Lawyers call for ABA to reduce Kavanaugh rating

The following is the full text of a letter to the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary

Re: ABA Rating of Brett M. Kavanaugh in his Nomination to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Dear Chairman Moxley and Members of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary:

We are writing to respectfully request the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary (“Standing Committee”) reconsider its rating of Brett M. Kavanaugh as “well qualified” in light of his recent conduct and testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate (“Senate Judiciary Committee”). We are concerned about Judge Kavanaugh’s (1) repeated misrepresentation of facts pertaining variously to his high school and college behavior, as well as to actions taken during his time in the George W. Bush White House; and (2) improper judicial temperament based on remarks indicating extreme partisan bias or, at the very least, the appearance of bias based on his testimony.

This would not be the first time Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications are reevaluated. In 2006, the ABA found sufficient evidence of Kavanaugh’s biases to downgrade his rating from “well-qualified” to “qualified.”[1] Given the significance of Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment and his disturbing conduct, we believe there is substantial reason to, once again, downgrade Judge Kavanaugh’s rating. We believe this action is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, as well as the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.

I. Standing Committee’s Criteria For Ratings

As Chairman Moxley noted in his September 7, 2018, statement to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate:

To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.[2]

In this case, we believe particular attention should be paid to the notion of “highest standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament” (emphasis added). Although the Standing Committee does not define “highest standards,” we can assume that it is meant in the typical use of the phrase: superlative or excellent, that is to say, beyond reproach. The phrasing suggests that the most logical reading would be that “highest standard” is meant to modify all subsequently listed qualities. Thus we read it to apply to each element, including “integrity” and “judicial temperament.” The ABA has explained that when evaluating integrity, the Standing Committee considers a “nominee’s character and general reputation in the legal community, industry, and diligence.”[3] Furthermore, in evaluating judicial temperament, the Standing Committee considers a nominee’s “compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.”[4] When we consider Kavanaugh’s actions during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and accompanying objective reporting, it is obvious that he does not meet the Standing Committee’s requisites on these fronts.

II. Evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s Conduct During Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings

As identified above, we have two primary areas of concern regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination: (1) repeated misrepresentation of facts, and (2) actual or appearance of bias. These areas of concern came to light within the context of an unfortunate larger reality concerning Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination — namely, the existence of multiple credible allegations of sexual misconduct from Kavanaugh’s high school and college years. We acknowledge that investigations related to such allegations are outside the scope and ability of the Standing Committee. However, Judge Kavanaugh’s responses to those allegations, and his more general conduct and statements throughout the confirmation process, are well within the purview of the Standing Committee’s evaluation process. These have been damning enough to warrant actions be taken by this committee. In fact, even prior to these allegations of sexual misconduct, Judge Kavanaugh’s initial round of testimony September 4th through 7th raised serious questions about his propensity for truthfulness and forthrightness. These actions have complicated the Senate’s constitutionally mandated obligation of advice and consent under the Appointments Clause.[5]

(A) Failure to Demonstrate ‘Highest Standard of Integrity’

The Standing Committee defines integrity as a nominee’s “character and general reputation.”[6] Surely a propensity for dishonesty — lying at worst, misrepresentation at least — would indicate a “character” that is below the “highest standard” and would diminish one’s reputation. Throughout the Senate Judiciary Committee process, Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly misrepresented himself and his actions, as we will lay out in more detail below. Kavanaugh is, of course, a federal judge, and thus is more than aware of the seriousness and consequences of offering false sworn testimony. Some of these misrepresentations may have been genuine mistakes, but many can only be interpreted as intentional. Other misrepresentations were easily verifiable, meaning that if they were mistakes, they were mistakes owing to carelessness and sloppiness. This means Judge Kavanaugh was at times dishonest and at other times sloppy and careless in his preparations for sworn testimony before the United States Senate. The integrity of the courts depends on holding its officers to a higher standard of conduct than that displayed by Judge Kavanaugh. Thus, by the standards of the Standing Committee, he clearly does not have the requisite integrity to warrant a rating of “well-qualified.”

