The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[CU77]

What RBG knows is tactics. She flatters BK publicly with the hope (slim as it is) that he will be more likely to be on her side in future decisions.

But BK (and the rest of the Rs) deliver for their masters when it counts, as in their we-cant-do-nuthin-bout-no-gerrymanderin ruling.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Veneer of who he hires."

Gotcha. Makes sense. What does RBG know, anyway.



Or this is another example of the narrative of the left not entirely fitting their target, like hoped.

Seems to me that RBG is being generous towards her new colleague, and indeed he gave her (and us) something to applaud.

He ain't a dummy. BTW, If I recall correctly he had a history of hiring women. Exactly why is less clear, but certainly it's a good thing in general for him to have clerks who may have some insights he might not otherwise have. Wonder if they're out of the KellyAnne Conway sort of model or closer to the RBG model. Is he actually getting a diversity of backgrounds or is this wallpaper? Dunno, but good move, at a minimum for PR.

On the other hand, his opinions so far pretty clearly indicate that he's an enthusiastic partisan. Would have been really interesting if he'd taken a different tack on the census and/or gerrymandering, but he didn't.

[cradleandshoot]

"Veneer of who he hires."

Gotcha. Makes sense. What does RBG know, anyway.



Or this is another example of the narrative of the left not entirely fitting their target, like hoped.

Seems to me that RBG is being generous towards her new colleague, and indeed he gave her (and us) something to applaud.

He ain't a dummy. BTW, If I recall correctly he had a history of hiring women. Exactly why is less clear, but certainly it's a good thing in general for him to have clerks who may have some insights he might not otherwise have. Wonder if they're out of the KellyAnne Conway sort of model or closer to the RBG model. Is he actually getting a diversity of backgrounds or is this wallpaper? Dunno, but good move, at a minimum for PR.

On the other hand, his opinions so far pretty clearly indicate that he's an enthusiastic partisan. Would have been really interesting if he'd taken a different tack on the census and/or gerrymandering, but he didn't.

I love that Buzzi... what a gal... I hope MD after the voracious use of the term "scumbag" on this forum you can cut me some slack on my dreadful slur.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Veneer of who he hires."

Gotcha. Makes sense. What does RBG know, anyway.



Or this is another example of the narrative of the left not entirely fitting their target, like hoped.

Seems to me that RBG is being generous towards her new colleague, and indeed he gave her (and us) something to applaud.

He ain't a dummy. BTW, If I recall correctly he had a history of hiring women. Exactly why is less clear, but certainly it's a good thing in general for him to have clerks who may have some insights he might not otherwise have. Wonder if they're out of the KellyAnne Conway sort of model or closer to the RBG model. Is he actually getting a diversity of backgrounds or is this wallpaper? Dunno, but good move, at a minimum for PR.

On the other hand, his opinions so far pretty clearly indicate that he's an enthusiastic partisan. Would have been really interesting if he'd taken a different tack on the census and/or gerrymandering, but he didn't.

I love that Buzzi... what a gal... I hope MD after the voracious use of the term "scumbag" on this forum you can cut me some slack on my dreadful slur.

Nope, I don't find the term 'scumbag' to be more than a generalized description of deplorable ethics and behavior. I wouldn't use it myself, generally speaking. But then I do use terms like 'buttheads' and 'jerks' and 'knuckleheads'. Also generalized descriptions. I'm cool with such when applied to the politicians and other grandstanders. 'Scumbags' is a sharper such term. I'd try to find another one, but I don't think it's out of bounds when describing behaviors and ethics on display.

But I wouldn't use these words applied to a Supreme Court Justice, including to those who I think are overly partisan or act in ways that I think inappropriate for the role, ala Kavanaugh's whining outburst in his confirmation hearing or Thomas' calling his hearing a 'lynching'. I'd critique the very specific aspect in question.

The Buzzi slur isn't a critique of RBG's decisions or judicial demeanor. It's intended to be a slur on her looks. It's misogynistic.

