in almost every state, and other climate suits around the world.
Oct. 19
Alliance for Justice, Opinion: The Captured Court, Bill Yeomans, right, Oct. 19, 2018. In the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation, Supreme Court justices have taken to public fora to assert the independence of the Court and to assure the public that the Court is not a political institution. Most prominently, Chief Justice Roberts distinguished justices from officials in the political branches, noting that “they speak for the people” while the justices “do not speak for the people, but we speak for the Constitution.”
As aspiration, Roberts’ comment shines, but in current context, it is a distraction from the stark reality that the Court is a political institution. It has been captured by the sustained effort of the Republican Party to distort the third branch of government into an instrument to promote a right-wing political agenda. While the justices will not decide cases in the language of partisan politics, the conservative majority will repeatedly reach results that match Republican political goals. The conservative justices were selected by political officials and confirmed through a highly partisan political process because they were reliable votes for those results. The product is a political institution.
The roots of the drive to reshape the Court to serve conservative political goals lie in the reaction of social conservatives against Brown v. Bd. of Education and Roe v. Wade, and the effort by Lewis Powell and others in the early 1970’s and thereafter to mobilize the business community to capture the courts. The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation were central to the rise of the organized conservative legal movement in the 1980’s. That movement focused on building a strong cadre of rising lawyers who could be appointed to the bench by Republican presidents. Each of the Republican appointed justices now sitting – Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh – has deep roots in the Federalist Society. Indeed, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were selected by Trump from lists compiled specially for him by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
The justices were groomed to be reliable conservatives. Each served in one or more Republican administrations and each completed a successful tryout on a federal court of appeals. They were nominated for the Supreme Court because Republicans were confident there would be no surprises in their rulings. They were adherents to a legal philosophy (characterized by subtle variations that rarely affect results on major issues) that would produce outcomes that align almost perfectly with the Republican political agenda. By relying on their legal philosophy, they would exercise non-partisan judgment to interpret the laws and Constitution to promote Republican interests.
Reform the Supreme Court
The Kavanaugh confirmation debacle has justifiably left people angry. We must continue to process the allegations against Kavanaugh, right, the limitations imposed on the FBI investigation, and the suppression of documents by the White House and Senate Republicans. But it is also time to get serious about reforming the Supreme Court.The president and Republicans in the Senate have installed a radically conservative justice who was credibly accused of sexual assault and lied to the Judiciary Committee about matters ranging from his activities in the Bush White House to the meaning of his high school yearbook. They pressed ahead with a supremely flawed candidate to complete the right-wing takeover of the Court that has been a central Republican political goal for at least fifty years.
The Court is now indisputably a political institution in which Republican justices will move the law inexorably to the right in furtherance of the Republican agenda. By further weakening public confidence in the Court’s independence and neutrality, Republicans have damaged its legitimacy. Congress must begin to repair the Court.Proposals for essential reforms have been floating around for years, including adoption of a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, reform of recusal practices, limits on financial holdings and outside appearances, better policing of conflicts of interest, and the adoption of 18-year terms.
The elevation of Kavanaugh brings several of these reforms into play, but two stand out. First, Congress must impose a code of conduct and method for enforcement on Supreme Court justices, if the justices will not do it themselves. Judge Henderson, acting as Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit because of Judge Garland’s recusal, referred to Chief Justice Roberts more than a dozen complaints filed against Judge Kavanaugh based on the confirmation process. Complaints filed against federal district court and court of appeals judges can be dismissed by the chief judge or referred to the circuit’s judicial council for fuller consideration. Henderson, apparently, thought these complaints were sufficiently meritorious to send forward.
It is common to ask the Chief Justice to refer the complaints to another circuit. The complaints were sent to Roberts before Kavanaugh’s swearing in. After Kavanaugh was sworn in, Roberts, in what appears to be a ministerial act, referred the complaints to Chief Judge Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit. Tymkovich will almost certainly dismiss them now that Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court. Because the code of conduct and disciplinary process that govern court of appeals judges do not apply to Supreme Court justices, Kavanaugh will escape accountability. The law must be changed.
Congress also must address the issue of recusals. Currently, each justice decides whether or not to recuse him or herself from a matter and there is no requirement that a justice offer reasons. The bar and public, therefore, often can only speculate about a justice’s reasoning. That’s troubling since the Court’s legitimacy depends entirely on the justices’ written explanations of the bases for their decisions. Compounding the concern, the Chief Justice has suggested that justices are not bound by the existing recusal statute. Ideally, the Court should itself articulate clear standards and an improved process for recusal, but its failure to do so places the burden on Congress to act.
Kavanaugh’s angry, intemperate, and partisan tirade before the Judiciary Committee requires close monitoring of his recusal decisions. He denounced the Clintons, Democrats, and groups on the left, creating the appearance, at least, that he cannot fairly adjudicate claims involving them. While Congress faces legitimate separation of powers concerns in this area, it must act to the full extent of its constitutional authority to ensure that justices apply clear standards transparently when faced with recusal decisions.
Progressives also must begin thinking long term about expanding the Court. This change cannot happen until Democrats control the White House, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate.
Bill Yeomans, right, is the Senior Justice Fellow for Justice at Alliance for Justice. He previously taught constitutional law, civil rights, and legislation at American University Washington College of Law. He also served for 26 years in the Department of Justice, where he litigated cases involving voting rights and discrimination in employment, housing, and education, and prosecuted police officers and racially motivated violent offenders before assuming a series of management positions, including acting Assistant Attorney General. For three years, Bill served as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and has also held positions at AFJ and the American Constitution Society.
Oct. 11
Oct. 11
Justice Integrity Project, Courts Continue Voter Suppression As Trump Celebrates With His Justice In Partisan White House Gala, Hatefest
By Andrew Kreig
The U.S. Supreme Court helped launch the Brett Kavanaugh era on Oct. 10 by curtailing the voting of Native Americans in North Dakota, where a tight Senate race threatens a Democrat who voted against Kavanaugh's recent confirmation.
The court enabled a new state rule barring voters who use for election purposes Post Office boxes instead of street addresses. Many Native Americans living on reservations use only PO Boxes and have heavily supported Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, below, the incumbent Democrat who is now an underdog in her race.
The court's refusal to intervene follows its recent practice of avoiding review for the most part of voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts by Republican state officials who have taken major steps recently to reduce voter registrations and polling place en masse in ways that heavily disadvantage Democrats in November.
In the North Dakota case, five votes were needed from the nine justices. Kavanaugh, shown in a White House-promoted political-type photo of a kind unusual for a sitting justice, did not participate for unexplained reasons, presumably because of his busy schedule getting installed onto the court.
Several columns this week describe a looming legal crisis regarding election-rigging in next month's elections and beyond.
Update: Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall.
Investigative reporter Greg Palast, who documented for the BBC in 2001 how Republicans had stolen the 2000 presidential election by eliminating the names of more than 100,000 suspected Democrats from voter rolls (and not by the few ballots with hanging "chads" described by the American media), published several investigations regarding secret cutbacks in 2018 voter rolls by Republican secretaries of state seeking to tilt next month's elections.
For example, he wrote for Truthout in GOP’s Brian Kemp Purged 1 in 10 Georgia Voters: I’ve Got the Names:
"My lawyer had to threaten Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp with a federal lawsuit to force him to turn over the names of over half a million voters whose citizenship rights he quietly extinguished," Palast began. "This past week, I released the name of every one of these Georgia voters Kemp flushed from voter rolls in 2017."
Yet all such legal actions and reporting is based on the increasingly quaint theory that federal courts will honestly address the election issues and not just endorse Republican vote suppression by 5-4 party line votes by justices installed like Kavanaugh after long involvement in extreme partisan politics, including dirty tricks at election time.
Taking another broad view, investigative reporter Wayne Madsen linked Kavanaugh with presidential election rigging in the United States with Karl Rove and in the Ukraine with Paul Manafort in 2004, as portrayed at right and as described in his column Exclusive Investigative Commentary: Bush backed Kavanaugh to keep election thefts of 2000 and 2004 a secret.
The column, based on Madsen's years of covering election frauds, linked Kavanaugh and Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee to the Bush dynasty and its election-rigging operation headquartered in Chattanooga, TN, where Corker was mayor before his 2006 election to the senate.
Madsen thereby explained the all-out Bush team pressure that kept such supposed "moderates" as Corker and former Bush appointee Susan Collins as strong Kavanaugh supporters despite their supposed willingness to weigh evidence fairly about allegations against the nominee. Collins is married to Thomas Daffron, a lobbyist with deep ties to the Bush administration and powerful corporations.
Also, Ohio-based investigative reporters/authors Robert Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman published Will the Trump GOP Strip and Flip America's 2018 Election While the Democrats Fail to Protect the Vote?
Earlier this week, President Trump invited the newest justice and his family to the White House to reenact the official weekend swearing-in ceremony.
With Trump front and center and denouncing Democrats, the White House ceremony became a highly partisan attack by the president on "mobs" of protesters against the nominee.
Democrats and other protesters must be defeated at the polls in next month's elections to maintain law and order, the president urged as the new justice looked on during the celebration — thereby horrifying both Democrats and others who think presidents and judges should at least pretend to be non-partisan on formal occasions.
The spectacle was an especially flagrant disregard of norms for a non-partisan judiciary independent of party or president. That's because Kavanaugh, doubtless now deeply indebted to Trump, has argued that a president should not have to undergo civil or criminal litigation.
Oct. 10
Palmer Report, Opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts just sold out Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Palmer, right, Oct. 10, 2018. Earlier this week we learned that a fellow judge on Brett Kavanaugh’s bench received a number of misconduct claims against Kavanaugh during his confirmation process, and referred those complaints to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who hadn’t taken any action on the matter. But now things have changed in a big way.
At the time the complaints first became public knowledge, various legal observers explained that because the review process is a lengthy one, there was nothing that John Roberts could have done with the complaints that would have had any impact on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. But, as it turns out, Roberts didn’t simply decide to sit on his hands. He’s posted a public letter referring the complaints about Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Although the letter doesn’t mention Kavanaugh by name, multiple major news outlets are confirming that Roberts is referring to Kavanaugh in the letter. So what now?
It’s important to keep in mind that John Roberts could have made these complaints go away simply by not referring them, and the odds are that most people would have ended up forgetting about the brief story about the complaints. Instead, by making an official referral, Roberts is opening a de facto misconduct investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, and he’s putting it in the hands of someone who is far removed from the political process that elevated Kavanaugh to begin with. So this is in fact something – even if we don’t yet know quite what it’ll lead to.
Oct. 9
Washington Post, McConnell signals he would push to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, Elise Viebeck, Oct. 9, 2018 (print edition). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who blocked President Barack Obama’s 2016 nominee to the Supreme Court for nearly a year amid widespread Democratic objections — signaled Monday that he would help fill a high-court vacancy if one emerges when President Trump is up for reelection in 2020.
Speaking at a news conference in Louisville, McConnell, right, said his decision to block Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, was based on a tradition that opposition parties in control of the Senate do not confirm Supreme Court nominees during presidential election years.
He claimed the precedent only applies when different parties control the Senate and the White House — leaving open the possibility he would help advance a Trump nominee in 2020 if Republicans still hold a majority in the Senate.
New York Times, After a Bitter Fight, Justice Kavanaugh to Take the Bench, Adam Liptak, Oct. 9, 2018. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh will hear his first Supreme Court arguments, all concerning enhanced sentences for gun crimes. None of the three cases raise major constitutional questions or involve pressing social issues.
New York Times, Only 114 people have served on the Supreme Court since it was established in 1789. Here’s how Justice Kavanaugh fits in, Karen Yourish, Sergio, Pecanha and Troy Griggs, Oct. 9, 2018 (print edition). The first Catholic justice, Roger B. Taney, joined the court in 1836 and the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis, was seated in 1916. A majority of justices have been Protestant — until recently. The court had its first Catholic majority in 2006, and this will continue with the addition of Justice Kavanaugh.
New York Times, Trump Seeks to Make Furor a Campaign Asset, Not a Liability, Peter Baker, Oct. 9, 2018 (print edition). As he prepared to hold a ceremonial swearing-in of Justice Kavanaugh, President Trump dismissed sexual misconduct accusations as “fabricated.”
Washington Post, Trump stokes tensions over Kavanaugh confirmation battle, Ashley Parker and John Wagner, Oct. 9, 2018 (print edition). At a White House ceremony, President Trump apologized to Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and his family for the “terrible pain and suffering” they endured after his confirmation was marred by accusations of sexual misconduct.
New York Times, Opinion: The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics, Paul Krugman, right, Oct. 9, 2018 (print edition). Republicans are an authoritarian regime in waiting.
Many people are worried, rightly, about what the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh means for America in the long term. He’s a naked partisan who clearly lied under oath about many aspects of his personal history; that’s as important as, and related to, the question of what he did to Christine Blasey Ford, a question that remains unresolved because the supposed investigation was such a transparent sham. Putting such a man on the Supreme Court has, at a stroke, destroyed the court’s moral authority for the foreseeable future.
But such long-term worries should be a secondary concern right now. The more immediate threat comes from what we saw on the Republican side during and after the hearing: not just contempt for the truth, but also a rush to demonize any and all criticism. In particular, the readiness with which senior Republicans embraced crazy conspiracy theories about the opposition to Kavanaugh is a deeply scary warning about what might happen to America, not in the long run, but just a few weeks from now.
Oct. 8
Supreme Court Swearing-in
Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, right, ceremonially swears-in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as President Donald Trump looks on, in the East Room of the White House, Oct. 8, 2018. Susan Walsh / AP
ABC News, Trump apologizes 'on behalf of the nation' to Kavanaugh during swearing-in, claims he was 'proven innocent,' Adam Kelsey and Meridith McGraw, Oct. 8, 2018. President Donald Trump apologized to incoming Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Monday evening "for the terrible pain and suffering" that he and his family endured during his confirmation process, going so far as to claim that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent" of the sexual assault allegations made against him.
Trump's comments, which he acknowledged as outside of the norm just prior to making them, came at a ceremonial swearing-in event for Kavanaugh in the East Room of the White House, two days after Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate and formally sworn-in as a member of the court by Chief Justice John Roberts.
"On behalf of the nation, I'd like to apologize to Brad and the entire a Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you've been forced to endure," Trump said. "Those who stepped forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation. Not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception."
Trump addressed the controversy head-on characterizing the heated political debate over sexual assault allegations leveled against Kavanaugh by California professor Christine Blasey Ford and several other women as "violat[ing] every notion of fairness, decency and due process."
"[In] our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty," the president continued. "And with that, I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent."
NBC News, Hillary Clinton calls Kavanaugh's ceremonial swearing-in a 'political rally,' Adam Edelman, Oct. 9, 2018. Trump's remarks at the White House event "further undermined the image and integrity of the court," the former secretary of state said.
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday ripped President Donald Trump’s unusual handling of the ceremonial swearing-in for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, calling the display a "political rally" that "further undermined the image and integrity of the court."
In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, parts of which aired Tuesday morning on the network, Clinton (shown in a file photo by Gage Skidmore) said that the way Trump carried out the event "troubles me greatly."
"What was done last night in the White House was a political rally. It further undermined the image and integrity of the court," Clinton said, "and that troubles me greatly. It saddens me because our judicial system has been viewed as one of the main pillars of our constitutional government."
"So I don't know how people are going to react to it. I think given our divides it will pretty much fall predictably between those who are for and those who are against," she added, calling Trump “true to form.”
"He has insulted, attacked, demeaned women throughout the campaign. Really for many years leading up to the campaign — and he's continued to do that inside the White House," Clinton said.
Trump responded on Tuesday to Clinton's comments, saying, "I guess that's why she lost. She never got it."
GOP Election Scandals
Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Exclusive Investigative Commentary: Bush backed Kavanaugh to keep election thefts of 2000 and 2004 a secret, Wayne Madsen, Oct. 8, 2018 (Subscription required, $30 annually; excerpted with permission.)
"Bush White House aides Brett Kavanaugh and Karl Rove, left, closely coordinated their election fraud operations with two experienced Washington campaign advisers for Republican candidates, Rick Davis, and Davis's partner, Paul Manafort."
Note: Former Navy intelligence officer, NSA analyst and defense contractor computer scientist Wayne Madsen for many years has exposed techniques to rig U.S. and international elections, electronically and by other methods. He is the author of 16 books, including the just-published "Trump's Bananas Republic," which portrays administration scandals through the lens of iconic Hollywood movies.
SCOTUSblog, Court stays out of North Dakota voting dispute, Amy Howe, Oct. 9, 2018. The Supreme Court today declined to intervene in a challenge to a North Dakota law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address. Lawyers say that the ruling will prevent thousands of Native American voters (and tens of thousands of North Dakota residents who are not Native Americans) from casting a ballot in the upcoming 2018 election in a state that could play a key role in Democrats’ efforts to retake the U.S. Senate.
A group of Native American voters in North Dakota have challenged the law, telling the courts that the requirement that voters present identification bearing a street address could pose an obstacle to voting for Native Americans in several ways. Native Americans often live on reservations or in other rural areas where people do not have street addresses; even if they do, lawyers for the challengers argue, those addresses are frequently not included on tribal IDs. Moreover, the lawyers add, Native Americans in North Dakota are “disproportionately homeless.”
In April, a federal district court in North Dakota ordered the state to allow voters to cast ballots as long as they could show IDs that had either a current street address or a current mailing address, such as a P.O. box. The state followed that order in the June primaries, but in September the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit put the district court’s order on hold.
The challengers’ request went originally to Justice Neil Gorsuch, who handles emergency appeals from the 8th Circuit, but he referred it to the full Supreme Court — a fairly common practice. To stay the 8th Circuit’s ruling and prevent the state from enforcing the ID requirement, the challengers needed at least five of the eight justices (Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate) to vote in their favor.
But they apparently fell short. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the court’s decision not to intervene, in a brief opinion that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Ginsburg complained that the “risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of State’s website announced for months the identification requirements as they existed under that injunction.”
Ginsburg acknowledged that, as the 8th Circuit had emphasized, the elections are still a month away. However, Ginsburg stressed, tens of thousands of North Dakotans don’t have an ID bearing their residential street address. As a result, she warned, the 8th Circuit’s order “may lead to voters finding out at the polling place that they cannot vote because their formerly valid ID is now insufficient.”
Climate Change
Washington Post, World has just over a decade to get control of climate change, U.N. scientists say, Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis. Oct. 8, 2018 (print edition). “There is no documented historic precedent" for the scale of changes required, the body found.
The report warns of dire consequences if nations do not cut their carbon emissions by more than 1 billion tons per year, a figure that is larger than the annual emissions of nearly every country on the planet.
Supreme Court Battle
Washington Post, Opinion: We need to stay angry about Kavanaugh, E.J. Dionne Jr., Oct. 8, 2018 (print edition). But even more, we need to vote, organize and think boldly after this travesty.
Republicans rushed through Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation to avoid the possible consequences of an election. They aborted a full investigation because they feared what it might find. They made themselves complicit in a presidential attack on Christine Blasey Ford, a brave woman who asked only that her case against Kavanaugh be taken seriously.
After all these outrages, there will be calls for a renewal of civility, as if the problem is that people said nasty things about one other. But the answer to this power grab cannot be passive acceptance in the name of being polite. The causes and consequences of what just happened must be acknowledged frankly.
The conservative struggle for the court began in the 1960s, but it hit its stride in the Bush v. Gore decision after after the 2000 election. Five conservative justices violated the principles they claimed to uphold on states’ rights and the use of equal-protection doctrine to stop a recount of votes in Florida requested by Al Gore, the Democratic nominee. They thus made George W. Bush president.
The pro-Bush justices made abundantly clear that they were grasping at any arguments available to achieve a certain outcome by declaring, “our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.” Translation: Once Bush is in, please forget what we said here.
Washington Post, Justices move to repair Supreme Court’s image after fight over Kavanaugh, Robert Barnes, Oct. 8, 2018 (print edition). As Brett M. Kavanaugh prepared for his debut on the high court, his colleagues already had moved quickly to paper over the damage from the bitter and tumultuous confirmation battle.
Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy swears in his former clerk Brett Kavanaught as the new justice's family looks on (Supreme Court photo)
Palmer Report, Opinion, Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, which had Trump-Russia fingerprints all over it, is a bigger scandal than ever, Bill Palmer, Oct. 8, 2018. It was an instantly explosive scandal, with ramifications deep and wide enough to shake American democracy to its core – and then almost as instantly, the mainstream media simply abandoned its coverage. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cast an uncharacteristic vote in Donald Trump’s favor on the Muslim Ban, then abruptly announced his retirement the next day (even though he had already hired clerks for the upcoming session), just as we were learning that Kennedy’s son was deeply caught up in the Trump-Russia scandal.
On June 28th of this year, just as Anthony Kennedy was announcing the end of his Supreme Court tenure, the New York Times reported that his son Justin Kennedy “spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer.” This was particularly noteworthy considering that not too long ago, Deutsche Bank was busted for having laundered billions of dollars of Russian money into the hands of unnamed clients in cities including – ahem – New York City.
So was Justin Kennedy the secret conduit for the Kremlin to criminally launder money into the hands of Donald Trump, or was Kennedy totally uninvolved in any such hijinks, and he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? We don’t know the answer, because the major media outlets – who have the inside sources and investigative resources to expose these kinds of things – completely dropped the story. In the name of trying to get somewhere on this crucial but dry-docked scandal, I’m going to present one possible theory of what could have happened.
Let’s say – hypothetically, because there is no proof of this – that Justin Kennedy was indeed a criminal money launderer for Donald Trump and Russia. let’s further say that once the media dredged this up, Anthony Kennedy realized he was going to need to find a way to bail his son out. The easiest path of course would be a presidential pardon. Let’s say that Kennedy asked Trump to pardon his son, and that Trump agreed to it on one condition: Kennedy had to immediately retire. This would hand Trump a key victory – getting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice while the Republicans still safely had control of the Senate before the midterms.
The scary part is that, while this would represent one of the most criminally scandalous corrupt bargains in the history of the United States government, it doesn’t sound that crazy. It’s also worth pointing out that there is no plausible above-board explanation for some of the things that have transpired here. What are the odds that Kennedy would happen to make his retirement decision at the same time his son was being exposed, and that these two events were somehow related? It’s time for the major media outlets to do their jobs and dig up the real story here.
Oct. 7
Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as his wife Ashley and two daughters look on, is sworn onto the court by Chief Justice John Roberts, whom Kavanaugh recommended for the court as Bush Administration White House Staff secretary (Supreme Court photo, Oct. 6, 2018). A political precedent used during the Republican installation of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was to rush the swear-in in order to limit the impact of new scandal and protest for the lifetime appointment.
New York Times, Kavanaugh Is Sworn In After Close Confirmation Vote in Senate, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Oct. 7, 2018 (print edition). Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Saturday by one of the slimmest margins in American history, locking in a solid conservative majority on the court and capping a rancorous battle that began as a debate over judicial ideology and concluded with a national reckoning over sexual misconduct.
He was promptly sworn in by both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — the court’s longtime swing vote, whom he will replace — in a private ceremony.
Washington Post, Divided Senate confirms Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner, Oct. 7, 2018 (print edition). The Senate voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court’s 114th justice on Saturday by one of the narrowest margins in the institution’s history, as police stood guard and protesters’ shouts of “shame, shame” echoed through the Senate chamber.
The 50-to-48 vote capped a brutal confirmation fight that underscored how deeply polarized the nation has become under President Trump, who has now successfully placed two justices on the nation’s highest court, cementing a conservative majority.
With Vice President Pence presiding, senators sat in their chairs and rose to cast their votes, repeatedly interrupted by protesters in the visitors’ gallery who yelled out and were removed by Capitol Police. The Supreme Court announced Kavanaugh would be sworn in later Saturday.
Washington Post, ‘Rock bottom’: Supreme Court fight reveals a country on the brink, Michael Scherer and Robert Costa, Oct. 7, 2018 (print edition). In the battle over Brett M. Kavanaugh, few of the players emerged from the process unchanged or unblemished, underscoring the uncharted territory of deepening distrust and polarization that now defines the American system.
Washington Post, Opinion: They left no doubt what they think of women, Jennifer Rubin, Oct. 7, 2018. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) barked at female sex-crime victims, “Grow up!” He called Christine Blasey Ford a “pleasing” witness. He shooed women away with a flick of his wrist.
Hatch also posted “an uncorroborated account from a Utah man questioning the legitimacy and sexual preferences” of Julie Swetnick, one of Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers. The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board raked him over the coals:
Oct. 6
GOP Wins Court Battle
Washington Post, ‘Ultimate fighter’: How Trump helped shift momentum in favor of Kavanaugh, Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sean Sullivan and Seung Min Kim, Oct. 6, 2018 (print edition). Relying on a hardball approach that left Democrats shaken and defeated, Republican leaders plowed through the chaos of the last few weeks to bring the Supreme Court nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the cusp of confirmation.
New York Times, Opinion: The High Court Brought Low, The Editorial Board, Oct. 6, 2018 (print edition). Don’t let Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh have the last word about American justice.
The task of plugging the holes and patching the rents in the court’s legitimacy now falls to the justices themselves, mainly to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. (shown at left) He must know that every decision of political significance rendered by a 5-to-4 majority that includes a Justice Kavanaugh will, at the very least, appear to be the product of bias and vengeance. If he cares about the integrity of the court as much as he claims to, the chief will do everything in his power to steer the court away from cases, and rulings, that could deepen the nation’s political divide.
There’s work the rest of us can do as well.
We can, for one thing, find ways in our own workplaces and communities to assure victims of sexual assault that they will be respected if they come forward, even if so many national political figures are dismissive of them.
And if we disapprove of the direction of the courts, we can put the lessons Mitch McConnell taught us to work — and vote.
It’s worth noting that, of the five justices picked by Republicans, including Judge Kavanaugh, four were nominated by presidents who first took office after losing the popular vote. And the slim majority of senators who said they would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh on Saturday represent tens of millions fewer Americans than the minority of senators who voted to reject him. The nation’s founders were wise to design the court as a counter-majoritarian institution, but they couldn’t have been picturing this.
Most Americans are not where this Senate majority is. They do not support President Trump. They do not approve of relentless partisanship and disregard for the integrity of democratic institutions. And they have the power to call their government to account.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) screams at his longtime Democratic colleague Pat Leahy of Vermont during the Kavanaugh hearing, in which Leahy and other Democrats have accused the nominee of perjuring himself by denying use of stolen Democratic Senate documents (screenshot).
Washington Post, Grassley suggests absence of GOP women on Judiciary Committee is due to its heavy workload, Paul Kane, Oct. 6, 2018 (print edition). Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inability to attract Republican women might be caused by its heavy workload, a remark the panel’s chairman tried to retract a few minutes later.
“It’s a lot of work — maybe they don’t want to do it,” Grassley told the Wall Street Journal, NBC News and other outlets, as he headed toward the Senate floor for a speech by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
The committee, which has turned into a partisan hotbed in the past five years, has never had a Republican woman serve on it, even as the Senate’s ranks have doubled from three to six female GOP senators in recent years.
That omission drew more scrutiny during the second round of hearings for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, during which committee Republicans hired a female prosecutor from Arizona to question Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago.
Washington Post, The politicians and players whose legacies will be shaped by the Kavanaugh fight, Amber Phillips, Oct. 6, 2018 (print edition). How they navigated the emotionally fraught Supreme Court nomination battle could define their careers. This was a Supreme Court nomination that will go down in the history books. If confirmed, Kavanaugh will have overcome accusations of sexual misconduct and assault, questions about his judicial temperament and surprise delays to his confirmation.
Roll Call, Brett Kavanaugh to Be Rare Beneficiary of Senate Paired Voting, Niels Lesniewski, Oct. 6, 2018. Votes of Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Steve Daines will be offset [With 50-48 confirmation margin projected and no GOP "no" votes].
When the Senate votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on Saturday, two senators will engage in a practice that’s all but died out. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the only member of the Republican Conference opposed to elevating the current D.C. Circuit Court judge to the Supreme Court, announced Friday that ordinarily she would vote “no.” Instead, Murkowski intends to vote “present” in order to offset the absence of Republican Sen. Steve Daines, who will be in Montana to attend to his daughter’s wedding.
The vote on confirmation is expected late afternoon on Saturday.
Murkowski said in her floor speech that she hoped after the bitter debate over Kavanaugh that the Senate could take a few steps back toward a more respectful tone.
“While I voted no on cloture today, and I will be a no tomorrow,” she said Friday evening, “I will, in the final tally, be asked to be recorded as present, and I do this because a friend, a colleague of ours, is in Montana this evening and tomorrow at just about the same hour that we’re going to be voting; he’s going to be walking his daughter down the aisle and he won’t be present to vote, and so I have extended this as a courtesy to my friend.”
“It will not change the outcome of the vote, but I do hope that it reminds us that we can take very small, very small, steps to be gracious with one another and maybe those small, gracious steps can lead to more,” Murkowski said.
Oct. 5
Supreme 'Deep State'
Global Research, Opinion: High Crimes and Misdemeanours of Kavanaugh and the Senate-Trump Faction. Step-by-step Overthrow of the Rule of Law, John McMurtry and Matthew Stanton, Oct. 5, 2018. Despite the historic stakes of the ram-through appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of a serial liar and alleged early rapist, who loudly denounces his Senate questioners as a “left-wing conspiracy” – sniffing all the time as his habit – there has been no legal analysis of his abetted crimes of persistent false statements and declarations, and factional subversion of the rule of law and the US Constitution itself.
As law and moral philosophy professors writing just as the White-House-counsel controlled FBI ‘investigation’ is hidden under cover from citizens and the press, we are moved by duty to explain what has so far been lost in media melodrama, political cover-up at the highest levels, he-says-she-says reductions, and the politics of effectively usurping the rule of law in the United States.
As a branch of government it is unique from the other two branches of government – the legislative. and executive branches – in that the supreme Justices are arbiters of what is allowed or prevented by the US Constitution as the ultimate source of the rule of law in America. What if the entire process is led by a long train of proved false declarations, persistently intentional misdirection, and perjury under oath with no restraint?
What if in all evident respects the process and appointment to the highest judicial office of the land operates like a criminal conspiracy with a vice-grip on all three branches of government – in the words of Madison, the very definition of ‘tyranny’ – with now the Supreme Court itself fixed to ignore and override basic issues of justice and morality for the next generation in a situation of cumulatively unprecedented social and environmental crisis?
We have already seen the unraveling of even the need to appear objective, disinterested, above the political mob mentality and thuggery of this ruling faction in one long train of abuses, false statements and lying with impunity under oath. The reckless and grasping nature of the Kavanaugh appointment, in short, shows an unbound faction of power treating its position of tyrannical rule as its personal property and right. Step-by-step overthrow of the rule of law
What has happened in Washington DC with the Kavanaugh hearings is of grave concern to anyone who believes in the democratic rule of law over a moneyed faction fixing all legal process. What this hearing and FBI investigation now controlled by the White House Counsel and ranking Senate Republicans shows is a series of non-stop false statements and actions that attack the very heart of our system of laws and poison the soul of the nation.
In our considered legal and moral opinion, Kavanaugh’s continual false declarations and prevarications are grounds for impeachment in even his current position of Federal Court Judge. In our judgement, with which many will agree, Trump’s candidate Kavanaugh has incontestably demonstrated unfitness for any judicial or public office. His speech and actions under oath, to the US Senate, is enough to be disbarred and lose his law license.
Kavanaugh has been so continuously coached from the highest offices of the land to act above the lawin every regard that this corrupt appointment reaches into the depths of a ‘tyrannical faction’ now in control of our federal government and institutions. It has so overreached in lawless and naked abuse of power that only keeping the public in ignorance can allow it to continue into the mid-term elections this November – the acid test of US democracy which is now before us.
Roll Call, Kavanaugh Nomination Clears Key Hurdle, Final Vote Teed Up, John T. Bennett, Oct. 5, 2018. Embattled federal judge Brett Kavanaugh moved one step closer to becoming the ninth Supreme Court justice and providing a decisive fifth conservative vote Friday when the Senate voted to tee up a final up-or-down vote.
In a vote that broke mostly along party lines after several deeply partisan weeks that culminated with a FBI investigation into sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh dating to his high school days, the chamber voted to end debate on his nomination, 51-49.
There were a couple of party defections. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, right, voted against cutting off debate, while Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., voted “yes” to cut off debate. The result means the Senate is poised to decide his fate in a high-stakes Saturday vote.
Roll Call, Susan Collins Will Vote ‘Yes’ on Kavanaugh Nomination, Staff report, Oct. 5, 2018. Maine Republican had kept her position on the Supreme Court nomination under wraps. Sen. Susan Collins will vote “yes” on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, one of the last remaining hurdles to the high court 
for President Donald Trump’s nominee.
Earlier on Friday, the Maine Republican, left, voted to cut off debate on Kavanaugh’s nomination, helping her leadership clear a key hurdle and setting up a final confirmation vote on Saturday. Collins is one of only two Republicans senators serving who voted to confirm Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both of whom were nominated by former President Barack Obama. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is the other one.
Roll Call, Joe Manchin a Yes on Kavanaugh Nomination and Might Be Only Democrat, Staff report, Oct. 5, 2018. Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to 
the Supreme Court, and might end up the only Democrat to do so.
“I have reservations about this vote given the serious accusations against Judge Kavanaugh and the temperament he displayed in the hearing. And my heart goes out to anyone who has experienced any type of sexual assault in their life. However, based on all of the information I have available to me, including the recently 
completed FBI report, I have found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist who will follow the Constitution and determine cases based on the legal findings before him. I do hope that Judge Kavanaugh will not allow the partisan nature this process took to follow him onto the court,” Manchin said in a statement.
Manchin announced his decision moments after Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she would vote to confirm Kavanaugh, virtually guaranteeing the federal circuit court judge’s ascent to the high court.
New York Times, Senate Moves Toward Showdown Vote on Kavanaugh Confirmation, Nicholas Fandos and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Oct. 5, 2018. Republican leaders were increasingly confident that the Senate would narrowly vote to cut off debate on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination and move to a final confirmation on Saturday. But with four senators, including three Republicans, still undecided, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was still not assured.
WhoWhatWhy, Exclusive: Kavanaugh Father-Son Cancer Powder Keg, Doug Vaughan, Oct. 5, 2018. If Justice Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed by the Senate, sooner or later he may be asked to weigh some damning evidence — that his own father advocated for a product that he knew was carcinogenic to both mothers and fetuses. Unless he recuses himself.
The ironies are piquant: While the son attended private, single-sex religious schools and adopted the traditional Catholic opposition to abortion, and even birth control, on the grounds the government should regulate women’s use of their own bodies and reproduction, the father made millions from the industry that marketed and sold female personal hygiene products — while keeping the government from guarding the consumers’ health and safety.
It’s no exaggeration that, if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, stuff like baby powder will have smoothed his slide into a seat on the highest court in the land.
More than 10,000 active claims in US courts, mostly by women, allege that they got cancer from regular use of talcum products like baby powder. In one case last summer, a jury in Missouri awarded $4.7 billion to a group of 20 such women who sued the biggest manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson — for promoting its products while hiding evidence of the risks to women, their reproductive organs, and their babies.
Sooner or later, one of these cases is likely to come to the Supreme Court. If he’s confirmed by the Senate, and if he fails to recuse himself, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will be asked to consider evidence that his father, Ed, helped J&J market such products — even though they knew they were carcinogenic. Kavanaugh Sr.’s former employer is one of the named defendants in some of the biggest class-action cases filed so far.
Washington Post, Analysis: If Kavanaugh is confirmed, impeachment could follow. Here’s how, Deanna Paul, Oct. 5, 2018 (print edition). Whether Kavanaugh returns to the D.C. Circuit or, as appears increasingly likely, is confirmed to the Supreme Court, impeachment proceedings could follow. They would be contingent on Democrats regaining control of the House, the only body that can bring an article of impeachment.
“Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Lisa Graves wrote in a Slate column on Sept. 7, more than a week before the New Yorker published the then-anonymous sexual assault claims of Christine Blasey Ford. “After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary. I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.”
Graves wrote that Kavanaugh, right, had misled the Judiciary Committee about the stolen documents that Graves had written as chief counsel for nominations for Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) when he was the chairman of the committee. Kavanaugh, she wrote, “lied. Under oath. And he did so repeatedly.” Therefore, she concluded, “he should not be confirmed. In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached.”
New York Times, Opinion: The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis, Michael Tomasky (editor of "Democracy: A Journal of Ideas" and a contributing New York Times opinion writer), Oct. 5, 2018. It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority..
Donald Trump won just under 46 percent of the popular vote and 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. And Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote of 54-45. According to Kevin McMahon of Trinity College, who wrote all this up this year in his paper “Will the Supreme Court Still ‘Seldom Stray Very Far’?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America,” the 54 senators who voted to elevate Judge Gorsuch had received around 54 million votes, and the 45 senators who opposed him got more than 73 million. That’s 58 percent to 42 percent.
And if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh, the vote is likely to fall along similar lines, meaning that we will soon have two Supreme Court justices who deserve to be called “minority-majority”: justices who are part of a five-vote majority on the bench but who were nominated and confirmed by a president and a Senate who represent the will of a minority of the American people.
And consider this further point. Two more current members of the dominant conservative bloc, while nominated by presidents who did win the popular vote, were confirmed by senators who collectively won fewer popular votes than the senators who voted against them.
They are Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed in 1991 by 52 senators who won just 48 percent of the popular vote, and Samuel Alito, confirmed in 2006 by 58 senators who garnered, again, 48 percent of the vote. This is a severe legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court.
The court, as Professor McMahon notes, was intended never to stray far from the mainstream of American political life. The fact that justices represented that mainstream and were normally confirmed by lopsided votes gave the court’s decisions their legitimacy. It’s also why past chief justices worked to avoid 5-4 decisions on controversial matters: They wanted Americans to see that the court was unified when it laid down a major new precedent.
But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will.
Judge Kavanaugh’s alleged youthful behavior is a scandal, but this legitimacy crisis is one too, and with arguably greater consequences. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, may not care about them. But Chief Justice John Roberts, and for that matter Brett Kavanaugh, surely should.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh: I said things I ‘should not have said’ at hearing, Eli Rosenberg, Oct. 5, 2018 (print edition). In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, the judge tacitly acknowledges the questions being raised about his conduct and emotions. 
Washington Post, Retired Justice Stevens calls Kavanaugh’s hearing performance disqualifying, Robert Barnes, Oct. 5, 2018 (print edition). Retired Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday that he no longer believes Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, citing Kavanaugh’s heated performance during a Senate hearing last week.
Stevens, 98 (shown in a file photo), made the comments in Boca Raton, Fla., before a group of retirees, according to the Palm Beach Post and the journalist who interviewed Stevens at the event.
Future of Freedom Foundation, The Looming Degradation of the Supreme Court, Jacob G. Hornberger, right, Oct. 5, 2018. With Republican senators dutifully lining up to support President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court, it is increasingly likely that conservative lawyer and judge Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. At the same time, in its determination to “win,” the Republican Party will have brought not only shame to itself but also a degradation in prestige to the highest court of the land.
A couple of days ago, more than 500 law professors from more than 160 law schools across the nation had signed a public letter opposing Kavanaugh’s appointment. As a trial lawyer for 12 years before I joined the libertarian movement and who still is authorized to practice law in my home state of Texas, I was absolutely stunned. In all my life, I had never seen that happen. Sure, law professors have their own political philosophies and affiliations but I had never seen so many of them come together to take a public stand against a particular Supreme Court nominee, especially one who sits as a judge on the federal court of appeals.
Imagine my shock when that number increased a couple of days later to 2,400 law professors opposing the Kavanaugh nomination! The term used by the New York Times expressed my reaction: “Incomprehensible!”
That was on top of the withdrawal of support for Kavanaugh’s nomination immediately after he testified by the American Bar Association, which has 400,000 members, and the dean of the Yale Law School, where Kavanaugh got his law degree. What was phenomenal about this was that both the ABA and the Yale law school dean had previously supported Kavanaugh’s appointment.
Then, in what I believe is also an unprecedented act, a retired Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, came out and declared that Kavanaugh lacks the required temperament to be a Supreme Court justice, which is what those 2,400 law professors are also saying.
Contrary to what conservative supporters of Kavanaugh have maintained, the primary issue in the Kavanaugh controversy does not revolve around the issue of whether a lawyer’s actions as a teenager should disqualify him from later serving on the Supreme Court. That, of course, is a interesting issue, but it isn’t the issue at hand. If Kavanaugh had confessed to sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford as a 17-year-old, expressed remorse for it, apologized, and sought forgiveness, then the Senate would be faced with that issue: Should what he did 36 years ago disqualify him from serving on the highest court in the land?
Instead, there are three primary issues in this controversy: (1) Did Kavanaugh commit the sexual assault on Christine Blasey Ford (shown as a schoolgirl) and, if so, should that make a difference with respect to his appointment to the Supreme Court? (2) Did he commit perjury with his denial of having committed the offense and, equally important, with respect to other matters in his sworn testimony and, if so, should that make a difference to his appointment to the Supreme Court? and (3) Does Kavanaugh have the necessary temperament to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court?