1. Misrepresentations During Initial Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, Sept. 4th through 7th

During Judge Kavanaugh’s initial round of hearings, he repeatedly misrepresented his record as Staff Secretary during the Bush administration in the mid-2000s, his judicial record, and even professional consultations while serving as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In lieu of an exhaustive list, we will instead focus on a few representative examples.

In 2004, when being considered by the Senate for his appointment to the DC Circuit, Kavanaugh insisted he did not advise on the nomination of Circuit Judge William Pryor in his capacity as Staff Secretary. In an exchange with Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Grassley on September 6, 2018, he reaffirmed that he had no role in the nomination. However, objective reporting by The Washington Post and other reputable news outlets has shown that Judge Kavanaugh was included in emails pertaining to this nomination. In these emails, Kavanaugh himself appears to discuss the status of Pryor’s nomination.[7] It seems unlikely that Judge Kavanaugh forgot his role in the confirmation consultations.

Furthermore, during his September 5th hearing, in response to questioning by senators, Judge Kavanaugh stated of his record on the DC Court of Appeal, “In environmental cases, some cases I’ve ruled against environmentalist interests, and in many cases I’ve ruled for environmentalist interests.”[8] Judge Kavanaugh’s actual record shows a hostility towards environmental groups and the regulatory power of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; in 32 out of 35 cases, he ruled for industries opposing environmental protection regulations.[9] This is not to argue against the merits of Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings in these cases, instead, to demonstrate that his representation of those rulings was inaccurate. Those inaccuracies, in turn, were intended to hide his record from scrutiny. Given the frequency of these inaccuracies, it defies logic to insist such misrepresentations were unintentional.

During his September 5th testimony, Senator Kamala Harris asked Judge Kavanaugh if he had discussed the ongoing investigation conducted by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into the Trump administration with anybody from the law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP. In the rather infamous exchange, Judge Kavanaugh reacted as if he was totally unfamiliar with the firm’s name, let alone any attorney associated with it. Despite Judge Kavanaugh’s feigned ignorance, subsequent objective reporting revealed that he has had a long personal and professional relationship with Edward McNally, a partner in the firm.[10] Judge Kavanaugh stated in response to question, “I’m just trying to think do I know anyone who works at that firm I might know,” which circumstantially is a rather disingenuous response given his closeness with Mr. McNally.

Taken together, we see a pattern of intentionally misleading members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to their questioning of his professional and judicial record. In isolation, perhaps, none of these seems incriminating, but taken together they show a clear disregard for the truth and a refusal to accurately aid the Senate in its constitutional obligation to offer advice and consent on appointees to the Supreme Court. These misleading statements all preceded the most troubling misinformation, which he disseminated in relation to the allegations of sexual assault, and which we will examine below.

2. Further Misrepresentations and Outright Lies During Sexual Assault Allegations Hearing Sept. 27

Following various credible allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary Committee commenced another hearing for Judge Kavanaugh and allowed for sworn testimony by one of his accusers, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. (Please note that Dr. Blasey Ford uses “Dr. Blasey” professionally but was referred to as “Dr. Ford” in most coverage; we will refer to her as Dr. Blasey Ford here.) Dr. Blasey Ford alleged that an intoxicated Brett Kavanaugh attacked and sexually assault her when both were teenagers in suburban Maryland in the early 1980s. While the evidence of the allegations and their impact on the appointment are for the Senate Judiciary Committee to decide, there is ample evidence that Kavanaugh, again, intentionally misrepresented facts both large and small to bolster his defense. Such misrepresentations are far too pervasive and consistent to be accidental; we are compelled to conclude that they are lies. Furthermore, Kavanaugh is a federal judge; he is aware of the implications of lying under oath and the penalties of perjury. Judge Kavanaugh’s pattern of evasive behavior and lying during the September 27 hearing require a reevaluation by the Standing Committee for the sake of its own integrity.