My objection is much the same as it would be if there was a demeaning crack about different Justices' ethnicity or religious background.

I explain solely because I think and hope you might eventually understand.

[cradleandshoot]

"Veneer of who he hires."

Gotcha. Makes sense. What does RBG know, anyway.



Or this is another example of the narrative of the left not entirely fitting their target, like hoped.

Seems to me that RBG is being generous towards her new colleague, and indeed he gave her (and us) something to applaud.

He ain't a dummy. BTW, If I recall correctly he had a history of hiring women. Exactly why is less clear, but certainly it's a good thing in general for him to have clerks who may have some insights he might not otherwise have. Wonder if they're out of the KellyAnne Conway sort of model or closer to the RBG model. Is he actually getting a diversity of backgrounds or is this wallpaper? Dunno, but good move, at a minimum for PR.

On the other hand, his opinions so far pretty clearly indicate that he's an enthusiastic partisan. Would have been really interesting if he'd taken a different tack on the census and/or gerrymandering, but he didn't.

I love that Buzzi... what a gal... I hope MD after the voracious use of the term "scumbag" on this forum you can cut me some slack on my dreadful slur.

Nope, I don't find the term 'scumbag' to be more than a generalized description of deplorable ethics and behavior. I wouldn't use it myself, generally speaking. But then I do use terms like 'buttheads' and 'jerks' and 'knuckleheads'. Also generalized descriptions. I'm cool with such when applied to the politicians and other grandstanders. 'Scumbags' is a sharper such term. I'd try to find another one, but I don't think it's out of bounds when describing behaviors and ethics on display.

But I wouldn't use these words applied to a Supreme Court Justice, including to those who I think are overly partisan or act in ways that I think inappropriate for the role, ala Kavanaugh's whining outburst in his confirmation hearing or Thomas' calling his hearing a 'lynching'. I'd critique the very specific aspect in question.

The Buzzi slur isn't a critique of RBG's decisions or judicial demeanor. It's intended to be a slur on her looks. It's misogynistic.

My objection is much the same as it would be if there was a demeaning crack about different Justices' ethnicity or religious background.

I explain solely because I think and hope you might eventually understand.

Sorry there MD. If a number of posters here can slander and insult Judge Kavanaugh based on their own perceptions of him then I will allow my self my opinion of Buzzi. She is a squirrelly strange person. It not just about her resemblance to Ruth Buzzi's character on laugh in. Her demeanor and behavior has always been odd to me. You can lecture me until your blue in the face. Buzzi is an odd duck. What I have learned is if you ever criticize an FLP icon the long knives will come out.

[seacoaster]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

[cradleandshoot]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

That is my opinion of her. If you want to kiss her feet and adore her then knock yourself out. She is a strange, squirrely and bizarre person. I have watched and listened to her over the course of the years and my opinion has never changed. I do find it interesting that her and Justice Scalia were such close friends. Maybe two people that both have a reputation for being of little patience and with the ability to be as ornery as a wet hen when listening to other lawyers prattle on gave them at least one thing in common.

[MDlaxfan76]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

That is my opinion of her. If you want to kiss her feet and adore her then knock yourself out. She is a strange, squirrely and bizarre person. I have watched and listened to her over the course of the years and my opinion has never changed. I do find it interesting that her and Justice Scalia were such close friends. Maybe two people that both have a reputation for being of little patience and with the ability to be as ornery as a wet hen when listening to other lawyers prattle on gave them at least one thing in common.

I don't mind in the least that you find her to be outside of your comfort zone. It's the sexism, the misogyny, that is so objectionable.

On she and Scalia, my hunch would be that they recognized in each other a brilliance that most of us on here have difficulty even comprehending (certainly that could explain your 'squirrelly' comment).