As the controversy has unfolded, it has become painfully clear that perjury just isn’t important to conservatives, at least to conservatives who aren’t lawyers. Time and time again, in addressing the controversy, they ether have glossed over the possibility that Kavanaugh committed perjury or made it clear that it just doesn’t matter to them. It’s no big deal. Let’s just have a quick, 3-day, cursory, sham investigation, confirm the guy, and then “move on.”
Washington Post, The rise and the reckoning: Inside Brett Kavanaugh’s circles of influence, Marc Fisher, Ann E. Marimow and Michael Kranish, Oct. 5, 2018 (print edition). The story of President Trump’s embattled choice for the Supreme Court is a classic Washington tale of a young man who grew up surrounded by people in high places, keenly aware of protecting his image. He told a friend in college that he didn’t plan to buy stocks as an adult because he had to avoid conflicts if he wanted to follow in his mother’s footsteps as a judge.
Kavanaugh’s story is also one of the power and insularity of wealth. He grew up in an idyll of country clubs and beach retreats, private schools and public prominence. The only child of a lobbyist and a judge, he had parents who pushed him hard, teachers who assured him that he faced no limits, and friends whose families knew the art of making problems go away quietly.
That Kavanaugh (shown in a prep school yearbook photo) would achieve greatness seemed certain. Some of his classmates called him “The Genius.” They liked him because he was smart and fun. Women found him thoughtful and empathetic. Men said he was a guy’s guy — a walking encyclopedia of sports, a good pal, always up for a beer.
Washington Post, Nobel Peace Prize awarded to two figures bringing attention to sexual violence in conflicts, Chico Harlan and Max Bearak, Oct. 5, 2018. Nadia Murad, an Iraqi Yazidi who was kidnapped and raped by Islamic State militants, has become an outspoken activist on sexual slavery and human trafficking. Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist, has treated thousands of victims of gang rape at his hospital.
More On Susan Collins Vote
The Intercept: Analysis: Sen. Susan Collins and Brett Kavanaugh Are Both in the Bush Family Inner Circle. That Helps Explain Her Vote, Ryan Grim, right, and Akela Lacy, Oct., 5, 2018. The announcement Friday by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that she would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was about family. Namely, the Bush family.
George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush [shown above in a file photo] have both been welcomed into the ranks of the resistance to President Donald Trump, but their most consequential action since his election has been to help lift Kavanaugh into the Supreme Court.
Collins, left, is an honorary member of the Bush family. She got her start in politics as a congressional aide to Rep.-turned-Sen. William Cohen. The Maine Republican was close to George H.W. Bush, who has long maintained a presence in the state. At the end of the first Bush administration, Collins was appointed New England regional director of the Small Business Administration. In 1996, she was elected to the Senate to replace her mentor, Cohen.
Kavanaugh, too, has longstanding ties to the Bush family. He served as an attorney for George W. Bush’s campaign, playing a major role in the legal battle between Bush and Al Gore. He then served as staff secretary in the Bush White House, a position of intimate influence — the staff secretary attends most Oval Office meetings and is a trusted sounding board for the president.
In the weeks after Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault during his high school and college years, Bush personally called wavering senators, lobbying on the nominee’s behalf. Collins, who had said she would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, was one of those wavering senators. In August, HuffPost reported, citing a source close to Collins’s staff, that Collins had assured the White House that she would support Kavanaugh if he were nominated. (She has denied that.)
Collins has since said that the decision was a difficult one, though there was no hint of that agonizing in her Senate floor speech Friday, which was a full-throated defense of Kavanaugh and a prosecution of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations.
In the end, Collins suggested that she hoped Kavanaugh’s nomination would restore the faith of Americans in the Supreme Court, easing partisan tensions and decreasing the number of 5-4 decisions the court handed down. It’s difficult to rationalize the idea that a nomination as contentious as this would usher a return to a more harmonious era of bipartisan collaboration.
Palmer Report, Opinion: The sheer insanity of what Susan Collins just did, Bill Palmer, Oct. 5, 2018. Why? It’s the only question left to ask after GOP Senator Susan Collins not only voted for screaming liar and alleged serial sex offender Brett Kavanaugh, but made a point of doing it in the most jarring and self defeating manner possible. It raises uncomfortable and scary questions about what might really be going on here.
Susan Collins has never been a party loyalist. In the past two years alone, she’s cast multiple deciding votes against the GOP on major issues, including the attempted Obamacare repeal, and the original Senate Intelligence Committee decision to investigate the Trump-Russia scandal. So no matter how many social media posts might claim that “Collins voted this way because she always votes the party line,” that’s a factually false statement. No, this has to be about something else.
If Susan Collins had decided that she needed to cast a very unpopular “yes” vote on Kavanaugh for the sake of her reelection prospects (translation: billionaire conservative donors), she could have quietly cast her vote and hoped people might forget by 2020. Instead, she took outlandish steps to make sure people never forget what she did today. There are simply not enough pro-Trump extremists in Maine to give her even a remote chance at reelection.
One of the meekest people in the Senate knowingly ended her career today with both proverbial middle fingers in the air. It was one of the ugliest things that American politics has ever seen, and it simply made no sense. Is she being blackmailed, or did she just snap today?
Time, 'Such a Slap in the Face.' Sexual Assault Survivors Who Met With Susan Collins Feel Betrayed She'll Vote for Kavanaugh, Charlotte Alter, Oct. 5, 2018. Last Thursday night, 
Amanda O’Brien sat on a bus for 10 hours to get from Maine to Washington D.C. to meet with Sen. Susan Collins and share her opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The bus was full of sexual assault survivors, who shared their stories with their seat mates as they crawled toward the Capitol.
O’Brien, who wore black like the rest of the survivors, tried to prepare herself. When she and a handful of other survivors got to the Senator’s office on Friday, she told Senator Collins that she had been sexually assaulted for years as a young child. She told her because of the impact of the assault, she later became the victim of domestic violence. She told her Senator things she has rarely told anyone, things she would still rather not repeat.
But on Friday afternoon, Collins announced her intention to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh, all but ensuring that Trump’s pick will sit on the Supreme Court, despite Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony that he pinned her to a bed and tried to rape her when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh denies Ford’s allegation.
Oct. 4
New York Times, White House Sends F.B.I. Interviews on Kavanaugh to Senate, Peter Baker, Nicholas Fandos, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Michael S. Schmidt, Oct. 4, 2018 (print edition). The White House sent summaries of the interviews, expressing confidence that they would not stop Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The material was conveyed in the middle of the night, just hours after Senate Republicans set the stage for a pair of votes later in the week.
Senior White House officials, after reviewing summaries of interviews conducted by the F.B.I., are increasingly confident that the information collected would ease the path for senators to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a person briefed on the findings said Thursday morning.
The material was conveyed to Capitol Hill in the middle of the night, just hours after Senate Republicans set the stage for a pair of votes later in the week to move to approve Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. A statement issued by the White House around 2:30 a.m. said the F.B.I. had completed its work and that it represented an unprecedented look at a nominee.
Roll Call, Amy Schumer, Emily Ratajkowski Among Hundreds Arrested Protesting Kavanaugh, Griffin Connolly, Oct 4, 2018. Demonstrators flocked to Hart Senate Office Building after USCP cordons off East Front. The U.S. Capitol Police arrested hundreds of people protesting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s pending confirmation in the atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building on Thursday.
Protesters initially planned to hold their rally on the East Front of the Capitol, but USCP cordoned off the area Thursday morning. So the thousands of demonstrators streamed into the Hart building, chanting and singing against Kavanaugh, whom multiple women have accused of sexual assault.
Roll Call, Heidi Heitkamp Will Vote No on Kavanaugh Nomination, Niels Lesniewski, Oct. 4, 2018. North Dakota Democrat is in a tight re-election campaign. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, the Democrat leading Roll Call’s list of most vulnerable senators on the ballot this fall, announced Thursday that she’ll vote against confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. “The process has been bad, but at the end of the day you have to make a decision, and I’ve made that decision,” the North Dakota Democrat told WDAY, the ABC affiliate in Fargo, N.D. “I will be voting no on Judge Kavanaugh.”
Heitkamp explained her decision to opposed Kavanaugh in light of her decision last year to support President Donald Trump's first nominee to the high court, Neil 
Gorsuch, left.
“I voted for Justice Gorsuch because I felt his legal ability and temperament qualified him to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is different. When considering a lifetime appointment to Supreme Court, we must evaluate the totality of the circumstances and record before us. In addition to the concerns about his past conduct, last Thursday’s hearing called into question Judge Kavanaugh’s current temperament, honesty, and impartiality. These are critical traits for any nominee to serve on the highest court in our country,” she said.
Heitkamp’s decision to oppose President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court means that Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia is the only member of the Democratic caucus potentially favoring the confirmation of Kavanaugh.
New York Times, Analysis: Trump and G.O.P. Lash Out at Kavanaugh’s Accuser. But at What Risk? Peter Baker, Oct. 4, 2018 (print edition). For more than two weeks he held back. Against all his instincts, President Trump for the most part resisted directly attacking the woman whose sexual assault allegation has jeopardized his Supreme Court nomination. The accuser was to be treated with kid gloves, like “a Fabergé egg,” as one adviser put it.
But Mr. Trump could resist only so long and told aides it was time to turn up the heat. So when he revved up a political rally this week by mocking Christine Blasey Ford, he indulged his desire to fight back and galvanized his conservative base even at the risk of alienating the very moderate Republicans he needs to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
New York Times, Opinion: The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh. Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting). Oct. 4, 2018. We have differing views about Kavanaugh’s qualifications. But we are united in believing he does not have the right judicial temperament.
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received. Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.”
Washington Post, Celebrating kegs and insulting girls: Inside Mark Judge’s 1980s Georgetown Prep underground paper, Ian Shapira, Oct. 4, 2018. The Unknown Hoya, co-founded by Judge, featured heavy drinking, a stripper-fueled bachelor party and slurs about Holton-Arms girls.
Oct. 3
Palmer Report, Opinion: Trump and McConnell sink to desperate new lengths to protect Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Palmer, Oct. 3, 2018. Just how dirty is Brett Kavanaugh? All you have to do is take a look at the desperate lengths Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are going to in the name of not only protecting Kavanaugh from the FBI investigation, but keeping the final FBI report hush-hush.
Dianne Feinstein has confirmed that, as expected, the FBI will not be allowed to interview Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (right) – but that’s just the half of it.
It’s fairly clear why the FBI isn’t allowed to interview Ford. It’s not to prevent her from telling her story, which she’s already done before the Senate; the FBI has full access to her congressional testimony. Instead, by blocking the FBI from speaking with Ford, Trump and McConnell are also blocking the FBI from speaking with Kavanaugh – which is the entire point. Kavanaugh has already revealed himself to be a pathological liar, and if he lies to the FBI, he’ll go to prison. But the real panic move here is with the report itself.
USA Today and others are now reporting that there will only be one copy of the FBI report on Brett Kavanaugh, and that Senators will each have to take turns reading it. Senate Democrats will still be able to quickly leak the ugliest parts of the report to the public. But the goal here is, obviously, to prevent the public from seeing the full text.
This confirms that, even with the limitations placed on the FBI investigation by Trump and McConnell, they still expect that the FBI report will paint Brett Kavanaugh in a terrible light. This means that Trump and McConnell are playing with an even weaker hand here than we thought.
New York Times, F.B.I. to Complete Inquiry Wednesday With Vote Coming This Week, Oct. 3, 2018 (print edition). The F.B.I. will send the results of its inquiry into Judge Kavanaugh to the Senate on Wednesday, with a vote scheduled on the nomination this week.
New York Times, Trump Taunts Christine Blasey Ford at Rally, At an event in Mississippi, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, Oct. 3, 2018 ([rint edition). President Trump mocked the woman who accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault. He imitated her, exaggerating her responses at last week’s hearing. The crowd cheered.
Washington Post, ‘Just plain wrong’: Flake, Collins criticize Trump’s attack on Ford, John Wagner and Seung Min Kim, Oct. 3, 2018. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), right and Susan Collins (Maine) are considered crucial to the confirmation prospects of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Washington Post, Breaking: Senate Democrats suggest past FBI background checks on Kavanaugh include evidence of inappropriate behavior, John Wagner and Seung Min Kim, Oct. 3, 2018. Senate Democrats suggested in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman on Wednesday that past FBI background checks on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh include evidence of inappropriate behavior, contrary to Republican claims.
In the letter, eight of the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary panel challenged the accuracy of a tweet from the majority Republicans on Tuesday that said: “Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which the committee has reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there ever a whiff of ANY issue — at all — related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.”
The Democrats said the information in the tweet is “not accurate,” and urged the GOP to correct them. Aides to the committee chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), did not return an immediate request for comment.
Washington Post, Opinion: Senators, if you think you are ‘appalled’ now, just wait, Jennifer Rubin, right, Oct. 3, 2018. Appearing on the “Today” show, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) reacted to President Trump’s mocking of Christine Blasey Ford at a political rally Tuesday night. “There’s no time and no place for remarks like that. But to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right … It’s kind of appalling.”
This echoes the reaction of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) when Trump first attacked Ford by tweet, saying if the attack was “that bad,” the teen Ford would have gone to the police. Collins, left, said: “I was appalled by the president’s tweet.”
There is plenty to appall:
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s baseless allegation that he was the victim of a smear stemming from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss; Kavanaugh’s obnoxious retorts to Democratic senators, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.); Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) calling for Klobuchar to apologize; Republicans’ objections to any investigation of Ford’s claims; Republicans’ repeated, false assertion that there is no corroboration for Ford’s accusation (ignoring her polygraph, her prior remarks, Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for July 1); Republicans’ decision to hide behind a female “assistant” (as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to prosecutor Rachel Mitchell) and then discard her in favor of hysterical rants; apparent efforts to curtail the FBI investigation; Ed Whelan’s defamatory accusation aimed at a classmate of Kavanaugh’s; and Kavanaugh’s seeming mischaracterization of his drinking habits and high school references to sex and drinking.
Oct. 2
Washington Post, FBI gets longer leash on Kavanaugh probe as McConnell signals vote is imminent, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, Seung Min Kim and Matt Zapotosky, Oct. 2, 2018 (print edition). The inquiry will include sexual misconduct allegations from a third woman against Brett M. Kavanaugh. But the FBI won’t conduct an unfettered review of his youthful drinking.
New York Times, The People the F.B.I. Has Interviewed in the Kavanaugh Investigation (and Those It Hasn’t), Karen Yourish and Troy Griggs, Oct. 2, 2018 (print edition). Republicans offered the bureau four witnesses; Democrats have called for more than a dozen additional people to be interviewed.
People who were on the Republicans’ list and have been interviewed:
-- Deborah Ramirez, Yale classmate, The second woman to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct; she said he exposed himself to her at a dorm room party.
-- Mark Judge, Judge Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate, Named by Dr. Blasey and a third accuser as being a key witness to the alleged sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh. “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” he said.
-- P.J. Smyth, Georgetown Prep classmate; Dr. Blasey said he was at the house party, “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct.”
-- Leland Keyser, Dr. Blasey’s high school friend, Said she does not remember being at the party during the summer of 1982 but believes Dr. Blasey.
Washington Post, ‘The trauma for a man’: Male fury and fear rises in GOP in defense of Kavanaugh, Philip Rucker and Robert Costa, Oct. 2, 2018 (print edition). Trump slams Democrats for 'trying to destroy' Kavanaugh (shown below in a file photo of his testimony).
The sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh have sparked a wave of unbridled anger and anxiety from many Republican men, who say they are in danger of being swept up by false accusers who are biased against them.
From President Trump to his namesake son to Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), the howls of outrage crystallize a strong current of grievance within a party whose leadership is almost entirely white and overwhelmingly male — and which does not make a secret of its fear that demographic shifts and cultural convulsions could jeopardize its grip on power.
This eruption of male resentment now seems likely to play a defining role in the midterm elections just five weeks away, contrasting with a burst of enthusiasm among women propelling Democratic campaigns and inspired by the national #MeToo reckoning over sexual assault and gender roles.
Oct. 2
Oct. 2
Justice Integrity Project, Pomp, Piety, MIAs Mark Annual DC Red Mass On Justice
By Andrew Kreig
Prominent members of the scandal-stricken Roman Catholic legal leadership in the District of Columbia convened on Sunday for the annual Red Mass that provides a spiritual kick-off to the new Supreme Court term and the legal community's public aspirations for justice.
The ceremony was majestic as usual but unfolded before a slightly smaller audience than normal and under the shadow of unfolding scandal involving the local Catholic-reared Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, left, was absent from the mass, which he has normally led for most of his 12-year tenure in Washington. Instead, he has recently been awaiting possible sanction from the Vatican for his alleged role in covering-up sexual offenses by priests in Pittsburgh, one of the cardinal's previous postings.
As usual, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts led a delegation from the court to the ceremonies at the historic Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle and a subsequent brunch.
But Roberts was accompanied by only two of the associate judges, Republican Catholic Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer, a Democrat of the Jewish faith.
This editor has attended the Red Mass and brunch a number of times previously and so is in position to comment on its history, inspiring ceremonial and spiritual aspects, as well as some of the embarrassing but largely unspoken undercurrents.
The event first launched in 1928 at the St. Andrews Church in New York City, in 1953 at St. Matthews in the District of Columbia and in a number of other metro areas around the United States.
The event in the nation's capital has attracted the U.S. presidential attendance and more commonly during recent years a majority of the Supreme Court Justices, sometimes including multiple non-Catholics.
The Court in recent years has included six justices reared as Roman Catholics and three Jewish members. Kavanaugh, schooled at the Jesuit school Georgetown Prep, would be another Catholic if confirmed.
But his status is in peril following numerous claims of sexual assault and lying under oath that are surfacing. Kavanaugh has denied wrongdoing (as we and others have reported extensively elswhere, including here) and was not reported as present at the mass on Sunday.
Publically, the mass unfolded as a spiritual and civic occasion framed by the magnificant cathedral and stirring Biblical readings, sacred music and other religious trappings.
Washington Post, FBI gets longer leash on Kavanaugh probe as McConnell signals vote is imminent, Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, Seung Min Kim and Matt Zapotosky, Oct. 2, 2018 (print edition). The inquiry will include sexual misconduct allegations from a third woman against Brett M. Kavanaugh. But the FBI won’t conduct an unfettered review of his youthful drinking.
Oct. 1
SCOTUSblog, Justices officially return from summer recess, issue orders from long conference, Amy Howe, Oct. 1, 2018 (Visit SCOTUSblog for full coverage with links). The eight justices of the Supreme Court returned to the bench today to hear oral arguments in the first cases of their new term. But before they did so, they issued an extensive (75 pages) list of orders from last Monday’s “long conference” – their first conference since their summer recess began in late June.
The justices issued grants from the conference last Thursday. Today’s orders consisted primarily of denials of review and requests for the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on several cases.
The justices apparently did not act on two of the highest-profile cases on the list for last week’s conference, which involve a challenge to a Latin cross, located on public land in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, commemorating soldiers who died in World War I. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the cross violates the Constitution’s establishment clause; the justices have been asked to review that ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court Battle
Washington Post, Confusion over limits of FBI inquiry sparks new round of combat over Kavanaugh, Mike DeBonis and Josh Dawsey, Oct. 1, 2018 (print edition). The investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will focus on two accusers, but the White House says it opposes a “fishing expedition” that could take a broader look at his credibility and behavior.
Palmer Report, Senate transcript reveals Brett Kavanaugh allegedly raped a woman in the back of a car, Bill Palmer, right, Oct. 1, 2018. With the FBI having finally received the green light a few hours ago to conduct an unrestricted investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, we’re now learning that he’s been accused of having raped a woman in the back of a car.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took this accusation seriously enough that it questioned Kavanaugh (shown at left in a prep school yearbook photo) about it during private hearings – and the transcript just surfaced publicly.
The woman in question, whose identity is not known, sent a letter to Senator Kamala Harris, spelling out her accusations. The Senate Judiciary Committee read the letter to Brett Kavanaugh, asking him to respond to it. Here’s the key passage from the woman’s letter. Fair warning, this is sexually explicit and disturbing:
Kavanaugh and a friend offered me a ride home. I don’t know the other boy’s name. I was in his car to go home. His friend was behind me in the backseat. Kavanaugh kissed me forcefully. I told him I only wanted a ride home. Kavanaugh continued to grope me over my clothes, forcing his kisses on me and putting his hand under my sweater. ‘No,’ I yelled at him.
The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. He pulled up my sweater and bra exposing my breasts, and reached into my panties, inserting his fingers into my vagina. My screams were silenced by the boy in the backseat covering my mouth and groping me as well.
Kavanaugh slapped me and told me to be quiet and forced me to perform oral sex on him. He climaxed in my mouth. They forced me to go into the backseat and took turns raping me several times each. They dropped me off two blocks from my home. ‘No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl,’ he told me.
Brett Kavanaugh’s response, according to the transcript: “Nothing — the whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever — anything like that, nothing. I mean, that’s — the whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn’t happen, not anything close.”
This interview took place six days ago, and the transcript was just released today. You can read the entire exchange starting on page thirteen.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Transcript of staff interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh on allegations of sexual misconduct, Alderson Court Reporting, released on Oct. 1, 2018, dated Sept. 26, 2018 (19 pages with four-page index).
Roll Call, Mitch McConnell: Brett Kavanaugh Floor Vote This Week, Lex Samuels, Oct 1, 2018. Majority leader again decries Democrats for delay and obstruction. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is insisting the vote on confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will take place before week’s end.
The Kentucky Republican, speaking on the Senate floor Monday afternoon, said the Democrats chose to hold the allegations against Kavanaugh “in reserve” in order to derail the nomination.
He spoke about how the Democrats who first received the allegations handled them. He specifically mentioned a law firm with “politically connected lawyers” that McConnell says Democrats advised Kavanaugh’s accuser to hire. Those lawyers are set to hold a fundraiser for Democrats this week, McConnell said.
McConnell continued by expressing doubt that Democrats would be happy with the one-week investigation and that he expects “soon enough the goal-posts will be on the move once again.”
He compared the Democrat’s handling of the allegations to McCarthyism saying, “that they just want to delay this matter past the election.”
Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Elite colleges and a culture of rape, Wayne Madsen, Oct. 1, 2018 (Subscription required; excerpted with permission). The sexual assault allegations brought against Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, opens a window into the world of elite schools that do not bear the words "State," "A&M," "Community," or "Prep" in their names. This is a world of privilege, where money and family legacy matter the most.
Kavanaugh testified about his admittance to Yale, "I have no connections there," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding, "I got there by busting my tail." Not exactly. The 
Yale undergraduate yearbook from 1928 shows that Everett Edward Kavanaugh, Judge Kavanaugh's grandfather, was a Yale graduate.
And sexual assaults of underage girls, like Christine Blasey Ford, were not some "fad" of the 1980s. Our colleague, John Kelly, left, a veteran of NBC News, where he worked with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and CBS News, where he reported on Watergate for Walter Cronkite, brought to our attention his New York Post reports from 1960.
Future of Freedom Foundation, Opinion: Trump’s Sham FBI “Investigation” of Kavanaugh, Jacob G. Hornberger, right, Oct. 1, 2018. On the eve of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on whether to send President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate for a vote on confirmation, Republican senators agreed to do so on the condition that the FBI conduct a further background investigation of Kavanaugh.
What’s wrong with Trump’s severe limitation on the FBI’s further background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh? It doesn’t permit the FBI to investigate the possibility that Kavanaugh has committed a brand new offense — the offense of perjury, which is a federal felony offense.
Kavanaugh supporters emphasize that he has been the subject of several FBI background checks already. They miss two critically important points:
One, those background checks were conducted before the FBI had any information regarding the sex assault that Ford has accused him of. Two, those background checks were conducted before Kavanaugh’s testimony last Thursday. Why is that important? Because there is the possibility that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his testimony at that hearing.
For some laymen (i.e., non-lawyers) perjury might seem like no big deal and certainly not enough to keep a lawyer or a judge from becoming a Supreme Court justice. As I explain in my article, “Summon Mark Judge to Testify in Kavanaugh Hearing,” to every member of the legal profession perjury is an extremely grave offense, especially for a lawyer or a judge, and a clear justification for disqualifying any lawyer or judge who has committed perjury from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In fact, as I state in my article, in my opinion that is precisely the reason why the American Bar Association, which has 400,000 members, and the dean of the Yale Law School, where Kavanaugh got his law degree, immediately withdrew their support for his nomination after Ford and Kavanaugh testified until an additional background investigation was conducted.
OpEdNews, Opinion: Sex, Lies, and Hypocrisy: Kavanaugh's Glass House, Carl Petersen, Oct. 1, 2018. Much like Dr. Christine Ford, Monica Lewinsky's life was turned upside down by the glare of someone else's spotlight.
While Brett Kavanaugh asserted that engaging in sexual relations with Bill Clinton turned "her life into a shambles," from Lewinsky's point of view it was his boss, Kenneth Starr, "who turned [her] 24-year-old life into a living hell."
Looking back on the 1990s with the experience of the #MeToo era, there are questions that should have been asked about the most powerful man in the world having sexual relations with an employee.
Lewinsky, left, has always maintained that the relationship was consensual, but "power imbalances -- and the ability to abuse them -- do exist even when the sex has been consensual." As a society, have we established where the lines are?
Unfortunately, Kavanaugh (shown below right during his snarling Senate confirmation testimony Thursday)did not seem interested in this line of questioning. Instead, he was infatuated with the most unimportant part of the story - the details of the sex acts.
Given this history, one has to wonder what Lindsey Graham was thinking as he bloviated that if Kavanaugh was looking "for a fair process, [then] he came to the wrong town at the wrong time." When does he think that this poisoned, political atmosphere began?
If the nominee thinks that the "confirmation process has become a national disgrace," how does he feel today about what he put Lewinsky through and what it did to her and her family? If "the idea of going easy on [Clinton, left] at the questioning [was] abhorrent to [him]," his current outrage should be directed at the Republican majority in the Senate.
By not investigating all of the accusations, they are the ones who are avoiding the responsibility of providing informed consent to his lifetime nomination to the highest court in the land.
Of course, this ignores the important distinction between Kavanaugh's apparent obsession with Clinton's sex life and the charges that may derail his assertion to the Supreme Court; if Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh acted without consent. This alleged attempted rape represents "callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle."
Washington Post, In memo, outside prosecutor argues why she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh, Seung Min Kim, Oct. 1, 2018 (print edition). The outside prosecutor Senate Republicans hired to lead the questioning in last week’s hearing about the sexual assault allegations against Brett M. Kavanaugh is arguing in a new memo why she would not bring criminal charges against the Supreme Court nominee.
In the five-page memo, obtained by the Washington Post, Rachel Mitchell (shown in a file photo) outlines more than half a dozen reasons why she thinks the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford — who has accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a house in suburban Maryland when they were teenagers in the early 1980s — has some key inconsistencies.
“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell writes in the memo, sent Sunday night to all Senate Republicans. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”
Mitchell continued: “For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
The memo is likely to prompt significant pushback from Democratic senators, who have argued that Ford is not on trial and that Kavanaugh is merely interviewing for a job. But the memo is clearly aimed at assuaging the concerns of a handful of GOP senators who are on the fence about whether to vote to confirm Kavanaugh and are considering whose story — Ford’s or Kavanaugh’s — to believe. The FBI is now investigating Ford’s accusations, as well as those of a second woman, Deborah Ramirez.
September
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) screams at his longtime Democratic colleague Pat Leahy of Vermont during the Kavanaugh hearing, in which Leahy and other Democrats have accused the nominee of perjuring himself by denying use of stolen Democratic Senate documents (screenshot).
Sept. 30
Palmer Report, Analysis: Jeff Flake just said something on 60 Minutes that’s really bad news for Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Palmer, right, Sept. 30, 2018. The FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh only exists thanks to GOP Senator Jeff Flake and the heroes who pushed him into calling for it. Flake warned everyone up front that he’s still planning to support Kavanaugh in the full Senate vote unless the FBI probe turns up something disqualifying.
Now he’s defining the parameters of what would be disqualifying – and it’s really bad news for Kavanaugh.
Jeff Flake, left, made a point of putting himself in front of the cameras tonight when he appeared on 60 Minutes with his friend, Democratic Senator Chris Coons.
During the interview, Flake was asked this question: “If Judge Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the Committee, nomination’s over?” Flake could have tried to hedge his bets or be vague about it, in the hope of giving himself wiggle room. Instead his answer consisted of only two words: “Oh yes.”
New York Times, Details of F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry Show Its Restricted Range, Michael D. Shear, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt, Sept. 30, 2018 (print edition). The F.B.I. will interview four witnesses about sexual assault claims against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as part of a background check, not a full-fledged criminal investigation. The White House will decide the breadth of the inquiry and can order further investigation based on the findings from the four interviews.
The Atlantic, Opinion: This Was Never About Finding Out the Truth, Matt Thompson, Sept. 30, 2018. Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate was a lesson in power — who wields it, and at whose expense.
SCOTUSBlog, This week at the court, Andrew Hamm, Sept. 30, 2018. The October 2018 term begins on Monday. We expect additional orders from the September 24 conference at 9:30 a.m. The justices will hear oral argument in Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido.
Washington Post, Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’m a victim of sexual assault,’ Alex Horton, During an appearance on CNN, Sept. 30, 2018. The White House adviser suggested conservatives have become targets for political score settling.
Sept. 29
New York Times, Opinion: Thank You, Jeff Flake. Maybe America Can Now Learn the Truth. Editorial Board, Sept. 29, 2018 (print edition). An attack of conscience by one Republican senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona (shown at right), quickly reinforced by some wavering colleagues, compelled the Senate leadership and the White House to accede to common sense by commissioning an F.B.I. inquiry into the allegations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
Washington Post, FBI reaches out to 2nd woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, Shane Harris, Matt Zapotosky, Tom Hamburger and Seung Min Kim, Sept. 29, 2018. The FBI has begun contacting people as part of an additional background investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, including a second woman who alleges that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her, according to people familiar with the unfolding investigation.
The bureau has reached out to Deborah Ramirez, a Yale University classmate of Kavanaugh’s who alleges that he shoved his genitals in her face at a party where she had been drinking and become disoriented. It was not clear that agents had yet interviewed Ramirez (shown at right in a photo by Benjamin Rasmusseen The New Yorker).
But the FBI is moving quickly to contact people as part of the new background investigation, which President Trump ordered on Friday under pressure from key members of his party.
Palmer Report, Analysis: Donald Trump begins backing down after he’s caught trying to rig FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Palmer, right, Sept. 29, 2018. Earlier this evening, multiple major news outlets reported that Donald Trump had been caught trying to secretly place severe and absurd restrictions on the FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, including forbidding the FBI from investigating the claims made by Julie Swetnick. Trump could only have gotten away with this if no one found out until it was too late to matter. Now that he’s been caught, predictably, he’s already begun backing down.
After the news broke, Trump’s Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah released a statement insisting that the FBI was free to investigate any and all aspects of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. Because Trump and his White House have publicly staked themselves to this, Trump is not going to be able to keep the investigation limited.
In fact, because one of Trump’s official spokespeople just publicly told the FBI that it’s free to interview Swetnick, for all we know, the FBI may have taken this as an excuse to call Swetnick right now.
NBC News, White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, Ken Dilanian, Geoff Bennett, Kristen Welker, Frank Thorp V, Hallie Jackson and Leigh Ann Caldwell, Sept. 29, 2018. The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News. The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick, right.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."
Breaking News: Trump orders limits on FBI probe of Kavanaugh. Accuser Julie Swetnick's attorney responds:
"If true, this is outrageous," wrote Avenatti. "Why are Trump and his cronies in the Senate trying to prevent the American people from learning the truth? Why do they insist on muzzling women with information submitted under penalty of perjury? Why Ramirez but not my client?"
Palmer Report, Analysis: FBI is already ripping into Brett Kavanaugh’s life tonight, Bill Palmer, right, Sept. 29, 2018. How much can the FBI accomplish in the week it’s been given to investigate the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh? Let’s just say that the bureau is hitting the ground running, with a vengeance. Not only is the FBI investigating multiple sexual assault accusations, it’s been seeking to conduct key interviews as soon as tonight.
This is important for two reasons. First, it confirms what Mitch McConnell’s office stated earlier this evening, which is that the FBI has been given the authority to investigate all the accusations, and not just those made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
Second, it demonstrates just how quickly the FBI is working on this. The sooner it can interview Kavanaugh’s various accusers, the sooner it can use their responses to zero in on which other potential witnesses and physical evidence to pursue. The FBI already has a leg-up even before these interviews, because Ford just finished giving detailed public testimony, while Ramirez and Swetnick have also gone public in detail.
All of this can be – and surely already is being – used to help guide the investigation even before the accuser interviews can be conducted.
Washington Post, Partisan politics, Kavanaugh’s defiant words put Supreme Court in unwelcome spotlight, Robert Barnes and Carol D. Leonnig, Sept. 29, 2018. The Senate’s partisan warfare over Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination and Kavanaugh’s own denunciations of his political enemies have drawn scrutiny.
The political underpinnings of the court — conservative justices nominated by Republican presidents, liberal ones named by Democrats — are never far from the surface. But justices on both sides strive to stress that ideological rather than partisan concerns account for their disagreements.
Washington Post, Opinion: Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why, The elite learn early that they’re special — and that they won’t face consequences, Shamus Khan, Sept. 29, 2018. Shamus Khan, the chair of the sociology department at Columbia University, is the author of “Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School.”
Brett Kavanaugh is not telling the whole truth. When President George W. Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006, he told senators that he’d had nothing to do with the war on terror’s detention policies; that was not true. Kavanaugh also claimed under oath, that year and again this month, that he didn’t know that Democratic Party memos a GOP staffer showed him in 2003 were illegally obtained; his emails from that period reveal that these statements were probably false.
How could a man who appears to value honor and the integrity of the legal system explain this apparent mendacity? How could a man brought up in some of our nation’s most storied institutions — Georgetown Prep, Yale College, Yale Law School — dissemble with such ease? The answer lies in the privilege such institutions instill in their members, a privilege that suggests the rules that govern American society are for the common man, not the exceptional one.
Washington Post, New Kavanaugh inquiry draws FBI into partisan tug of war, Matt Zapotosky, Sept. 29, 2018 (print edition). The FBI has grown accustomed to its work being viewed through sharply partisan lenses. But President Trump’s order for a “supplemental investigation” of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh presents challenges.
Washington Post, Details in Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendar entry could be scrutinized in FBI probe, Michael Kranish, Joe Heim and Emma Brown, Sept. 29, 2018 (print edition). Democrats have seized on the scrawled notes as possible evidence that could support Christine Blasey Ford’s charge that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her.
Sept. 29, 2018
Justice Integrity Project, Senators Reach Deal For Kavanaugh Sex Claim Probe
By Andrew Kreig, Sept. 29, 2018.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by a party line 11-10 vote on Sept. 28 but agreed also to let a key member negotiate for up to a week's delay for an FBI investigation before the nomination goes to the full Senate.
In a dramatic reversal Friday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, right, announced that he sought an FBI probe of sexual misconduct investigations before a vote by the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 51-49 majority.
Two other undecided senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, announced that they would join Flake's position. That would put Kavanaugh's final approval in doubt if other senators vote as expected nearly along party lines.
Washington Post, American Bar Association had concerns in 2006 about Kavanaugh, Avi Selk, Sept. 29, 2018 (print edition). The ABA flagged concerns of possible bias just before the Senate made Brett M. Kavanaugh a federal judge.
Washington Post, An elevator confrontation, a meeting in a phone booth: Sen. Flake’s Friday drama, Elise Viebeck, Sean Sullivan and Paul Kane, The deal to delay a vote on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee was made behind closed doors — by two senators crammed into an old-fashioned phone booth built for one. The deal to delay a final vote on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee was made behind closed doors Friday — by two senators crammed into a battered, old-fashioned phone booth built for one.
Washington Post, ‘I was demanding a connection’: Ana Maria Archila reflects on confronting Jeff Flake over Kavanaugh nomination, Elise Viebeck, Sept. 29, 2018 (print edition). Ana Maria Archila had never told her father that she was sexually abused as a child. But after she confronted a U.S. senator about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the video started going viral, she thought it was time to share her story.
“I always carried the fear that my parents would feel that they had failed in taking care of me if I told them,” Archila (co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy in New York) said Friday night in a phone interview with The Washington Post.
The encounter on Friday morning between Archila, a second woman and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has already become an iconic moment in the debate over Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. With a CNN camera behind them broadcasting live, Archila and Maria Gallagher blocked the doors of an elevator for about five minutes in an effort to confront Flake about his just-announced support for Kavanaugh, who is facing several allegations of sexual misconduct.
Sept. 28
Supreme Court Battle
Roll Call, After Last-Second Talks to Delay, Judiciary Committee Advances Kavanaugh Nomination, John T. Bennett, Sept. 28, 2018. Flake joins other Republicans to set up floor vote despite call for delay. The Senate Judiciary Committee, after a gut-wrenching spectacle of a hearing Thursday and last-second negotiations among Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., right, and panel Democrats to delay a floor vote, voted to advance Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination to the chamber floor despite multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him.
The Friday vote was along party lines, 11-10, with all Democrats voting against him after siding with Christine Blasey Ford, who testified before the panel for four hours Thursday about her contention that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and intended to rape her in the early 1980s. She told the panel she came forward because she does not believe he should be a high court justice with a lifetime appointment.
“I think it would proper to delay the floor vote for up to but more than one week in order to let the FBI to do an investigation limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there,” Flake said before the roll was called.
Palmer Report, Analysis: Confirmed: FBI is now allowed to criminally pursue Brett Kavanaugh for lying to the Senate, Bill Palmer, right, Sept. 28, 2018. We’re already learning that the FBI is now allowed to pursue criminal charges against Kavanaugh if it’s determined that he lied under oath to the Senate.
Halfway through a lengthy new exposé from the Washington Post, we find this sentence regarding the the FBI investigation in question: “If investigators uncover evidence that Kavanaugh lied to lawmakers during hearings or on his background-check forms, that could spark a criminal investigation in which law enforcement could use the full extent of its legal powers.”
This confirms Palmer Report’s earlier premise that once the FBI begins an investigation like this, there really are no limits to the FBI’s ability to follow the evidence to any and all federal crimes. By our count, Kavanaugh [shown in a Palmer Report graphic] appeared to commit at least four separate provable instances of perjury during his televised Senate testimony, even before the sexual assault accusations surfaced. He lied extensively about the circumstances under which he received and forwarded stolen emails, and among other issues.
This may help explain why Senate Democrats uniformly pushed so hard for an FBI investigation. Even if the FBI can’t prove within the next seven days that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, it can quickly and easily prove that he committed felony perjury.
New York Times, A Bitter Nominee, Questions of Neutrality, and a Damaged Supreme Court, Adam Liptak, right, Sept. 28, 2018. In the first round of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings early this month, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh kept his cool under hostile questioning, stressed his independence, and exhibited the calm judicial demeanor that characterized his dozen years on a prestigious appeals court bench.
“The Supreme Court,” he said, “must never be viewed as a partisan institution.”
His performance on Thursday, responding to accusations of sexual misconduct at a hearing of the same Senate committee, sent a different message. Judge Kavanaugh was angry and emotional, embracing the language of slashing partisanship. His demeanor raised questions about his neutrality and temperament, and threatened the already fragile reputation of the Supreme Court as an institution devoted to law rather than politics.
“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” he said, “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.”
In a sharp break with decorum, Judge Kavanaugh responded to questions about his drinking from two Democratic senators — Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — with questions of his own about theirs. He later apologized to Ms. Klobuchar.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27, 2018 (Reuters photo by Jim Berg via NBC News)
Washington Post, Kavanaugh hearing turns partisan as GOP senators lash out at treatment of nominee, Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow, Mike DeBonis and Elise Viebeck, Sept. 28, 2018 (print edition). Sen. Graham rejects allegations, rips Democrats in a furious speech.
“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I’ve seen in my time in politics,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.
Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh called his confirmation process a “national disgrace” and denied sexual assault allegations, which Christine Blasey Ford detailed in testimony earlier.
Washington Post, 3 takeaways from the Kavanaugh hearing so far, Amber Phillips, Sept. 28, 2018 (print edition). Republicans struggled to show they are taking it seriously. Meanwhile, Christine Blasey Ford, shown at right, cut a sympathetic, down-to-earth figure.
1. This isn’t going well for Republicans
2. Meanwhile, Ford came across as credible, emotional and sympathetic
3. Republicans' decision to hand their questions over to a female prosecutor is seeming questionable.
Daily Mail, New questions over who leaked Christine Ford's explosive accusation that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her, as reporter who broke the story says it WASN'T Dianne Feinstein and her staff, Alana Goodman, Sept. 28, 2018. The reporter who broke the story about the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh said that the news was not leaked to him by Dianne Feinstein's office - as she launched a new defense of her handling of Christine Ford's accusation of the Supreme Court nominee.
Ryan Grim, right, the D.C. bureau chief for The Intercept, was the first to report in September on the existence of a confidential letter written by Ford that accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party in the early 1980s. The story said there was 'tension' inside the Democratic membership over the handling of the letter.