Exhaustive lists of every misrepresentation are available online, and cited below, but again we will just highlight a few of the most egregious examples here that we believe are sufficient to prove that Judge Kavanaugh lied. We again reiterate that these are not proof of sexual assault on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, nor would such an investigation by the Standing Committee be appropriate. However, they do speak to his complete lack of qualifications under the “highest standard” metric of integrity.

The most egregious statement Kavanaugh made, unsurprisingly, also would have been the most exculpatory if true. Judge Kavanaugh falsely stated: “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser, who said that she didn’t know me and that she does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without Dr. Ford.”[11] This is not what all four witnesses named by Dr. Blasey Ford said; in fact, none of them said this. They all alleged they do not remember the event described by Dr. Blasey Ford. This is very different from Kavanaugh’s false framing — that all denied the event — which he repeated multiple times throughout the hearing. It was not a mistake. As Nathan Robinson, a Yale Law School graduate, summarized in Current Affairs magazine:

Kavanaugh, for all his righteous weeping and insistence on his honesty, is not presenting the evidence accurately. He’s trying to suggest that it’s more unfavorable to Ford than it actually is. Saying “Everyone she says was there denies it” is far more effective than the truth: “Nobody she says was there remembers it, though one of them believes it happened.” Kavanaugh concluded that “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.” It wasn’t refuted in the least.[12]

As Dr. Blasey Ford explained in her own testimony, this was not a large wild party, but rather a small, informal group of people hanging out at a house; there would be no reason for people uninvolved in the incident, in a separate section of the house, to remember the specifics of such an otherwise innocuous event. All have recognized this fact by saying that they do not remember it, but not denying that the gathering took place. As referenced above, Leland Keyser has said that she does not remember the specific party, but also that she believes Dr. Blasey Ford’s account.[13] Similarly, Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge has not categorically denied that the event took place, just that he did not recall it. This alone displays a level of dishonesty that would seem to preclude Judge Kavanaugh from meeting the highest standard of integrity. However, there were other more frivolous but no less glaring lies he offered throughout his testimony.

Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook contained various allusions to inside jokes with his friends and classmates. Perhaps unsurprisingly for high school athletes, some of these jokes were earthy in nature. Rather than fully acknowledging this reality, Judge Kavanaugh bafflingly lied under oath as to the meaning of multiple references. When asked about entries such as “Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor” — a reference to vomiting — Judge Kavanaugh insisted the vomiting was not due to excess alcohol consumption but because he has a delicate stomach.[14] When pushed on the absurdity of “Ralph Club” being related to his sensitivities to spicy food, Kavanaugh countered by implying that admittance to Yale University precluded the very idea that he could have vomited from drinking.[15] However, college friends and acquaintances of Kavanaugh’s also noted a pattern of excessive drinking and corresponding belligerence and vomiting during his attendance at Yale. Gross intoxication is said to have played a role in other accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.[16]

Similarly, Judge Kavanaugh at one point claimed that a reference to the term “Devil’s triangle” was related to a drinking game — despite the fact that the term is frequently used as a euphemism for a sex act. Judge Kavanaugh could neither explain the rules to the supposed drinking game, nor is there any evidence of such a drinking game even exists.[17] Similarly he claimed fifteen references to “Renate Alumnius” throughout the yearbook were meant by him and his friends to show admiration for a young woman, Renate Schroeder Dolphin. However, she and others have insisted the uses were meant to imply “hurtful and simply untrue” insinuations about her sexual promiscuity.[18] Rather than acknowledging or even apologizing for the embarrassing truth, Judge Kavanaugh tried to massage this information in a way that was least damaging to him. This required him to lie under oath — a crime he considered severe enough to impeach a sitting President over when working for Special Prosecutor Ken Starr.