Grim said late Thursday that the letter was not leaked to him by Feinstein or anyone in her office, as many have speculated. 'Feinstein's staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept,' said Grim in a Twitter post.
'Nor did she or her staff leak the existence of the letter to The Intercept. After our story, she turned it over to the FBI, which placed it in his background file, which meant that it became widely available and soon after it was leaked to CNN,' he added. Grim's story, which ran on Sept. 12, reported that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee 'have privately requested to view a Brett Kavanaugh-related document' held by Feinstein. The story noted that Feinstein had rejected the requests.
New York Times, Kavanaugh Denies Sexual Assault Charges and Attacks Democrats in Scathing Testimony, Staff report, Sept. 28, 2018 (print edition). At an extraordinary hearing, Brett M. Kavanaugh denied that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were in high school. In an angry statement to the Senate Judicial Committee he said the Supreme Court confirmation process had become “a national disgrace.”
The Hill, Jesuit magazine calls for Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn, Tal Axelrod, Sept. 27, 2018. The editors of America Magazine, a Jesuit publication, called on President Trump to withdraw Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.
The piece was published after Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who accused Kavanaugh of trying to rape her in 1982 at a house party, testified before of the Senate Judiciary Committee about the allegations.
The editors wrote a piece in July praising Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy and Kavanaugh’s pro-life stance.
“Judge Kavanaugh is a textualist who is suspicious of the kind of judicial innovation that led to the court’s ruling in Roe. That decision removed a matter of grave moral concern—about which there was and remains no public moral consensus—from the democratic process,” they wrote at the time.
Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit high school.
The magazine’s reversal reflects the tumult into which sexual misconduct allegations have thrown Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.
Sept. 28, 2018
Justice Integrity Project, Lying Bullyboy Kavanaugh Goes Full Trump, Reverses Disaster
By Andrew Kreig
Brett Kavanaugh gave his endangered Supreme Court nomination new life on Sept. 27 with apparently perjured testimony and by playing the victim during a hearing on sexual assault charges that was rigged by his Republican backers.
Kavanaugh's emotional mixture of self-pitying tears, obvious lies and belligerence towards Democratic senators followed President Trump's rhetorical model of "deny, deny, deny" and vicious political partisanship.
Trump, formally accused by 19 women of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct, portrayed himself as a victim in a rambling, 80-minute press conference on Sept. 26 in which he complained about mistreatment of Kavanaugh.
The nominee, shown in an NBC News photo at left Thursday snarling his comments at Democrats, delivered a hoked-up temper tantrum that appeared to salvage his hopes for his confirmation following three major accusations of sexual misconduct and Kavanaugh's robotic performance on Monday night during a Fox television interview.
It came after Fox News commentators Mike Wallace and Brit Hume had described the nominee's accuser Christine Brasey Ford as highly credible in her earlier sworn testimony.
The majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on the nomination for 9:30 a.m. Friday, Sept. 28.
Dr. Brasey, right, told the committee that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh had been the drunken teenager who had tried to rape her at a party when she was 15, thereby inflicting lifelong emotional trauma.
Several former prosecutors now serving as cable television commentators, including Cynthia Aksne and Daniel Goldman on MSNBC, described the witness's mixture of first-person experience and expertise as a psychologist as the most effective witness that they had ever seen.
Washington Post, Several Democrats walk out of Kavanaugh meeting in protest, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner, Sept. 28, 2018. Senate committee decides along party lines to vote on nomination this afternoon. Red-state Democrat Sen. Joe Donnelly said he would vote against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. The Republicans had been courting him as well as Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
JIP Editor's Note: We excerpt the column below to debunk the right-wing propaganda smearing sexual assault victim Christine Brasey Ford. We do not endorse the obviously false claims that are being made against her.
Media Matters, Right-wing conspiracy theorists now claim Christine Blasey Ford is “deeply tied to the CIA,” Sarah Wasko, Sept. 28, 2018. Conservative radio host and conspiracy theorist Michael Savage is promoting a rapidly spreading conspiracy theory that professor Christine Blasey Ford, right, who says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, has “deep” connections to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Savage has pushed incredibly bizarre conspiracy theories and hateful rhetoric, and he has been closely connected to President Donald Trump and the White House. He pushed the latest conspiracy theory on Twitter and his website:
IS DR. FORD DEEPLY TIED TO THE CIA? — Michael Savage (@ASavageNation) 2:59 PM - Sep 27, 2018 Savage’s conspiracy theory makes three claims about Ford’s connections to the CIA, all of which are false or baseless:
1. The post claims that Ford “happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University.” This claim seems to originate from a conspiracy theory website, brassballs.blog, that drew this conclusion because Stanford does have an undergraduate CIA internship program, and Ford, who is a psychology professor at nearby Palo Alto University, is also listed as an “affiliate” in the “psychiatry and behavioral sciences” department at Stanford. The blog post argues that it is suspicious that Ford’s contact information has been deleted from her Stanford profile page, although the more likely explanation is that it has been removed due to the threats and harassment that Ford has received since coming forward.
2. The theory draws another connection between Ford and the CIA via her brother’s previous work for law firm BakerHostetler. A previous Ford-related conspiracy theory connected her brother’s work at BakerHostetler to Fusion GPS, a research firm involved in the ongoing Russian collusion investigation. However, Ford’s brother left BakerHostetler six years before Fusion GPS was ever founded. Savage’s conspiracy theory repeats this false claim and goes even further, claiming that three CIA-controlled businesses are located in the same building as BakerHostetler. There is no evidence these businesses are connected to the CIA -- in fact, one, Red Coats, Inc., is a janitorial company that does not even share office space with BakerHostetler.
3. Savage’s post also claims that Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak, who worked with the CIA during the Cold War. According to his 1985 Washington Post obituary, Deak only had one child, a son named R. Leslie Deak. But as the conspiracy theory’s second claim also notes, Ford’s father is actually Ralph Blasey Jr.Savage’s false claim is rapidly spreading, and was promoted during Alex Jones’ September 28 broadcast. The conspiracy theory is also indicative of how search platforms like Google amplify such clear falsehoods. A Google search for “Christine Ford CIA” done in a private browsing window aggregated YouTube videos pushing the conspiracy theory and Savage’s website as the top results:
Washington Post, ‘Look at me when I’m talking to you!’: Crying protester confronts Sen. Flake after he says he'll vote for nominee, Lindsey Bever, Sept. 28, 2018. Two women tearfully and loudly confronted the Arizona Republican in an elevator, telling Sen. Jeff Flake that he was dismissing the pain of sexual assault survivors.
After Sen. Jeff Flake’s announcement that he would, in fact, vote to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the emotional debate over the confirmation spilled into the halls of Congress, on live television, as two women tearfully and loudly confronted the Arizona Republican in an elevator, telling Flake that he was dismissing the pain of sexual assault survivors.
“What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit in the Supreme Court,” one woman shouted during a live CNN broadcast as Flake was making his way to a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. “This is horrible. You have children in your family. Think about them.”
Palmer Report, Opinion: Donald Trump’s pal Alan Dershowitz shockingly tries to put the brakes on Brett Kavanaugh nomination, Bill Palmer, right, Sept. 28, 2018. After Dr. Christine Blasey Ford gave credible and compelling testimony yesterday alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her, and Kavanaugh responded by having a mental breakdown during his own subsequent testimony, various entities called for a halt to the nomination so an FBI investigation could be conducted.
Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association was among them. Shockingly, so was Donald Trump’s pal Alan Dershowitz.
Not long before midnight eastern time, it was widely reported that the ABA had sent a letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, arguing that the FBI must step in and help determine whether Kavanaugh or Ford is telling the truth. This is a major development, but perhaps not surprising.
On the one hand, with the Brett Kavanaugh nomination now rapidly shaping up as a stain on American history, it’s possible that Alan Dershowitz may simply be trying to avoid taking one more reputational hit as he continues to turn into more of a Trump shill.
On the other hand, maybe Dershowitz really is trying to talk Trump into moving on from Kavanaugh, for fear that pushing any further forward could backfire.
Democrats Threatened With Senate Reprisals
Roll Call, Lindsey Graham to Democrats: ‘I’ll Remember This,’John T. Bennett, Sept. 28, 2018. South Carolina senator could be Judiciary chairman next year if GOP holds Senate.
Lindsey Graham, right, who could become Senate Judiciary Committee chairman next year, warned his Democratic colleagues Friday that he will remember how they handled the Brett Kavanaugh saga.
“If I am chairman, next year, I’m going to remember this,” the South Carolina Republican said before a planned vote on the Supreme Court nominee.
“There’s the process before Kavanaugh and the process after Kavanaugh. If you want to vet the nominee, you can. If you want to delay things until after the election, you cannot. If you try to destroy somebody, you will not get away with it.”
CNN, Democrats seize on circumstantial July 1 theory for Kavanaugh and Ford, Zach Wolf, Sept. 28, 2018. CNN Sen. Jeff Flake demanded a potentially week-long pause on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh Friday so the FBI could do a limited investigation in to the sexual assault allegation levied against him by Christine Blasey Ford in searing testimony Thursday.
Vox, Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart, Alvin Chang, Sept. 28, 2018. There was a striking difference in style — and substance. There were several noticeable differences between the Senate testimony of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford.
The most obvious was the tone each took. Ford was polite and quiet in recounting her accusation against Kavanaugh; he was angry and loud in his denials of the allegations against him.
Beyond the style of their testimonies, there was a striking difference in the content of their words. Both Ford and Kavanaugh fielded questions from senators and the prosecutor hired by Republicans, Rachel Mitchell.
Washington Post, Here’s where Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony was misleading or wrong, Philip Bump, Sept. 28, 2018. From obvious falsehoods about his drinking to misrepresentations of exonerating evidence.
The Intercept, Kavanaugh’s High School, Georgetown Prep, Warned Parents in 1990 of “Sexual or Violent Behavior” at Parties, Jon Schwarz and Camille Baker, Sept. 28, 2018. According to a 1990 article in the Washington Post, the headmasters from seven prestigious Washington, D.C.-area private schools sent a joint letter that year to parents, warning them that their children had developed a party culture that included heavy drinking leading to “sexual or violent behavior.”
One of the schools was Georgetown Prep, from which Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh graduated in 1983. Christine Blasey Ford, who during congressional testimony on Thursday described being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in 1982, attended another of the schools, Holton-Arms.
The Post article also reported that before the letter was sent, Georgetown Prep had individually “held a conference with parents to discuss the problem of unsupervised parties.”
Malcolm Coates, then the headmaster of the Landon School in Bethesda, Maryland, is quoted as saying that the schools decided to write the letter jointly “to give it more impact. … The fact that seven schools decided it was enough of a problem to address it is significant.”
Sept. 27
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27, 2018 (Reuters photo by Jim Berg via NBC News)
Roll Call, Senate Judiciary to Vote Friday on Kavanaugh Nomination, Todd Ruger, Sept. 27, 2018. Decision came after nearly nine hours of testimony from nominee and accuser
New York Magazine, Opinion: Why Brett Kavanaugh’s Hearings Convinced Me That He’s Guilty, Jonathan Chait, Sept. 27, 2018. I think Brett Kavanaugh is probably lying about having sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, and many other things, and has decided from the beginning to say what he has to in order to fulfill his career ambition.
There is, however, at least some, small chance that he is telling the truth when he professes his innocence. And that small chance gives me some sympathetic human reaction to his emotional testimonial. If he is somehow innocent, as he claims, he has been subject to a horrifying and humiliating ordeal.
That, however, does not justify confirming Kavanaugh to a lifelong position on the Supreme Court. He has, for one thing, all but abandoned the posture of impartiality demanded of a judge. A ranting Kavanaugh launched angry, evidence-free charges against Senate Democrats. Why they took this revenge against Kavanaugh, rather than the first justice who was appointed after the 2016 elections, when Democrats’ anger over both the election and the treatment of Merrick Garland ran hotter, he did not say. Kavanaugh does not seem able to imagine even the possibility that Democrats actually believe the women accusing him of sexual assault. He is consumed with paranoid, partisan rage.
The method Republicans have used to defend Kavanaugh has consisted of suppressing most of the evidence that could be brought to bear in the hearing, and then complaining about the lack of evidence. “Unless something new comes forward, you have just an emotional accusation and an emotional denial without corroboration,” said Senator Lindsey Graham. Conservative columnist Kimberly Strassel argued, “The standard here isn’t where you ‘look’ or ‘sound’ ‘credible.’ It is whether you provide evidence.”
Washington Post, 3 takeaways from the Kavanaugh hearing so far, Amber Phillips, Sept. 27, 2018. Republicans struggled to show they are taking it seriously. Meanwhile, Christine Blasey Ford, shown at right, cut a sympathetic, down-to-earth figure.
1. This isn’t going well for Republicans2. Meanwhile, Ford came across as credible, emotional and sympathetic3. Republicans' decision to hand their questions over to a female prosecutor is seeming questionable.
New York Times, Kavanaugh Denies Sexual Assault Charges and Attacks Democrats in Scathing Testimony, Staff report, Sept. 27, 2018. At an extraordinary hearing, Brett M. Kavanaugh denied that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were in high school. In an angry statement to the Senate Judicial Committee he said the Supreme Court confirmation process had become “a national disgrace.”
Roll Call, Kavanaugh Comes Out of Gate Angry, Says Confirmation Process Is ‘National Disgrace,’ John T. Bennett, Sept. 27, 2018. An angry Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, facing sexual assault allegations, opened up his testimony Thursday by calling the situation a “national disgrace.”
He lamented that his name and that of his family have been “totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false … accusations.”
Three women have come forward with allegations of sexual assault or sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey Ford, his first accuser who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Thursday, has accused the nominee of sexually assaulting her at a party in the 1980s when the two were in high school. Supreme Court nominee aggressively foists blame on Democrats, accuses them of character assassination.
Washington Post, Chuck Grassley’s heavy-handed stewardship of a very delicate hearing, Aaron Blake, Sept. 27, 2018. Republicans have taken pains to prevent their 11 white, male committee members from talking. Grassley, though, has no choice.
Washington Post, Ford finishes her testimony, Kavanaugh to testify, Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow, Mike DeBonis and Elise Viebeck, Sept. 27, 2018. Sen. Hatch, right, calls Christine Blasey Ford an ‘attractive’ witness.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving member of the Senate, was asked whether Ford was “credible” in her testimony. “I don’t think she’s un-credible." he said. "I think she’s an attractive, good witness."
New York Times, Nomination in the Balance as Kavanaugh and His Accuser Testify, Catie Edmondson, Sept. 27, 2018. Christine Blasey Ford, shown in a file photo, is set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about her accusation that Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Since Dr. Blasey came forward, two 
more women have accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct at parties in high school and in college.
An hour before the hearing, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, held a news conference in support of Dr. Blasey, flanked by trauma experts who spoke of the difficult and often hostile cultural attitudes faced by survivors of sexual abuse.
Ms. Murray, left, was one of a number of female senators who was emboldened to run for office after watching Anita F. Hill testify in 1991, and she referenced that experience directly, calling on her colleagues to learn from their past mistakes.
“In 1991, I and millions of women across the country watched as Anita Hill was interrogated and attacked and the Senate failed this crucial test,” Ms. Murray said. 
“Twenty-seven years later, in 2018, we need to do better and we certainly should not do worse.”
As Ms. Murray delivered her remarks, dozens of protesters supporting Dr. Blasey poured into the Hart Senate Office Building, chanting “we won’t go back” and wearing shirts that said “Believe Women.” Four young women, wearing their Holton-Arms uniforms, walked through the Hart office buildings hallways, arms linked together.
Republican U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Members
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans
Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chairman, right.- Orrin Hatch, Utah.
- Lindsey Graham, South Carolina.
- John Cornyn, Texas.
- Mike Lee, Utah.
- Ted Cruz, Texas.
- Ben Sasse, Nebraska.
- Jeff Flake, Arizona.
Washington Post, Who is Julie Swetnick, the third accuser? Michael E. Miller, Steve Hendrix, Jessica Contrera and Ian Shapira, July 27, 2018. The 55-year-old is an experienced web developer in the Washington area and has held multiple security clearances for her work on government-related networks.
Julie Swetnick, right, who Wednesday became the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, is an experienced Web developer in the Washington area who has held multiple security clearances for her work on government-related networks.
The child of two government bureaucrats — her father worked on the lunar orbiter for NASA and her mother was a geologist at the Atomic Energy Commission — has spent most of her life around Washington. Now 55, she grew up in Maryland and graduated in 1980 from Gaithersburg High School, located in a far less affluent section of the same county where Kavanaugh lived and attended an exclusive prep school.
Swetnick’s father, 95, said Wednesday he was shocked to learn from a Washington Post reporter that his daughter had made the explosive allegations.
New York Times, What We Know About Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona Prosecutor Set to Question Kavanaugh’s First Accuser, Matt Stevens, Sept. 27, 2018 (print edition). The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican leadership said Tuesday that it had retained Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor specializing in sex crimes, to help question Christine Blasey Ford, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s first accuser. Rachel Mitchell, right, is shown during a TV interview in 2011 (Screenshot from ABC 15.)
The move allows Republicans to avoid having the 11 men who are part of the committee and in their party grill Dr. Blasey on Thursday about the alleged sexual assault in high school that she says a young Judge Kavanaugh carried out.
Trump Psyche
Washington Post, Trump laments #MeToo as ‘very dangerous’ for powerful men, Philip Rucker, Robert Costa, Josh Dawsey and Ashley Parker, Sept. 27, 2018 (print edition). President Trump, shown in a file photo, cast doubt on the credibility of three women who have accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct and other women who have claimed sexual abuse by prominent men.
Washington Post, ‘Give it to me’: Trump lets loose with 81 minutes of bluster, falsehoods and insults, Ashley Parker, Sept. 27, 2018 (print edition). What was perhaps most remarkable was just how transparent and revealing the 45th president of the United States continues to be.
Media News
CNN guest commentators Kirsten Powers and Michael Caputo, right, squared off on the show of Anderson Cooper, left.
Washington Post, ‘I called out his victim blaming and he lost it,’ says Kirsten Powers after Michael Caputo’s CNN meltdown, Allyson Chiu, Sept. 27, 2018. Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign aide turned political strategist and conservative pundit, was thrust into the spotlight after having what many are calling a “meltdown” during a heated panel discussion about the controversial allegations against Kavanaugh on Anderson Cooper’s “AC360” Wednesday night.
Sept. 26
Sept. 26, 2018.
Justice Integrity Project, Kavanaugh Rape Charge: 1 of 5 Ways To Thwart GOP Court Fraud
By Andrew Kreig,
A new accuser has named Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Sept. 26 as being present during her long ago gang rape at a party.
But justice seekers need much tougher tactics to counter the ruthless senators and their puppet masters who are now ramming the nominee through to confirmation without an honest investigation.
This column argues that reformers need to implement five strategies beginning today before the sham Senate hearing that is scheduled Thursday for new accusations against Kavanaugh. [The column has been updated after being published early on Wednesday, Sept. 26, which was before attorney Michael Avenatti announced the identity of his client who would make explosive charges against Kavanaugh.]
Later that morning, Avenatti released via Twitter a sworn statement by a longtime federal employee, Julie Swetnick, identifying Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge as being present for a “gang rape” that Swetnick said victimized her at one one of about of about 10 house parties she says that she attended with them in the Washington, DC area in the early 1980s. She is shown at left in a photo released by her attorney.
“I also witnessed," the statement said, "efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys ... These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh ... In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” she added.
Avenatti wrote also, "Here is a picture of my client Julie Swetnick. She is courageous, brave and honest. We ask that her privacy and that of her family be respected."
Kavanaugh responded by reiterating his denial of wrongdoing. In a rambling 80-minute press conference filled vague if not misleading comments, President Trump restated his support for Kavanaugh, his denunciations of Avenatti and left open the possibility that he might change his mind after hearing from Kavanaugh's accusers in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday.
Trump seemed unaware for most of the conference until near the end that Senate Republicans have not permitted Swetnick and another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, either to speak to the committee or to the FBI in a renewed investigation. Trump said also that his own experience in being accused of sexual misconduct had made him especially sympathetic to Kavanaugh.
The Hill, Avenatti releases client’s identity, allegations against Kavanaugh, Tal Axelrod, Sept. 26, 2018. Avenatti claims client has 'credible information' on Kavanaugh, ex-classmate. Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her suit against President Trump released the identity of his client accusing Brett Kavanaugh of being present for a “gang rape” of which she was a victim.
Avenatti tweeted out a sworn testimony from Julie Swetnick in which she declares she met Kavanaugh in “approximately 1980-1981” and attended several house parties for which Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were also present.
Her affidavit states:
“I witnessed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking ‘No’ for an answer. This conduct included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent,” Swetnick writes.
“I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge [shown at right], Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys ... These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh ... In approximately 1982, I became the victim of 
one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” she added.
Avenatti wrote: "Here is a picture of my client Julie Swetnick. She is courageous, brave and honest. We ask that her privacy and that of her family be respected."
Avenatti, who has not ruled out a bid for the White House in 2020, said, “Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed absent a full and complete investigation.”
Below is my correspondence to Mr. Davis of moments ago, together with a sworn declaration from my client. We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations. Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed absent a full and complete investigation.
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) 10:42 AM - Sep 26, 2018.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh nomination: Judge says he is victim of ‘character assassination’ as third woman comes forward, John Wagner, Sept. 26, 2018. Uncertainty looms over Kavanaugh and the GOP after new misconduct allegation.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh [shown in a screenshot from the confirmation hearing] is scheduled to appear Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a high-stakes hearing. The committee will hear from Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her when both were teenagers.
Lawmakers from both parties and lawyers for Kavanaugh and Ford maneuvered for advantage on the eve of the hearing, and President Trump weighed in on the fate of his nominee.
12:50 p.m.: Trump attacks Avenatti as ‘a total low-life!’
President Trump on Wednesday lashed out at Michael Avenatti, the lawyer representing a new accuser of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.
“Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Trump said in a tweet. “He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!”
Avenatti also represents Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who was paid by a personal attorney for Trump to remain quiet about an alleged decade-old affair with Trump.
On Wednesday, Avenatti revealed that he is representing Julie Swetnick, who said Kavanaugh was physically abusive toward girls in high school and present at a house party in 1982 where she says she was the victim of a “gang” rape.
12:45 p.m.: Grassley says new accuser won’t affect Thursday’s hearing
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said the emergence of a third accuser would not affect the hearing scheduled Thursday at which the panel will hear from Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Speaking to reporters, Grassley cited Ford’s welfare. “I feel we shouldn’t disadvantage Dr. Ford any more than she’s already been disadvantaged,” he said.
12:30: Kavanaugh says third accuser’s allegations are ‘from the Twilight Zone’
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on Wednesday dismissed the allegations of a third accuser as “ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is scheduled to appear Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a high-stakes hearing. The committee will hear from Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her when both were teenagers.
Lawmakers from both parties and lawyers for Kavanaugh and Ford maneuvered for advantage on the eve of the hearing, and President Trump weighed in on the fate of his nominee.
Washington Post, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell emerges as GOP choice to question Kavanaugh and accuser at hearing, Sean Sullivan, Josh Dawsey and Rosalind S. Helderman, Sept. 26, 2018 (print edition). Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has emerged as Senate Republicans’ choice to question Brett M. Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, according to two people familiar with the decision.
Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s office in Phoenix, is the leading candidate to query the two at Thursday’s highly anticipated hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to the individuals.
They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it on the record. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for 26 years.
Washington Post, Brett Kavanaugh has no good choices anymore, Deanna Paul, Sept. 26, 2018. Allegations of decades-old sexual misconduct resurfaced days before Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh was all but set to sail through his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh categorically denied each claim of misconduct in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in an interview with Fox News on Monday, vowing to fight the accusations and defend himself.
The controversial nominee is faced with two unattractive options: withdraw or testify at a second hearing Thursday. He has pledged to do the latter, though either leaves his name tarnished.
“It’s difficult to imagine an exit strategy that’s not personally and professionally devastating for Kavanaugh,” Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, told The Washington Post on Tuesday. Those encouraging the federal judge to withdraw are telling him to cut his losses, Turley said. But the losses are quite considerable.
New York Times, Kavanaugh’s Calendar Portrays Party-Filled Summer for Supreme Court Nominee, Nicholas Fandos, Sept. 26, 2018. The Senate Judiciary Committee released the handwritten calendar pages kept by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh from the summer of 1982. Further clouding Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, a third woman has come forward to accuse him of misconduct during high school.
The Senate Judiciary Committee released calendar pages [one is shown] from the summer of 1982 on Wednesday that paint an image of a party-hopping Brett M. Kavanaugh in high school, complicating his self-drawn portrait of a diligent student obsessed mainly with sports and reaching the top of his class
At the same time, lawyers for the woman who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her that summer, Christine Blasey Ford, gave the committee four affidavits — one from Dr. Blasey’s husband and three from friends — stating that she had told them in recent years that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee had assaulted her in high school.
Released as both sides prepare for an extraordinary public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, neither disclosure proves or disproves the cases that Dr. Blasey or Judge Kavanaugh have sought to advance, but Democratic senators are likely to use the calendars to question how truthful Judge Kavanaugh has been about his younger days. And although the affidavits suggest that Dr. Blasey’s story has been consistent, Republicans are more likely to focus on the lack of contemporaneous evidence that could corroborate her story.
New York Times, What We Know About Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona Prosecutor Set to Question Kavanaugh’s First Accuser, Matt Stevens, Sept. 26, 2018. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican leadership said Tuesday that it had retained Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor specializing in sex crimes, to help question Christine Blasey Ford, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s first accuser.
The move allows Republicans to avoid having the 11 men who are part of the committee and in their party grill Dr. Blasey on Thursday about the alleged sexual assault in high school that she says a young Judge Kavanaugh carried out.
Politico, Feinstein: Kavanaugh misled about grand jury secrecy in Vince Foster probe, Josh Gerstein, Sept. 26, 2018. The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of misleading the Senate about his handling of grand jury secrets while working for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr two decades ago.
Kavanaugh's nomination has run into trouble in the last two weeks over allegations of sexual assault by two women, but Democrats have also complained that he misled them during his Senate testimony on a number of issues, including his handling of warrantless wiretapping and detainee policy in the George W. Bush administration.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, right, told Politico that she has now identified another area in which she believes Kavanaugh was not truthful in communications with senators. She said that by directing officials to speak to reporters during the investigation of President Bill Clinton, Kavanaugh may have violated grand jury secrecy laws -- even though he told her and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) he never broke those rules.
"According to a memo from the National Archives, Brett Kavanaugh instructed Hickman Ewing, a colleague and deputy counsel in the Starr investigation, to ‘call [Chris] Ruddy’ about matters before a grand jury, which would be illegal to disclose," Feinstein said in a statement to POLITICO. "I asked Judge Kavanaugh in questions for the record whether he had shared ‘information learned through grand jury proceedings.’ His answer, which says that he acted ‘consistent with the law,’ conflicts with the official memo from Mr. Ewing. Disclosing grand jury information is against the law and would be troubling for any lawyer, especially one applying for a promotion to the highest court in the country.”
Sept. 25
Vox, The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on Kavanaugh even though his accuser hasn’t testified, Li Zhouli, Sept. 25, 2018. The vote’s just one day after a hearing scrutinizing sexual misconduct allegations.
Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA), right, has rescheduled a committee vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for this upcoming Friday. That’s just one day after a hearing that will take place on Thursday, which is set to scrutinize sexual misconduct and assault allegations that have been brought against Kavanaugh.
Grassley’s announcement of the committee vote is the latest signal that Republicans are ready to barrel ahead with Kavanaugh’s confirmation, in spite of the recent accusations that have been levied by Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez. Ford — who has said that Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her while both of them were in high school — is set to testify, along with Kavanaugh, on Thursday. Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied all of the allegations.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday emphasized that he was eager to hear from Ford — while simultaneously casting doubt on the legitimacy of her allegations.
Washington Post, Three Yale Law School classmates who endorsed Kavanaugh call for investigation into sexual misconduct claims, Elise Viebeck, Sept. 25, 2018. Three former 
Yale Law School classmates who endorsed Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh called Tuesday for an investigation into allegations by two women that he engaged in sexual misconduct in the 1980s.
Kent Sinclair, Douglas Rutzen and Mark Osler were among roughly two dozen of Kavanaugh’s law school classmates who lauded Kavanaugh’s qualifications in an Aug. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Their support for an investigation came as Yale Law professor Akhil Amar, right — who taught Kavanaugh and testified on his behalf before the committee this month — also called for a probe into what he described as “serious accusations” from the women.
New York Times, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska and a key swing vote, delivered a message: Take the Kavanaugh accusations seriously, Nicholas Fandos, Sept. 25, 2018. Republican Party leaders may be insisting that they will install Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, but Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is offering a blunt warning of her own: Do not prejudge sexual assault allegations against the nominee that will be aired at an extraordinary public hearing on Thursday.
“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Ms. Murkowski, right, a key swing Republican vote, said in an extended interview in the Capitol Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”
New York Times, Trump Accuses Democrats of Running ‘Con Game’ Against Kavanaugh, Mark Landler and Peter Baker, Sept. 25, 2018. Speaking in New York, President Trump disparaged a woman who accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her, saying she was “messed up” and “drunk” at the time.
President Trump accused Democrats of orchestrating “a con game” against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in hopes of blocking his ascension to the Supreme Court and said that one of two women who have accused the nominee of misconduct as a student was “messed up” and “drunk” at the time.
Dispensing again with the restraint that advisers have urged him to exercise, Mr. Trump went beyond defending Judge Kavanaugh into attack mode, saying that Democrats were “making him into something he’s not” as part of a strategy to “delay and obstruct” his confirmation.
“I think it’s horrible what the Democrats have done. It’s a con game,” he said while in New York for the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. “They’re playing a con game,” the president repeated, and added, “They’re playing actually much better than the Republicans.”
Mr. Trump singled out the latest accuser, Deborah Ramirez, right, who said in an interview with The New Yorker that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking party at Yale University. “She was totally messed up,” Mr. Trump said. “The second accuser has nothing,” he added. “She admits she was drunk.”
Dispensing again with the restraint that advisers have urged, Mr. Trump went beyond defending Judge Kavanaugh into attack mode.
Washington Post, White House open to testimony from second Kavanaugh accuser, Sanders says, John Wagner, Sept. 25, 2018. Deborah Ramirez alleges that the Supreme Court nominee exposed himself at a party when both were Yale University students.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh, in emotional interview on Fox News, says he has no intention of bowing out, Sean Sullivan, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner, Sept. 25, 2018. The nationally televised interview marked a new tactic for Brett M. Kavanaugh, who has mostly avoided media attention since being accused of sexual assault.
Washington Post, Analysis: Brett Kavanaugh’s Fox News interview transcript, annotated, Aaron Blake, Sept. 25, 2018 (print edition). Facing multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, Brett Kavanaugh took an unusual step for a Supreme Court nominee on Monday night: Appearing on television. Kavanaugh’s Fox News interview included repeated references to wanting a fair process as he disputes allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.
Appearing next to his wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, he also asserted he had never been blackout drunk and that he was a virgin until “many years” after high school. Below is the full transcript, with annotations and analysis in yellow.
New York Times, Opinion: Judge Kavanaugh’s “golden résumé” has turned into a lead weight, our columnist writes, Carl Hulse, Sept. 25, 2018. President Trump thinks Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has the perfect pedigree for a spot on the Supreme Court.
“They were saying it 10 years ago about him: He was born for the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump exclaimed over the weekend at a rally in Missouri. “He was born for it. And it’s going to happen.”
At the moment of his nomination, Judge Kavanaugh did truly seem like a test-tube version of a Republican Supreme Court nominee. The right schools. The right friends. The right clerkships. The right mentors. The right White House experience. The right appeals court slot. Republican senators said he might be the most qualified nominee ever. It was all set.
Right up until it wasn’t. Now, with his confirmation in such jeopardy that he felt compelled to defend himself in a Fox News television interview on Monday, some of the glittery inside-the-Beltway aspects of his résumé that made him so appealing to his enthusiastic supporters are putting his ascension to the country’s top court in doubt.
Start with Judge Kavanaugh’s schooling, a period that has given rise to the most serious threat to his confirmation: accusations of sexual misconduct. He is the product of the elite Georgetown Preparatory School just outside Washington, as well as Yale University and Yale Law School, proven incubators of Supreme Court justices. Degrees from those institutions are treated as strong evidence of academic rigor and excellence.
But accusations from two women who say they were subjected to sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh during his years at the schools have exposed a dark side of such privileged education. “He has a golden résumé, but appears to be a deeply flawed nominee,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
The Intercept, Analysis: How One Senator Cornered Brett Kavanaugh About His Mentor’s Sexually Explicit Emails, Akela Lacy, Ryan Grim, Sept. 25, 2018. Two days from now, Brett Kavanaugh will resume testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a confirmation vote looms as early as Friday or Saturday, the question of his credibility has never been more critical.
Throughout his confirmation process, Kavanaugh has consistently denied knowledge of his mentor Judge Alex Kozinski’s years of sexual harassment, for which he was finally brought down in December 2017.[The judge, regarded as a feeder to right-wing Supreme Court justice clerkships, is shown in a file photo.]
The news, Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath, was a “gut punch.”
Under follow-up questioning from Sens. Mazie Hirono and Chris Coons, Democrats from Hawaii and Delaware respectively, he expanded his denials to include any knowledge of the email list Kozinski used to distribute pornography and off-color jokes to court employees. That denial is crucial, because if it’s false, it demonstrates that Kavanaugh lied about what he knew of Kozinski’s behavior. And that he’s still lying.
And the answer is knowable. Following the hearing, Coons asked Kavanaugh a set of direct written questions that was met with a tellingly vague response.
Washington Post, White House hit with one-two punch over Kavanaugh and Rosenstein, Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey, Sept. 25, 2018 (print edition). As President Trump simmers over the “molasses-like” pace of the confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee, officials are also grappling with the uncertain job status of the deputy attorney general.
Sept. 24
Roll Call, Mitch McConnell Reaffirms Vow for Senate to Vote on Kavanaugh, Niels Lesniewski, Sept. 24, 2018. Nothing, it seems, could keep the majority leader from giving the Supreme Court nominee a floor vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not heard anything that should slow confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, pledging to push ahead.
“Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed,” McConnell, left, said on the Senate floor. He was echoing comments he made Friday, before revelations of additional accusations of sexual assault were leveled at Kavanaugh on Sunday.
The Kentucky Republican started with a fiery opening speech blasting the handling of allegations against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee as a “smear campaign” Monday — just a prelude to Thursday’s main event, the hearing where the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from both Kavanaugh and one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford.
Palmer Report, Opinion: What did they know about Brett Kavanaugh and when did they know it? Bill Palmer, Sept. 24, 2018. This evening we learned, thanks to Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, that unnamed “Senior Republican staffers” became aware last week that their Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had a second accuser named Deborah Ramirez. We also know that in response, the GOP decided to push harder to advance the confirmation process even more quickly, in the hope of confirming him before Ramirez’s accusations could become public.
It leads to a crucial question: which Republican Senators knew about this, and when did they know it?
Over the past several days we’ve all seen Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, as well as committee members Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham, publicly try to push Dr. Christine Blasey Ford into testifying as soon as humanly possible. They were demanding she testify on Monday. When she said she couldn’t make it there before Thursday, they then demanded that she testify on Wednesday.
While this was going on, Palmer Report pointed out that the Republicans were so afraid of the Kavanaugh nomination imminently slipping away, they were literally afraid to give Ford one more day; we just didn’t know specifically why. Now we do. Certain Republican Senators knew about Ramirez, and they knew she could go public at any minute, and 
they were racing against time.
So here’s the question. Did the entire GOP Senate know about Ramirez, or were certain GOP Senators like Grassley and Hatch trying to keep this information from potential “no” votes in their own party, such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski? (The two are shown on the adjoining photos, with Collins at right.)
New York Times, Brett Kavanaugh, Facing New Allegations, Vows He Will Not Withdraw, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Sept. 24, 2018. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, facing mounting allegations of sexual impropriety and growing doubts over his confirmation to the Supreme Court, vowed on Monday to fight the “smears,” saying he will not withdraw his nomination.
“These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse,” he wrote in a letter to the senior Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination — if allowed to succeed — will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.”
“I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process,” he continued. “The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.”
[Read Judge Kavanaugh’s letter.]
Protesters against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and police gather in the Russell Senate Office Building on Sept. 24, 2018 (ABC News photo by Brad Fulton via Twitter)
Washington Post, 128 arrested after anti-Kavanaugh protest on Capitol Hill, Justin Wm. Moyer, Sept. 24, 2018. Protests Monday against the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on Capitol Hill ended with 128 arrests, authorities said.
Winnie Wong, a liberal activist and senior adviser to the Women’s March, said one protest began on the steps of the Supreme Court around 8:30 a.m. before moving to the office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who some believe can be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh.
After some demonstrators shared stories of sexual assault, about two dozen were arrested outside Collins’s office, Wong said, before protesters moved on to the office of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a critic of President Trump who is retiring and is seen by some as another possible “no” vote on the nominee.
The protest eventually moved to the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building. Women in Yale University sweatshirts — Kavanaugh attended law school there — shouted, “We believe the women.”
“This is a group effort led by seasoned activists and organizers,” Wong said. “We are close to victory.”
Ady Barkan, an activist who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and was among those arrested, said protests would continue until Kavanaugh withdrew. “The fact that we are going to win and that Kavanaugh will not be confirmed is proof of how important it is to always fight even when people say there is no chance of winning,” he said.
Sept. 23
Roll Call, Kavanaugh Has Bumpy Week Ahead as Two More Women Come Forward, Todd Ruger, Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls for stop to the confirmation process. Sept. 23, 2018.
Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who rose to fame by aggressively taking on President Donald Trump on behalf of his client Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had another woman with an allegation who will be demanding that Kavanaugh’s nomination be withdrawn:
“We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C., area during the 1980s” during which Kavanaugh and others “would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them,” Avenatti wrote. Avenatti said he would provide additional evidence in the coming days.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, right, the committee’s top Democrat, wrote a letter to Grassley on Sunday asking to stop the confirmation process.“
I also ask that the newest allegations of sexual misconduct be referred to the FBI for investigation, and that you join our request for the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford as well as these new claims,” Feinstein said.
Details below.
New York Times, Christine Blasey Ford Reaches Deal to Testify at Kavanaugh Hearing, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Sept. 23, 2018. The woman who has accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers has committed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, her lawyers said on Sunday. The lawyers said some details — including whether an outside lawyer will question her — still needed to be resolved, but that those issues would not impede holding a hearing.
The agreement, reached after an hourlong negotiating session Sunday morning between the lawyers and committee aides, is the latest step in a halting process toward a potentially explosive hearing that will pit the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, against Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court. On Saturday, the two sides reached a tentative agreement for Dr. Ford, shown right in a file photo, to appear on Thursday.
The on-again, off-again talks — with an appointment to the nation’s highest court in the balance — have consumed official Washington, and thrown confirmation proceedings for Judge Kavanaugh, who has vigorously denied Dr. Ford’s allegations, into turmoil. Until last week, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation seemed all but assured; that is no longer the case.
A few sticking points between the two sides remain, according to people familiar with the talks. One is who will testify first, Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. Republicans have rejected the idea that the judge would appear first. But perhaps the biggest sticking point is whether senators on the Judiciary Committee will question Dr. Ford themselves, or use an outside lawyer or a committee aide, most likely a woman.
The New Yorker, Senate Democrats Investigate a New Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against Brett Kavanaugh, Ronan Farrow (shown at right) and Jane Mayer, Sept. 23, 2018. Deborah Ramirez, a Yale 
classmate of the Supreme Court nominee, has described a dormitory party gone awry and a drunken incident that she wants the F.B.I. to investigate.
As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University.
The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation.
The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence.
The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices.
After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
Palmer Report, Opinion: Deborah Ramirez accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct – and a third accuser is on the way, Bill Palmer, Sept. 23, 2018. Deborah Ramirez is accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct toward her when they were students at Yale, in a new expose published tonight by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer in the New Yorker.
This comes shortly after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford formally agreed to testify before the Senate about her attempted rape accusation against Kavanaugh. And in a sign that the floodgates are open, a third woman is now also seeking to testify to the Senate about Kavanaugh.
Yesterday, Michael Avenatti, shown at right, hinted that additional accusers were about to come forward against Kavanaugh. This evening he tweeted that he had retained an unnamed woman as a client, and that she wanted to testify to the Senate about Kavanaugh. When the New Yorker story broke tonight, many observers mistakenly assumed that this was what Avenatti was talking about. But then Avenatti tweeted that his client is not Ramirez.
This means we’re talking about three different women coming forward against Brett Kavanaugh – and the night is still young. Does anyone still believe Mitch McConnell’s claim that he has the votes to confirm this guy?
Fox News, Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination, Dana Blanton, Sept. 23, 2018. Voter support for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is down in the wake of Christine Ford’s assault allegations, as more believe her than him.
Currently, 40 percent of voters would confirm Kavanaugh, while 50 percent oppose him, according to a Fox News poll. Last month, views split 45-46 percent (August 19-21).
Washington Post, ‘Incredibly frustrated’: Inside the GOP effort to help Kavanaugh survive allegation, Seung Min Kim and Josh Dawsey, Sept. 23, 2018. In mock questioning sessions, Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh refused to answer some questions that he saw as too personal. The tense preparations underscore the monumental stakes of public testimony from Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexual assault. As hearing looms, senators seem unwilling to budge on Kavanaugh.
Just as he did several weeks ago to prepare for his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh was back inside a room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building — again facing questioners readying him for a high-stakes appearance in the Senate.
This time, the questions were much different. An array of White House aides, playing the role of various senators on the Judiciary Committee, quizzed Kavanaugh last week about his sex life and other personal matters in an attempt to prepare him for a hearing that would inevitably be uncomfortable.
Washington Post, Opinion: If Republicans don’t get answers, Democrats will in 2019, Jennifer Rubin, right, Sept. 23, 2018. Whether or not Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will be plenty of serious questions about the confirmation process that require answers. Assuming Kavanaugh appears at a hearing this week, Democrats can interrogate him. Moreover, all of this could be reviewed next year if Democrats win the majority in either house of Congress (and claim the subpoena power).
Democrats may be keen to focus on the apparent skullduggery that transpired. If the inquiry takes place next year, conservative lawyer Ed Whelan, Mark Judge and any other witnesses who should have participated in the process may be called. There is plenty to look into.
• Who came up with the mistaken-identity scheme?• Who was aware of it?• Did someone in the White House approve it?
If this sounds far-fetched, it is because Republicans took the unbelievable step of pressing forward with a nominee against whom there was a credible claim of sexual assault and decided not to conduct a thorough investigation. What is truly far-fetched is putting Kavanaugh on the court with witnesses out there who haven’t been interviewed and potential avenues to investigate. T
here is a reason why we should only put on the court individuals about whom there is no ethical questions whatsoever. The way you insure there are no ethical questions is by completing a thorough investigation. This is a recipe for chaos.
Findings of wrongdoing in the confirmation process itself, if serious enough, are grist for impeachment or professional sanctions. (Only one other Supreme Court justice was impeached, Samuel Chase. He escaped removal in 1805.) There may be other crimes (e.g., witness intimidation, obstruction of justice) committed by third parties or Republicans inside the confirmation process. There may be Senate or White House staff whose conduct warrants their termination.
Sept. 22
Mueller's Job Threatened By Disputed NYT Report?
New York Times, Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt, Sept. 22, 2018 (print edition). The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, shown above in a file photo, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.
Details below.
Washington Post, Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford say she has accepted Senate Judiciary Committee request to testify against Kavanaugh, Washington Post Staff, Sept. 22, 2018. The Senate Judiciary Committee and lawyers for Ford have been in negotiations for days about whether she would appear before the panel. Ford, shown at right in a file photo, has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s when both were teenagers.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, had given Ford until 2:30 p.m. to respond to a revised offer to testify at a Wednesday hearing. Her lawyers asked the committee for a call later Saturday to work out other specifics.This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Newsweek, Former Trump Aide Jason Miller Accused of Secretly Administering Abortion Pill, Alexandra Hutzler, Sept. 22, 2018. Miller has since left the White House and is now engaged in a custody battle with A.J. Delgado. In new court filings, Delgado accuses Miller of secretly giving another woman with whom he 
had an affair an "abortion pill" after she got pregnant.
Former Donald Trump aide Jason Miller has been accused of secretly administering an "abortion pill" to a woman he got pregnant during an affair, new court documents show.
The court filing, obtained and reported on by Splinter, alleges that Miller, shown in a file photo below at right, had an affair with a woman he met at a strip club in Orlando, Florida in 2012. As a result of the affair the woman got pregnant, at which point Miller is accused of giving her with an abortion pill without her knowledge or consent. The woman claims that the pill caused her to lose the baby and nearly cost her her life.
The documents allege that the affair happened when Miller was working for a Republican advertising firm Jamestown Associates. He would often bring clients to Rachel's Gentleman's Club in Orlando, where he allegedly met the woman he would later get pregnant. She is only identified in the court filing as "Jane Doe."
The filing goes on to claim that Miller showed up at Jane Doe's apartment with a smoothie in hand.
"Unbeknownst to Jane Doe, the Smoothie contained an abortion pill. The pill induced an abortion, and Jane Doe wound up in a hospital emergency room, bleeding heavily and nearly went into a coma," the document reads.
As a result of the pill the child died and Jane Doe herself was "hospitalized for two days, the abortion pill possibly reacting with potential street drugs in her system at the time she drank the Smoothie."
Miller's attorney denied these allegations, telling Splinter in a statement: “To be clear, there is no validity to the false accusations made in Ms. Delgado’s filing.”
These allegations were made in court filings made by the legal team of A.J. Delgado, Miller's ex-lover who is suing for custody of their son. Delgado began her affair with Miller in October 2016, after he told her he had separated from his wife. But Miller had never separated from his wife and was, in fact, expecting a child with her when Delgado found out that she was pregnant from their affair. Now, Delgado and Miller are locked in a custody battle.
Miller was Trump's spokesman during his 2016 campaign and a member of the president's transition team. When his affair with Delgado was made public, Miller was essentially forced to turn down a job as the White House communications director. Delgado was also a former Trump campaign staffer.
In previous court filings, Delgado has also accused Miller of sexual and physical abuse, which Miller has also denied.
Washington Post, Senate panel to give Kavanaugh accuser more time to decide whether to testify, Sean Sullivan, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner, Sept. 22, 2018 (print edition). Earlier Friday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) set a deadline of 10 p.m. for Christine Blasey Ford to decide whether to testify about her allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. But after the deadline passed, Grassley said on Twitter that he "granted another extension" to Ford: "I want to hear her."
Washington Post, ‘100 Kegs or Bust’: Kavanaugh friend, Mark Judge, has spent years writing about high school debauchery, Marc Fisher and Perry Stein, Sept. 22, 2018 (print edition). The high-court nominee’s accuser says Mark Judge was there and should have to testify. Judge says he does not remember the party and never saw his buddy behave like that.
As Christine Blasey Ford tells it, only one person can offer eyewitness confirmation of her account of a sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh: Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Prep.
Ford says Judge watched Kavanaugh attack her at a high school party in the early 1980s and then literally piled on, leaping on top of her and Kavanaugh. Judge says he does not remember the party and never saw his buddy behave like that. Ford’s legal team has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to compel Judge to testify.
A review of books, articles and blog posts by Judge — a freelance writer who has shifted among jobs at a record store, substitute teaching, housesitting and most recently at a liquor store — describes an ’80s private-school party scene in which heavy drinking and sexual encounters were standard fare.
Twitter @ChuckGrassley, Grassley Tweets Kavanaugh on extension to accuser, Chuck Grassley (Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Republican from Iowa), Sept. 21, 2018 (11:42 p.m.). "Judge Kavanaugh I just granted another extension to Dr Ford to decide if she wants to proceed w the statement she made last week to testify to the senate She shld decide so we can move on I want to hear her. I hope u understand. It’s not my normal approach to b indecisive 11:42 PM - 21 Sep 2018."
Sept. 21
Washington Post, Trump, in overt attack on Kavanaugh accuser, questions her credibility, John Wagner and Seung Min Kim, Sept. 21, 2018. President Trump contended that Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, would have reported the attack to law enforcement if it “was as bad as she says.”
Trump’s tweets came as lawyers for Ford (shown in a high school photo) continued negotiations about conditions under which she might testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh accuser open to testifying later next week, dismisses theory of a different attacker, Seung Min Kim, Josh Dawsey and Emma Brown, Sept. 21, 2018 (print edition). A lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford said she “wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.” Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was roiled further by tweets from a friend who named another classmate as Ford’s possible attacker.
Media News: Sinclair Promos For Kavanaugh?
President Trump sat down for an interview with Sinclair’s chief political analyst, Boris Epshteyn, who has never disagreed with the president in his commentary (screenshot).
Media Matters, Opinion: In an interview with Sinclair, Trump touts Kavanaugh’s “unblemished record” and says he thinks he will be confirmed, Pam Vogel, Sept. 21, 2018. Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest owner and operator of local TV stations in the country, regularly broadcasts pro-Trump propaganda segments created by an ex-Trump staffer into the homes of millions of Americans. And now those segments include an interview with President Donald Trump himself, in which he was given a friendly platform to discuss his continued support of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh despite a report that he committed sexual assault.
The media company’s chief political analyst, Boris Epshteyn, has been producing regular commentary segments, called “Bottom Line With Boris,” for Sinclair for more than a year. Epshteyn had previously worked in the Trump White House on the communications team, after doing stints on the Trump inaugural committee and on the Trump campaign. Epshteyn also served as a Trump media surrogate throughout the campaign and first days of the Trump presidency. Epshteyn is personal friends with the president’s sons Eric and Donald Jr., and he has been spotted at Trump International Hotel multiple times, including with Don Jr. in June. He also may or may not have signed a nondisparagement agreement while he was working on the campaign, which could legally prevent him from criticizing Trump.
For a chief political analyst, Epshteyn offers takes that are notably unoriginal. At best, he regurgitates Trump talking points or touts some vague, imaginary bipartisan ideals that involve being nicer to Trump. At worst, he defends the most upsetting, racist things Trump does. In fact, in a recent interview on a National Review podcast, Epshteyn could not think of a single issue about which he had disagreed with the Trump administration in any of his commentary segments. What’s more: These segments ultimately air on an estimated 100 TV news stations under Sinclair’s control, exploiting the trust people have in their local news.
Given the president’s penchant for granting interviews to sycophants, it was only a matter of time before Trump himself made an appearance on "Bottom Line with Boris."
On September 21, Epshteyn shared the first of what will likely be several must-run segments featuring excerpts from his sit-down with the president. This one is focused on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and professor Christine Blasey Ford’s account of sexual assault by Kavanaugh when they were both in high school. In the segment, Trump largely repeats broad White House talking points about making sure Ford is heard, and then pivots to touting Kavanaugh’s “unblemished record.” Trump also says he believes Kavanaugh will ultimately still be confirmed.
BORIS EPSHTEYN: The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is facing last-minute turmoil over allegations that he committed sexual assault decades ago. I spoke with President Trump about this in a one-on-one, exclusive interview. Here’s what he shared.
[INTERVIEW CLIP BEGINS]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think they’ve been very respectful of Dr. Ford, extremely respectful. I think they’re doing the right thing. They want to give her a voice, if she wants to take it. They’re talking now about timing. It’s already been delayed a week. That’s a long time. This is the U.S. Senate we’re talking about.
EPSHTEYN: Right.
TRUMP: I can only say this: Let her speak. But Brett Kavanaugh is one of the finest people you’ll ever meet. I think it’s been extremely hard on him and his family. When I look at what’s happening -- here’s a man with an unblemished record, and to be going through this all of a sudden. So I won’t say anything now. All I’m saying is that -- let it play out. Let her have open voice. And let’s see what happens.
This year, Epshteyn has aired interviews with seven other members of the Trump administration, eight Republican congressmen, and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. The appearances include: then-Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Vice President Mike Pence, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Kevin Hassett, and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI). DeSantis, McCarthy, Rooney, and Duffy are all on ballots this year.
President Trump introduces U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, shown with family, as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2018 (White House photo)
Center for American Progress, Opinion: Kavanaugh’s Credibility Chasm, Jake Faleschini and Jesse Lee, Sept. 21, 2018. Amid a crisis in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination process, new reports suggest that President Trump’s nominee may have been personally involved in a public relations effort to shift blame for sexual assault allegations made against him onto another specific individual with unsubstantiated speculation from an ally.
This alone would demonstrate a deep breach of integrity and credibility and would be disqualifying in itself for a position on the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, it also aligns with an entire career using dishonest tactics and statements to advance his personal ambition.
In Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s first words on the national stage as a Supreme Court nominee, he made two plainly false statements in quick succession. In a vacuum, they might be dismissed as overly effusive pleasantries; in fact, they were part of a decades-long pattern of defaulting toward deception whenever useful.
“Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary,” Kavanaugh stated. This immediately stood as a refutation of Trump’s previous nominee Neil Gorsuch, who had in fact condemned Trump’s well-known, ruthless attacks on the judiciary, reportedly leaving Trump outraged. Kavanaugh was making clear there that he would offer no such dissent. In fact, Kavanaugh later refused to echo Gorsuch’s criticism of Trump in his own hearing.
Later in his initial statement, Kavanaugh said, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Again, this claim is ridiculous on its face and is reminiscent of early Trump Cabinet meetings where attendees would heap superlative praise upon Trump. But it also spoke to a deeper deception: In fact, Trump had explicitly promised to choose his nominee off of a pre-approved list from conservative advocacy groups, a list to which Kavanaugh’s name had mysteriously been added just months before.
More generally, though, Kavanaugh’s statement shows he opts to say what is best in the moment in order to advance his career. This is even if those statements were objectively — even obviously — misleading. However, this is no new tactic for Kavanaugh. As shown below, this has been a hallmark of his entire career.
- Leaking information for Ken Starr
- Accessing stolen documents
- Warrantless wiretapping
- Judicial Nominations
- Sexual harassment allegations against Judge Alex Kozinski
- Roe v. Wade
- Presidential Power
Kavanaugh began his career as a political operative willing to use whatever deceptive means necessary — from leaking in the special counsel’s office to dealing with stolen documents in court fights while in the White House. Worse than that, though, when he attempted to transition into a career in the judicial branch, he neither changed his ways nor owned up to his past behavior. Instead, he repeatedly misled the Senate about his prior deceptions, from one confirmation hearing to the next.
Kavanaugh may have rightly believed that, with the Senate controlled by other partisan Republicans, lying and misconstruing facts regarding his record would have no consequence. Indeed, Senate Republicans have blocked any review of the vast majority of his record, so this list of false and misleading statements represents only a small portion of the total.
But, as his Supreme Court confirmation process comes to a head — hinging precisely on whether his denials of credible accusations against him should be believed — Kavanaugh’s record of almost casual deception has caught up with him. The American people simply have no reason to believe him.
Sept. 20
Washington Post, Opinion: Republicans, be forewarned: Kavanaugh’s accuser has options, Jennifer Rubin, right, Sept. 20, 2018. Trump, whom a flock of women has accused of harassment and assault, and the all-male Republican contingent on the Senate Judiciary Committee might think they have Christine Blasey Ford cornered. The reality is that she has many options, some of which are far more dangerous to Republicans than what she has demanded, namely an FBI investigation.
Ford might choose to appear on Monday, and make a powerful opening statement accusing Republicans of running a sham investigation. Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has figured out it would be a good idea to interview her in advance of Monday’s hearings, but the staffers conducting the interview would be unlikely to have the ability or the will to follow up on investigative leads.
Ford can use the hearing to put the senators, who have behaved shabbily, on defense.
Ford has another option: Hold a news conference with her own experts and make the case directly to the American people. She can sit down for an interview with a respected TV journalist. She can say whatever she wants, make certain that experts are heard and even recount the much more extensive investigative efforts undertaken when Hill stepped forward. To make her case to the American people and convince them that she is sincere, honest and credible, Ford doesn’t need the Senate.
Ford also might have the ability to go to local police to investigate if the White House refuses to activate the FBI. The Hill reports: “Can Brett Kavanaugh be investigated for an attempted rape he allegedly committed over three decades ago? In Maryland, it’s entirely possible under the law, according to some experts.
Washington Post, ‘These are the stories of our lives’: Prep school alumni hear echoes in assault claim, Joe Heim, Sept. 20, 2018 (print edition). Lettina Lanyi remembers. It was 1986, and she was in eighth grade.
Lanyi has thought about that night often since Sunday, when Christine Blasey Ford (shown at right in a high school photo) publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when she was a 15-year-old student at Holton-Arms School and he was a 17-year-old student at Georgetown Prep. She has thought about stories of male entitlement and drunken sexual assault she heard from classmates while she was a student at Prep’s Bethesda neighbor, Stone Ridge of the Sacred Heart, and the many more stories she has heard in the years since their graduation.
There was a lot of shame and stigma then if a girl was raped, so girls tried to hide it. They didn’t tell anyone,” Lanyi said. “The term ‘date rape’ wasn’t something that even existed then. So if it happened, it was always kind of the girl’s fault.”
Lanyi’s recollection of a private school culture suffused by alcohol and drugs — and frequent if unreported sexual assault or misbehavior — is widely shared by students who attended those schools in the 1980s. It was, they recalled, an era marked by excess and illegality that went widely unchecked by parents and school leaders who were unaware or uninterested in cracking down on the behavior.
On Tuesday, Lanyi helped launch an online letter of support for Ford from women and men who grew up in the upper Northwest Washington neighborhoods and Maryland suburbs that fed into the exclusive private schools and country clubs during the same era that Ford and Kavanaugh attended their schools.
The letter’s message to Ford is unambiguous: “We believe you. Each one of us heard your story and not one of us was surprised. These are the stories of our lives and our friends’ lives.” More than 300 people signed the letter, including graduates of Stone Ridge, Georgetown Prep, Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School, Gonzaga and many others.
A similar letter of support for Ford from Holton-Arms graduates bore 925 signatures Wednesday, including from actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Class of 1979. The letters came in response to a missive Friday signed by 65 women supporting Kavanaugh (shown in his 1983 yearbook photo) after the assault allegations emerged but before Ford came forward.
“We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” read the letter, from women who attended schools including Visitation, Stone Ridge and Holton-Arms.
This story is based on interviews with two dozen former students, many of whom asked not to be identified because of how tightly knit and powerful the alumni from those schools are, and because they fear retribution or harassment for speaking out on the allegations engulfing Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh accuser won’t testify Monday but is open to doing so later next week, Seung Min Kim, John Wagner and Emma Brown, Sept. 20, 2018. In an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford said she wanted to negotiate conditions for her testimony, saying, that she “wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”
Roll Call, Judiciary Staffer’s Tweets Fuel Fight Over Kavanaugh Accuser, Todd Ruger, Sept. 20, 2018. ‘Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh,’ committee’s chief staffer says.
Amid a pitched partisan battle over how the Senate handles an allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman decades ago as a teenager, liberal groups on Thursday seized on comments from a Judiciary Committee staffer to paint the process as a sham.
Mike Davis, the committee’s chief staffer for nominations, tweeted twice overnight about his key role in the committee’s review of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation, as well as criticism of Ford’s attorneys and his desired outcome of the process.
“Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh #SCOTUS,” Davis tweeted at 11 p.m. Wednesday.
Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Opinion: Kavanaugh and Georgetown Prep: Pedophilia acceptance, Wayne Madsen, Sept. 20, 2018 (subscription required, with excerpt below by permission). Investigative reporter and author Wayne Madsen, right, is a former Navy intelligence officer who was appointed to be a temporary FBI special agent during a period in the 1980s to help convict his Navy commanding officer on pedophilia charges.
Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's dubious nominee for the Supreme Court, not only faces questions about his views on a woman's right to choose her own health decisions and his own questionable past treatment of women, but his elite high school.
Georgetown Preparatory High School in North Bethesda, Maryland has been a hotbed for Roman Catholic sex abuse of minors. As a member of the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh would become the court's fifth Catholic judge. His decisions on cases involving the cover-up of child sex abuse by religious organizations and politically powerful individuals could dictate for decades to come how the nation deals with the issue of sex abuse of minors.
Mueller Probe: Election Subversion
New York Times, Investigation: The Plot to Subvert an Election, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, Sept. 20, 2018 (print edition). For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 interference by Russia: hacked emails, social media fraud, possible espionage — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. We unravel the story so far. Special Counsel Robert Mueller III is shown at right.
Washington Post, Trump feels angry, unprotected amid mounting crises, Ashley Parker and Philip Rucker, Sept. 20, 2018 (print edition). Publicly, President Trump is going through the ordinary motions of being president. But behind the scenes, he is confronting broadsides from every direction — legal, political and personal.
Kavanaugh Accuser
New York Times, From the Anonymity of Academia to the Center of a Supreme Court Confirmation, Elizabeth Williamson, Rebecca R. Ruiz, Emily Steel, Grace Ashford and Steve Eder, Sept. 20, 2018 (print edition). Dr. Blasey, a researcher and statistician, was reluctant to come forward with her allegation that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.
The text message from Christine Blasey Ford, shown left in a file photo, this summer worried her college best friend, Catherine Piwowarski. Over their years of friendship — as roommates, bridesmaids and parents on opposite coasts — Dr. Blasey wanted to know, had she ever confided that she had been sexually assaulted in high school?
No, Ms. Piwowarski said she texted back, she would have remembered that, and was everything O.K.? Dr. Blasey didn’t want to speak in detail quite yet, her friend recalled her responding. “I don’t know why she was asking that or what it ultimately meant or didn’t mean,” Ms. Piwowarski said in an interview, but she remembers thinking that the question betrayed deep turmoil.
New York Times, Dr. Blasey has been the target of widespread social media disinformation since she came forward. We debunk five viral rumors, Kevin Roose, Sept. 20, 2018 (print edition). Just minutes after Christine Blasey Ford, a California-based psychologist, went public with accusations of teenage sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, internet investigators began combing her past for clues about her possible motives, and trying to cast doubt on the veracity of her claims.
State of Alaska, Alaska's Governor and Lieutenant Governor oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation, Sept. 20, 2018. Governor Bill Walker, right, and Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott [Independents] on Thursday offered the following statement:
We oppose the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of our top priorities as Governor and Lieutenant Governor is expanding affordable healthcare access to all Alaskans. We supported increasing the number of people eligible to receive health insurance by increasing the pool of those who have access to Medicaid, and we have also championed protections for Alaskans with pre-existing health conditions.
Another priority of our administration is protecting the rights of working Alaskans. Mr. Kavanaugh’s record does not demonstrate a commitment to legal precedent that protects working families. Key aspects of our nation’s healthcare and labor laws may be at risk if Mr. Kavanaugh receives a lifetime appointment. Mr. Kavanaugh’s appointment could also jeopardize the Indian Child Welfare Act, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and other laws that enable tribal self-determination due to his overly narrow view of the relationship between federal and tribal governments. Alaska is home to 227 tribes, nearly half of all tribes in our nation. Finally, we believe a thorough review of past allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, left, is needed before a confirmation vote takes place. Violence against women in Alaska is an epidemic. We do not condone placing someone into one of our nation’s highest positions of power while so many key questions remain unanswered.
New York Times, Evangelical Leaders Are Frustrated at G.O.P. Caution on Kavanaugh Allegation, Jeremy W. Peters and Elizabeth Dias, Sept. 20, 2018. Ralph Reed, the social conservative leader, said if Senate Republicans fail to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, “it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November.”
Alliance for Justice, Opinion: 8 Reasons to Expect Kavanaugh’s Nomination to Fail, Bill Yeomans, right, Sept. 20, 2018. The accusation by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that a drunken 17-year old Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her has imperiled Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Here are eight reasons why Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination may fail.
1. Dr. Blasey Ford’s credibility is virtually unassailable.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh’s unlikely story about Democrats’ stolen documents, Salvador Rizzo, Sept. 20, 2018 (print edition). As a White House lawyer, Kavanaugh received insider information taken from Democrats’ files but has repeatedly said he never suspected that his source was stealing it. These claims defy logic.
Trump Watch
ABC News, Michael Cohen spoke to Mueller team for hours; asked about Russia, possible collusion, pardon: Sources, George Stephanopoulos, Eliana Larramendia and James Hill, Sept. 20, 2018. President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has participated over the last month in multiple interview sessions lasting for hours with investigators from the office of special counsel, Robert Mueller, sources tell ABC News.
Interested in Russia Investigation?
Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
The special counsel’s questioning of Cohen, one of the president’s closest associates over the past decade, has focused primarily on all aspects of Trump's dealings with Russia -- including financial and business dealings and the investigation into alleged collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign and its surrogates to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Sept. 19
'This Incident Did Happen'
The New Civil Rights Movement, 'This Incident Did Happen': Woman Says She Knew Kavanaugh and 'Many of Us Heard About It in School,' David Badash, Sept. 19, 2018. Christine Blasey Ford's high school who have signed on to a letter supporting her has come forward to say Brett Kavanaugh did sexually assault Christine Blasey in high school. Dr. Ford is shown at right in high school. She says she was 15 at the time she was attacked.
In postings to Facebook and Twitter, which she says she has since deleted because the media is contacting her and she is unsure of how to move forward, Christina King writes that at the time, 'many of us heard about it in school and Christine's recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know the accusation is true.'
King, who has also been identified as Christina King Miranda, says drinking in those days at these private Catholic prep schools was 'out of control.'
See also, OpEdNews, 'This Incident Did Happen': Woman Says She Knew Kavanaugh and 'Many of Us Heard About It in School, Rob Kall (Founder and publisher of prominent progressive site OpEdNews that has extensive social media capabilities), Sept. 19, 2018. Quick Link: 'This Incident Did Happen.'
Sept. 18
CNN, Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying, Sophie Tatum, Sept. 18, 2018. The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault says the FBI should investigate the incident before senators hold a hearing on the allegations.
In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys argue that "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."
The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.
"We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security," the letter from Ford's lawyers said.
"What we're saying is there should be an investigation because that's the right thing to do," Ford's attorney Lisa Banks told Cooper.
"She is prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law enforcement investigation," she added.
The letter comes after a day of uncertainty about whether the hearing scheduled for Monday would even take place, as Republicans continued to emphasize their repeated efforts to reach out to Ford.
Democrats have pushed back on the hearing. All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter on Tuesday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House counsel Don McGahn arguing that the FBI should conduct an investigation prior to a hearing.
.
Republican U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Members
Yahoo News, Analysis: Republican men — and not a single GOP woman — will be Christine Blasey Ford's interrogators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alexander Nazaryan, Sept. 18, 2018. Next week, Christine Blasey Ford will likely face intense questioning from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee about the truthfulness of her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, who she says attempted to rape her during a party in the 1980s. Her turn on Capitol Hill could decide Kavanaugh’s suddenly uncertain fate, as well as the Supreme Court’s direction for a generation.
Ford will face questions from the 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Ford will face questions from the 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, all of them men, with an average age of 62. (The chairman, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the second-oldest sitting senator, is 85.) In the committee’s 202-year history, it has not had a single Republican woman. Four of the 10 Democrats are women, including ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who is a few months older than Grassley. The committee has never been chaired by a woman.
The spectacle of Ford, 51, being interrogated about her sexual history by older men could present an uncomfortable sight that the White House may take great pains to avoid. The outrage over that discrepancy, however, is already building. “In the year 2018, a group of white men has essentially complete control over lifetime nominations to an entire branch of government,” tweeted Robert Reich, the former Labor secretary and current Berkeley professor. The message was retweeted more than 2,000 times
In the last 40 years, use of the judiciary to advance ideological goals has rendered the process of nominating judges highly political, with nominees evaluated on a narrow range of cultural issues, notably abortion, gun control and, until recently, gay marriage. That has tended to turn the Senate Judiciary into a hotbed of assertive ideologues, including, recently, Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz. GOP women have made their contributions elsewhere, effectively ceding judicial nominations to their male counterparts.
Roll Call, Grassley Says Monday Hearing Not Likely Without Kavanaugh Accuser, John T. Bennett, Sept. 19, 2018. Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley, right, said Wednesday a planned Monday hearing on sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would likely not go on without accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
Asked about Ford saying she wouldn’t appear on Monday, the chairman indicated it would not go on without the accuser present because the nominee would not know the full scope of allegations against him. Any decision to cancel that session, Grassley said, will be made at the “last” possible minute.
Washington Post, Democrats protest plan to limit witnesses at new Kavanaugh hearing, John Wagner, Seung Min Kim and Robert Costa, Sept. 18, 2018. No. 2 Senate Republican sharply questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser·The No. 2 Republican in the Senate on Tuesday sharply questioned the credibility of the woman who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, as GOP leaders indicated they will limit witnesses at next week’s hearing to just the Supreme Court nominee and his accuser.
Speaking to reporters, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), right, said he was concerned by “gaps” in the account of Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in California, who told The Washington Post in an interview published Sunday that Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her to a bed on her back, groped her and put his hand over her mouth at a house party in the early 1980s when the two were in high school.
“The problem is, Dr. Ford can’t remember when it was, where it was, or how it came to be,” Cornyn told reporters at the Capitol late Tuesday morning.
When asked whether he was questioning the accuser’s account — which Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied — Cornyn said, “There are some gaps there that need to be filled.”
His comments came shortly after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) outlined a plan to limit testimony at Monday’s planned hearing to that provided by Kavanaugh and Ford — which brought cries of protest from Democrats.
They insisted that other witnesses also be called, including Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford said witnessed the assault. “What about other witnesses like Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge?” ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California said in a statement. “What about individuals who were previously told about this incident? What about experts who can speak to the effects of this kind of trauma on a victim? This is another attempt by Republicans to rush this nomination and not fully vet Judge Kavanaugh.”
Speaking to reporters later, Grassley defended his plan. “We’ve had two people that want to tell their story and that’s what we’re gonna do,” he said. Pressed about the precedent of the Hill hearing, Grassley said: “You’re talking about history. We’re not looking back. We’re looking forward.”
Kavanaugh was at the White House on Tuesday for a second day in a row, but Trump said he has not spoken to him.
New York Times, Kavanaugh and His Accuser Will Both Testify Monday, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Sept. 18, 2018 (print edition). The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings just weeks before the midterm elections.
Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, told reporters Monday afternoon that the chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, right, Republican of Iowa, told senators there would be an “opportunity” for senators to hear from Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, in a public setting where senators would be able to ask questions. Both have said they are willing to testify. A Senate Republican aide confirmed that it would be on Monday, effectively delaying a planned committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, which had been scheduled for this Thursday.
The hearings will set up a potentially explosive public showdown, one that carries unmistakable echoes of the 1991 testimony of Anita Hill, who accused the future Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in an episode that riveted the nation and ushered a slew of women into public office. They will play out against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, which has energized Democratic women across the nation.
Brandeis University professor Anita Hill, as portrayed in the 2013 documentary "Anita" based on her experiences testifying against future Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
New York Times, Opinion: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right, Anita Hill, Sept. 18, 2018. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it 
did nearly three decades ago.
Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.
Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.
WUSA (Washington, DC), Brett Kavanaugh high school yearbook raises new questions about Supreme Court nominee, Staff report, Sept. 18, 2018. Brett Kavanaugh's high school yearbook has pages dedicated to each graduating high school senior. Kavanaugh's page includes references to the "Keg City Club" and "100 kegs or bust."
Amid accusations of sexual assault against a woman while in high school, the high school yearbook of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has prompted more questions about his character.
Kavanaugh, shown in a file photo, graduated from Bethesda’s Georgetown Prep high school in 1983.
Washington, D.C.-area attorney Seth Berenzweig received the yearbook from a woman who did not want her name revealed. Berenzweig says she brought it forward after seeing Judge Kavanaugh’s repeated denial of engaging in inappropriate behavior with a then 15-year-old girl at a high school party.
“The question of integrity and character and fitness,” said Berenzweig. “There’s information here that appears to potentially be inconsistent with what the judge said earlier this morning.”
The yearbook has pages dedicated to each graduating high school senior. Kavanaugh’s page includes references to the "Keg City Club" and "100 kegs or bust."
“[He's] someone who apparently may have had a reputation for some heavy drinking,” said Berenzweig. Kavanaugh’s page also includes a reference to the ‘Devil’s Triangle’, one possible interpretation of which is slang for a sexual situation involving two men and a woman.
The allegations against Kavanaugh are that he attempted to sexually assault a woman at a high school party during his junior year. Published reports and the alleged victim’s recollection is that another Georgetown Prep student, and friend of Kavanaugh’s, named Mark Judge was also present in the room during the alleged assault. Lawyer says excerpts from Brett Kavanaugh's high school yearbook raises questions. Judge’s yearbook page includes this quote, “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” His page also references “100 kegs or bust” and “Alcoholics Unanimous [Founder].”
Roll Call, Mark Judge, Possible Witness to Alleged Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault, Does Not Want to Testify, Niels Lesniewski, Sept. 18, 2018. The third person identified by Christine Blasey Ford as having been present in the room during what she alleged was a sexual assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh wants no part of the Judiciary Committee proceedings. Mark Judge is shown at right.
Washington Post, Trump says he feels ‘badly’ for Kavanaugh: ‘This is not a man who deserves this,’ Seung Min Kim, Robert Costa and John Wagner, Sept. 18, 2018. President Trump said during a news conference at the White House that he supports the congressional hearing on an allegation that Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman in high school, because there shouldn't be any doubt about his innocence. Trump also blamed Democrats for not bringing the allegation forward sooner.
Palmer Report, Opinion: Susan Collins just threw a big monkey wrench into the GOP’s Brett Kavanaugh plot, Bill Palmer, Sept. 18, 2018. Even after the Republican leadership announced last night that it was agreeing to delay the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it was clear the GOP was still playing games. This was set up as a rush job in which Kavanaugh and his accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford would each quickly testify on Monday before any real investigating could be done. Now Republican Senator Susan Collins has thrown a big monkey wrench into that plan.
Here’s what Susan Collins, right, tweeted this afternoon: “I’m writing to the Chairman & RM of Judiciary Cmte respectfully recommending that at Monday’s hearing, counsel for Prof. Ford be allocated time to question Judge Kavanaugh & counsel for the Judge be granted equal time to question Prof. Ford, followed by questions from Senators. Such an approach would provide more continuity, elicit the most information & allow an in-depth examination of the allegations.” Wait, so what is she up to?
She has clearly decided that she wants Monday’s testimony to be something of substance, where Kavanaugh can be grilled by a legal professional in front of the cameras. Collins has to know that Kavanaugh, who has already proven himself to be an inept and self-contradictory witness on various matters, would fare poorly in such a scenario.
Sept. 17
Washington Post, Kavanaugh accuser willing to testify, her lawyer says, John Wagner, Sept. 17, 2018. A lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who said Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her when the two were in high school, said Monday that Ford is willing to testify about the allegations before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“She is. She’s willing to do whatever it takes to get her story forth,” lawyer Debra Katz said on NBC’s “Today” show when asked if her client would speak publicly about President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh has denied the allegations, which have roiled his confirmation process. The White House indicated Monday that it is continuing to stand by Kavanaugh but expects Ford will offer testimony to the Judiciary Committee.
New York Times, Allegations Against Kavanaugh ‘Will Be Heard,’ Kellyanne Conway Says, Eileen Sullivan, Sept. 17, 2018. President Trump’s counselor said that she had spoken with Mr. Trump and senators and that the accuser “will be heard.”
Roll Call, Kavanaugh Would Testify Against Sexual Assault Allegation, John T. Bennett, Posted Sep 17, 2018. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said Monday he would testify to give his side of the story of an alleged 1982 incident when a California professor says he sexually assaulted her.
“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh said in a statement released by the White House.
“Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday. I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.”
The Hill, Alumnae of Kavanaugh accuser’s high school express support for her, Justin Wise, Sept. 17, 2018. Alumnae of Christine Blasey Ford’s high school are circulating a letter to show their support for her, after Ford came forward with sexual misconduct accusations against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
“We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Md., reads, as first reported by HuffPost. “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”
The letter, which says it’s from more than 200 alumnae from classes 1967 through 2018, added that Ford’s allegations about Kavanaugh are “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton.”
“Many of us are survivors ourselves,” it said. HuffPost reported that the letter had received three dozen additional signatures as of Monday morning.The report comes just a day after Ford detailed her allegations against Kavanaugh for the first time to The Washington Post.
Sept. 16
Kavanaugh Accuser Speaks Out
Washington Post, Writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault, Emma Brown, Sept. 16, 2018. Christine Blasey Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attacked her more than three decades ago when they were each in high school, an allegation the Supreme Court nominee has flatly denied.
Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.
Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.
Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.
While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Reached by email Sunday, Judge declined to comment. In an interview Friday with The Weekly Standard, before Ford’s name was known, he denied that any such incident occurred. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge said. He told the New York Times that Kavanaugh was a “brilliant student” who loved sports and was not “into anything crazy or illegal.”
On Sunday, the White House sent The Post a statement Kavanaugh issued last week, when the outlines of Ford’s account first became public: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”
For weeks, Ford declined to speak to The Post on the record as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.
Axios Sneak Peek, What's next: The politics of Kavanaugh's crisis, Jonathan Swan, Sept. 16, 2018. What was previously an allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh by an unidentified person — without a lot of details or evidence — is now backed by a name, a specific allegation and therapist's notes. A senior Republican official involved in Kavanaugh's confirmation privately admitted to me that they felt queasy when they read The Washington Post story. And there was one sign tonight that these allegations could actually derail Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court — which was previously a sure thing.
Jeff Flake [the Arizona Republican at right] told the WashPost's Sean Sullivan that the Senate Judiciary Committee should wait to hear more from Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford: "For me, we can’t vote until we hear more."
Why it matters: Doug Jones' special election victory late last year gave Democrats an extra seat on Senate Judiciary — there are now 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats — meaning that Flake's defection could stall Kavanaugh's confirmation process.
Since the story broke, I've spoken to four sources close to the Kavanaugh confirmation process. All were defiant and sought to raise doubts about the accuser's credibility and the holes in her story — though none were willing to do so on the record. They signaled potential lines of attack: the accuser's Democratic political background, lapses in her memory and the accounts of the 65 women who've known Kavanaugh since high school who've vouched for his character.
Washington Post, Opinion: Kavanaugh’s accuser steps forward, Jennifer Rubin, right, Sept. 16, 2018. If Kavanaugh did what he was accused of and then has lied about it, he cannot be confirmed for the Supreme Court. It is noteworthy he has not denied the allegation under oath. The Senate therefore must bring him back as well as Ford to tell their accounts in public and under oath.
If the allegation is true — and at this point, none of us is in a position to assess credibility — he dare not lie under oath, putting at risk his current seat on the bench. (A far more difficult matter presents itself if Kavanaugh issues less than an absolute denial under oath but argues that this episode was decades old and therefore should not be disqualifying. I find it difficult to believe, however, that he’ll deviate from his initial, complete denial.)
The nomination fortunately does not hang on whether the White House or the vast majority of Senate Republicans behave responsibly, for surely they will not. Here, the two pro-choice Republican senators, Susan Collins, left, of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, once more are in the driver’s seat. If they indicate they will not vote to confirm unless and until the matter is investigated, then the nomination stops in its tracks.
To Republicans and the judge himself who may think this is terribly unfair, I have two responses. First, the entire confirmation process has been rushed, incomplete and hampered by the partisan, limited release of relevant documents. Second, it may well be unfair to hear a last-minute allegation, but it would be much more unfair to allow someone who has lied to the American people about an alleged sexual assault to reach the highest court.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans
Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chairman, right. Orrin Hatch, UChuck Grassley, Iowa, Chairman.
Orrin Hatch, Utah.
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina.
John Cornyn, Texas.
Mike Lee, Utah.
Ted Cruz, Texas.
Ben Sasse, Nebraska.
Jeff Flake, Arizona.
Roll Call, Three Ways Kavanaugh Nomination Could Play Out After Accuser Speaks, John T. Bennett, Sept. 16, 2018. Female GOP senators could have big say in what happens nextPosted What was an anonymous letter with serious allegations against Supreme Court nominee are now vivid words from an accuser, putting a name and face on the charges and raising new questions about the nomination.
A California professor contends she instantly thought a “stumbling drunk” Kavanaugh might “inadvertently kill” her during a party in the early 1980s while they were in high school, breaking her public silence and handing Republican leaders and the White House tough decisions about what to do next.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Christine Blasey Ford told the Washington Post in an article that published Sunday afternoon. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” She also claims Kavanaugh and a friend trapped her in a bedroom during the party, with the high court nominee pinning her on a bed while his friend watched and groping her over her one-piece bathing suit. Ford says she was able to escape without injury.
The 51-year-old Ford first voiced her concerns to California Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Judiciary ranking member Dianne Feinstein, who last week cryptically announced she had referred a letter containing information about Kavanaugh to the FBI. Ford also contacted a Post tip line, but the interview marked the first time she had spoken publicly about the alleged incident.
Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, last week teed up a committee vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation for Thursday as he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — and the White House — aim to hold floor votes and have Kavanaugh join the other eight Supreme Court justices by Oct.1.
But Ford’s public allegations could alter those plans. Here are three ways the nomination could play out after the accuser’s first public remarks.Kavanaugh drops out/White House pulls nomination
Sept. 15
New York Times, New Kavanaugh Disclosure Shows Little Sign of Impeding His Nomination, Carl Hulse, Sept. 15, 2018. Sudden new revelations in Supreme Court confirmation fights are not new. Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas surfaced after his initial hearings had concluded. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s first nominee to the court, faced claims that he had plagiarized parts of his book just as his nomination headed toward a Senate floor vote.
Sept. 14
New Yorker, A Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress, Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, Sept. 14, 2018. On Thursday, Senate Democrats disclosed that they had referred a complaint regarding President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the F.B.I. for investigation. The complaint came from a woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were both in high school, more than thirty years ago.
The woman, who has asked not to be identified, first approached Democratic lawmakers in July, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh.
The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her.
She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand.
She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.