Ultimately, with this testimony, like in his first round of testimony, Judge Kavanaugh engaged in a pattern intentional misrepresentation. Again we note that this is merely the briefest of surveys. For more exhaustive analysis of all of Judge Kavanaugh’s misrepresentations we highly recommend Robinson’s thorough examination in Current Affairs as well as the Washington Post’s analysis in “Here’s Where Kavanaugh’s Sworn Testimony Was Misleading or Wrong” and in the New York Time’s “At Times, Kavanaugh’s Defenses Misleads or Veers Off Point.”[19] To reiterate, Judge Kavanaugh is a federal judge. He knows the penalties for perjury — he helped lead the charge to impeach a President over allegations of perjury — and he appears to have committed perjury himself to avoid allegations of sexual misconduct. Under the Standing Committee’s highest standard of integrity, such lies obviously preclude a rating of “highly qualified.”

(B) Failure to Demonstrate ‘Highest Standard of Judicial Temperament’

It is similarly clear that Judge Kavanaugh’s conduct before the Senate Judiciary Committee does not meet the Standing Committee’s highest standard of judicial temperament. Again we note that the Standing Committee considers a nominee’s “compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.”[20] Rather than treat the credible allegations against him with the gravity they deserved, Judge Kavanaugh instead spun a wild conspiracy theory against one of our nation’s two major political parties. He followed this rant with vicious and disrespectful personal attacks on Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If a party had acted this way in Judge Kavanaugh’s chambers, he likely would have censured them or thrown them out. Worse, given his outbursts, Judge Kavanaugh would not be able to credibly rule on various issues should they come before the Supreme Court without — at the very least — the appearance of bias. Following his comments, how could any group bringing cases related to voter identification laws, partisan gerrymandering, or any other case with a partisan element stand before a Justice Kavanaugh and seriously consider him an impartial arbiter? Given this reality, Judge Kavanaugh cannot be credibly said to have the “open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law” necessary not only for his own appointment, but to maintain the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.

Rather than catalogue every single instance of possible bias, we will instead highlight a few of the most emblematic and egregious examples of Kavanaugh’s actions. We repeat that in his previous confirmation as a Circuit Court Judge, Kavanaugh’s rating was lowered due to concerns about political bias.[21]

1. Judge Kavanaugh’s Opening Remarks Were Those of a Partisan, Not an Impartial Arbiter

Necessary for the integrity of the federal courts broadly, and Supreme Court specifically, is the impression that they are not simply partisan actors. The courts and their judges must be viewed as impartial arbiters who fairly and accurately interpret our Constitution and laws, instead of promoting ideological or partisan goals. Following the September 27 hearing, it would be impossible to perceive Judge Kavanaugh as impartial. Even Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Senator Jeff Flake criticized Kavanaugh interactions with lawmakers for being overtly “sharp and partisan.”[22]

In his opening statement Judge Kavanaugh stated: “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit…[fueled by] 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.”[23] He presented himself as an explicitly partisan figure and accordingly attacked members of opposing parties for the circumstances of the hearings. To make this point, he misrepresented the actions of both Dr. Blasey Ford and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein to fit his timeline narrative. Dr. Blasey Ford testified that she tried to warn her Congresswoman Anna Eshoo as well as Senator Feinstein about the incident with Kavanaugh prior to his actual nomination. Despite this, Judge Kavanaugh falsely claimed that the allegations were dropped last minute when they would be most damaging towards him. Given this, how can the Democratic Party or center-left aligned political advocacy groups come before a Justice Kavanaugh and credibly feel he is not biased against them? In this sense, perception becomes reality; there is strong evidence based on this angry partisan performance that Judge Kavanaugh is biased. But even if he is not, multiple partisan or ideological groups — many of which are likely to have cases before the Supreme Court at some point in the next three decades — may rightly perceive that Kavanaugh is biased based on his words and actions during this testimony, even if he rules fairly on the merits of a given case.

2. Judge Kavanaugh’s Nasty and Personal Attacks Against Senators Showed Demonstrated a Lack of Courtesy and Patience

Similarly, Judge Kavanaugh’s ability to show basic courtesy and patience — let alone human decency — were widely called into question by his numerous interactions with Democratic Senators. Most incriminating was an exchange with Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota who, after explaining that her father suffered from alcoholism, asked Judge Kavanaugh “if there ever was a time when [he] drank so much he could not remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?” Rather than answering, he snarled back, “Have you?”[24] When she asked him to please answer the question, he responded once against with this same rhetorical attack. The exchange was so nasty and widely condemned that Judge Kavanaugh felt compelled to personally apologize after a subsequent break.[25] Everything about this exchange was unacceptable under the Standing Committee’s standards. Senator Klobuchar’s questions were both politely asked and relevant, albeit, uncomfortable for Judge Kavanaugh if the answer was in the affirmative. Judge Kavanaugh’s outburst was cruel, given the context about Senator Klobuchar’s father, and irrelevant, disrespectful, and impatient under any circumstances. It should be noted that this outburst — while the most egregious — was not isolated. Similar nasty confrontational non-answers were given by Judge Kavanaugh to questioning from Senators Richard Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Kamala Harris — all Democratic members of the committee. Again, should this actually disqualify him for the Supreme Court is for the Senate to say, but based on the metrics defined by the Standing Committee, this is clearly antithetical to idea of “highest standard of judicial temperament.”

Judge Kavanaugh himself seemed to recognize the dangers of actual or perceived partisan bias in a 2015 speech. In “The Judge as Umpire,” delivered at Columbus Law School of Catholic University, he described the importance of judicial temperament and described it as follows:

To be a good judge and a good umpire, it’s important to have the proper demeanor… To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don’t be a jerk. I think that’s important. To be a good umpire and a good judge, don’t be a jerk. In your opinions, to demonstrate civility — I think that’s important as well. To show, to help display, that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions.[26]

Based on this definition — provided by Judge Kavanaugh himself — and read in light of the nastiness, viciousness, screaming, and conspiratorial accusations Judge Kavanaugh leveled against the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is impossible for the Standing Committee to credibly say that Judge Kavanaugh displayed highest standard of judicial temperament. Certainly, the Judge Kavanaugh of 2015 would not say so.

Ultimately, we consider the definition provided by the Standing Committee for highest standard of judicial temperament, Judge Kavanaugh’s own past record of political bias as found by a previous Standing Committee, and Judge Kavanaugh’s own definition of judicial temperament. We compare this to his angry, ranting, nasty testimony, which a Republican Senator referred to as “sharp and partisan,” and conclude that it is simply impossible for the Standing Committee to maintain that the rating remains accurate in the face of the current evidence.

III. Conclusion — Judge Kavanaugh’s Showed That He Has Neither the Integrity nor Judicial Temperament to Justify His Current Rating by the Standing Committee

As part of the confirmation process for federal judges, the Standing Committee rates the fitness of candidates for judicial service. This is a serious and valuable service, and its credibility must be maintained going forward. While the Standing Committee should not and need not weigh the credibility of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, based on their own metrics for highest standard of integrity and judicial temperament, it is clear that the ABA rating of “highly qualified” is no longer tenable. Throughout the confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh displayed a tendency to misrepresent and confuse his record and history surrounding very serious allegations. He further attempted to undermine the credibility of his accuser by lying about witness testimony. Judge Kavanaugh was at best careless, and at worst actively lying, during sworn Senate testimony under penalty of perjury. As a sitting judge we must hold him to a higher, not lower, standard on this. Furthermore, his partisan politics and pettiness before the Senate Judiciary Committee further contradicts his current rating. This Standing Committee has the ability to reevaluate his rating in light of the most recent information, as they have done with this very candidate in the past. For this reason, we, the undersigned, respectfully ask the Standing Committee to examine the situation and downgrade Judge Kavanaugh’s rating so that it more accurately reflects the facts surrounding his nomination as we now know them. This is necessary for no less than the credibility of the American Bar Association, the federal confirmation process, and for the credibility of the United States Supreme Court.

Sincerely Yours,

The Undersigned.

[1] Stephen L. Tober, Statement on Behalf of Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the ABA Concerning the Nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, (May 8, 2006), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/scfedjud/statements/kavanaugh.authcheckdam.pdf.