In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”
New York Times, Dianne Feinstein Refers a Kavanaugh Matter to Federal Investigators, Nicholas Fandos and Catie Edmondson, Sept. 14, 2018 (print edition). The senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred information involving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, to federal investigators on Thursday, but the senator, right, declined to make public what the matter involved.
Two officials familiar with the matter say the incident involved possible sexual misconduct between Judge Kavanaugh and a woman when they were both in high school. They spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
The statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California came a week before the Judiciary Committee is to vote on his nomination. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Ms. Feinstein said in a statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
The information came in July in a letter, which was first sent to the office of Representative Anna Eshoo, Democrat of California, and accuses the judge of sexual misconduct toward the letter’s author, a person familiar with the letter confirmed.
Washington Post, Bitter Senate fight to confirm Kavanaugh plunges deeper into chaos over letter, Seung Min Kim and Elise Viebeck, Sept. 14, 2018. The letter describes an alleged episode of sexual misconduct involving the Supreme Court nominee when he was in high school, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Politico, Sexual assault allegation roils Kavanaugh confirmation fight, Elana Schor, Burgess Everett and Eliana Johnson, Sept. 14, 2018. Republicans rushed to defend the Supreme Court nominee with a letter from women who've known him since high school.
Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans on Friday released a letter from 65 women who knew Brett Kavanaugh during his high school years calling him "a good person" — escalating their defense of the Supreme Court nominee as a decades-old sexual misconduct allegation surfaced.
Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) office circulated the pro-Kavanaugh letter less than 48 hours after the committee's top Democrat, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, referred the allegation against the nominee to the FBI. Feinstein, who declined to say when she first became aware of the accusation, said she had "honored [a] decision" by the woman making the charges to maintain confidentiality. But the senator's handling of the matter has stoked already-fierce partisan tensions over a confirmation the GOP is still pushing to wind up by the end of this month.
The woman leveling the charge against Kavanaugh attended a nearby high school at the same time as the nominee. She, Kavanaugh, and another high-school male were alone in a room together when the alleged misconduct took place, according to two sources. The New Yorker reported Friday that the woman alleged Kavanaugh had attempted to force himself on her while physically restraining her.
The flaring controversy has not shaken Republican plans to bring Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor before the Supreme Court's new term begins in the first week of October. The Judiciary panel is still scheduled to vote on the nomination on Thursday, Grassley's office said.
The Senate has received an updated FBI background report on Kavanaugh that includes the letter, which means that senators will have access to the letter if they want to view it.
With Republicans holding a 51-49 advantage, Kavanaugh's prospects for approval are still on track despite his lack of 50 public "yes" votes — heightening the importance of the letter's effect on the Senate GOP's two female swing votes, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Neither Collins nor Murkowski has expressed skepticism about the nominee.
Collins and Kavanaugh had an hour-long phone call on Friday, a spokeswoman said, though the contents of the call were not divulged. A spokeswoman for Murkowski did not respond to a request for comment.
In the letter that the GOP circulated, Kavanaugh's female contemporaries countered the damning portrayal of the nominee that has surfaced the past 24 hours. "Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect," the women wrote. "That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day."
Democrats have remained notably mum about the situation since Thursday, even as liberal groups off the Hill call for a pointed push to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination.
"That’s now in the hands of the FBI. That’s all I’m going to say about it," Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who pressed Kavanaugh on the #MeToo movement during his confirmation hearing, told POLITICO’s Off Message podcast in an interview set to run Tuesday.
Brian Fallon, a former senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who now helms the left-leaning group Demand Justice, nudged Democats for a more pointed response. "The message needs to be clear: withdraw," he said.
Undecided red-state Democrats were similarly tight-lipped following the report on the letter's content. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Doug Jones of Alabama and Jon Tester of Montana had no immediate comment. Tester is still trying to schedule an initial meeting with Kavanaugh and Manchin is seeking a second meeting.
The White House first heard vague rumors about the allegation against Kavanaugh late last week, but the specifics of the alleged high-school sexual assault landed on White House Counsel Don McGahn's desk on Thursday, hours after Feinstein referred the matter to the FBI.
McGahn received the letter from the FBI around noon and immediately passed it to Capitol Hill, according to a White House aide. Kavanaugh and a network of clerks and former clerks who have been working with him during the confirmation process immediately lurched into action, contacting more than five dozen women who have known the judge since high school to sign the letter attesting to his character.
Nonetheless, most Republicans on Capitol Hill preparing to defend Kavanaugh amid attacks from Democrats were not aware of the letter as recently as Thursday, according to two people working on the nomination. Grassley still had not seen the letter as of Friday, according to his office, although a White House aide said the Judiciary panel received a 
physical copy of it within an hour after McGahn did.
Kavanaugh's denial may do little to stanch the damaging trickle of revelations. The co-author of the New Yorker's story, Ronan Farrow, right, has traveled to California in an attempt to persuade the woman behind the allegations to share her story, according to a source familiar with his reporting. The woman's letter was channeled to Feinstein as well as to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) through a Stanford Law School professor.
Washington Post, Opinion: Brett Kavanaugh misled the Senate under oath. I cannot support his nomination, Patrick Leahy, Sept. 14, 2018 (print edition). Patrick Leahy, right, a Democrat, represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate and is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee..
Last week, I uncovered new evidence that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh misled the Senate during his earlier hearings for the D.C. Circuit Court by minimizing and even denying his involvement in Bush-era controversies. I gave him the opportunity to correct his testimony at his hearing last week; he chose instead to double down.
I make no claim that Kavanaugh is a bad person. But when his prior confirmation to our nation’s “second highest court” was in jeopardy, he repeatedly misled the Senate when the truth might have placed that job out of reach.
Take his relationship with the ringleader of the “Memogate” scandal. Between 2001 and 2003, two Republican staffers regularly gained unauthorized access to the private computer files of six Democratic senators, including mine, taking 4,670 files on controversial judicial nominees.
Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times about this scandal in 2004 and 2006. He testified repeatedly that he knew nothing about the source of the information; that he received nothing that even appeared to be prepared by Democratic staff; and that he never suspected anything unusual, or “untoward.”
But emails I released last week show that then-Republican Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Manuel Miranda regularly shared obviously ill-gotten, inside information with Kavanaugh, which Miranda often asked be kept secret.
Washington Post, Opinion: What to do about the Kavanaugh allegation, Jennifer Rubin, Sept. 14, 2018. Post report: Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh on Friday “categorically” denied an allegation of potential sexual misconduct when he was in high school that has roiled the final days of an already contentious confirmation fight in the Senate.
Republicans managed to recruit 65 women to attest to Kavanaugh’s good character, but that’s obviously not dispositive of anything. (It is really speedy work, though, if they learned about the allegation just today.)
Whatever you think of Kavanaugh, this allegation poses a real dilemma. The Senate cannot do nothing with the information — but neither should it materially delay the proceedings. The committee will not vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation until Sept. 20. That gives the committee plenty of time to search for witnesses and to put Kavanaugh back under oath, however briefly, for the sole purpose of asking him about the alleged incident.
The situation is unlike others we’ve all seen in the #MeToo era, in which powerful men were accused of sexual harassment or assault: Harvey Weinstein, Leslie Moonves, Al Franken, Eric Schneiderman, Roy Moore and others (and yes, there is a really, really big difference between what Franken was accused of and what, say, Moore was alleged to have done to minors). In all of those cases, at least some of the women identified themselves and stepped forward — the public and the accused could evaluate their credibility.
On a matter as serious as a Supreme Court nomination, one should not allow an accuser to maintain anonymity. It’s just not fair, and it’s not how our legal system is supposed to function
SCOTUSBlog, Friday round-up, Edith Roberts, Sept. 14, 2018 (Visit SCOTUSblog for hotlinks to original articles). For The New York Times, Catie Edmondson and Nicholas Fandos report that “[t]he senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred information involving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, to federal investigators on Thursday, but the senator declined to make public what the matter involved.”
Additional coverage comes from Seung Min Kim and Elise Viebeck for The Washington Post, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Kristina Peterson and Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Burgess Everett and Edward-Isaac Dovere at Politico, and Jennifer Haberkorn for the Los Angeles Times, who reports that the Intercept, an online news publication that originally revealed the existence of the letter, “said the letter apparently describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a young woman while they were in high school, but included no details.”
Nina Totenberg reports for NPR that “[t]he White House is accusing Senate Democrats of an unfounded ‘11th hour attempt to delay’ a vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal asserts that “[t]he episode says more about the desperation of Democrats than it does about Mr. Kavanaugh, and the real disgrace would be if Republicans did anything other than move promptly to a confirmation vote.”
At USA Today, Christal Hayes reports that “[a] watchdog group is asking the Justice Department to investigate a number of groups they say may be illegally pressuring Sen. Susan Collins to gain her vote against … Kavanaugh,” which “Collins says she sees … as an attempt to bribe her for the vote.” Geof Koss and Ellen Gilmer report for E&E News that “Sen. Lisa Murkowski is scrutinizing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s record on tribal issues, as pressure grows from Alaska Natives to oppose President Trump’s latest pick for the high court.”
For this blog, in a post originally published at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe offers highlights from Kavanaugh’s responses to over 1,200 written questions submitted by Judiciary Committee members in the wake of the hearing. At Education Week, Mark Walsh reports that Kavanaugh explained in response to one question “that he assumed the father of a student killed in the Parkland, Fla., shooting who had approached him on the chaotic first day of his confirmation hearing was a protestor.”
At Rewire.News, Imani Gandy argues that both sides in the dispute over whether Kavanaugh was expressing his own views or those of a litigant when he used the term “abortion-inducing drugs” at the hearing to describe contraceptives “are overlooking the important part: the fact that Kavanaugh’s opinion in Priests for Life … suggests a willingness to allow evangelicals, by claiming a sincerely held religious belief, to be exempted from laws intended to provide people with contraceptive access through their employers, even when following those laws would require said employers to do nothing more than sign a piece of paper.”
In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Paul Waldman writes that “a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on it could create a free-for-all when it comes to the influence of money in politics, a new era in which corruption is absolutely rampant — and completely legal.” At The Daily Signal, Thomas Jipping deplores “the misdirection, the fake indignation, the sudden interest in a once-irrelevant confirmation process, [and] the most creative obstruction tactics” of Senate Democrats who “already had their minds made up” to oppose the nomination.
Sept. 13
MSNBC, The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell, Sept. 13, 2018. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, a former high-ranking Senate staffer for Democrats, told his audience 
Thursday night that he learned of the letter the previously Friday. He said the claim by a woman who was a minor, as was Kavanaugh, regarding a matter "sexual in nature" could be considered a "sexual assault" depending on circumstances, according to his information.
O'Donnell said that his initial reaction was that the matter would not be made public because the complainant declined to press the matter or step forward. But the process has a way of changing with allegations that he described as apparently serious.
O'Donnell said that the situation appears to have an "eerie" resemblance to the charges made by whistleblower Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas. Hill similarly made allegations of sexual harassment privately, but found herself pulled into public testimony before a committee that treated her shabbily, he said.
O'Donnell said the charge against Kavanaugh could be regarded as "assault" and thus more serious than the harassment claim by Hill against her onetime boss Thomas, shown in a file photo. Republicans, bolstered by a majo advertising campaign by the group Citizens United, pressured a then-Democratic majority in the Senate push the Thomas confirmation process quickly without calling all relevant witnesses before his confirmation by a narrow margin.
Palmer Report, Opinion: Democrats move forward with plan to force GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski to vote against Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Palmer, Sept. 13, 2018. Over the past week we’ve seen a lot of attention paid to the efforts to push Republican Senator Susan Collins to vote against Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. That plan is straightforward: raise so much money now for Collins’ eventual Democratic opponent in 2020, she’ll realize her career is over if she votes “yes.” Far less attention has been paid to the efforts to push GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski to reject Kavanaugh, even though it’s an aggressive plan being led by Senate Democrats.
Collins comes from the moderate state of Maine, so it’s realistic that she could lose to a Democrat in 2020 if she votes for a far-right extremist like Brett Kavanaugh.
But Murkowski comes from Alaska, which is as red as you can get. Murkowski is a rare pro-choice Republican, a reminder that Alaska’s status as a red state arguably has less to do with social conservatism and more to do with its anti-federal government views. In any case, it would be far harder for a Democrat to defeat Murkowski. However, there is another way to pressure her.
Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary race in 2010, and only managed to keep her Senate seat thanks to a write-in campaign which was spearheaded by the Alaska Federation of Natives. Last week we saw Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii focus heavily on Brett Kavanaugh’s stances against the rights of Natives. Sure enough, according to a major Alaska newspaper, the Federation announced today that it opposes the Kavanaugh nomination. This is a big deal.
Although Senator Murkowski isn’t up for reelection until 2022, it’s becoming clear that her political career will end in 2022 if she votes in favor of Brett Kavanaugh. If Senator Hirono made it impossible for Murkowski to vote “yes” by rallying the Natives against Kavanaugh, Senator Dianne Feinstein may have just given Murkowski an easy excuse to vote “no” by referring Kavanaugh to the FBI for criminal investigation for alleged sexual misconduct.
Palmer Report, Opinion: FBI goes all-in on Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault investigation, Bill Palmer, Sept. 13, 2018. Hours after Senator Dianne Feinstein confirmed that she referred Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the FBI for criminal investigation, various news outlets have reported that it centers around a sexual assault allegation. This evening we’re learning that the FBI is taking the matter very seriously.
This evening Rachel Maddow revealed during her MSNBC show that the FBI has now added this matter to the criminal background check that it already performed on Brett Kavanaugh as part of his confirmation process. This means the FBI views this criminal referral as a credible matter, and not as some kind of left-field hoax. This isn’t particularly surprising; as Palmer Report explained earlier today, Feinstein wouldn’t have wasted the FBI’s time – and set herself up for potential backlash – if she didn’t feel like this was a serious accusation. So now what?
As pointed out on-air by Maddow, the FBI’s decision to update Kavanaugh’s criminal background check means that Donald Trump’s White House is now aware of the accusation in question. Senator Feinstein stated earlier that she wasn’t revealing the identity of the accuser, at her request. While it’s not clear if the Trump regime is about to learn the name of the accuser, they are about to learn the details of the accusations she’s making against Kavanaugh. That means Trump’s people may decide to begin dishonestly spinning the accusations as a way of muddying the waters.
We’ll see if this prompts the accuser to preemptively come forward, and how it changes the strategy that Senate Democrats are moving forward with. Before this news broke, the Democrats were already zeroing in on Kavanaugh’s time as a clerk for former judge Alex Kozinski, who resigned last year after being accused of sexual misconduct by several women. It’s still not clear what the connection might be, but it is fairly clear that the Democrats know some things that the rest of us don’t yet know.
Roll Call, Kavanaugh Set to Advance Amid Democratic Objections, Todd Ruger, Sept. 13, 2018. Kavanaugh Set to Advance Amid Democratic Objections; Supreme Court nominee mostly evasive in follow-up answers to Judiciary panel.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to hold a committee vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh at a specific time, 1:45 p.m., on Sept. 20. The vote was 11-10 along party lines over the objections of committee Democrats who said it would prematurely cut off debate.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee still had a lot of questions for Kavanaugh after last week’s confirmation hearing — they asked more than 1,200 written follow-up queries. But the nominee didn’t provide many revealing answers late Wednesday when he turned in 263 pages of responses in which he tried to provide more thoughts on one of the more dramatic moments of his confirmation hearing, brush aside questions about his finances, and clean up answers about abortion, his independence from political pressure and other topics.
But Kavanaugh appeared most keen to avoid any missteps that might jeopardize his solid support among Republicans. He did little to assuage concerns from Democrats about what they contend are inaccurate or false statements and remained elusive on many of the most contentious questions.
The Intercept, Feinstein acknowledges mystery letter exists, Ryan Grim, Sept. 13, 2018. Yesterday I reported that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had requested to privately review a document related to Brett Kavanaugh that was in the possession of Dianne Feinstein, right, the top-ranking Democrat on the panel. She refused.
Last night, she briefed Democrats on its contents and today she put out a statement acknowledging that the document exists and that she has turned it over to the FBI. The New York Times is reporting that the letter alleges sexual misconduct while Kavanaugh was in high school, which is also what I was told by sources familiar with it.
New York Times, Opinion: A Supreme Court Transformed, Linda Greenhouse, Sept. 13, 2018. What will the court look like when neither side of the ideological divide has to walk on eggs to win the favor of the justice in the middle?
Mother Jones, The Many Mysteries of Brett Kavanaugh’s Finances, Who made the down payment on his house? How did he come up with $92,000 in country club fees? Stephanie Mencimer, Sept. 13, 2018. Before President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he had a lot of debt. In May 2017, he reported owing between $60,004 and $200,000 on three credit cards and a loan against his retirement account.
By the time Trump nominated him to the high court in July 2018, those debts had vanished.
Overall, his reported income and assets didn’t seem sufficient to pay off all that debt while maintaining his upper-class lifestyle: an expensive house in an exclusive suburban neighborhood, two kids in a $10,500-a-year private school, and a membership in a posh country club reported to charge $92,000 in initiation fees. His financial disclosure forms have raised more questions than they’ve answered, leading to speculation about whether he’s had a private benefactor and what sorts of conflicts that relationship might entail.
No other recent Supreme Court nominee has come before the Senate with so many unanswered questions regarding finances. That’s partly because many of Kavanaugh’s predecessors were a lot richer than he is. Chief Justice John Roberts, for instance, had been making $1 million a year in private practice before joining the DC Circuit as a judge. The poorer nominees had debts, but explainable ones, such as the $15,000 Sonia Sotomayor owed to her dentist. Neil Gorsuch came the closest to financial scandal when he disclosed that he owned a mountain fishing lodge in Colorado with two men who are top deputies to the billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, who had championed Gorsuch’s nomination.
Kavanaugh’s finances are far more mysterious. During his confirmation hearing last week, he escaped a public discussion of his spending habits because no senator asked about it. But on Tuesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent Kavanaugh 14 pages of post-hearing follow-up questions, many of which involved his finances.
On Thursday, Kavanaugh supplied answers, but he dodged some of the questions and left much of his financial situation unexplained.
Sept. 12
Washington Post, Kavanaugh offers details on purchases of Nationals tickets that led to thousands in debt, Seung Min Kim, Sept. 12, 2018. The Supreme Court nominee’s explanation is part of written responses to questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Brett M. Kavanaugh also fielded questions about same-sex marriage and the Mueller investigation.
Washington Post, Opinion: Two problems Brett Kavanaugh still must address, Jennifer Rubin, Sept. 12, 2018. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Tuesday sent 14 pages of questions to Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. While Whitehouse covers a lot of ground — from abortion, to environmental regulations, to work Kavanaugh performed in the George W. Bush administration — two things stand out.
First, he asks a ton of questions about the judge’s finances, including “Are there any debts, creditors, or related items that you did not disclose on your FBI disclosures?” He asks a slew of questions about the debt Kavanaugh incurred allegedly paying for baseball tickets for a friend who reimbursed him, as well as how he could afford membership at the Chevy Chase Club, which reportedly has a $92,000 initiation free and annual dues of more than $9,000.
Whitehouse also inquired whether Kavanaugh “participated in any form of gambling or game of chance or skill with monetary stakes, including but not limited to poker, dice, golf, sports betting, blackjack, and craps.” He even goes so far as to inquire whether Kavanaugh, right, “ever sought treatment for a gambling addiction.
The second and, perhaps, more fundamental area of inquiry has to do with Kavanaugh’s views on executive power. In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh gave not an ounce of reassurance to any senator concerned about executive power. It’s a measure of the degree to which the White House assumes all Republican votes are locked up that Kavanaugh brushed off questions not only from Democrats, but from independent-minded Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
HuffPost, Pressure Mounts On Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski To Block Brett Kavanaugh, Laura Bassett, Sept. 12, 2018. The Maine and Alaska Republicans are feeling the heat in their home states ahead of Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), right, has received 3,000 coat hangers in the mail. Women dressed as handmaids in red robes and bonnets have shown up at her home in Maine to protest. Activists have raised over $1 million for her 2020 challenger should she vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.
And the pressure continues to mount on Collins and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the Senate’s two potential swing votes, in the final days before a decision on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick ― a conservative judge who could potentially gut abortion rights in the United States.
Planned Parenthood launched a six-figure cable and digital ad campaign in Maine on Wednesday that features a focus group of independent female voters who strongly want Collins to oppose Kavanaugh. NARAL Pro-Choice America put an additional $500,000 into its $260,000 ad campaign in Maine this week, which will run on TV and online in Maine until the vote.
Collins and Murkowski both claim to support abortion rights, and have bucked their party before to protect federal funding grants to Planned Parenthood. Both senators claim to be undecided on Kavanaugh. Collins has said she’s impervious to outside political pressure.
Palmer Report, Opinion: The Resistance has finally figured out how to push Susan Collins around, Bill Palmer, Sept. 12, 2018. For the Resistance, one of the most frustrating aspects of trying to shut down Donald Trump’s agenda has been having to rely on unreliable people like Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who has voted with and against Trump in various key moments.
Palmer Report, Opinion: Senate Democrats publish documents that catch Brett Kavanaugh committing even more felony perjury, Bill Palmer, Sept. 12, 2018. The Senate confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have already been controversial and dramatic. Yesterday we saw Democrats seek to expose Kavanaugh’s apparent gambling problem. Now the Democrats are zeroing in further on Kavanaugh’s status as a perjurer.
Influential Senator Dick Durbin, shown in a file photo, tweeted this: “In 2006, I asked Judge Kavanaugh about his role in the 4th Circuit nomination of Jim Haynes – a key figure in crafting the Bush White House detention & interrogation policies. Under oath, he said, ‘I’ve—I know Jim Haynes, but it was not one of the nominations that I handled.’ However, these emails from 2002 and 2003 show that then-Associate White House Counsel Brett Kavanaugh played a substantial role in the decision to nominate Haynes, including examining whether Haynes ‘would be an across-the-board judicial conservative.'” Durbin then posted the emails in question.
Durbin went on to add: “This is a theme that we see emerge with Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are rushing through this nomination and hiding his record.” The key phrase here is “under oath.” Lying under oath is perjury, a felony, and you generally go to prison for it. Senate Democrats are exposing Kavanaugh as not merely a serial liar, but a criminal liar.
As Palmer Report has previously spelled out, the Democrats are trying to do two things here. The first is to expose Brett Kavanaugh as such as toxic pile of crap, certain vulnerable Republican Senators might conclude that they can’t vote for him, for fear it’ll cost them reelection. The second is to firmly establish that Kavanaugh has committed multiple felonies, which would set the stage for Kavanaugh to be impeached even if he is confirmed.
MS. Magazine, Why Lisa Graves is Calling for Brett Kavanaugh’s Impeachment, Carmen Rios, Sept. 12, 2018. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, has been credibly accused of lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings and during previous hearings regarding his prior appointments.
Many of these claims center on Kavanaugh’s having received stolen memos from GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda that included confidential memos, letters, talking points and research documents. In the years that followed, Miranda was ultimately forced to resign for stealing the documents, and the U.S. Seargant-at-Arms lauched a bipartisan investigation into the incident.
Kavanaugh denied ever receiving stolen materials from Miranda before the Senate in 2004 and again in 2006, but newly released documents to the chamber members show otherwise. The full extent of what Kavanaugh did or did not receive still remains a question, because many of his documents are being withheld from the committee—even now.
Lisa Graves, however, is quite familiar with the documents we now know Kavanaugh received — because she wrote some of them. And now, the former chief counsel for nominations for the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice is speaking out about Kavanaugh’s deception.
In an explosive op-ed published by Slate [I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About, Sept. 7, 2018], Graves doesn’t mince words in calling not just for Kavanaugh to be rejected by the committee for his current nomination, but for him to be impeached from his current seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals bench.
Sept. 11
New York Times, Opinion: The Handmaid’s Court, Michelle Goldberg, right, Sept. 10, 2018. Jane Doe may have been the first pregnant girl Brett Kavanaugh ruled against. But she won’t be the last.
Shortly after his inauguration, Donald Trump, uniquely attentive to his debt to the religious right, appointed the anti-abortion activist E. Scott Lloyd to head the Office of Refugee Resettlement, despite Lloyd’s lack of relevant experience. The position gave Lloyd authority over unaccompanied minors caught crossing into the United States, authority Lloyd exploited to try to stop pregnant migrants from getting abortions.
Last year, thanks to Lloyd’s interference, a 17-year-old from Central America had to wage a legal battle to end her pregnancy. Known in court filings as Jane Doe, the girl learned she was pregnant while in custody in Texas, and was adamant that she wanted an abortion.
Garza v. Hargan was the only major abortion-rights case Kavanaugh ever ruled on. His handling of it offers a clue about what’s in store for American women if he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court. No one knows whether Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade outright or simply gut it. But even on a lower court, Kavanaugh put arbitrary obstacles in the way of someone desperate to end her pregnancy. Thanks to Trump, he may soon be in a position to do the same to millions of others.
SCOTUSblog, Tuesday round-up, Edith Roberts, Sept. 11, 2018 (See SCOTUSblog for hotlinks). Commentators continue to weigh in on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in the wake of Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing last week. In an op-ed for Central Maine, Kavanaugh’s former White House colleague Sarah Day praises him as “a thoughtful leader [and] a champion of others.” For The Yale Daily News, Adelaide Feibel writes that “a few select Yalies had the chance [last week] to voice their opinions of Kavanaugh on a grand stage, before the Senate and the nation.”
Lisa Keen argues at Keen News Service that Kavanaugh’s testimony “did nothing to quell concerns in the LGBT community that Kavanaugh is an ultra-conservative, maybe even anti-LGBT, jurist who will almost certainly give the Supreme Court’s existing four conservative justices the fifth vote they need to vote against the equal rights interests of LGBT people.”
Michael Tomasky writes in an op-ed for The New York Times that lobbying red-state Democratic senators up for re-election “to vote no … [is] a waste of … time and money.”
In an op-ed for The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne contends that “[c]onservatives are willing to bend and break the rules, violate decorum and tradition, hide information and push Judge Kavanaugh through at breakneck speed” because “[t]hey want a Supreme Court that will achieve their policy objectives — on regulation, access to the ballot, social issues, the influence of money in politics and the role of corporations in our national life — no matter what citizens might prefer in the future.”
Sept. 10
Brett Judge Brett Kavanaugh faced the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, with former clerk and adviser Zina Bash at right behind him. Photo credit: C-SPAN / YouTube
WhoWhatWhy, The Kavanaugh Hearing: Beyond the Soundbites, Celia Wexler, Sept. 10, 2018. WhoWhatWhy’s take on these incredible and historic four days. Unlike other news outlets, we offer a comprehensive story. We did not try to do this in incremental pieces, or by referring you to videos. It captures, as best we can, some of the major issues on which Kavanaugh’s vote will make a difference. And it helps you understand Kavanaugh the man. What drives this ultra-conservative judge? How does he make his decisions? What he demonstrated during the hearings is a coldness that does not bode well for the republic.
This is a man who can advocate for female law clerks, but cannot — or will not — understand the pain of a teenaged undocumented immigrant in her fourth month of pregnancy; who says he tutors students from low-income neighborhoods, but does not understand the destructive role that guns play in their world; who can espouse Catholic social-justice teaching, but sees no disconnect in gutting regulations that protect the public’s health and safety.
In the four days senators considered Brett Kavanaugh’s qualifications to be the next Supreme Court justice, Democrats went through the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance or, rather, resignation.
Kavanaugh (shown with his family and President Trump in a White House photo) would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, a conservative who sometimes sided with his more liberal colleagues on the bench. Kavanaugh would join the court at a time when the third branch of government — the judiciary — never seemed more important. “Fears of authoritarian rule are rampant in this country,” said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) because of concerns about “a president willing to walk away from rule of law.”
Yet the Democrats had little power to change history; they are in the minority. If all 51 Republicans hang together, due to a rule change that no longer requires 60 votes for confirmation, they won’t need any Democratic votes to approve President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Nothing happened last week that will likely change this outcome.
Washington Post, Opinion: The Kavanaugh hustle, E.J. Dionne Jr., Sept. 10, 2018 (print edition). While Trump is destroying the honor and reputation of the presidency, Senate Republicans are doing all they can to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Conservatives are willing to bend and break the rules, violate decorum and tradition, hide information and push Judge Kavanaugh through at breakneck speed. They want a Supreme Court that will achieve their policy objectives — on regulation, access to the ballot, social issues, the influence of money in politics and the role of corporations in our national life — no matter what citizens might prefer in the future.
SCOTUSBlog, Monday round-up, Edith Roberts, Sept. 10, 2018 (visit SCOTUSblog, edited by Edith Roberts, for hotlinks to articles cited below). On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up its four-day hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a day of testimony from witnesses, including former law clerks to Kavanaugh, two former solicitors general, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting, and John Dean, President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel during Watergate.
We live-blogged the session, and Jon Levitan rounded up early coverage and commentary for this blog. Amy Howe recaps the highlights of the day’s proceedings in a podcast at Howe on the Court; a Daily Journal podcast also has a rundown.
At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that throughout the hearing, “President Trump’s pick for the high court successfully parried questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Democratic complaints that they had seen just 10 percent of his government record didn’t seem to raise much public ire.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Seung Min Kim report that “by the close of the four-day hearings, some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed resigned to Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”
For The New York Times, Adam Liptak observes that “Judge Kavanaugh must have studied earlier confirmation hearings carefully, as he had absorbed all of their key lessons: Say nothing, say it at great length, and then say it again.”
In an op-ed for The New York Times, Katherine Stewart argues that “[i]f the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh, it will be declaring that the United States is a nation in which one brand of religion enjoys a place of privilege; that we are a nation of laws — except in cases where the law offends those who subscribe to our preferred religion; and that we recognize the dignity of all people unless they belong to specific groups our national religion views with disapproval.”
At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost maintains that “[p]olitical differences aside, a common-sense reading of Kavanaugh’s testimony shows that he is ready if confirmed to vote to overrule the abortion-rights decision Roe v. Wade and that he is an uncertain vote at most to uphold any investigative procedures directed at the president who nominated him for the Supreme Court.” At First Mondays (podcast), Ian Samuel and Leah Litman “discuss their favorite and least favorite moments of the … hearings.”
Sept. 9
Huffington Post, Lisa Murkowski’s Biggest Reason To Oppose Brett Kavanaugh May Not Be Abortion Rights, Jennifer Bendery, Sept. 9, 2018. Alaska Natives are urging the senator to vote no. She owes her re-election to them.
For all the speculation about Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), below right, and whether she’ll vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, there is an issue beyond abortion rights perhaps weighing more heavily on her as she makes her decision: protections for Alaska Natives.
Advocates for Alaska Natives, who were crucial to Murkowski’s re-election in 2010, tell HuffPost they’ve been flooding her office all week and urging her to oppose Kavanaugh.
They’re raising concerns about his record on climate change, which is already causing real damage in Alaska. As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh in 2017 held that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the authority to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, chemicals linked to global warming.
They’re also unhappy with his record on voting rights. Kavanaugh voted in 2012 to uphold a South Carolina voter ID law that disenfranchised more than 80,000 minority registered voters.
The most pressing matter, however, is a case the Supreme Court is reviewing on Nov. 5 that could devastate Alaska Natives’ subsistence fishing rights. The case, Sturgeon v. Frost, raises questions about who has the authority to regulate water in national parks in the state ― the federal government or the state of Alaska. The case arose after Alaska resident John Sturgeon, who was on an annual moose-hunting trip, was riding a hovercraft on a river running through a national park when Park Service officials threatened to give him a citation. Sturgeon is arguing that his ability to use his hovercraft in this scenario is about states’ rights and that federal authority should be eliminated.
Kavanaugh has previously ruled to limit federal power in cases before him. If he gets confirmed and votes with the other four right-leaning justices in favor of Sturgeon’s argument, it will destroy the way of life for tribal communities who rely on subsistence fishing in protected federal waters, some Alaska Native rights groups say.
Sept. 8
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, shown in a witness stand at far right, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) at left center.
Washington Post, Leahy says Kavanaugh was ‘not truthful’ about Democratic documents, Michael Kranish, Sept. 8, 2018 (print edition). The Vermont senator, right, said the Supreme Court nominee should have realized the material was “stolen.”
Washington Post, Ex-Nixon counsel warns of a court overly deferential to the president, Seung Min Kim, Sept. 8, 2018 (print edition). John Dean, the former Nixon White House counsel who played a crucial role in the Watergate scandal, testified Friday that confirming Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as a justice will lead to the “most presidential-powers friendly” Supreme Court in the modern age.
The sharp criticism was laid out in Dean’s remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the last day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. More than two dozen witnesses testified in favor of and against President Trump’s Supreme Court pick.
Dean (shown in his pre-Watergate days as Nixon White House Counsel) argued in his testimony that conservatives have “slowly done a 180-degree turn” on executive power and that a Supreme Court that is overly deferential to the president is “deeply troubling,” with Republicans controlling both the House and Senate.
“Under Judge Kavanaugh’s recommendation, if a president shot someone in cold blood on Fifth Avenue, that president could not be prosecuted while in office,” Dean told senators, a reference to Trump’s oft-repeated campaign line that he could act that way and not lose support.
Sept. 7
SCOTUSblog, Evening round-up: Final day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Jon Levitan, Sept. 7, 2018. The Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded its hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Today consisted of witness testimony; there were four panels and 28 total witnesses.
Coverage of the day’s events comes from Jessica Gresko of the Associated Press, who reports that “with [Kavanaugh’s] questioning over, he seemed on his way to becoming the court’s 114th justice.” For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim focuses on the testimony of John Dean, former White House counsel for the Nixon Administration, “who played a crucial role in the Watergate scandal” and testified against Kavanugh’s confirmation. Further coverage comes from Amanda Becker of Reuters, Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal; Erik Wasson of Bloomberg; and Emma O’Connor of Buzzfeed.
Commentary on the hearing comes from Damon Root for Reason; Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress; John Nichols for The Nation; Hans A. von Spakovsky for Fox News; David B. Rivkin Jr. in The Hill; Monica Hesse for The Washington Post; Jeremy Stahl of Slate, with another piece from Slate from Dahlia Lithwick, who focuses on the protesters who interrupted the hearings.
Editorials come from The Wall Street Journal, which decried Senator Cory Booker’s release of documents on Thursday, and The Washington Post, which lamented “a depressing display of the breakdown of Senate norms.” Two podcasts discuss the hearing — Elizabeth Slattery looks at the highlights with Tom Jipping and Hans A. von Spakovsky on SCOTUS 101, while Garrett Epps was interviewed by Diane Rehm on On My Mind.
New York Times, At Hearing’s End, Democrats Accuse Kavanaugh of Misleading Them on Crucial Issues, Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Sept. 7, 2018. Four days of Supreme Court confirmation hearings ended the way they began: With fierce partisan divisions over Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. Here are some of the issues that arose during the hearing, and how Judge Kavanaugh addressed them.
Senate Democrats and their allies accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on Friday of misleading the Judiciary Committee, saying he dissembled in testimony about crucial issues ranging from his views on abortion rights to his involvement in several Bush-era controversies.
But Republicans expressed confidence that none of the punches Democrats had thrown at the Supreme Court nominee had landed with sufficient force to jeopardize his confirmation.
Four days of Supreme Court confirmation hearings ended on Friday the way they began, with sharply partisan charges and tension remarkable for normally staid proceedings.
In two of the strongest statements on Friday, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the committee, said on Twitter that Judge Kavanaugh gave answers that “were not true” when asked whether he had used “materials stolen” from committee Democrats when he was a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, also using Twitter, accused the judge of lying.
New York Times, Opinion: Confirmed -- Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted, Editorial Board, Sept. 7, 2018. A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth. In a more virtuous world, Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be deeply embarrassed by the manner in which he has arrived at the doorstep of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
He was nominated by a president who undermines daily the nation’s democratic order and mocks the constitutional values that Judge Kavanaugh purports to hold dear.
Now he’s being rammed through his confirmation process with an unprecedented degree of secrecy and partisan maneuvering by Republican senators who, despite their overflowing praise for his legal acumen and sterling credentials, appear terrified for the American people to find out much of anything about him beyond his penchant for coaching girls’ basketball.
Perhaps most concerning, Judge Kavanaugh seems to have trouble remembering certain important facts about his years of service to Republican administrations. More than once this week, he testified in a way that appeared to directly contradict evidence in the record.
New York Times, The Future of Abortion Under a New Supreme Court? Look to Arkansas, Sabrina Tavernise, Sept. 7, 2018. When a patient arrived this spring at the only abortion clinic in western Arkansas, the doctor had startling news: A new state law had gone into effect, and clinics could no longer perform abortions via medication in the state.
“Wait — all of Arkansas?” the patient asked her doctor, Stephanie Ho.
“Yes,” Dr. Ho remembered replying.
Less than a month later, a judge suspended the law, which is now the focus of a legal fight as Arkansas tries to reinstate it. In the meantime, Dr. Ho is working at one of the three remaining abortion clinics in the state, aware that, at any moment, she might have to stop performing abortions again.
The fight in Arkansas could help define the looming legal battle over abortion, 45 years after the Supreme Court made it a constitutional right. There are 13 abortion cases currently before federal appeals courts, including the Arkansas case, and legal experts say any of them could be the first to reach the Supreme Court after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. Others include a parental consent law in Indiana, a ban on a common second-trimester abortion procedure in Alabama, and a requirement in Kentucky that ultrasounds be displayed and described.
Slate, Opinion: I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About; He should be impeached, not elevated, Lisa Graves, Sept. 7, 2018. Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary.
I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.
Newly released emails show that while he was working to move through President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.
Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.
No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it.
For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”
In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.
NBC News, Opinion: I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court, David Brock, Sept. 7, 2018. David Brock is the author of five political books, including "Killing the Messenger" (Hachette, 2015) and "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative" (Crown, March 2002). He founded Media Matters for America in 2004 and then American Bridge 21st Century in 2011.
I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps."
And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no.
Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.
In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by pedaling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination is the result of years of unopposed conservative organizing. Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
HuffPost, Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’ At Confirmation Hearing, Jenavieve Hatch, Sept. 7, 2018. On the third day of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.”
Judge Kavanaugh was responding to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), right, on Thursday about his 2015 dissent in the Priests for Life v. HHS case. Kavanaugh had sided with the religious organization, which didn’t want to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Priests for Life, a Catholic group that opposes abortion rights, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services in 2013 over the provision under the Affordable Care Act that required certain health care providers to cover birth control. The group argued that the provision was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ― the same premise of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit in 2014.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Priests for Life in 2014. When the group tried and failed to get a full court hearing the next year, Kavanaugh dissented to lay out why he would have ruled for them.
OpEdNews, Opinion: Deep State: Kavanaugh Covered-up Murder of Vince Foster, Garland Favorito, Sept. 7, 2018. As Republicans and Democrats exchange barbs on how wonderful or terrible Brett Kavanaugh's decisions will be as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, neither group of senators will have the courage to discuss an elephant in the committee room concerning Judge Kavanaugh's background. In 1996, Kavanaugh conducted an investigation into the death of Vincent Foster and concluded his death was a suicide despite overwhelming evidence Foster was murdered.
- Kavanaugh replaced him and completed the investigation that concluded Foster committed suicide despite obvious evidence of murder:
- Foster did not own the gun or ammunition that was used to kill him;
- Foster's fingerprints were not on the gun that was used to kill him;
- No dirt or grass was on his shoes but he was found 200 yards into the park;
- Foster's grey 1989 Honda was not in the parking lot at the time of his death;
- Powder burns found on his body were consistent with homicide, not suicide.
The U.S. Court of Appeals eventually ordered Starr to include a supplement about the cover-up in the final 20 pages of his report despite his objections. The supplement was written by Attorney John Clarke, witness Patrick Knowlton and researcher Hugh Turley.
Sept. 6
Supreme Court Battle
Washington Post, Clash intensifies over Kavanaugh records as new documents released, Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow and Mark Berman, Sept. 6, 2018. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), shown in a file photo, said he was willing to violate chamber rules and release confidential documents about Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh — and to risk the consequences. It came as the fight intensified over access to records from Kavanaugh’s time in the George W. Bush White House.
New York Times, Leaked Kavanaugh Documents Discuss Abortion and Affirmative Action, Charlie Savage, Sept. 6, 2018. As a White House lawyer in the Bush administration, Judge Brett Kavanaugh challenged the accuracy of deeming the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision to be “settled law of the land,” according to a secret email obtained by The New York Times.
The email, written in March 2003, is one of thousands of documents that a lawyer for President George W. Bush turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Supreme Court nominee but deemed “committee confidential,” meaning it could not be made public or discussed by Democrats in questioning him in hearings this week. It was among several an unknown person provided to The New York Times late Wednesday.
Judge Kavanaugh was considering a draft opinion piece that supporters of one of Mr. Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees hoped they could persuade anti-abortion women to submit under their names. It stated that “it is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land.”
Judge Kavanaugh proposed deleting that line, writing: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”
New York Times, Opinion: Kavanaugh Will Kill the Constitution, Paul Krugman, right, Sept. 6, 2018. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is on the line. At a fundamental level, the attempt to jam Brett Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court closely resembles the way Republicans passed a tax cut last year.