[2] Paul T. Moxley, Chairman, Standing Comm. on the Fed. Judiciary, Am. Bar Ass’n, Statement to U.S. Senate Judiciary Comm. (Sept. 7, 2018); Am. Bar Ass’n, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary: What it is and How it Works (“Backgrounder”) 11 (2017).

[3] Id. at 2

[4] Id. at 2.

[5] U.S. Const. art. II, §2, cl. 2.

[6] American Bar Association, supra note 2.

[7] Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow and Mark Berman, Supreme Court nominee declines to condemn Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, The Washington Post (Sept. 6, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/kavanaugh-hearing-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-faces-second-day-of-questioning/2018/09/06/3529677a-b147-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html?utm_term=.4e55d601d09b.

[8] Dino Grandoni, The Energy 202: Kavanaugh says he sometimes sides with environmentalists. They disagree., PowerPost by The Washington Post (Sept. 7, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/09/07/the-energy-202-kavanaugh-says-he-sometimes-sides-with-environmentalists-they-disagree/5b91a18d1b326b32de918b11/?utm_term=.fd19bbb8d9c9.

[9] Scott Faber, On Environmental Record, Did Kavanaugh Lie to Senate?, Environmental Working Group News and Analysis (Sept. 5, 2018), https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/09/environmental-record-did-kavanaugh-lie-senate#.W7PCuFVKhhE.

[10] Elana Schor, Dems dig in on Kavanaugh’s ties to Trump-connected law firm, Politico (Sept, 6, 2018), https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/06/brett-kavanaugh-kamala-harris-law-firm-questions-809140.

[11] Transcript courtesy of Bloomberg Government, Kavanaugh Hearing: Transcript, (Sept, 27, 2018), retrieved: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.0632b522c2c9.

[12] Nathan J. Robinson, How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying, Current Affairs (Sept. 29, 2018), https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying.

[13] Seung Min Kim, Sean Sullivan and Emma Brown, Christine Blasey Ford moves closer to deal with Senate Republicans to testify against Kavanaugh, The Washington Post (Sept. 23, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawyers-for-christine-blasey-ford-say-she-has-accepted-senate-judiciary-committees-request-to-testify-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/22/e8199c6a-be8f-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.43ed77d20149.

[14] Transcript, supra note 11.

[15] Id. at 11.

[16] Stephanie Saul, Robin Pogrebin, Mike McIntire and Ben Protess, In a Culture of Privilege and Alcohol at Yale, Her World Converged with Kavanaugh’s, The New York Times (Sept. 25, 2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/deborah-ramirez-brett-kavanaugh-allegations.html; see also Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, From Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years, The New Yorker (Sept. 23, 2018) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez.

[17] Robinson, supra note 12.

[18] Kate Kelly and David Enrich, Kavanguh’s Yearbook Page Is ‘Horrible, Hurtful’ to a Woman It Named, The New York Times (Sept. 24, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html.

[19] Philip Bump, Here’s where Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony was misleading or wrong, The Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2018) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?utm_term=.a9eb717ac68d; Mike McIntire, Linda Qiu, Steve Eder and Kate Kelly, At Times, Kavanaugh’s Defense Misleads or Veers Off Point, The New York Times (Sept. 28, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html.

[20] Am. Bar Ass’n, supra note 2.

[21] Tober, supra note 1.

[22] Elaina Plott, Jeff Flake: ‘We Can’t Have That on the Court,’ The Atlantic (Oct. 2, 2018), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/jeff-flake-criticizes-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh/571915/.

[23] Transcript, supra note 11.

[24] Id. at 11.

[25] Sheryl Gay Stolberg, A New Front in the Kavanaugh Wars: Temperament and Honesty, The New York Times (Oct. 1, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-temperament-honesty.html.

[26] Brett M. Kavanaugh, The Judge as Umpire, CUA Law School (Apr. 1, 2015). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKX_whwVzs .