Once again we see a rushed, nakedly partisan process, with G.O.P. leaders withholding much of the information that’s supposed to go into congressional deliberations. Once again the outcome is all too likely to rest on pure tribalism: Unless some Republicans develop a very late case of conscience, they will vote along party lines with the full knowledge that they’re abdicating their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent.
True, Kavanaugh is at least getting a hearing, which the tax bill never did. But he’s bobbing and weaving his way through, refusing to answer even straightforward questions, displaying an evasiveness utterly at odds with the probity we used to expect of Supreme Court justices.
No, the real difference from the tax bill story is that last year we were talking only about a couple of trillion dollars. This year we’re talking about the future of the Republic. For a Kavanaugh confirmation will set us up for multiple constitutional crises.
So let me make a last-minute appeal to Republican senators who care about America’s future, if there are any left: Don’t do this. A vote for Kavanaugh will be a vote to destroy the legitimacy of one of the last federal institutions standing.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh advised against calling Roe v. Wade ‘settled law’ while a White House lawyer, Sept. 6, 2018. A 2003 email written by the future Supreme Court nominee was among those deemed “committee confidential.”
Washington Post, Analysis: What Kavanaugh won’t say may be as revealing as what he will, James Hohmann, Sept. 6, 2018. Here are a dozen noteworthy questions about executive power, preexisting conditions and other issues that President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court dodged.
New York Times, Opinion: No More Grandstanding. Ask Kavanaugh Better Questions, Peter H. Schuck, Sept. 6, 2018. Mr. Schuck is an emeritus professor of law at Yale. Justices rarely perform the way partisans and the news media expect them to. In 75 percent of cases, partisan affiliation is not fully predictive of justices’ votes. In the hardest ones, lower courts reached different results despite seeing the same evidence, and considering the same legal arguments.
This week, senators should spend less time grandstanding with questions that simply highlight Judge Kavanaugh’s well-known ideological positions, and a lot more time trying to assess how he would vote in these much trickier cases.
Sept. 5
Kavanaugh Court Hearings
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, an federal court of appeals judge, at his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing on Sept. 5, 2018 (screengrab at 3:56 p.m.).
JFKFacts.org, Kavanaugh’s judicial activism on display, Sept. 5, 2018. On the second day of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Supreme Court nominee’s legal record is under close scrutiny. While far from is most important ruling, his last signed opinion as an appellate court judge provides a window into his judicial philosophy.
In a split decision on July 9, Kavanaugh’s vote decided my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for certain JFK assassination files. As fellow judge Karen Henderson pointed out in a stinging dissent, the majority decision ignored precedent and invented mandate.
Substantively, Kavanaugh’s decision undermined a key feature of FOIA law and strengthened the CIA and other agencies that want to keep embarrassing secrets out of the public record–even when they are more than 50 years old. That’s why I’m appealing the decision.
Washington Post, Opinion: Never have we seen such a spectacle, Dana Milbank, right, Sept. 5, 2018. Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing is scheduled to last all week. Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley lost control after just 13 words. There has never been a disruptive spectacle like this at a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. But then there has never been a Supreme Court nomination like this.
Kavanaugh may not become the most conservative member of the court, but his background suggests he would be the most partisan. Working for Kenneth W. Starr in the 1990s, he was involved in the Vincent Foster and Monica Lewinsky inquiries, proposing an explicit line of questioning for President Bill Clinton with graphic queries about genitalia, masturbation, phone sex and oral sex. And as a young lawyer under George W. Bush, Kavanaugh was involved in Bush v. Gore, the probe of Clinton’s pardons and legal decisions about torture.
Hence the importance of the “documents.” Democrats say the committee received only 7 percent of Kavanaugh’s White House documents — and some of those have been altered, while half cannot be discussed publicly.
Why? They would likely reinforce what is already known about Kavanaugh as a nakedly partisan appointment, solidifying the court’s transition from a deliberative body to what is effectively another political branch.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh won’t say whether presidents have to respond to subpoenas, Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow and Elise Viebeck, Sept. 5, 2018. Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh emphasized that he had not taken a position on constitutional issues regarding presidential investigations. Earlier, Kavanaugh testified that the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion was settled precedent. But he did not say whether the case was correctly decided.
Washington Post, Hearing offers an ‘unprecedented’ display of the Senate’s institutional decline, James Hohmann, Sept. 5, 2018. The hearing for President Trump's latest Supreme Court nominee is dramatically more intense than last year’s hearing for Neil M. Gorsuch because both sides expect Brett M. Kavanaugh will tip the balance of the court.
Esquire, Brett Kavanaugh Was Up a Tree. We Should See the Documents That Put Him There, Charles P. Pierce, Sept 5, 2018. The public has a right to know far more about the Supreme Court nominee's activities in the Bush White House.
There was a serious bit of eminence grise-on-eminence grise crime in the Senate Judiciary Committee between Chairman Chuck Grassley and Democratic Senator Pat Leahy, shown at right.
It came at an interesting moment, because Judge Brett Kavanaugh had been caught by Leahy with a line of questioning for which the nominee clearly had not been prepared. It involved an episode while Kavanaugh worked in the White House counsel's office under President George W. Bush. In 2004, it was revealed by Charlie Savage, then working at the Boston Globe, that Republican staff members on the Judiciary Committee had penetrated the computer files of the Democratic senators on that committee that were concerned with judicial nominees, and that, in addition to using the purloined files to their own advantage, those staffers shared them with the media.
Leahy got Kavanaugh floundering on what, if anything, he knew about this rather garish dirty trick. Pretty plainly, Leahy was relying on documents marked "Committee-Confidential," which is material available to committee members, who can read the documents, but not share them publicly. Leahy rather obviously knew enough to imply that Kavanaugh at least was aware of the espionage, and that he received at least some of the stolen documents.
Washington Post, After nominee is heckled, Trump suggests protesting should be illegal, Felicia Sonmez, Sept. 5, 2018 (print edition). President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.
Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
Washington Post, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee faces grilling by senators, Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow and Elise Viebeck, Sept. 5, 2018. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is expected to face aggressive questions from Democrats on executive power, abortion rights, gun regulations and health care as his confirmation hearing continues before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Washington Post, Ten issues likely to come up on Day 2 of the Kavanaugh hearings, Ann E. Marimow and Michael Kranish, Sept. 5, 2018. Questions could span the course of Brett M. Kavanaugh’s long career in Washington — from his tenure as a member of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s team in the 1990s to the George W. Bush White House to the 12 years he has spent as a federal judge.
School Safety
CNN, Opinion: Brett Kavanaugh won't keep Americans safe, John J. Donohue, Sept. 5, 2018. John Donohue, above, is an economist, lawyer and professor at Stanford Law School. As the country reels from an unprecedented number of mass shootings in the past year, public support for prudent legislative action is about to slam into a jarring reality. Nearly every important state and local gun law is imperiled by the prospect of the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.
In a stunning triumph of what former conservative Republican Chief Justice Warren Burger once referred to as the NRA's "fraud on the American people," the US Supreme Court's 5-4 District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008 ignored text, history and tradition in disregarding the Second Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia." It held that the amendment should instead be read to grant a private right to have a handgun in the home.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion was deemed an incoherent "snow job" by Reagan-appointed federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner. Fortunately, the lower courts have largely recognized that the decision should not be read expansively to impose a straitjacket on legislative efforts to deal with the serious US problem of gun violence -- unique among developed countries.
For example, two Republican-appointed judges on the DC Court of Appeals ruled in 2011 that the Second Amendment was not an impediment to the District's ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, let alone its entirely sensible gun registration regime. But Kavanaugh disagreed, writing a dissent that embodied the worst features of the historical amnesia, misguided originalism and imprudent judicial decision making of Scalia's Heller decision.
The FBI recently reported that the 30 active shooter incidents in 2017 set a US record for both the highest number and the greatest number killed and wounded. A substantial majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, and nearly everyone wants universal background checks. Since the Parkland shooting left 17 students and teachers dead and many injured, a handful of states have taken much-needed strides to address gun violence, and stories abound about the new energy that students are bringing to the legislative forum on this issue.
But if Kavanaugh becomes the newest Supreme Court justice, it may all be for naught. Working largely below the public's radar, the NRA has been suing every jurisdiction from Hawaii and California to Maryland and New Jersey to overturn restrictions on large-capacity magazines and assault weapons, as well as safe storage laws and restrictions on carrying guns in public.
Internal Trump Opposition?
New York Times, From Opinion: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration, Anonymous, Sept. 5, 2018. I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations, our anonymous contributor writes.
Times Editor's Note: The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
Sept. 4
Washington Post, Kavanaugh hearing devolves into political brawl; GOP’s Grassley refuses to delay, John Wagner, Seung Min Kim and Ann E. Marimow, Sept. 4, 2018. At the outset, Democrats repeatedly interrupted the opening statement of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) — as protesters in the room heckled the senators — and sought to adjourn. Related column: Washington Post, The Fix: Democrats’ surprise, coordinated attack to tank Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sept. 4, 2018.
Washington Post, Trump shows fresh disdain for the rule of law as confirmation hearings begins, James Hohmann with Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve, Sept. 4, 2018. An 11th-hour document dump highlights how much still isn’t known about Trump’s pick.
Brett Kavanaugh, whose confirmation hearing to join the Supreme Court begins today, was one of George W. Bush’s attorneys during the 2000 recount. His lawyering in Florida, combined with his background as a Republican operative, landed him a plum job in the White House, which in turn helped him score an appointment to the D.C. Circuit — the second most powerful court in America.
The decision remains in dispute 18 years later. Senate Democrats are unlikely to focus on Bush v. Gore during this week’s confirmation hearing because they don’t want to look like sore losers, and there is evidence that Bush would have narrowly prevailed if there had been a complete statewide recount. But it's nonetheless a timeless reminder not just that every justice counts, but also that the judiciary’s legitimacy depends on leaders of the executive and legislative branches respecting even decisions they disagree with.
Times Editor's Note: The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
Trump Court nominee Kavanaugh snubs murdered Parkland shooting victim's father Fred Guttenberg at Sept. 4 hearing (Associated Press photo by Andrew Harnik)
Common Dreams, Opinion: This Is Who Brett Kavanaugh Is, Abby Zimet, Sept. 5, 2018. Among his other egregious traits -- rabid abortion opponent, fan of unconstrained presidential chutzpah, foe of the environment and longtime supporter of gun rights and especially assault weapons, whose confirmation, coincidentally, the NRA is spending over a million bucks to ensure -- there's this:
At his Tuesday hearing, purported devoted family man and "just such a nice person" Brett Kavanaugh refused to shake the hand of Fred Guttenberg, father of Parkland shooting victim Jamie Guttenberg, who has spent his grievous days, and likely nights, since his daughter was gunned down working tirelessly to ensure that other people's kids won't be.
Guttenberg described the moment: "Put out my hand to introduce myself as Jaime Guttenberg's dad. He pulled his hand back, turned his back to me and walked away. I guess he did not want to deal with the reality of gun violence."
When word of the ugly snub spread, the White House tried to blame Capitol Police, who later interrogated Guttenberg (WTF?), for intervening; they also claimed Guttenberg was an “unidentified individual,” though he'd earlier been introduced to the gathering by Dianne Feinstein.
In the fiery words of Emma Gonzales, we call bullshit. Photos and video of the encounter, complete with the clear contempt on Kavanaugh's face, expose the brutal truth: He's just a(nother) scumbag without heart, soul or moral compass.
New York Times, Times Publishes Op-Ed From ‘Resistance’ Administration Official. Trump Calls It ‘Gutless,’ Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, Sept. 5, 2018. President Trump denounced what he called a “gutless editorial” posted by The New York Times on Wednesday, an essay written by an unnamed administration official claiming that advisers to the president were deliberately trying to thwart his “reckless decisions” from the inside.
At an event at the White House, Mr. Trump angrily assailed The Times for publishing the Op-Ed column, the second time in two days that news reports highlighted the way that some members of his team quietly seek to undermine the president when they believe he may be acting dangerously.
The column, written by an unnamed senior administration official, claimed that some of those close to the president were working to thwart his “misguided impulses.” Editors in The Times opinion section took the rare step of publishing a column without naming the author because of the significance of the subject.
New York Times, Nike’s Kaepernick Ad Set to Air on N.F.L.’s Opening Telecast, Kevin Draper, Sept. 5, 2018. Any questions about whether Nike might quickly back away from its decision to embrace the polarizing quarterback Colin Kaepernick amid threats of a boycott and criticism from President Trump dissipated on Wednesday when the company released a two-minute advertisement narrated by him and announced plans to have it run during the N.F.L.’s first telecast of the regular season.
The ad, called “Dream Crazy,” features Mr. Kaepernick and other star athletes in the Nike stable, including Serena Williams and LeBron James. It implores viewers to dream big, using the inspiring stories of those stars and of everyday weekend warriors who overcame illness or disability to triumph athletically.
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything,” Mr. Kaepernick says over images of him watching a waving American flag projected against a building. Those words appeared in an ad that was released on Monday announcing Nike’s new partnership with Mr. Kaepernick and on a billboard of him that went up in San Francisco on Tuesday.
“Nike’s ‘Dream Crazy’ campaign will air this week during sporting events such as the U.S. Open, M.L.B. and college football in addition to ‘Thursday Night Football,’ ” Josh Benedek, a Nike spokesman, said.
Sept. 3
Washington Post, Democrats’ view of Kavanaugh shaped by bitter 2004 hearing, Michael Kranish, Sept. 3, 2018 (print edition). When former President George W. Bush nominated Brett Kavanaugh (shown during testimony then) for a federal circuit judgeship, Kavanaugh’s work on partisan missions put him at odds with Democrats. But the strategy Democrats used then to block his nomination for three years will no longer be available to them as Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court hearings begin Tuesday.
Wall Street Journal, Key Question in Senate Hearings: Would Kavanaugh Overturn Supreme Court Precedents? Brent Kendall, Sept. 3, 2018. Senators expected to focus on Trump nominee’s position on landmark decisions involving abortion and other hot-button issues.
With Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings set to begin Tuesday, partisans on both sides are focusing on one of the most consequential questions surrounding his nomination: Whether he would stand firm with precedents set by landmark rulings or be willing to overturn them.
Politico, Democrats’ last shot at stopping Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Adam Cancryn, Sept. 3, 2018. If they can’t beat Kavanaugh, they’ll use his conservative views to fuel their 'blue wave.'
The long-shot path to killing Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination runs through the heart of the American health care system — and right into the November midterm elections. Senate Democrats prepping for this week’s marathon confirmation hearings are zeroing in on the health care views of the man who could pull the nation’s high court to the right for a generation — and determine the fate of abortion rights, the social safety net and Obamacare itself, possibly within months.
New York Times, How Brett Kavanaugh Would Transform the Supreme Court, Adam Liptak, Sept. 3, 2018 (print edition). Most confirmation hearings concern nominees who would not change the court’s basic direction. That is not the case with the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, whose Senate confirmation hearings will begin on Tuesday.
New York Times, Coveted Lawyer’s Juggling Act May Be Good for Trump, and Bad, Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt, Sept. 3, 2018 (print edition). William Burck, shown above in a screengrab, is deciding which documents about Judge Kavanaugh can be released. He also represents White House officials in the special counsel inquiry.
Sept. 2
Washington Post, Issues for Kavanaugh: The president who chose him and the court he would change, Robert Barnes, Sept. 2, 2018 (print edition). As Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett M. Kavanaugh, right, begin Tuesday, abortion, affirmative action, religion and gay rights are among the issues at stake. But the hearings also come as the powers of a special prosecutor to investigate the president are part of a national debate, with decisions on executive power possibly awaiting the high court.
Washington Post, Trump to withhold 100,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s White House records, Seung Min Kim, Sept. 2, 2018 (print edition). The president claimed executive privilege in his decision to not release the records from Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s tenure in the George W. Bush White House. The move drew criticism from Democrats, who have pushed for more disclosure ahead of confirmation hearings.
Washington Post, The key players in the Kavanaugh hearings — and what’s at stake for each of them, Amber Phillips, Sept. 2, 2018. The Senate hearings to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh take place in a uniquely hyperpartisan political moment.
August
Aug. 22
More Pressure On Kavanaugh
Washington Post, Senate Democrats want to know whether Kavanaugh crossed line as a source during Clinton probe, Tom Hamburger, Robert Barnes and Robert O'Harrow Jr., Aug. 22, 2018. The senators are exploring whether the Supreme Court nominee violated federal rules in his private communications with outsiders during Kenneth Starr’s wide-ranging investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
During independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s tumultuous investigation of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, there were loud objections and even lawsuits filed over Clinton’s complaints that information meant to be kept secret was being leaked to the press by Starr’s staff.
Among those guiding the journalists and authors was a young lawyer named Brett M. Kavanaugh, now a federal judge and President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
Washington Post, Citing Cohen plea, Senate Democrats seek delay in Kavanaugh hearings, John Wagner and Mike DeBonis, Aug. 22, 2018. Senate Democrats on Wednesday called for delaying confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh in the wake of a guilty plea by Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former attorney, on campaign-finance counts that involve the president.
Democrats, who have been seeking leverage to slow down Kavanaugh’s consideration, argued that a new justice could be forced to decide questions directly relating to Trump, including whether he must comply with a subpoena from prosecutors and whether he can be indicted while in office.
SCOTUSblog, Wednesday round-up, Edith Roberts, Aug. 22, 2018. For The Washington Post, Elise Viebeck and Gabriel Pogrund report that “[a] Republican senator whose vote could ensure the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh” — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine – “offered an upbeat assessment of their meeting Tuesday, highlighting the judge’s statement that the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion is ‘settled law.’”
Additional coverage comes from Scott Detrow at NPR , Natalie Andrews and Byron Tau for The Wall Street Journal, Sheryl Gay Stolberg for The New York Times, and the Associated Press. At The Hill, Tal Axelrod reports that “[a] Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday shows a plurality of Maine voters want … Collins … to reject Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and many will be less likely to support her for reelection if she votes to confirm him.”
Megan Keller reports at The Hill that “Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Tuesday said that he thinks a ‘smelly special interest network’ of dark money was involved in Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination process.”
In an op-ed for The Hill, Steven Calabresi refutes “criticism of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court [charging] that his references to constitutional originalism suggest he would reach a series of bad results in certain cases.”
At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern suggests that “[a]side from the looming election,” “there is one clear reason” why the Republicans are “so eager to push through Kavanaugh’s nomination before the documents [from the nominee’s days in the White House counsel’s office] are released”: “The Supreme Court has stacked its October docket with major cases that will require Kavanaugh’s vote for a conservative victory.”
Aug. 20
Washington Post, Brett Kavanaugh memo detailed explicit questions for Clinton, Michael Kranish, Aug. 20, 2018. Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a strikingly explicit 1998 memo that he was “strongly opposed” to giving then-President Bill Clinton any “break” in the independent counsel’s questioning about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, according to a document released Monday. [Read the memo from Brett Kavanaugh]
In the memo, Kavanaugh, who worked as an associate counsel for independent counsel Ken Starr and is now President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, laid out several proposed questions, including, “If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”
Excerpts of the memo have been previously reported, including by The Washington Post last month, quoting from a book about the Lewinsky investigation. However, the full memo had not been released until Monday, when it was released by the National Archives in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Post.
Aug. 17
New York Times, Why Cover Up Brett Kavanaugh’s Past? Editorial Board, Aug. 17, 2018. For the first time in modern history, Republicans are refusing to request a Supreme Court nominee’s relevant papers. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s supporters have spent the last month lavishing him with acclaim. He’s a legal superstar, they say, one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in history. So why are Senate Republicans so afraid of letting Americans learn more about him?
After what they did to Judge Merrick Garland in 2016 — obliterating Senate tradition by outright ignoring President Barack Obama’s third Supreme Court nomination for partisan political gain — you might think it would be hard for Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to inflict any more damage on the court.
Surprise! They’re now running the most secretive and incomplete confirmation process in modern history. They scrambled to set the start of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for Sept. 4, even as they have refused multiple requests by their Democratic colleagues to see more than one million documents covering his years as White House staff secretary to President George W. Bush. Judge Kavanaugh, right, has called that job, which he held from 2003 to 2006, “the most interesting and informative” of his career in terms of preparing for his work on the bench.
These documents could contain important information about his role in some of the Bush administration’s most controversial actions, including its warrantless wiretapping program and its torture policy. Judge Kavanaugh was evasive during his 2006 confirmation hearing for a seat on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., where he currently sits. He denied any involvement in those policies, but Democratic senators have long believed that his answers to them were, at best, misleading. And at least one former Bush official appeared to directly contradict him. So what was his true role? The documents may or may not answer that question definitively, but we’ll never know without seeing them.
Aug. 17
Alliance for Justice, Opinion: Republicans “Running a Scam” to Confirm Kavanaugh, Bill Yeomans, Aug. 17, 2018. AFJ Justice Fellow Bill Yeomans writes that Senate Republicans are short-circuiting the normal confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, by moving ahead without obtaining all the relevant documents from his career -- and he minces no words.
Yeomans notes:
"The Republican Senate majority is running a scam to ram through confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh without the scrutiny that is essential to our constitutional health. Republicans are panicking…polling shows that a majority of the public already opposes Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Senate Republicans understand that the more the public learns about the nominee and his positions and the longer the Senate and public have to consider the nomination, the less popular he will become."
Adding his voice to the chorus of those demanding that Republicans stop taking irresponsible shortcuts, Yeomans concludes that the Senate "must take the time to gather and release all of the records."
Aug. 16
New York Magazine, Opinion: Poll: Kavanaugh Is the Most Unpopular Court Pick in Decades, Eric Levitz, Aug. 16, 2018. The conservative movement’s judicial agenda is extremely unpopular. This is, in part, because the movement recognizes that some of its goals are too politically toxic to advance through the more democratic branches of the federal government, and thus, seeks to implement them through litigation. Congress would have had a difficult time clearing the way for unlimited corporate spending on American elections, or gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or legalizing most forms of political bribery, or hobbling public-sector unions — but the Roberts court had no such trouble.
And yet, historically, the unpopularity of conservative jurisprudence has rarely put a dent in the in the public image of conservative judicial nominees.
Democratic voters have traditionally followed the lead of their party’s elites, and judged Republican presidents’ Supreme Court picks on the strength of their professional qualifications, rather than their ideological commitments. John Roberts and Samuel Alito are two of the most radically reactionary Supreme Court justices in our nation’s modern history, and yet both enjoyed overwhelming public support when their nominations were brought before the Senate. Even last year, in our hyperpolarized epoch, when Donald Trump announced his intention to put Neil Gorsuch into Merrick Garland’s rightful Supreme Court seat, 49 percent of Americans said that the Senate should confirm him, while just 36 percent said it should not.
All of which makes this new CNN poll remarkable: A plurality of American voters currently want the Senate to reject Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In the past three decades, no high court nominee has ever attracted plurality opposition in initial polling — and only Robert Bork suffered a lower level of opening support.
Aug. 11
Washington Post, Analysis: Democrats all but acknowledge Kavanaugh is headed toward confirmation to Supreme Court, Sean Sullivan, Aug. 11, 2018 (print edition). The Senate is poised to install Brett M. Kavanaugh on the high court and take the next step toward fulfilling President Trump’s pledge to remake the Supreme Court — and the wider federal judiciary, potentially for decades.
Aug. 8
University of Chicago Maroon, UChicago Law Prof Says Sotomayor Got on Court Because She’s Latina, Wipes Twitter, Maroon Staff, Aug. 8, 2018. Conservative 
University of Chicago Law Professor M. Todd Henderson, right, said in a tweet Tuesday that Justice Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the Supreme Court because “her Latinaness gave us insight into her soul.”
His tweet, which said she is a “second-class intellect,” immediately drew sharp criticism from members of the University community and beyond. Some questioned how Henderson was a professor at the Law School; one user wrote, “Your dumb ass couldn’t get onto the food court.”
After initially fighting back against his critics, Henderson issued a half-apology Tuesday evening, again via tweet. He said that having another woman and Hispanic on the Court was a good thing, but argued that there are dozens of appeals court judges “smarter” than Justice Sotomayor, shown at left. Still, he said, if he were a senator he would have confirmed her to the Court.
Aug. 6
SCOTUSblog, Monday round-up, Edith Roberts, Aug. 6, 2018. We round up the latest news on Judge Brett Kavanaugh (shown at right), including speculation on documents from his time in President George W. Bush’s administration and a debate over whether Democrats should support his confirmation when they disapprove on the merits.
At BuzzFeed News, Chris Geidner and Jason Leopold report that “[i]n the midst of a growing fight over what documents senators will see from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s five years in the George W. Bush White House, a narrow glance into three months of Kavanaugh’s communications with just one office at the Justice Department shows that he worked on key questions involving the president’s power to keep documents from Congress and the public, as well as important legislation in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.”
For the Washington Post, Seung Min Kim reports that “Senate Democrats will begin meeting with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh to press him privately on releasing his papers, … after Democrats had boycotted these sit-downs for weeks amid a document dispute with Republicans.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost asserts that “the Republicans’ prime movers on judicial confirmations — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley — are adopting tactics that flatly contradict their stances on President Obama’s last two Supreme Court nominations.”
For the New York Times, Michael Shear and Adam Liptak take a close look at Kavanaugh’s experience working on independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton, “an immersion course in the brutal ways of Washington combat.”
Aug. 3
Washington Post, Senate Democrats to end boycott, plan to meet with Kavanaugh later this month, Seung Min Kim, Aug. 3, 2018. Senate Democrats will begin meeting with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, right, to press him privately on releasing his papers, a senior Democratic aide said Friday, after Democrats had boycotted these sit-downs for weeks amid a document dispute with Republicans.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, had held off scheduling the traditional one-on-one sessions as they tussled with Republicans over releasing documents from Kavanaugh’s voluminous paper trail, primarily from his time in the George W. Bush White House.
But Schumer and Feinstein will start meeting with President Trump’s pick to succeed retired justice Anthony M. Kennedy after the Senate returns from its truncated recess Aug. 15, a senior Senate Democratic aide said. They will press Kavanaugh on releasing his papers from his tenure as Bush’s staff secretary — which Republicans argue are irrelevant in assessing his fitness to be a justice — and “question him about their contents.”
Republicans have agreed to release only papers from Kavanaugh’s time as associate White House counsel, which span two of the five years he served under Bush. Democrats made a separate request to the National Archives to release the staff secretary records, but the Archives rebuffed their request in a letter dated Thursday. The Archives said only the chairman of a committee can make such a documents request.
The National Archives has started reviewing Kavanaugh’s documents from his time as associate White House counsel but said it won’t finish going through all of them until late October. Still, Senate Republicans plan to go ahead with confirmation hearings in September, as a private legal team led by Bush’s presidential records representative conducts a separate review of Kavanaugh’s paperwork and provides them to the Senate.
Schumer raised concerns Friday that this separate process means neither the public nor senators outside of those on the Judiciary Committee would be able to see Kavanaugh’s records.
“This unprecedented effort on the part of Republicans to keep hidden Judge Kavanaugh’s records from the American public, and even the large majority of senators, is a new and astonishing level of secrecy,” Schumer said in a statement.
Aug. 2
U.S. Supreme Court: Kavanaugh
SCOTUSblog, Thursday round-up, Edith Roberts, Aug. 2, 2018. At CNN, Lauren Fox reports that “Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that he hopes to have President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee [Brett Kavanaugh] confirmed by the Senate by early October and that hearings are most likely to begin sometime in September.”
For The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer reports that “[a] Christian women’s organization announced Wednesday it’s launching a bus tour in eight states to rally support” for Trump’s nominee. Brett Samuels reports at The Hill that “Capitol Police charged 74 people on Wednesday in connection with a protest in the Senate office building against … Kavanaugh.” 
At The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin, right, urges liberals wondering “whether it’s even worthwhile … to fight [Kavanaugh’s] nomination” “to remember that fighting Supreme Court nominees, even against formidable odds, can succeed — and produce a better Court than anyone might have expected.”
Aug. 1
Washington Post, ‘Unprecedented partisan interference’: Senate escalates bitter fight over Kavanaugh’s record, Seung Min Kim, Aug. 1, 2018 (print edition). Democrats want to review material from the Supreme Court nominee’s time as as an associate White House counsel during the administration of George W. Bush, as well as Brett Kavanaugh’s years as staff secretary. Republicans call it an irrelevant fishing expedition.
July
July 31
Consortium News, Opinion: In Shielding US from Legal Obligations, Kavanaugh Conflates International Law with Foreign Laws. Marjorie Cohn, July 31, 2018. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has nothing but contempt for international law. But he has shown uncritical deference to executive power, particularly in the so-called war on terror cases, argues Marjorie Cohn. For 12 years, while serving as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh had the opportunity to rule on several cases stemming from the “war on terror.” In nearly all of them, he demonstrated nothing but disdain for international law and an uncritical deference to executive power.
July 30
Bloomberg, Kavanaugh Sided With Trump Casino in 2012 to Thwart Union Drive, Josh Eidelson, July 30, 2018. Six years before President Donald Trump nominated him for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh sided with Trump Entertainment Resorts’ successful effort to thwart a unionization drive at one of its casinos.
Kavanaugh was one of three Republican-appointed judges who in 2012 voted unanimously to set aside an order by the National Labor Relations Board that would have required the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, to bargain with the United Auto Workers.
The casino has since shut down. But labor advocates point to the case -- as well as ones where he backed management at Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Venetian hotel and at SeaWorld after an orca killed a worker -- as evidence that Kavanaugh may hobble enforcement of workplace laws and the already-embattled union movement.
"Kavanaugh, along with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch -- and Roberts along for the ride -- will comprise the most radical, anti-labor-law Supreme Court in my lifetime," said University of Wyoming law professor Michael Duff, a former attorney for the NLRB, ticking off the names of current members of the high court.
Kerri Kupec, a White House spokeswoman for Kavanaugh’s confirmation effort, said, “Judge Kavanaugh’s 12-year-record in labor cases reflects his reputation as a fair and independent arbiter of the law, based on text and precedent, who has ruled for both employers and employees alike.”
July 29
Washington Post, Analysis: Collins and Murkowski find pressure over Supreme Court lacks emotional pleas on health care, Paul Kane, July 29, 2018 (print ed.). Liberals are targeting the two moderate GOP senators who stopped the repeal of the Affordable Care Act last year, hoping they will break ranks and defeat high court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, is shown at right.
July 27
President Trump introduces Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his family on July 9 at the White House
Washington Post, Opinion: Kavanaugh won’t protect Mueller. His writings prove it, Richard Blumenthal, July 27, 2018 (print ed.). 
Richard Blumenthal, right, a former Supreme Court law clerk and editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal, is a U.S. senator from Connecticut and a former presidentially appointed U.S. attorney and attorney general for that state.
Recent days have left many Americans with a burning question: Does Vladimir Putin have something on President Trump? The investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III offers the most realistic opportunity to answer that question. But the likelihood of that happening may have taken a hit when the president nominated to the Supreme Court someone whose writing suggests that he thinks presidents should be able to fire special counsels for any reason or no reason at all.
The president may also take comfort from Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s observation during a 1999 panel discussion that United States v. Nixon — the unanimous, landmark 1974 Supreme Court opinion forcing President Richard M. Nixon to turn over secretly recorded White House tapes — may not be good law. Even more unsettling than Kavanaugh’s skepticism on that score was his speculation that Nixon might deserve to “be overruled on the ground that the case was a nonjusticiable intrabranch dispute.”
Kavanaugh was thus lending credence to the Nixon White House’s argument that because the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, it has no authority to compel the president to release information relevant to a criminal case. Under this theory, presidents would not only be free to reject burdensome, unfair or otherwise problematic requests for information; they would also be free to reject all requests for information.
July 24
Show above is a C-SPAN screenshot from a 2014 lecture at the National Press Club by then federal appeals court judge Alex Kozinski
Washington Post, Judge who quit over harassment allegations reemerges, dismaying those who accused him, July 24, 2018. Some former clerks to Alex Kozinski and other women said they feared the retired federal appeals court judge was being allowed to reenter the legal community without a complete reckoning.
Alex Kozinski had largely retreated from public life since allegations of sexual misconduct prompted him to retire as a federal appeals court judge last year. Even as his case sparked changes in how the judiciary handles harassment, the outspoken jurist remained silent — never addressing specific accusations that he showed clerks explicit images in his chambers or touched women inappropriately.
But earlier this month, Kozinski tiptoed back into public view, sitting for an hour-long interview with a public radio station in California and writing a tribute in a legal-industry publication to retired Supreme Court justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Then President Trump nominated Brett M. Kavanaugh, one of Kozinski’s former clerks and professional friends, to a seat on the high court.
Kozinski was suddenly back in the spotlight, and the legal and political worlds were left to wrestle with the aftershocks of his fall from grace.
July 23
New York Times, Brett Kavanaugh Will Fit Right In at the Pro-Corporate Roberts Court, Editorial Board, July 23, 2018 (print ed.). President Trump’s choice for the latest Supreme Court vacancy will continue a trend toward widening America’s power and wealth gaps.
Corporate interests haven’t had it so good at the Supreme Court in a long time. Under Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. the court has given big business a leg up on workers, unions, consumers and the environment — and will do so even more aggressively if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh, shown at right in a 2004 judicial confirmation hearing, President Trump’s choice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Corporations won the power to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns in the 2010 Citizens United decision. The owners of businesses have earned the right to cite their personal religious beliefs to deprive workers of reproductive health care. At the same time, the justices have made it harder for employees and customers to sue big businesses by allowing corporations to require mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts people are forced to sign if they want jobs or want to buy goods and services. The court has also made it easier for polluters to get away with poisoning the air and water.
In many of these decisions the five conservative justices have shown no restraint in rejecting judicial precedent and in substituting their own judgment for that of lawmakers.
Just last month, in a blow to public-sector unions with contracts covering nearly seven million workers, their 5-to-4 ruling dismissed a unanimous 40-year-old decision that state governments and unions had long relied on. In the recent case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the court held that government workers covered by union contracts do not have to pay fees for collective bargaining expenses if they are not members.
The ruling does not directly involve businesses. But it will hurt all workers because benefits won by unions often establish benchmarks that help improve wages and working conditions even at companies without unions.
July 22
New York Times, How a Failed Judicial Nomination Could Affect Kavanaugh, Carl Hulse, July 22, 2018 (print ed.). Senators expect the collapse of Ryan W. Bounds’s nomination to have major implications for the Senate and the coming showdown over the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Bounds’s nomination was pulled after Senator Tim Scott, right, of South Carolina, the only black Republican senator, made clear he would not vote for him because of the writings, despite a hastily arranged face-to-face meeting with the nominee. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, quickly sided with his close friend Mr. Scott, and other Republicans also signaled that they would vote against Mr. Bounds.
His nomination was scratched to avoid an embarrassing defeat for President Trump, a rare setback in the administration’s determined march to put conservatives on federal courts around the country. Mr. Bounds was to be named to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a court dominated by liberal jurists that has been a particular thorn in the side of Mr. Trump.
The outcome underscored just how narrow a margin that Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, has to work with when it comes to Judge Kavanaugh. Because of the continued absence of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican being treated for brain cancer, the defection of a single Republican can doom a nominee if Democrats remain united in opposition.
And Democrats pounced on the fact that Mr. Bounds was undone by long-ago writings, saying the episode legitimized their demand that all documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s past work in government should be disclosed, even though it might be a ponderous task to produce them and take weeks to review them.
“This nomination’s defeat is a sign of inadequate vetting and excessive haste,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, left, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “It should stand as a rebuke to my Republican colleagues who are seeking to severely constrict review of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Restricting documents and time is a great mistake for lifetime judicial appointments.”
Democrats want access to hundreds of thousands of documents and emails from Mr. Kavanaugh’s service in the administration of George W. Bush, and Republicans are resisting. Senator Charles E. Grassley, right, the Iowa Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says that he won’t allow a “government-funded fishing expedition,” and notes that many Democrats have already vowed to oppose the nomination without seeing any records.
July 21
Associated Press via Chicago Tribune, SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh questioned Watergate tapes decision, Mark Sherman, July 21, 2018. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suggested several years ago that the unanimous high court ruling in 1974 that forced President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, leading to the end of his presidency, may have been wrongly decided.
Kavanaugh was taking part in a roundtable discussion with other lawyers when he said at three different points that the decision in U.S. v. Nixon, which marked limits on a president's ability to withhold information needed for a criminal prosecution, may have come out the wrong way.
A 1999 magazine article about the roundtable was part of thousands of pages of documents that Kavanaugh has provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation process. The committee released the documents on Saturday.
Kavanaugh's belief in robust executive authority already is front and center in his nomination by President Donald Trump to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The issue could assume even greater importance if special counsel Robert Mueller seeks to force Trump to testify in the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
"But maybe Nixon was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so. Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently...Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision," Kavanaugh said in a transcript of the discussion that was published in the January-February 1999 issue of the Washington Lawyer.
DCDave Blog, Opinion: Christopher Ruddy on Brett Kavanaugh, David Martin, July 21, 2018. Christopher Ruddy is the Long Island, New York, native who is the CEO of the media organization Newsmax, regularly sought out for interviews by the mainstream press because he keeps the company of his neighbor in Palm Beach, Florida, President Donald Trump and is one of his closest informal advisers.
Ruddy first rose to prominence, though, as the only American reporter raising doubts about the mysterious July 20, 1993, death of President Bill Clinton’s deputy White House Counsel, Vincent W. Foster, Jr., shown at right. His first critical article appeared in the New York Post on January 27, 1994. In 1997 he would publish a book entitled The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation. (Amazon used to tout my review of that book as the leading one, based upon the number of viewers finding it “helpful,” which it still is, but they have now deeply buried it away.)
Writing critically on the Vince Foster case, Ruddy could hardly avoid talking about young Brett Kavanaugh, who took over as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s lead investigator after the resignation in disgust of Miguel Rodriguez. In the long passage below, we pick up the story on page 240 of Ruddy’s book.
He is talking about the troublesome witness, Patrick Knowlton, who had been tracked down by the British reporter, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Knowlton had happened by Fort Marcy Park where Foster’s body was found on the afternoon of July 20, where Knowlton had stopped in to take an emergency leak. Hearing on television that night about the discovery of the body there, he had done his civic duty and called the Park Police to tell them what he had seen. They had demonstrated little interest, taking only a short statement from him....
When Knowlton appeared before the grand jury the following week, Brett Kavanaugh, one of Starr’s prosecutors who (according to his official biography) had never prosecuted a case before, was doing the interrogation. Kavanaugh, a Yale graduate, was seen as one of the rising stars on the team: extremely bright, an establishment man in his late twenties with Harrison Ford looks and a demeanor to match.
Knowlton would later recount that during the proceedings he “was treated like a suspect,” with Kavanaugh focusing more on his character than on the potentially valuable information he had to offer. Kavanaugh asked a series of questions about Knowlton’s encounter with the Hispanic-looking man including one of a graphic sexual nature.
In contrast with Ruddy’s toned-down version, here is how Richard Poe described the grand jury interrogation, the details of which he got from the chapter entitled “Street Fascism” in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s 1997 book, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton:
Perhaps the most telling indication of Starr's attitude toward Knowlton is the humiliating cross-examination to which this brave man was subjected before the grand jury. Knowlton says that he was "treated like a suspect." Prosecutor Brett Kavanaugh appeared to be trying to imply that Knowlton was a homosexual who was cruising Fort Marcy Park for sex. Regarding the suspicious Hispanic-looking man he had seen guarding the park entrance, Kavanaugh asked, Did he "pass you a note?" Did he "touch your genitals?"
Knowlton flew into a rage at Kavanaugh's insinuations. Evans-Pritchard writes that several African American jurors burst into laughter at the spectacle, rocking "back and forth as if they were at a Baptist revival meeting. Kavanaugh was unable to reassert his authority. The grand jury was laughing at him. The proceedings were out of control."
It was at that point, reports Evans-Pritchard, that Patrick Knowlton was finally compelled to confront the obvious: "the Office of the Independent Counsel was itself corrupt."
July 20
SCOTUSblog, Friday round-up, Andrew Hamm, July 20, 2018. Judge Brett Kavanaugh remains atop the slow-moving Supreme Court news cycle. Adam Liptak (right) of The New York Times surveys 12 sets of evaluations spanning 700 pages from about 350 law students at Harvard, Yale and Georgetown and finds “almost only glowing praise for Judge Kavanaugh’s teaching.” Former Harvard students praise Kavanaugh in a letter at Boston Globe.
Lorraine Woellert of Politico covers the refusal of New York Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders to meet with Kavanaugh, “another salvo in the deepening cold war” between Trump and Schumer. Elise Viebeck of The Washington Post reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said Wednesday that senators expect to receive “at least 1 million pages of documents” related to Kavanaugh’s time in President George W. Bush’s administration and as a Republican “political operative,” which Viebeck calls “a sign of a mammoth task that could slow the timeline for confirmation hearings.” Coverage on polling about Kavanaugh’s possible confirmation – from Gallup, the Pew Research Center and Fox News – comes from Alex Lubben for Vice News and Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight.
Commentary on the confirmation process comes from Kent Greenfield on WBUR’s Cognoscenti blog, who contends that the “Senate should wait to vote on Kavanaugh until we can be sure Trump’s entire presidency is not illegitimate because of espionage, conspiracy, collusion and — yes — treason.” Dahlia Lithwick and Jed Shugerman of Slate credit Kavanaugh for “his candor in taking his stands against Roe last year,” but argue that this topic “must also be addressed directly during his confirmation.”
David Savage of Los Angeles Times reports that the “Supreme Court could have a conservative majority to strike down bans on semi-automatic weapons in California and other liberal states and to decree that law-abiding Americans have a right to carry a gun in public.” Mark Sherman and Jennifer Peltz of Associated Press report that although Kavanaugh’s record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not “directly deal with LGBT issues,” “his approach to judging leads some scholars and activists to believe he is unlikely to echo Kennedy’s votes.”
Washington Post, Russian firm indicted in Mueller probe cites Supreme Court nominee’s decision to argue that charges should be dismissed, Robert Barnes, July 20, 2018. A Russian company accused by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III of being part of an online operation to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign is leaning in part on a decision by Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh to argue that the charge against it should be thrown out.
The 2011 decision by Kavanaugh (right), writing for a three-judge panel, concerned the role that foreign nationals may play in U.S. elections. It upheld a federal law that said foreigners temporarily in the country may not donate money to candidates, contribute to political parties and groups or spend money advocating for or against candidates. But it did not rule out letting foreigners spend money on independent advocacy campaigns.
Kavanaugh “went out of his way to limit the decision,” said Daniel A. Petalas, a Washington lawyer and former interim general counsel for the Federal Election Commission.
Washington Post, Opinion: Here’s who should demand to see Kavanaugh’s White House paper trail, Ronald A. Klain, July 20, 2018. Ronald A. Klain, a Post contributing columnist, served as a senior White House aide to Presidents Barack Obama, where he worked on the selection and confirmation of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and Bill Clinton. He was also a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s White House documents” may be the five least sexy words in a Supreme Court confirmation battle touching on many of our society’s most divisive issues. But the list of people who should demand their full release before Kavanaugh’s Senate hearings get underway is quite long — and contains a few surprises.
The documents in question, from Kavanaugh’s time as a senior policy and legal aide to President George W. Bush, may offer rich insights into what he thinks about critical legal matters. Kavanaugh’s supporters justifiably boast of his stellar résumé, but in doing so they highlight its similarity to Justice Elena Kagan’s — who was likewise a White House policy and legal aide earlier in her career. It should be obvious, then, that just as the Judiciary Committee saw all of Kagan’s White House papers, it should see all of Kavanaugh’s. She is shown at left.
But Senate Republican leaders seem inclined to take whatever subset of materials the administration chooses to provide. So it comes down to this: Is anyone really going to get fired up about a dispute over documents? Who should care about seeing all this paper?
First, Senate Republicans should . . . because they did. When Kagan was nominated, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa, shown at right) — now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee — said that “for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advise and consent, we must get all of her documents from [ex-president Bill Clinton’s files] and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a Justice.” The then-ranking Republican on the committee said the panel needed “to obtain the documents relating to [Kagan’s White House] service in advance of the hearings,” urging the former and then-current presidents to drop all claims of executive privilege in those documents. That Republican was Sen. Jeff Sessions, now President Trump’s attorney general.
Second, Senate Democratic leaders should be unflinching in their demands to see these documents. The vast majority of the documents were likely seen by a substantial number of people in the Bush White House when they were created and circulated. Some of these ex-officials may still have copies. Even if they don’t, they may know what Kavanaugh wrote about abortion, health care, civil rights and civil liberties. Bush-era officials could have easily shared these recollections with key people in the Trump White House during the process that led to Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Thus, when Kavanaugh testifies before the Judiciary Committee and says, inevitably, that he will offer “no hints, no winks, no nods” on potential rulings — that answer may not be true for everyone: The White House may indeed have ample “hints and nods,” by having seen (or been briefed on) Kavanaugh’s Bush-era writings. That knowledge should be in the possession of all senators, not just the White House.
Third, red-state Democrats especially should press hard for the documents. These senators are caught between Trump-led pressure demanding support for the nomination and Democratic base pressure demanding opposition. They have blunted these forces by saying that will decide based on the record, not politics.
But how can they decide based on the record if the White House withholds Kavanaugh’s records? And if the White House will not produce them in full, what more common-sense reason is there to oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation than “I’m not going to vote for someone for the Supreme Court unless I see the paper trail”? It’s an argument tailor-made for practical voters in “Show Me” Missouri and throughout the Midwest.
July 18
Reason TV, Judge Andrew Napolitano on Trump, SCOTUS, and the Return of Freedom Watch, Nick Gillespie, July 18, 2018 (22:39 mins.). The most libertarian legal analyst on cable news dishes on Brett Kavanaugh, the end of his GOP, and his forthcoming new show.
A former New Jersey Superior Court judge, Napolitano is a nationally syndicated columnist—you can read him at Reason—and the author of a shelf full of books about law, history, and race in America.
Reason caught up with the judge at FreedomFest, the annual event held every July in Las Vegas. We talked about Donald Trump's ongoing makeover of the federal judiciary, whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will be good for libertarians, what it's like to be an ex-Republican, and the imminent return of Freedom Watch, the popular and controversial show that Napolitano hosted on Fox Business from 2006 to 2010.
July 14
New York Times, Influential Judge, Conservative Warrior — and D.C. Insider, Scott Shane, Steve Eder, Rebecca R. Ruiz, Adam Liptak, Charlie Savage and Ben Protess, July 14, 2018. The carefully crafted narrative around Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, plays down his legacy as a charter member of elite Washington.
When Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh introduced himself to the American people on Monday, with a beaming President Trump beside him, he had a lot to say about his mother, a former high school teacher and a Maryland judge. He accorded his father strikingly less attention — just 34 words, compared with 132 about his mother — mentioning his “unparalleled work ethic” while not saying exactly what work he did.
Yet Ed Kavanaugh’s career may shed light on his son’s hostility to government regulation, a major reason conservatives are so enthralled by his nomination to the Supreme Court. He spent more than two decades in Washington as a top lobbyist for the cosmetics industry, courting Congress and combating regulations from the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. (Among his hires for legal work: John G. Roberts Jr. (shown at right), now the chief justice.)
July 13
New York Times, Opinion: Does Brett Kavanaugh Spell the End of Voting Rights? Ari Berman, July 13, 2018. Mr. Berman is a journalist who specializes in voting rights. If he is confirmed for the Supreme Court, we will see the most extreme court on civil rights since the era of Jim Crow.
The threat of voter disenfranchisement will get worse if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the court. His opinion in the South Carolina case and his record in civil rights matters suggests that he will join with the court’s conservative justices to further roll back voting rights protections and other civil rights laws.
If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, Chief Justice John Roberts (shown at right) will become the new swing voter. That’s terrible news for voting rights.
July 12
SCOTUSblog, Thursday round-up, Edith Roberts, July 12, 2018. The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court remains front and center in the news. For The Washington Post, Amy Brittain reports that financial disclosures and information provided by the White House indicate that “Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets.”
For The New York Times, Katie Benner reports that “Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh,” and that the request “was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement.” For The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, Salvador Rizzo examines speculation about “a past business relationship between Donald Trump and one of Kennedy’s sons” that some have suggested may have influenced the justice’s recent rulings or his decision to retire, giving the allegations four Pinocchios.
At CNN, Joan Biskupic analyzes Kavanaugh’s record, concluding that “he stands to be more than just a reliable vote for the right” and that “[h]e could powerfully influence the country’s legal agenda for decades.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Ann Marimow report that “Kavanaugh has only one major abortion ruling in his 12 years on the federal bench, but that forceful opinion will define the coming debate on what his elevation to the Supreme Court would mean for a woman’s constitutional right to the procedure.” At Bloomberg, Sahil Kapur and Greg Stohr report that “senators and activists on both sides of the debate” say “Kavanaugh’s views on gun rights may push the court to expand Second Amendment protections.”
Washington Post, What to expect from Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation battle, Amy Brittain, July 11, 2018. Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets, according to a review of Kavanaugh’s financial disclosures and information provided by the White House.
White House spokesman Raj Shah told The Washington Post that Kavanaugh built up the debt by buying Washington Nationals season tickets and tickets for playoff games for himself and a “handful” of friends. Shah said some of the debts were also for home improvements.
In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a loan. Each credit card held between $15,000 and $50,000 in debt, and a Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 and $50,000.
Washington Post, In major abortion ruling, Kavanaugh offers clues of how he might handle divisive issue, Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow, July 12, 2018. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a strongly worded dissent last fall in a case involving a pregnant immigrant teenager in federal custody.
New York Times, Democrats Zero In on Nominee’s View of Presidential Power, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, July 12, 2018 (print edition). Democrats thought the weakness of a Supreme Court nominee would be health care and abortion. Then came Brett M. Kavanaugh’s writings on shielding presidents from investigation.
Democrats who once saw health care and abortion as their best lines of attack against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, are recalibrating their approach to go after him for his view that a sitting president should not have to answer questions in a criminal case, much less face indictment.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in an interview on Wednesday that Judge Kavanaugh’s belief in broad presidential authority was “just off the deep end.”
For Democrats facing an uphill struggle to block Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, his protective views of the presidency could prove to be a bright red ribbon. Rather than just playing it safe with a broad swath of voters worried about access to health care and abortion, Democrats now see an opportunity to excite their base by fanning fears that the highest court in the land could turn into a bulwark to protect the man appointing its members.
The Hill, Yale Law School students, alumni denounce Trump Supreme Court pick, Justin Wise, July 12, 2018. More than 400 current and former Yale Law School students are banding together to denounce President Trump's latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, saying that "people will die" if the Yale alum is confirmed.
"Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination presents an emergency — for democratic life, for our safety and freedom, for the future of our country," they wrote in an open letter published earlier this week. "Without a doubt, Judge Kavanaugh is a threat to the most vulnerable. He is a threat to many of us, despite the privilege bestowed by our education, simply because of who we are."
Kavanaugh graduated from Yale Law School in 1990 and has spent the past 12 years as a federal judge on the nation’s second most powerful court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was nominated by Trump on Monday to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. His nomination led to glowing praise from Yale and Yale law professors. In an op-ed for The New York Times, professor Akhil Reed Amar made a liberal's case for Kavanaugh. In addition, the school sent out a press release with multiple endorsements from the university's faculty.
July 11
New York Times, Trump Subpoena May Put Nominee’s Legal Theory to the Test, Adam Liptak, July 11, 2018 (print edition). Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh (shown at right) has questioned the wisdom of forcing sitting presidents to answer questions from prosecutors.
New York Times, Democrats Zero In on Nominee’s View of Presidential Power, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, July 11, 2018. Democrats thought the weakness of a Supreme Court nominee would be health care and abortion. Then came Brett M. Kavanaugh’s writings on shielding presidents from investigation.
Democrats who once saw health care and abortion as their best lines of attack against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, are recalibrating their approach to go after him for his view that a sitting president should not have to answer questions in a criminal case, much less face indictment.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in an interview on Wednesday that Judge Kavanaugh’s belief in broad presidential authority was “just off the deep end.”
For Democrats facing an uphill struggle to block Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, his protective views of the presidency could prove to be a bright red ribbon. Rather than just playing it safe with a broad swath of voters worried about access to health care and abortion, Democrats now see an opportunity to excite their base by fanning fears that the highest court in the land could turn into a bulwark to protect the man appointing its members.
Washington Post, The elite world of Brett Kavanaugh, Paul Schwartzman and Michelle Boorstein, July 11, 2018. Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court grew up in Washington and lives in one of its most affluent neighborhoods, among Democrats who avoid talking politics with him.
New York Times, Rosenstein Makes Unusual Request on Court Nominee’s Files, Katie Benner, July 11, 2018. Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, asked each of the nation’s 93 United States attorneys to provide up to three prosecutors to review the documents of President Trump’s Supreme Court pick.
Former law enforcement officials described Mr. Rosenstein’s directive as a troubling precedent. “It’s flat-out wrong to have career federal prosecutors engaged in a political process like the vetting of a Supreme Court nominee,” said Christopher Hunter, a former F.B.I. agent and federal prosecutor who is running for Congress. “It takes them away from the mission they’re supposed to be fulfilling, which is effective criminal justice enforcement.”
Mr. Rosenstein wrote that he expected to need the equivalent of 100 full-time lawyers to work on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, and that the work would be supervised by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy in Washington. The office typically helps with judicial nominations; most of its staff is made up of career Justice Department lawyers.
July 10
SCOTUSblog, Tuesday round-up: reactions To Kavanaugh Nomination, Andrew Hamm, July 10, 2018 (with links to reports below). Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage; Mark Walsh provides a “view” from the East Room. Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg on NPR’s Morning Edition (podcast), Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal and David Jackson and Richard Wolf of USA Today. Commentary comes from Jessica Mason Pieklo of Rewire.News, who writes that “as in all reality TV, there was a clear winner in Trump’s selection process. But unlike on The Bachelorette, the rest of us are the ones who were always going to lose.”
Reporting on Kavanaugh as Washington insider comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today and Joan Biskupic of CNN. Writing for The Economist, Steven Mazie calls Kavanaugh “an unremarkable choice for a Republican president,” notwithstanding that for Trump, “who has departed from so many presidential norms, to have picked someone with close ties to the Washington, DC establishment, may seem surprising for its utter conventionality.”
At The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro lists seven of Kavanaugh’s “more notable rulings that will come into sharp focus now” as his nomination moves forward in the Senate; in a second story at The National Law Journal, Mauro, with Mike Scarcella, compiles “snippets from some of Kavanaugh’s remarks over the years” that could also attract attention. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, it “will not take long before the President’s ambition – to choose a Justice who would vote to roll back constitutional protection for women’s abortion rights – could be fulfilled or frustrated,” reports Lyle Denniston for Constitution Daily. Commentary comes from Bill Blum of Truthdig, who writes that except for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, “Trump could not have chosen a candidate who poses a greater threat to progressive values and causes.”
Reactions to the Kavanaugh nomination
In reaction to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, politicians and interest groups are releasing statements. SCOTUS Watch is tracking “the public statements made by United States senators about how they plan to vote.” This post tracks the statements by interest groups that we have received. We invite you to alert us (nominationstatements [at] gmail [dot] com) to any statements we have missed.
In support of the nominee:
Alliance Defending Freedom (Michael Farris, president, CEO and general counsel)
Americans United for Life (Catherine Glenn Foster, president and CEO)
Heritage Action for America (Tim Chapman, executive director)
Institute for Free Speech (Bradley Smith, chairman and founder)
March for Life (Jeanne Mancini, president)
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
Pacific Legal Foundation
The Catholic Association
Against or concerned about the nominee:
Anti-Defamation League (Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and national director)
Auburn Seminary
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action (Stosh Cotler, CEO)
Brady Campaign (Avery Gardiner, co-president)
Center for Reproductive Rights (Nancy Northup, president and CEO)
Demos (Chiraag Bains, director of legal strategies)
Everytown for Gun Safety (John Feinblatt, president)
Human Rights Campaign
Indivisible Project (Ezra Levin, co-executive director)
Lambda Legal
People for the American Way (Michael Keegan, president)
Democracy for America (Jim Dean, chair)
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Physicians for Reproductive Health (Willie Parker, board chair)
Washington Post, Winners and losers from Trump’s second search for a new justice, Amber Phillips, July 10, 2018. President Trump’s nomination process was not without controversy, and not everyone came out ahead. The big winner of President Trump’s second Supreme Court pick is Trump himself. He seized the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to remind the Republican Party why it needs him: He has the power to make the Supreme Court lean more reliably conservative for a generation.
Washington Post, With Brett Kavanaugh, Georgetown Prep can count two Supreme Court nominees among its alumni, Moriah Balingit, July 10, 2018. Kavanaugh graduated from the elite prep school in 1983, two years ahead of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
NBC News, How Kavanaugh ruled on gun control, health care, and other hot-button issues, Jessica Spitz, July 10, 2018. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh has written almost 300 opinions on a range of issues over his 12 years serving on the federal appellate court.
Corruption Allegations Against Kennedy, Kavanaugh
Wall Street On Parade, The Dark Money Behind Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Pam Martens and Russ Martens, July 10, 2018. There is something revoltingly un-American about a man who stands with his wife and two young daughters to accept the nomination for the highest court in America, talks about feeding the homeless and coaching girls’ basketball – all the while knowing that a lot of very dirty corporate money lurks in the shadows of his nomination.
We’re talking about the fact that Trump made his Supreme Court nominee selection of Brett Kavanaugh from a list that was pre-approved by the Federalist Society – a receptacle for the dark money that flows from the billionaire Charles Koch’s network of corporate polluters and democracy-killing front groups that got the Supreme Court to rubber stamp unlimited corporate money in political campaigns via the Citizens United decision in 2010.
According to the Desmog, using data compiled by the Conservative Transparency project, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund are two of the largest dark money groups contributing to the Federalist Society. Donors Trust has given $13,494,100 in total while Donors Capital Fund has given another $11,366,368. The two nonprofits share the same address: 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 280, Alexandria, Virginia. The actual contributors behind those large sums remain anonymous as a result of the structure of the groups.
The Federalist Society has received another $4 million in total from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and another Koch-related group, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. In an exclusive report in 2010 we found that Charles Koch’s fingerprints were all over Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. We reported the following:
“There are shades of Charles Koch all over Donors Capital and Donors Trust. Two grantees receiving repeat and sizeable grants from Donors Capital are favorites of the Koch foundations: George Mason University Foundation and Institute for Humane Studies. Another tie is Claire Kittle. A project of Donor’s Trust is Talent Market.org, a headhunter for staffing nonprofits with the ‘right’ people. Ms. Kittle serves as Talent Market’s Executive Director and was the former Program Officer for Leadership and Talent Development at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Then there is Whitney Ball, President of both Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust. Ms. Ball was one of the elite guests at the invitation-only secret Aspen bash thrown by Charles Koch in June of this year, as reported by ThinkProgress.org. Also on the guest list for the Koch bash was Stephen Moore, a member of the Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Moore is a Director at Donors Capital Fund. Rounding out the ties that bind is Lauren Vander Heyden, who serves as Client Services Coordinator at Donors Trust. Ms. Vander Heyden previously worked as grants coordinator and policy analyst at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
“Legal counsel for the Kochs has declined to respond to two emails with a week’s lead time seeking clarification of the relationship the Kochs have to Donors Capital and Donors Trust.”
Our investigation was initiated to root out who had funded the circulation of an anti-Muslim film called “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” Just seven weeks before the 2008 Presidential election between John McCain and Barack Obama, and as a whisper campaign emerged linking Obama to Muslims, 100 newspapers and magazines across the U.S. distributed DVDs of the race-baiting “documentary.” Between the newspapers and a separate direct mail campaign, 28 million DVDs flooded households in swing voter states. Donors Capital Fund paid $17,778,600 to the Clarion Fund to carry out the effort. The funds from Donors Capital Fund represented 96 percent of all funds the Clarion Fund received in 2008.
Palmer Report, Opinion: Exposed: secret corrupt retirement deal between Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump, Bill Palmer, July 10, 2018. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was secretly negotiating with Donald Trump about his replacement, even as he was casting major pro-Trump votes that were out of character with his own judicial record. This comes on top of earlier revelations that Kennedy’s son played a key role at Trump’s favorite Russian money laundering bank. We’re now looking at a full blown scandal that’s getting uglier by the hour.
NBC News is now backing off from its earlier implication that Anthony Kennedy (shown at right) only agreed to retire if Donald Trump specifically picked Brett Kavanaugh, and is now reporting that Kennedy provided Trump with five names that would be acceptable to him. Brett Kavanaugh was the only conservative name on the list, so Kennedy would have known that Trump could only pick Kavanaugh. These negotiations reportedly began months ago. This means that Kennedy was secretly negotiating his retirement with Trump while he was casting the swing vote on issues like Trump’s Muslim Ban.
While Kennedy has sided with conservatives on fiscal issues, he’s often sided with liberals on civil rights issues like gay marriage; his vote in favor of the Muslim Ban was out of character. If Kennedy had voted against Trump on the Muslim Ban, at a time when he was negotiating with Trump over his potential replacement, it likely would have prompted the vindictive Trump to break off those negotiations. Kennedy would have known this – meaning that his final votes can be seen as fully corrupt.
If anyone were tempted to give Anthony Kennedy the benefit of the doubt about the corrupt nature of this secret deal, that goes out the window within the context of the fairly straight line that can be drawn from Kennedy to his son to Donald Trump to Russian money laundering to the Trump-Russia election rigging conspiracy. Kennedy’s legacy is clearly ruined; the only question is whether he’ll end up facing criminal charges. Follow the money.
Fox News, NBC News reporter deletes tweet claiming Trump, Kennedy were in cahoots over Kavanaugh selection, Brian Flood, July 10, 2018. NBC News Capitol Hill reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell on Tuesday deleted a tweet that had triggered backlash, claiming President Trump and retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy were in cahoots to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat.
Caldwell initially tweeted, “On Kavanaugh pick… Kennedy and Trump/WH had been in negotiations for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh, his former law clerk, Kennedy felt comfortable retiring, according to a source who was told of the discussion.”
"I’ve deleted this tweet," Caldwell later tweeted, "because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy’s replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements."
Kavanaugh, 53, formerly clerked for Kennedy and was elevated to the powerful federal appeals court in the District of Columbia by former President George W. Bush, under whom he had also served as a White House lawyer and staff secretary. Trump officially nominated Kavanaugh to fill Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court on Monday night.
Politico, How a private meeting with Kennedy helped Trump get to ‘yes’ on Kavanaugh, Christopher Cadelago, Nancy Cook and Andrew Restuccia, July 9, 2018. While he was eager to keep the suspense alive, the president was always leaning toward Kennedy’s former clerk. After Justice Anthony Kennedy told President Donald Trump he would relinquish his seat on the Supreme Court, the president emerged from his private meeting with the retiring jurist focused on one candidate to name as his successor: Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Kennedy’s former law clerk.
Trump, according to confidants and aides close to the White House, has become increasingly convinced that “the judges,” as he puts it, or his administration’s remaking of the federal judiciary in its conservative image, is central to his legacy as president. And he credits Kennedy, who spent more than a decade at the center of power on the court, for helping give him the opportunity.
July 10
JFKFacts.org, Opinion: On JFK secrecy, Brett Kavanaugh sides with the CIA, Jefferson Morley (right), July 10, 2018. The D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Monday that the CIA does not have to pay my court costs incurred in the long-running FOIA lawsuit Morley v. CIA. The split decision was joined by Judge Brett Kavanaugh (below left), who was nominated by President Trump later that day to serve on the the Supreme Court.
About the information I obtained via litigation, the unsigned opinion said, “the public benefit was small.” The decision made no reference to extensive coverage of Morley v . CIA in the New York Times, Fox News, San Diego Union, St. Paul Pioneer Press, CBS News in Dallas, and the New Yorker, among many other news organizations.
The Times and the U.K. Daily Mail, even published a photo, obtained by the lawsuit, of CIA officer George Joannides (show at right below receiving a lifetime award from the CIA) receiving a medal after he stonewalled JFK investigators in 1978. In the majority view, public interest in Morley v CIA is not a measure of its public benefit.
A strong dissent by Judge Karen Henderson takes a much more balanced and independent view of the case, in my view. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Henderson points out that the court had previously found that I had met the standard of “public benefit” established in case law.
In a 2013 decision the court stated:
“Morley’s request had potential public value. He has proffered — and the CIA has not disputed — that Joannides served as the CIA case officer for a Cuban group, the DRE, with whose officers Oswald was in contact prior to the assassination. Travel records showing a very close match between Joannides’s and Oswald’s times in New Orleans might, for example, have (marginally) supported one of the hypotheses swirling around the assassination. In addition, this court has previously determined that Morley’s request sought information “central” to an intelligence committee’s inquiry into the performance of the CIA and other federal agencies in investigating the assassination. Under these circumstances, there was at least a modest probability that Morley’s request would generate information relevant to the assassination or later investigations.”
“In other words,” Henderson writes, “we held that Morley satisfied the public-benefit factor in this case,”
By ignoring this finding, Henderson argues, the majority opinion ultimately depends on the assertion that the CIA responded “reasonably” to my request. Yet, Henderson notes, the ruling also ignores the fact that the appellate court had ruled the agency’s initial response to my FOIA request was deficient on seven different legal points.
Henderson again:
“The majority discusses five in its opinion. It acknowledges that the CIA: (1) missed the 20-day statutory deadline to respond, Maj. Op. 7; (2) incorrectly referred Morley to NARA rather than responding to his FOIA request itself, Maj. Op. 7-11; (3) failed to search its operational files, Maj. Op. 11; (4) submitted an incomplete Glomar response, Maj. Op. 11-12; and (5) relied on an interpretation of Exemption 2 that was later overruled, Maj. Op. 12. It addresses these errors of law seriatim and labels them “incorrect legally,” Maj. Op. 9, but not “unreasonable.” To me, the CIA’s multiple flawed legal positions suggests that it was “recalcitrant” in declining to produce any documents before being sued. Davy IV, 550 F.3d at 1162. At the least, the errors collectively undermine the district court’s conclusion that the fourth factor “weighs heavily against Morley.” Morley X, 245 F. Supp. 3d at 78 (emphasis added).”
Henderson concludes:
“In sum, I believe the district court erred on two levels: it erred in evaluating each of the four factors individually and abused its discretion in weighing them against one another. Accordingly, this case does not call for “[d]eference piled on deference.” Maj. Op. 11. It calls for an adherence to Davy IV and our four earlier Morley opinions. Because I believe the district court ignored our mandate and misapplied our precedent, I would vacate the district court order a fifth time and remand with instructions to award Morley the attorney’s fees to which he is entitled.”
Unfortunately, the majority, meaning Kavanaugh and Trump appointee Judge Gregory Katsas, disagreed. I have 45 days to appeal.
July 9
Roll Call, Opinion: GOP Should Beware of Roe v. Wade Becoming the Fight, Patricia Murphy, July 9, 2018. Republicans could lose the war for female voters for a generation. Now that we know President Donald Trump has settled on Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his next choice for the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans are poised to deliver on a promise they have been making to conservatives for decades.
In Kavanaugh, the GOP has both its biggest opportunity to move the court to the right for a generation as well as its biggest danger — months of unscripted moments when abortion, reproductive rights and women will be at the center of a heated debate that Republicans have proved uniquely terrible at navigating over the years.
With a slim GOP majority in the Senate and nearly a dozen Democratic senators up for re-election in red states this fall, the chances are good that Kavanaugh will make it through his confirmation process fairly easily, even if it isn’t pretty.
But the chances are equally high that in the process of winning the confirmation battle, Republicans could also lose the war for female voters for a generation as the fight over the future of the court becomes a debate over Roe v. Wade, and whether women or the government should decide when, or even whether, a woman carries a pregnancy to term.
July 9
President Trump introduces Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his family on July 9 at the White House
Washington Post, Trump picks Judge Kavanaugh for Supreme Court, Robert Costa, Robert Barnes and Felicia Sonmez, July 9, 2018. Conservative stalwart has deep ties to the Republican establishment. Brett Kavanaugh, 53, served on the U.S. Court of Appeals and worked in George W. Bush’s White House before moving to the federal bench. Democrats are preparing for a prolonged confirmation showdown on Capitol Hill — determined to rally in defense Roe v. Wade and all areas of the law they fear could be ruptured by the court.
The Intercept, Chuck Schumer Warns Senate Democrats: Fight Brett Kavanaugh Or Pay the Price From the Base, Ryan Grim, July 9, 2018. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is warning Democrats in the chamber that if they don’t put up a brutal fight over the next Supreme Court justice, there will be hell to pay from the Democratic base, according to senior Senate aides briefed on Schumer’s message.
Democratic leadership’s response in the two weeks since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement has been in stark contrast to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s firm, across-the-board rejection of any Obama nominee sent up in 2016. McConnell, flexing the power of a majority leader, announced within an hour of the news of the February 2016 death of Antonin Scalia that under no circumstances would the Senate consider a nominee before the November election.
What that fierce opposition will look like, and how broad it will be, remains to be seen, as Schumer lacks the full authority over the Senate that McConnell wielded in 2016. But as a major political party just two seats shy of a majority, Democrats are not as powerless as they sometimes let on.
Washington Post, A more conservative high court could step, not lurch, to the right, Robert Barnes, July 9, 2018. President Trump’s nominee and fellow conservatives on the bench can achieve right-of-center goals without overturning rulings such as Roe v. Wade.
Washington Post, Kavanaugh has endorsed robust views of presidential powers, Ann E. Marimow, July 9, 2018. The record of the federal appeals court judge suggests he would be more to the right than retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
New York Times, Opinion: If the Supreme Court is Nakedly Political, Can It Be Just? Lee Epstein and Eric Posner, July 9, 2018. President Trump was always going to pick a conservative for the Supreme Court. The only question has been whether to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy with a “business conservative” or a “religious conservative.”
But we wonder whether a Supreme Court that has come to be rigidly divided by both ideology and party can sustain public confidence for much longer.
In the past 10 years, however, justices have hardly ever voted against the ideology of the president who appointed them. Only Justice Kennedy, named to the court by Ronald Reagan, did so with any regularity. That is why with his replacement on the court an ideologically committed Republican justice, it will become impossible to regard the court as anything but a partisan institution.
Ms. Epstein is a political scientist and law professor at Washington University. Mr. Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
July 7
SCOTUSblog, Potential nominee profile: Raymond Kethledge, Amy Howe, July 7, 2018. Like Thomas Hardiman, another potential nominee on the president’s shortlist, [U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals] Judge Raymond Kethledge (right) would bring educational diversity to a bench on which all of the current justices attended Ivy League law schools:
He received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Michigan. He has returned to the law school as a lecturer to teach classes on legal writing and advocacy. (While he is there, he could bump into another potential nominee on Trump’s shortlist, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen, who has also taught there.)
During a decade on the bench, Kethledge has compiled an extensive body of opinions but has not weighed in on several high-profile and potentially divisive issues, including abortion and affirmative action. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt has nonetheless dubbed Kethledge “Gorsuch 2.0,” “in the mold of Antonin Scalia.”
July 4
New York Times, A Rift on the Right, Shown by Two Potential Court Picks, Adam Liptak (shown at right), July 4, 2018 (print edition). The fight over who should replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court is far from over, and there are still a half-dozen plausible candidates in the mix.
But the stark contrast between two of the leading contenders — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and Judge Amy Coney Barrett — reflects the division on the right between the conservative legal establishment, which is hostile to government regulation and the administrative state, and social conservatives, who are focused on issues like abortion and religious freedom.
Other candidates, notably Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Amul R. Thapar, both of the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, have had cordial meetings with President Trump, and a White House spokesman said Mr. Trump interviewed three more possible choices on Tuesday. See also "Facebook Ads Offer Peek at Looming Supreme Court Fight."
SCOTUSblog, Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett, Amy Howe, July 4, 2018. In November 2017, President Donald Trump released a revised list of potential Supreme Court nominees. The November 2017 list was an expanded version of two earlier lists, announced during the 2016 presidential campaign, from which then-candidate Trump pledged, if elected, to pick a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on February 13, 2016. First on the new list – because it was in alphabetical order – was Amy Coney Barrett (right), a Notre Dame law professor (and former Scalia clerk) who had recently been confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. She is shown in a Notre Dame photo.
Barrett’s confirmation hearings had received considerable attention after Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee – most notably, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California – grilled her on the role of her Catholic faith in judging. Feinstein’s criticism did not stop Barrett from being confirmed, and since then there has been speculation that it may have in fact strengthened her case to fill the seat that will be vacated by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The 46-year-old Barrett grew up in Metrairie, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans, and attended St. Mary’s Dominican High School, a Catholic girls’ school in New Orleans. Barrett graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes College, a liberal arts college in Tennessee affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, in 1994. (Other high-profile alumni of the school include Abe Fortas, who served as a justice on the Supreme Court from 1965 to 1969 and Claudia Kennedy, the first woman to become a three-star general in the U.S. Army.) ....
Barrett then held two high-profile conservative clerkships, first with Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, from 1997-1998 then with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, from 1998-1999. After leaving her Supreme Court clerkship, she spent a year practicing law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, a prestigious Washington D.C. litigation boutique that also claims former U.S. solicitor general Seth Waxman, former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, and two regular contributors to this blog – John Elwood and editor Edith Roberts – as alums.
Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit by a vote of 55 to 43. Three Democratic senators – her home state senator, Joe Donnelly, Virginia’s Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia – crossed party lines to vote for her, while two Democratic senators (Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Robert Menendez of New Jersey) did not vote.
Because Barrett has spent just eight months on the 7th Circuit, she has compiled a relatively small body of opinions, most of them fairly uncontroversial.
One case that would almost certainly draw attention if she were nominated came shortly after she took the bench: EEOC v. AutoZone, in which the federal government asked the full court of appeals to reconsider a ruling against the EEOC in its lawsuit against AutoZone, an auto parts store. The EEOC had argued that the store violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employees from segregating or classifying employees based on race, when it used race as a determining factor in assigning employees to different stores – for example, sending African-American employees to stores in heavily African-American neighborhoods. A three-judge panel (that did not include Barrett) ruled for AutoZone; Barrett joined four of her colleagues in voting to deny rehearing by the full court of appeals.
July 3
Washington Post, There’s no conspiracy between Trump and Kennedy. There’s just the swamp, David Litt, July 3, 2018. A surprising number of progressives are dusting off Glenn Beck-style chalkboards, connecting the dots in a web with Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s son in the center. But the search for a shadowy conspiracy surrounding the Kennedy and Trump families obscures a far greater scandal taking place right in front of us: the dangerous concentration of wealth and political power in the United States.
The theory, for the record, goes something like this: Justin Kennedy worked at Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank was the only Wall Street firm willing to lend money to Donald Trump. In 2017, Deutsche Bank was fined $630 million for its involvement in a Russian money-laundering scheme. After his first address to Congress, President Trump told Kennedy, “Say hello to your boy,” to which the justice replied, “Your kids have been very nice to him.” Now, the court’s swing justice is retiring, giving President Trump the chance to cement a far-right court for a generation.
The implication is that Kennedy was coerced, via bribery, blackmail or something similarly sinister, into giving up his seat before the election. But the line between cause and effect remains hazy. In a tweet that accumulated more than 35,000 likes, @ProudResister summed it up as follows: “THAT’S WAY TOO MANY ‘COINCIDENCES.’ ”
There are, it must be said, a few problems with this all-caps logic. First, coincidence does not equal conspiracy. Democrats and progressives have long stood for science, facts and rational argument. Abandoning a commitment to the truth isn’t beating Trump at his own game; it’s surrendering the field. Second, you don’t need a tortured rationale to explain Kennedy’s actions. He’s a conservative. At 82 years old, he’s ready to retire, and he’d rather be replaced by another Neil M. Gorsuch than another Sonia Sotomayor.
But there’s a third and far more important reason to look past the convoluted speculation around Kennedy and his son Justin. It distracts us from a relationship that is legal but outrageous, nonetheless.
The existence of a personal connection between a conservative Supreme Court justice and a real estate billionaire turned president seems to shock some political observers. It shouldn’t. Of course the Trumps and Kennedys know each other: Both families belong to the most exclusive circle of America’s elite. This upper-upper crust has members from across the country, but it functions as a kind of a gated community, one in which personal and professional relationships inevitably intertwine. America’s super-elite sends its kids to the same schools. They bump into each other at Davos or Aspen or the Alfalfa Club in Washington. They socialize. They do business. They donate. They raise money. They take one another’s calls.
New York Times, Why Court Pick May Affect Gay Marriage as Well as Abortion, Liam Stack and Elizabeth Dias, July 3, 2018. In the week since Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his retirement, the future of Roe v. Wade has dominated the conversation among both liberals and conservatives, becoming a flash point in the partisan battle over President Trump’s pick to fill the seat.
The effect Justice Kennedy’s retirement could have on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights has received less attention. The prospect of a more conservative justice, though, has L.G.B.T. rights groups worried about legal challenges from conservative groups that oppose gay marriage, who may see an opportunity to challenge rulings that have established its legality.
L.G.B.T. groups have made great advances in recent years thanks largely to a string of Supreme Court decisions written by Justice Kennedy, including cases that legalized gay sex and established a right to same-sex marriage.
Washington Post, Leading contender to be Trump’s Supreme Court pick faces scrutiny from social conservatives, Robert Costa and Josh Dawsey, July 3, 2018. An intensifying debate over Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a front-runner in President Trump’s search for a Supreme Court nominee, gripped Republicans on Tuesday, with conservative critics highlighting past rulings and his links to GOP leaders while his allies — including inside the White House — forcefully defended him.
The sparring over Kavanaugh, one of four federal appeals court judges who met with the president Monday, underscored the challenges facing Trump as he aims to pick a successor to retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy by his own July 9 deadline. Even as Trump mulls a shortlist that has been carefully cultivated by influential Republican lawyers, frictions in the conservative legal community and on Capitol Hill threaten to disrupt the search process.
The political moment for Trump remained fragile as a president devoted to his base weighed what a Kavanaugh selection could mean for him, unfolding amid a flurry of op-eds and phone calls praising the 53-year-old judge as well as a clamor from those who see him as out of step on health care and abortion, or too tied to George W. Bush’s White House.
July 2
Salon, Donald Trump, Anthony Kennedy and the “boy” at Deutsche Bank: Not just about the money, Jesse Kornbluth, July 2, 2018. There’s a tangled web linking the Trump and Kennedy families. But financial corruption isn’t the whole story.
As a way of looking at a presidency that is enamored of every possible felony -- self-dealing, conflicts of interest, emoluments, collusion with foreign governments and domestic corporations -- crime-breeds-crime is a reasonable way to look at any Trump-related event.
But the resignation of a Supreme Court justice? Because Trump cares so much about money, that’s been suggested. And there’s smoke: the links between Trump, Kennedy and Kennedy’s son Justin. In years past we’d call that the League of White Men, taking care of their own, behind the scenes, The Way It Is. Today we tend to call it something else: collusion.
Here’s why. On the surface, Kennedy’s resignation looked textbook: He’ll leave effective July 31, at the end of the Supreme Court term, as is traditional. But he announced it on June 27. Hand-delivering his letter to the Oval Office was no surprise to the White House, which had a list of candidates ready to roll out. Trump says he’ll announce his nominee on July 9.
If Kennedy had waited a few weeks, some analysts believe Trump couldn’t have gotten his successor approved before the midterm elections. If the Democrats did well in November, it’s at least conceivable they could have blocked any conservative nominee. Approving a nominee before November means our likely future has the court killing Roe v. Wade, giving more power to corporations, turning the poor and minorities into serfs, exiling or detaining Others the president might choose to torture. That’s huge. But let’s consider the bottom line: For Donald Trump, the only real issue of interest is . . . himself. If a 4-4 Court had to rule on a difficult question -- Does the president have the power to pardon himself? -- it might not go well for Trump.
What started the speculation about dirty money connecting Trump, Kennedy and his son is the revelation that Kennedy and Trump have had a longstanding relationship through their children and their children’s success. We knew about Trump’s dealings with Deutsche Bank, the only bank willing to do business with him. (It’s also, perhaps not coincidentally, the bank that seems to have the longest illegal relationship with laundered Russian money. In January 2017, it was fined $425 million by New York regulators to settle allegations that it helped Russian investors launder as much as $10 billion through its branches in Moscow, New York and London.) But we’re just finding out about the Trump relationship with Justin Kennedy, the justice’s son, who worked at Deutsche Bank for a decade.
President Trump in 2017 with Supreme Court Associate Justice William Kennedy, who swore onto the court his former clerk Neil Gorsuch, center
PoliticusUSA.com, Bush Ethics Lawyer Richard Painter Calls For Investigation If Kennedy Was Paid To Resign, Leo Vidal, July 2, 2018. Richard Painter, the 
former White House Ethics Attorney for President George W. Bush, has come up with a way to delay hearings for a new Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
According to Painter (shown in a file photo), there should be no hearings on a replacement for Kennedy until there is a full and complete investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kennedy’s resignation.
In other words, if Kennedy was paid or bought off in some way by Trump or his family, then the American people need to know about it. After Kennedy’s unexpected retirement announcement several stories appeared in the media claiming financial ties between Kennedy and his two sons and Trump and his family. Some people speculated that Kennedy was bought off in some way due to these extensive and longstanding financial connections.
Late last week Painter tweeted his novel theory for why Senate hearings for Kennedy’s replacement should be delayed:
“The circumstances of Justice Kennedy’s resignation must be investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee before any replacement is considered. The Constitution does not give Trump the power to use underhanded means to induce Supreme Court resignations.”
As Painter points out it would be both unethical and unconstitutional for a president to “induce Supreme Court resignations” by using financial remuneration of some kind.
Soon after Painter’s tweet there was a response from a group he called “the right wing Power Blog” attacking him for his suggestion:
“The right wing Power Line Blog blows a fuse over this, but Sen. Jud. Comm. must investigate the circumstances of the Kennedy resignation before confirmation hearings for ANY new justice. @GovArne agrees."
Painter is a lifelong Republican who is now running for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota — as a Democrat. He is the subject of an in-depth article today at Salon.com which discusses in detail the transition he has gone through from being in Bush’s White House to being one of Donald Trump’s fiercest critics.
In the article Painter asks the same questions as millions of other Americans:
“Trump admires dictators and authoritarians. His loyalty to Vladimir Putin is clear and he now has a bromance with Kim Jong-un. This is a truly dire situation, but the American people still seem asleep to what is really happening. Where is the outrage? How is Trump able to get away with this?”
Then he adds: “Donald Trump’s conduct is very dangerous for the United States.”
SCOTUSblog, Anthony Kennedy and free speech, Erwin Chemerinsky, July 2, 2018. Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
Justice Anthony Kennedy will be remembered as a staunch advocate of freedom of speech, but his actual record is more complicated than that. Kennedy wrote the majority opinions, or joined them, in some of the most important cases protecting free speech in the last 30 years.
Yet, he also wrote, or was part of, decisions limiting the free speech rights of government employees, students and prisoners. Perhaps the easiest way to summarize Kennedy’s free speech jurisprudence is that he generally was on the side of freedom of expression except when the institutional interests of the government were involved.
Kennedy’s most important free speech opinion was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court held in 2010 that corporations have the right to spend unlimited sums in independent expenditures from corporate treasuries to have candidates elected or defeated. The court overruled a precedent from seven years earlier, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. Kennedy believed that spending money in elections is speech protected by the First Amendment and consistently voted to strike down campaign-finance laws, such as in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014); Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011); and Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008).
New York Times, Trump Talks to 4 Candidates as Staff Focuses on Court Pick, Michael D. Shear, July 2, 2018. President Trump said he spoke with four candidates to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is retiring (and shown at right), as the White House raced to meet the president’s deadline to announce a Supreme Court nominee in one week.
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump said he likely would meet with two or three other candidates before making his decision. The president has said he plans to announce his choice next Monday, kicking off a sprint to get the nominee confirmed by the fall.
“I had a very, very interesting morning,” Mr. Trump said as he met with Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands. White House officials declined to say which potential judicial nominees Mr. Trump talked with Monday morning, but the short list of candidates is believed to include six federal appeals court judges: Thomas M. Hardiman, William H. Pryor Jr., Amul R. Thapar, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Joan L. Larsen and Amy Coney Barrett.
SCOTUS for law students, Supreme Court mysteries and the justices’ papers, Stephen Wermiel, July 2, 2018. In the month of June, when the Supreme Court issues dozens of decisions to conclude its term, who would not want to be a fly on the wall inside the conference of the justices trying to understand what compromises were made or why cases came out as they did?
Rarely has this been more true than this past month, in which a seemingly large number of the court’s most closely watched cases produced decisions that decided much less than was anticipated by court-watchers and litigants.
What is one to do to satisfy curiosity about why, for example, the court yet again declined to confront questions about the constitutionality of political gerrymandering of legislative districts?
The short answer is wait. Wait for what, you ask? Often, the answers to nagging mysteries about what happened inside the court and why can only be answered by historians who some time in the future get to pore over the papers of justices who have long since retired or died.
How does this process work and what might one learn from the papers of the justices?
The first thing to know is that there is no uniformity of any kind among the justices and their files and records. Justices are free to save or destroy whatever records they choose, to donate them wherever they want, to make them available whenever they want and to include whatever content they like.
This thoroughly unregulated field is in marked contrast to the papers of presidents, which are governed by federal law. Under presidential records statutes, every piece of paper must be saved and preserved. The Supreme Court, however, has no such statute, and so it is up to each justice to decide what to do with his or her files.
What has this meant in recent decades? Justices have spread their papers around the country. The largest single repository of justices’ papers is the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, housed in the Madison Building in Washington, D.C. There, one can find the papers, among others, of Chief Justices Earl Warren, Fred Vinson, Harlan F. Stone and William Howard Taft, and Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg and many more.
Steve Wermiel is a Fellow in Law & Government at American University Washington College of Law, where he teaches constitutional law and a seminar on the Supreme Court and directs a Summer Institute on Law & Government for lawyers and law students. He is the co-author of “Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion,” published in 2010. He was the Wall Street Journal Supreme Court correspondent from 1979 to 1991 and has been teaching law since 1991.
SCOTUSBlog, Potential nominee profile: Judge Thomas Hardiman, a close second to Gorsuch and a shortlister again, Amy Howe, July 2, 2018. When President Donald Trump was searching for a nominee in 2017 to fill the vacancy created by the 2016 death of Antonin Scalia, he reportedly narrowed the field to two candidates: then-Judge Neil Gorsuch, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and Judge Thomas Hardiman (right) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
On January 31, 2017, Trump nominated Gorsuch, and the rest is history. But with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s announcement last week that he would step down from the Supreme Court bench, Hardiman’s name has resurfaced as a potential nominee. The 52-year-old Hardiman (who will turn 53 on July 8, the day before Trump is expected to announce his new nominee) has a solidly conservative background and a champion in the president’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, who served with Hardiman on the 3rd Circuit and has been described as “high on Hardiman.”
In some ways, Hardiman has more in common with Justice Sonia Sotomayor than with Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he would replace: The Massachusetts-born Hardiman became the first person in his family to go to college when he went to the University of Notre Dame, and he financed his law degree at the Georgetown University Law Center by driving a taxi. (If nominated and confirmed, Hardiman would also bring educational diversity to a court on which all of the other justices attended Ivy League law schools.)
After his law school graduation, Hardiman worked for two years in the Washington office of Skadden Arps before moving to Pittsburgh, where he practiced law until 2003. At the age of 37, Hardiman became a federal district judge; he was unanimously confirmed to the 3rd Circuit in 2007, at the age of 41. Taking the bench at a young age is yet another similarity with Sotomayor, who also became a district judge at the age of 37 and who took her seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit at the age of 44. But the comparisons with Sotomayor largely end there. Hardiman is a solid, although hardly knee-jerk, conservative who was active in Republican politics before joining the federal bench, and his jurisprudence as a Supreme Court justice likely would be closer to another justice who hails from the 3rd Circuit: Justice Samuel Alito.
July 1
Washington Post, ‘We have to pick a great one’: Inside Trump’s plan for a new Supreme Court justice, Philip Rucker and Seung Min Kim, July 1, 2018 (print edition). The president, following a methodical course in hopes of avoiding the lurching disorder that so often engulfs his White House, is moving quickly in hopes of replicating last year’s chaos-free pick of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.
June
June 30
- Union Rights: Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, decided 5-4 on June 27, 2018. *
- Wedding Cake For Gay Couple: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, decided 7-2 on June 4, 2018.
New York Times, How Free Speech Is Being Used as a Weapon by Conservatives, Adam Liptak, June 30, 2018. Borrowing arguments that were once the province of liberals, conservatives have used the First Amendment to justify things like campaign spending and attacks on regulating tobacco and guns. As a result, many on the left have traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms it can inflict.
On the final day of the Supreme Court term last week, Justice Elena Kagan sounded an alarm.
The court’s five conservative members, citing the First Amendment, had just dealt public unions a devastating blow. The day before, the same majority had used the First Amendment to reject a California law requiring religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide women with information about abortion.
Conservatives, said Justice Kagan, who is part of the court’s four-member liberal wing, were “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
The two decisions were the latest in a stunning run of victories for a conservative agenda that has increasingly been built on the foundation of free speech. Conservative groups, borrowing and building on arguments developed by liberals, have used the First Amendment to justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples and attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns.
June 29
SCOTUSblog, Analysis: Justice Kennedy: A justice who changed his mind, Daniel Hemel, June 29, 2018. Daniel Hemel is an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the online-sales-tax case South Dakota v. Wayfair was his final — and most significant — decision involving the dormant commerce clause doctrine, which prohibits state and local governments from passing laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce unless Congress consents.
Wayfair, in which the majority overturned decades-old precedents that had prohibited states from collecting sales taxes on their residents’ transactions with out-of-state online and mail-order retailers, was a rare dormant commerce clause case in which Kennedy cast a decisive vote on the states’ side.
Washington Post, Supreme Court prospect has said presidents should not be distracted by legal inquiries, Michael Kranish and Ann E. Marimow, June 29, 2018. Brett M. Kavanaugh worked on the independent counsel’s team that investigated Bill Clinton, and his views could be a focus of his confirmation hearing if President Trump nominates him to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
U.S. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who is viewed as one of the leading contenders to replace him, has argued that presidents should not be distracted by civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from a prosecutor or defense attorney while in office.
Kavanaugh had direct personal experience that informed his 2009 article for the Minnesota Law Review: He helped investigate President Bill Clinton as part of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s team and then served for five years as a close aide to President George W. Bush.
Having observed the weighty issues that can consume a president, Kavanaugh wrote, the nation’s chief executive should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”
New York Times, Washington Girds for Battle Over Kennedy’s Replacement, Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan, June 29, 2018 (print edition). A political war over replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy roared to life on Thursday in Washington, the start of an election-season clash over a Supreme Court retirement that will reshape the country’s judicial future.
Hours after Justice Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will step down July 31, conservative organizations were mobilizing to support the Republican-controlled Senate in a quick confirmation of a justice who would be expected to vote against the court’s liberal precedents. One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.
Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations face enormous challenges if they hope to prevent President Trump and the Republicans from installing a conservative justice who would shift the ideological balance of the court for generations. Mr. Trump has promised to pick from a list of highly conservative jurists, and Republicans control the Senate, which can confirm the president’s choice by a simple majority.
New York Times, Inside the White House’s Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening, Adam Liptak (shown at right) and Maggie Haberman, June 29, 2018 (print edition). President Trump singled him out for praise even while attacking other members of the Supreme Court. The White House nominated people close to him to important judicial posts. And members of the Trump family forged personal connections.
Their goal was to assure Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court’s term that ended this week, as he was rumored to be considering. Allies of the White House were more blunt, warning the 81-year-old justice that time was of the essence. There was no telling, they said, what would happen if Democrats gained control of the Senate after the November elections and had the power to block the president’s choice as his successor.
There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation on Wednesday, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. “In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,” said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that Mr. Trump had a second opportunity in his administration’s first 18 months to fulfill one of his most important campaign promises to his conservative followers — that he would change the complexion and direction of the Supreme Court.
Washington Post, Roberts gets another key role on Supreme Court: Swing vote, Robert Barnes, June 29, 2018 (print edition). Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been content to move the Supreme Court to the right with small steps. But now, with more conservative colleagues on one side and liberals on the other, he can supply the deciding fifth vote and dictate the terms of the deal.
With Roberts as the median justice, one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in history will almost surely move further to the right. And if the chief justice’s past is prologue, that could mean more restrictions on abortion rights, affirmative action contained or ended, gay rights more closely scrutinized, and states freer to alter voting laws and redistricting without judicial oversight.
Washington Post, ‘Everyone is focused on Lisa and Susan’: Two senators stand out in fight to replace Kennedy, Seung Min Kim, June 29, 2018 (print edition). The Democrats’ hopes for defeating the president’s next Supreme Court pick will probably rest on GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine (shown at left) and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Washington Post, Opinion: Trump lucks out at the best possible time, Michael Gerson, June 29, 2018 (print edition). For Trump, the retirement of Anthony M. Kennedy (shown at right) could not be better timed. Replacing the Supreme Court’s most prominent swing vote combines every culture war battle into a single, all-consuming conflagration. And when hatred is at its height, and civility and comity completely break down, and Americans are at each other’s throats, Trump is in his element.
The result of a Roberts-dominated court, over time, would probably be the weakening of Roe’s pro-choice absolutism. This would allow states more latitude to make incremental restrictions. But before Roe, many states were already moving in a pro-choice direction. And the availability of abortion has become a deeply entrenched social expectation. A democratically determined outcome in most places would probably involve very few restrictions on early abortions, when a fetus is nearer to being a blastocyst, and greater restrictions on late-term abortions, when a fetus is nearer to being a newborn.
If, for example, Trump is wise enough to nominate federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he will do more than rally his base. Nearly every veteran of the George W. Bush administration will lend their enthusiastic support. Unless Trump blows this nomination with a foolish, impulsive pick (not impossible), he will enter the midterms with a cause that excites his base and unites his party.
MSNBC, Justin Kennedy and Deutsche Bank Trump Loans, Part I and Part II, Stephanie Ruhle (shown at right in a file photo), June 29, 2018. "I worked I worked with Justin Kennedy," Ruhle wrote on Twitter. "I read the stories -- reached out to some former colleagues for their reaction. Here’s some broader context/perspective -- Neither of which fit in 240 characters."
June 28
SCOTUSblog, Analysis: Justice Kennedy: The linchpin of the transformation of civil rights for the LGBTQ community, Paul Smith, June 28, 2018. Paul Smith is the vice president of Litigation and Strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. He successfully argued in Lawrence v. Texas for the Supreme Court to overrule "Bowers v. Hardwick."
The jurisprudence that Justice Anthony Kennedy developed over three decades on the Supreme Court is nigh-impossible to pigeonhole ideologically. But one thing is crystal clear. He was personally and deeply committed to the proposition that gay and lesbian Americans deserve full equality.
He was the author of the four most important decisions of the Supreme Court moving the country in that direction — Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), and of course Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which mandated that all states provide full access to marriage for same-sex couples.
In the first two of those cases, he found an ally in Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and the court struck down state laws that discriminated against gay people by a margin of 6-3. With O’Connor’s departure, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Windsor and Obergefell. Without Kennedy on the court in recent years, we would still be living in a country in which many states refused to grant marriage rights to gay couples.
Washington Post, Kennedy’s decisions may not last. It might be his own fault, Jonathan Turley (right), June 28, 2018. For 30 years, one voice has rallied Supreme Court justices on the left and the right : that of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Liberals rejoiced in his decisions barring the execution of minors, recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, defending free speech and protecting legal abortions. Conservatives revered iconic decisions like Citizens United (protecting the rights of corporate speech) and Gonzales v. Carhart (upholding a federal law that criminalizes partial-birth abortions).
Kennedy’s jurisprudence reflected a unique mix of libertarian and natural-rights elements. To him, the Constitution may not have been the “living” document embraced by his liberal colleagues, but it evolved in its application to new forms of expression and association. That evolution often meant discarding prior doctrines and the time-honored judicial norm of stare decisis — the notion that courts should “stand by things decided.” Absent significant changes in the underlying law or conditions, courts avoid overturning precedent in the interests of institutional consistency and integrity. Kennedy’s cases should rest comfortably within that cocoon of tradition. Indeed, at one time, Kennedy insisted that “the whole object of the judiciary is to ensure stability, continuity, and so we pride ourselves on the fact that there is little change.”
But contained in his long tenure, and in many of his most historic cases, is an occasional disdain for precedent; his most important rulings were built on the ashes of prior decisions. In Lawrence v. Texas, for example, Kennedy tossed out the nearly two-decade-old ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, citing changes in legal and social views. “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today,” he wrote. “It ought not to remain binding precedent.”
In June, he advanced his attack on stare decisis even further, authoring a 5-to-4 decision that cavalierly dispensed with a major 1992 tax precedent. Then he signed onto a majority opinion this past week overturning an important 1977 case about union dues.
Washington Post, Those 5-to-4 decisions on the Supreme Court? 9 to 0 is far more common, Sarah Turberville and Anthony Marcum, June 28, 2018. Splits get all the attention, but consensus is the rule, and that's how it should be.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s announcement Wednesday that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court led to justifiable hand-wringing about his crucial role as the swing vote in 5-to-4 decisions. But while 5-to-4 decisions — including the Tuesday blockbuster upholding President Trump’s travel ban — draw deserved attention, they obscure an important truth: The court values consensus, and justices agree far more often than they disagree.
The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases.
And the court’s commitment to consensus does not appear to be slowing. In the 2016-17 term, 57 percent of decisions were unanimous, and judgments with slim majorities (5 to 3 or 5 to 4) accounted for 14 percent. This term shows a similar trend. Surprisingly firm majorities issued some of the most anticipated decisions.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop — the case concerning a baker’s refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple — the court issued a rather narrow ruling on the substance, but it drew seven of the nine justices’ votes. In Gill v. Whitford, the court unanimously agreed that a group of Wisconsin voters did not have standing to challenge their state’s legislative map, and seven justices concurred that the voters could take their case back to district court and try again.
C-SPAN, Supreme Court Term Review: American Constitution Society, June 28, 2018 (100:21 mins). The American Constitution Society hosted a panel of legal experts to review the Supreme Court decisions of the 2017 term. The panelists also talked about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the president’s future nominee and what it will do to the balance of the bench.
People in this video:
Caroline Fredrickson President, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
Thomas C. Goldstein Co-Founder and Publisher SCOTUSblog
Richard L. Hasen Professor, University of California, Irvine->School of Law
Lenese Herbert Professor Howard University School of Law
Ria Mar Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union->LGBT and HIV Project
Benjamin Sachs Assistant General Counsel (Former), Service Employees International Union
Ilya Shapiro Senior Fellow, Cato Institute Constitutional Studies
Shoba S. Wadhia Professor, Pennsylvania State University School of Law (University Park, PA)
SCOTUSblog, Potential nominee profile: Brett Kavanaugh, Edith Roberts, June 28, 2018. When then-candidate Donald Trump released his first two lists of potential Supreme Court nominees in May and September of 2016, the omission of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit drew comment. Kavanaugh had served for 10 years on a bench known as a springboard to the Supreme Court. With his impeccable academic credentials and sterling reputation in conservative political and legal circles, he seemed like an obvious choice. And his name was eventually added to the roster of possible nominees, on November 17, 2017.
No one else on the president’s current list can rival Kavanaugh for Washington credentials. He was even born in Washington, where his mother was a public-school teacher, on February 12, 1965. After graduating from Yale College in 1987 and Yale Law School in 1990, Kavanaugh spent two years as a law clerk, for Judge Walter Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He followed a one-year fellowship in the office of U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr with a clerkship for Justice Anthony Kennedy during October Term 1993.
Kavanaugh went on to join Starr at the Office of the Independent Counsel, where Kavanaugh led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster, an aide to President Bill Clinton, and helped write the 1998 Starr Report to Congress, which outlined 11 grounds for Clinton’s impeachment. Kavanaugh was later a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, where he specialized in appellate law. He moved to the White House after President George W. Bush was elected and worked in the West Wing for five years, first as a counsel to the president and then as staff secretary to the president.Bush first nominated Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit on July 25, 2003, but the nomination was stalled in the Senate for nearly three years, with Democratic senators charging that Kavanaugh’s government track record revealed him to be overly partisan.
During Kavanaugh’s second confirmation hearing, in May 2006, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) observed, “From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to the President’s secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles including the Victims Compensation Fund, to ideological judicial nomination fights, if there has been a partisan political fight that needed a very bright legal foot soldier in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there.” Despite similar objections from other Democratic senators, Kavanaugh was eventually confirmed by the Senate on May 26, 2006, by a vote of 57-36.
June 27
- Immigration: Trump v. Hawaii, decided 5-4 * on June 26, 2018.
Washington Post, Travel-ban ruling could embolden Trump on immigration, David Nakamura, June 27, 2018 (print edition). The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding President Trump's authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries could spur Trump to increase efforts to transform his campaign-trail warnings of the threats posed by foreigners who attempt to enter the U.S. into official policy.
Washington Post, Many religious liberty groups silent on decision, Michelle Boorstein, June 27, 2018 (print edition). Many prominent legal and advocacy groups focused on religious liberty put out no statements about the travel-ban ruling, despite the arguments raised in the case about religious discrimination.
President Trump announces nomination of U.S. Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in January 2017 as the latter's wife Louise looks on
- Wedding Cake for Gay Couple: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, decided 7-2 on June 4, 2018.
New York Times, G.O.P. Blockade of Obama Nominee Pays Off in Rulings, Elizabeth Dias and Sydney Ember, June 27, 2018 (print edition). The consequences of President Trump’s nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court — and the Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland (shown at left below) in 2016 for that seat — became powerfully clear on Tuesday after the court’s conservative majority handed down major decisions to uphold Mr. Trump’s travel ban and in favor of abortion rights opponents.
Social conservatives cheered the court’s ruling that a California law requiring “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide abortion information likely violates the First Amendment. Some conservatives also viewed the ruling — their latest win to advance their anti-abortion cause since Mr. Trump has taken office — as another opportunity to energize their base ahead of the November elections.
Gorsuch had long espoused right-wing views, as indicated in a yearbook page in which he cited former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's flip praise for "unconstitutional" actions.
The travel ban decision drew more conflicting reactions from conservative voters and religious groups, with some criticizing it as anti-immigrant. Several groups supporting immigrants deemed the travel ban decision “shameful” and “hateful.” And many Democratic leaders denounced both rulings.
What many partisans on both sides agreed on, though, was that Justice Gorsuch — who voted with the 5-to-4 majorities in both cases — was an especially key figure in Tuesday’s decisions, because he wouldn’t have been on the court if Mr. Obama had been successful with the original nomination of Judge Garland.
- Union Rights: Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, decided 5-4 on June 27, 2018. *
New York Times, Analysis: Unions May Become Smaller and Poorer, but Not Weaker, Noam Scheiber, June 27, 2018. The ruling could cost public-sector unions more than a million members. But the ones who stay could make labor more powerful. With the Supreme Court striking down laws that require government workers to pay union fees, one thing is clear: Most public-sector unions in more than 20 states with such laws are going to get smaller and poorer in the coming years.
Though it is difficult to predict with precision, experts and union officials say they could lose 10 percent to one-third of their members, or more, in the states affected, as conservative groups seek to persuade workers to drop out.
The court’s decision is the latest evidence that moves to weaken unions are exacting a major toll. Beyond the dropout campaigns aimed at members, conservatives have also backed state legislation making it harder for unions to operate — like requiring authorization to deduct part or all of workers’ dues from their paychecks — and are bringing lawsuits to retroactively recover fees collected by unions from nonmembers.
In the five years after Michigan passed a law ending mandatory union fees in 2012, the number of active members of the Michigan Education Association dropped by about 25 percent, according to government filings, a much faster attrition rate than before. Its annual receipts fell by more than 10 percent, adjusting for inflation.
Still, the more interesting question is whether the unions, whatever the blow to their ranks and finances, will be substantially weaker.
- Water Rights: Florida v. Georgia, decided 5-4 on June 27, 2018.
USA Today, Supreme Court sides with Florida in decades-long dispute with Georgia over water rights, Ledyard King, June 27, 2018. The Supreme Court Wednesday handed Florida an unlikely victory in its decades-long fight with Georgia over water rights, ruling a court-appointed special master was "too strict" in determining that no remedy in the court's power would boost water flow into the Apalachicola River and help the region's beleaguered oyster industry.
The 5-4 decision remands the case, known officially as Florida v. Georgia, back to Special Master Ralph Lancaster Jr., who sided with Georgia in a decision issued last year that Florida later appealed to the nation's highest court.
Lancaster found that Florida had suffered harm from the decreased water flow in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin but had not proven that limiting the amount of water Georgia consumed would provide the relief it sought. That was largely because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency in charge of federal water projects, is not a party to the lawsuit.
But the justices Wednesday said Florida made a "sufficient showing" to both the special master and the high court itself that capping consumption by Georgia would provide a direct benefit to Apalachicola Bay.
June 25
- Gerrymandering; Abbott v. Perez decided 5-4 on June 25, 2018 * and Gill v. Whitford, decided 7-2 on June 18, 2018 (two justices dissenting in part).
Washington Post, Supreme Court largely upholds maps in Texas case on racial gerrymandering, Robert Barnes, June 25, 2018. A lower court ruled last summer that the Texas congressional and legislative districts discriminated against black and Hispanic voters. But justices said the panel was wrong in how it considered the challenges.
The Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld Texas congressional and legislative maps that a lower court said discriminated against black and Hispanic voters. The lower court was wrong in how it considered the challenges, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. [right, part of the court's Republican-nominated 5-4 majority] wrote in the 5 to 4 decision. The majority sided with the challengers over one legislative district.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was longer than Alito’s majority decision. She said the decision “does great damage to the right of equal opportunity. Not because it denies the existence of that right, but because it refuses its enforcement.”
Alito was joined in the outcome by the court’s most consistent conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
Washington Post, Supreme Court sends case on North Carolina gerrymandering back to lower court, Robert Barnes, June 25, 2018. The case centered on whether Republicans drew the state’s congressional districts to give the party an unfair advantage. Justices said a lower court must decide whether the plaintiffs had the proper legal standing to bring the case.
North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature has implemented a map under which Republicans hold 10 of the 13 congressional seats. The GOP’s domination of the congressional delegation belies North Carolina’s recent history as a battleground state. It has a Democratic governor and attorney general, who have declined to defend the maps.
Washington Post, Opinion: Rigged Supreme Court upholds rigged electoral maps, Paul Waldman, June 25, 2018. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court just delivered another victory to the broad and deep GOP effort to make sure that American elections are rigged in conservatives’ favor.
SCOTUSblog, Analysis: Texas scores near-complete victory on redistricting, Amy Howe, June 25, 2018. This morning the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas in a dispute alleging that the state’s lawmakers had drawn redistricting maps to discriminate against some of the state’s black and Hispanic residents. By a vote of 5-4, the justices threw out almost all of a ruling by a three-judge federal district court that would have invalidated the maps, agreeing with the lower court only that one state legislative district was a racial gerrymander. Today’s ruling means that elections this year will likely go forward using the existing maps.
The decision came in the two cases known as Abbott v. Perez, which date back to 2011, when Texas’ Republican-controlled legislature began to redistrict after the 2010 census.
The legislature’s federal congressional and state legislative maps never took effect, because a three-judge district court (which normally hears redistricting cases) barred the state from using the maps and created its own plans instead. But the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the court-created maps in 2012, telling the lower court to use the state legislature’s maps as a “starting point” for new maps. The district court did so, and in 2013 the state legislature adopted the maps for permanent use.
- Wedding Cake for Gay Couple: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, decided 7-2 on June 4, 2018.
The Hill, Supreme Court throws out case against florist who refused to do arrangement for gay wedding, Lydia Wheeler, June 25, 2018. The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling which found a Washington florist had intentionally discriminated against a same-sex couple for refusing to make flower arrangements for their wedding.
June 22
- Privacy: Carpenter v. U.S., decided 5-4 on June 22, 2018.
Washington Post, Supreme Court rules that warrant is generally needed to access cell tower records. Robert Barnes, June 22, 2018. The case is seen as an important moment in determining the government’s ability to access to the ever-increasing amount of private information about Americans available in the digital age.
The Supreme Court on Friday put new restraints on law enforcement’s access to the ever-increasing amount of private information about Americans available in the digital age.
In the specific case before the court, the justices ruled that authorities generally must obtain a warrant to gain access to cell-tower records that can provide a virtual timeline and map of a person’s whereabouts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5 to 4 decision, in which he was joined by the court’s liberal members. Each of the dissenting conservatives wrote separate opinions.
Roberts said the decision was a narrow one and a cautious approach to providing constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures to evolving technology.
The justices ruled for Timothy Carpenter, who is serving a 116-year sentence for his role in armed robberies in 2010 and 2011 at RadioShack and T-Mobile stores in and around Detroit. He was accused of being the ringleader of a gang stealing smartphones. One of the men arrested said Carpenter typically organized the robberies, supplied the guns and acted as a lookout. Authorities asked his cellphone carrier for 127 days of records that would show Carpenter’s use of his phone.
Such records indicate where a cellphone establishes connections with a specific cell tower and give a fair representation of the vicinity of the user. In Carpenter’s case, the mass of information showed his phone at 12,898 locations, including close to where the robberies occurred when they took place.
Carpenter’s attorneys said that the government’s actions violated their client’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. Authorities should have had to convince a judge that there was probable cause to get the records, they said.
“This is a groundbreaking victory for Americans’ privacy rights in the digital age,” said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued on Carpenter’s behalf before the court in November. “The Supreme Court has given privacy law an update that it has badly needed for many years, finally bringing it in line with the realities of modern life.”
June 21
The 2017 U.S. Supreme Court, with Republican anti-union activist and Associate Justice Samuel Alito shown in the top row, second from the left.
New York Times, Opinion: A Question of Legitimacy Looms for the Supreme Court, Linda Greenhouse, June 21, 2018. Linda Greenhouse, shown at 
right on the cover of her recent memoir, is a Yale Law School graduate who covered the Supreme Court for many years for the New York Times.
Any day now, perhaps as soon as Thursday, the Supreme Court will issue a decision that more than any other case this term will reveal to us the heart and soul of the Roberts Court at the end of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s 14th year.
The case is Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It presents the question of whether the court will adhere to its 41-year-old precedent under which states can require public employees who object to joining a union to nonetheless pay their fair share of the union’s costs of the collective bargaining from which all employees benefit.
The basic argument in Janus is that the First Amendment should be interpreted to shield workers who don’t like their union from having to associate with it or lend support to its activities.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument in 1977 when it decided Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and it has rejected analogous arguments in other compulsory-fee situations, including state bar dues for lawyers and mandatory student association fees on public campuses. The underlying argument in support of these mandatory fees is the greater common good; the specific rationale in the labor context is that the presence of free riders, who enjoy the benefits of having a union while refusing to pay for the bargaining efforts that won them, is a threat to peace in the workplace.
The path of the Janus case to the Supreme Court exemplifies the politics of the issue. The case was initially filed in 2015 in Federal District Court in Illinois not by an Illinois public employee but by the newly elected Republican governor, Bruce Rauner. He is a former private equity executive with a personal fortune of $500 million who spent millions on a campaign in which opposition to organized labor played a substantial part.
So is it possible that just as the Supreme Court is about to take a hammer to the teachers’ unions, teachers are back in favor? A Supreme Court decision, needless to say, is not a popularity contest, nor should it be. At the same time, the court necessarily skates on thin ice when it comes as close as it has here to serving an agenda that is not the public’s but its own — and by a 5-to-4 vote.
- State Taxes On Internet Sales: South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., decided 5-4 on June 21, 2018.
New York Times, Court Clears Way for Sales Taxes on Internet Merchants, Adam Liptak, June 21, 2018. Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court said. States have said that they were missing out on tens of billions of dollars in revenue under a 1992 ruling that helped spur the rise of internet shopping.
Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. Brick-and-mortar businesses have long complained that they are disadvantaged by having to charge sales taxes while many of their online competitors do not. States have said that they are missing out on tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that helped spur the rise of internet shopping.
On Thursday, the court overruled that ruling, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, which had said that the Constitution bars states from requiring businesses to collect sales taxes unless they have a substantial connection to the state.
Shares in Amazon were down just 1 percent in morning trading after the ruling, at $1,731.59. But other e-commerce companies suffered far tougher blows: Shares in Etsy, the marketplace for artisanal crafts, fell 4.5 percent, to $42.21, while those in Wayfair, a popular home goods seller, were down 3.2 percent, at $112.42.
- Immigration: Pereira v. Sessions decided 8-1 on June 21, 2018
WBUR-FM (Boston), http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/06/21/marthas-vineyard-immigrant-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Martha's Vineyard Man In Immigration Case, Shannon Dooling, June 21, 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday in favor of a Martha's Vineyard man in an immigration case that has the potential to affect thousands of other immigrants living in the country without authorization.
In the 8-1 opinion, the court decided that if an unauthorized immigrant's "notice to appear" in immigration court doesn't designate the specific time or place of the non-citizen's removal proceedings, then it's not a "notice to appear" and it doesn't stop the clock on the non-citizen's "continuous physical presence" in the U.S.
Here's why that matters: If you're an immigrant living in the country without authorization, a clock starts ticking the moment you enter the U.S. If your clock — your time in the country — hits 10 years, then under certain circumstances, you could be eligible to apply for what's called a 10-year cancellation of removal. The government, however, says once a "notice to appear" is issued, it triggers a so-called "stop-time" rule and this clock no longer accrues more time.
Wescley Pereira, a native of Brazil, is the man at the heart of the SCOTUS case, Pereira v. Sessions. Pereira overstayed his visa and has been living and working on Martha's Vineyard for 16 years.
June 15
Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Opinion: Not the Final Word, Danielle Brian and Sarah Turberville, June 15, 2018. Can a sitting 
president be indicted? The public should be skeptical of the argument that a president can’t be, which frequently relies on two opinions by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). This office, in part through its opinions, provides legal advice to the executive branch.
As legal counsel to the executive, OLC is naturally biased in favor of helping its client achieve its goals through legal analysis. Media coverage of this important question concerning presidential immunity, however, has largely failed to question the underlying rationales found in those OLC memos. And when it comes to preserving the rule of law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, OLC is not the final word and we should not treat it as such.
The plain fact is that OLC, responsive to its own institutional incentives, sometimes gets things wrong. Its opinions legitimizing the CIA’s torture program were later withdrawn because of errors. Its opinion that federal courts could not hear appeals from prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay was later rejected by a 2008 Supreme Court decision. Its opinion allowing government agencies to ignore requests for information from individual members of Congress was disavowed by the Trump administration at the urging of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Its opinion supporting warrantless mass surveillance absent any congressional or judicial approval was refuted by a later OLC opinion. And its opinion saying Congress cannot give federal employees whistleblower rights to provide the legislative branch with classified information was found unpersuasive by Congress.
(We don’t know how many OLC opinions would hold up to scrutiny, given the fact that many are kept secret. Right now, we at the Project on Government Oversight are in the process of challenging the OLC for withholding even the titles and dates of several recent unclassified opinions, which were redacted in response to our Freedom of Information Act request last year.)
There are reasons to believe OLC might be wrong about presidential indictments, too. The office’s legal analysis largely relies on the assertion that a criminal indictment is so burdensome that a president subject to one would not be able to fulfill the constitutionally assigned duties of the office and therefore cannot be indicted. To follow the opinion’s logic further, one could argue that any legal process that has the potential to substantially distract the president from his duties runs the risk of being unconstitutional. More specifically, as former White House Counsel Bob Bauer recently put it when discussing one of the OLC memos, the mere stigma related to the special counsel’s investigation would also harm the president’s ability to lead the nation:
June 11
- Voting Rights: Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, decided 5-4 on June 11, 2018. *
New York Times, Supreme Court Upholds Ohio’s Aggressive Purge of Voting Rolls, Adam Liptak (right), June 11, 2018. In a major voting rights case, the court ruled that a state may kick people off the rolls if they skip a few elections and fail to respond to a notice from state election officials. The vote was 5 to 4, with the more conservative justices in the majority.
New Yorker, The Supreme Court’s Husted Decision Will Make It More Difficult for Democrats to Vote, Jeffrey Toobin, June 11, 2018. Major Supreme Court opinions exercise a kind of hydraulic effect on the future of the law. The results in the individual case matter, of course, but the greater significance comes from the signals that the Justices send about what they will allow in the future.
That’s why Monday’s decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute matters so much. By a vote of 5–4, the Justices upheld Ohio’s purge of less-frequent voters from its rolls. That ruling is bad enough on its own terms, but what makes Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion so chilling is the way that it invites other states to continue and to expand this anti-democratic practice.
It’s often possible to read thousands of words in a Supreme Court opinion and be lulled by the legalese into missing what’s really at stake in the case. This is especially true of Alito’s opinion in Husted and even, to an extent, of Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. As described by both these opinions, the case was essentially just a matter of statutory interpretation, in this instance, of the National Voter Registration Act, better known as “Motor Voter Act,” which passed in 1993.
That law was intended to make it easier for people to register to vote, but it included a provision to keep voter rolls accurate, which requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names” of voters who are ineligible “by reason of” death or change of residence. In Alito’s bland phrasing, the Husted case concerns a challenge to “an Ohio law that aims to keep the State’s voting lists up to date by removing the names of those who have moved out of the district where they are registered. Ohio uses the failure to vote for two years as a rough way of identifying voters who may have moved.” Ohio sends a postcard to those who haven’t voted in two years. If they return it, they stay on the rolls; if they don’t, and don’t vote in the next two elections, they are removed.
With the facts in the case phrased in this way, one might reasonably ask, who cares? Isn’t this just a dispute over bureaucratic record-keeping? That’s pretty much how Alito’s opinion describes it.
But Alito’s anodyne recitation seems to intentionally avoid the partisan heart of the dispute. Since Republicans took control of many major states, including Ohio, in the G.O.P. landslides of 2010, one of their principal objectives has been to lock in their electoral advantage through the manipulation of election law.
Specifically, the dominant Republicans in these states have tried in a variety of ways to make it more difficult for poor people and minorities and the young (all overwhelmingly Democratic groups) to vote. In most of the relevant states, again including Ohio, this has included establishing strict I.D. requirements at the polls, and limiting early and absentee voting.
But the most pernicious attempt has been the one at issue in the Husted case: the purging of eligible voters. As the Republican lawmakers in Ohio well know, Democrats tend to vote more sporadically than Republicans, often sitting out midterm elections. For a variety of reasons associated with their socioeconomic circumstances, Democrats may encounter difficulties in record keeping and may miss postcard reminders to re-register.
This law, in other words, is a cynical device to remove Democrats from the voting rolls. That’s a feature of the law, not a bug. (Even worse, for voting-rights advocates, tracking the effects of voter purges, which target individual citizens, is a much more difficult and painstaking process than identifying the results of voter-I.D. or early-voting laws.)
In a separate dissenting opinion, Sotomayor pierces the artifice underlying the case. Displaying a bracing familiarity with the real world, Sotomayor notes that “low voter turnout rates, language-access problems, mail delivery issues, inflexible work schedules, and transportation issues, among other obstacles, make it more difficult for many minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot or return a notice, rendering them particularly vulnerable to unwarranted removal.” Not surprisingly, then, she observes that Ohio’s purge “has disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters.” Again, feature, not bug.
What makes the Ohio law especially odious is that it’s a cure for which there is no disease. Some people don’t vote in off-year elections, or in every Presidential-election year. That’s no indication of voter fraud, nor a reason to punish them with disenfranchisement. But that’s what this law does; indeed, that’s the whole point of it.
According to Jon Husted, the Republican (shown at right) who is Ohio’s secretary of state, “Today’s decision is a victory for election integrity. This decision is validation of Ohio’s efforts to clean up the voter rolls and now with the blessing nation’s highest court, it can serve as a model for other states to use.” In this, he’s right. Lawmakers in Republican-controlled states will see the Husted decision as an invitation, hydraulic in its force, to launch even more invasive purges of disfavored voters. It’s an invitation that many are likely to accept.
Jeffrey Toobin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993 and the senior legal analyst for CNN since 2002.
- Arbitration: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, decided 5-4 on May 21, 2018. *
The Atlantic, An Epic Supreme Court Decision on Employment, Garrett Epps, May 22, 2018. The 5-4 ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis could weaken workplace protections — and the justices on both sides knew it.
False dichotomy, meretricious piety, and pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain misdirection are vital arrows in the quiver of any lawyer or judge, no matter of what persuasion. These tricks were on particularly egregious display in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a 5-4 decision announced Monday in which the Supreme Court’s conservative majority continued its drive to narrow protection for employee rights. (The opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito; the dissent, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.)
The issue in Epic Systems was this: Can an employer require its employees, as a condition of keeping their jobs, to submit to individual arbitration of wage-and-hour and other workplace-condition claims—not only without an option to go to court, but without an option to pursue even private arbitration in common with other employees making the same claim? Employees’ objection to a “no group arbitration” clause is that individual arbitration may concern amounts too small to make pursuing them worthwhile. Thus, these clauses make it easier for employers to maintain unfair or even unlawful employment structures and salary systems.
Garrett Epps is a contributing editor for The Atlantic. He teaches constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore. His latest book is "American Justice 2014: Nine Clashing Visions on the Supreme Court."
- Sports Gambling: Murphy, v. NCAA decided 7-2 on May 14, 2018 (with Justice Breyer dissenting in part).
SCOTUSblog, Analysis: Justices strike down federal sports gambling law, Amy Howe, May 14, 2018. The 10th Amendment provides that, if the Constitution does not either give a power to the federal government or take that power away from the states, that power is reserved for the states or the people themselves. The Supreme Court has long interpreted this provision to bar the federal government from “commandeering” the states to enforce federal laws or policies.
Today the justices ruled that a federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. Their decision not only opens the door for states around the country to allow sports betting, but it also could give significantly more power to states generally, on issues ranging from the decriminalization of marijuana to sanctuary cities.
The federal law at issue in the case is the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which dates back to 1992. The law, known as PASPA, bans most states from (among other things) authorizing sports gambling; it carved out an exception that would have permitted New Jersey to set up a sports-betting scheme in the state’s casinos, as long as the state did so within a year. But it took New Jersey 20 years to act: In 2012, the state legislature passed a law that legalized sports betting.
This summary of U.S. Supreme Court and other high court cases encompasses news stories and commentary in 20180. For our complete listing of periods extending back to 2018, kindly visit these links: 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Contact the author This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
New York Times, 
Washington Post, 
Washington Post, 
Washington Post, 
New York Times, 
New York Times, 
Washington Post, 
New York Times, 
New York Times, 
New York Times, 
New York Times, ‘