And that they both were quite quite charming, interpersonally generous people. My parents spent quite a few hours in the company of Scalia on multiple weekends as fellow guests on the Eastern Shore (also with Sandra Day O'Connor) and found Scalia to be charming too. If you watched Scalia and RBG on stage together you could tell that their affection was quite genuine, regardless of their differences on matters of legal interpretation and emphasis.

[ggait]

He ain't a dummy. BTW, If I recall correctly he had a history of hiring women. Exactly why is less clear, but certainly it's a good thing in general for him to have clerks who may have some insights he might not otherwise have. Wonder if they're out of the KellyAnne Conway sort of model or closer to the RBG model. Is he actually getting a diversity of backgrounds or is this wallpaper?

All of BK's clerks have the typical Ivy League pedigree. But The Tiger Mom (who's a Yale law prof) told a group of law students "it was 'not an accident' that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all 'looked like models" and offered to provide wardrobe advice to female students looking to clerk for him. And Mr. Tiger Mom (also a Yale law prof) has stated that Kavanaugh "hires women with a certain look." Since BK just hired their daughter as one of his SCOTUS clerks, they presumably know what they're talking about.

FTR, it would be a stretch to call the Tiger daughter/clerk a model. But she's clearly what my law school roomies back in the day called "law school hot."

[Farfromgeneva]

Come on now. We all know it’s called “stocking the pool”.

Wonder if it’s also the first time the majority of clerks were from southern PaC12 and SEC schools rather than Ivy or other top ranked schools?

[cradleandshoot]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

That is my opinion of her. If you want to kiss her feet and adore her then knock yourself out. She is a strange, squirrely and bizarre person. I have watched and listened to her over the course of the years and my opinion has never changed. I do find it interesting that her and Justice Scalia were such close friends. Maybe two people that both have a reputation for being of little patience and with the ability to be as ornery as a wet hen when listening to other lawyers prattle on gave them at least one thing in common.

I don't mind in the least that you find her to be outside of your comfort zone. It's the sexism, the misogyny, that is so objectionable.

On she and Scalia, my hunch would be that they recognized in each other a brilliance that most of us on here have difficulty even comprehending (certainly that could explain your 'squirrelly' comment).

And that they both were quite quite charming, interpersonally generous people. My parents spent quite a few hours in the company of Scalia on multiple weekends as fellow guests on the Eastern Shore (also with Sandra Day O'Connor) and found Scalia to be charming too. If you watched Scalia and RBG on stage together you could tell that their affection was quite genuine, regardless of their differences on matters of legal interpretation and emphasis.

One thing I remember about Scalia and RBG is having listened to their demeanor during oral arguments. Both of them could be rude, short tempered and down right nasty to any counselor arguing a case when they found them meandering around the issue. Maybe impatience is a common trait amongst those really brilliant type of people? They can sure turn on the charm when hob nobbing with all their upper crust like minded friends. Imagine that!!

[MDlaxfan76]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

That is my opinion of her. If you want to kiss her feet and adore her then knock yourself out. She is a strange, squirrely and bizarre person. I have watched and listened to her over the course of the years and my opinion has never changed. I do find it interesting that her and Justice Scalia were such close friends. Maybe two people that both have a reputation for being of little patience and with the ability to be as ornery as a wet hen when listening to other lawyers prattle on gave them at least one thing in common.

I don't mind in the least that you find her to be outside of your comfort zone. It's the sexism, the misogyny, that is so objectionable.

On she and Scalia, my hunch would be that they recognized in each other a brilliance that most of us on here have difficulty even comprehending (certainly that could explain your 'squirrelly' comment).

And that they both were quite quite charming, interpersonally generous people. My parents spent quite a few hours in the company of Scalia on multiple weekends as fellow guests on the Eastern Shore (also with Sandra Day O'Connor) and found Scalia to be charming too. If you watched Scalia and RBG on stage together you could tell that their affection was quite genuine, regardless of their differences on matters of legal interpretation and emphasis.

One thing I remember about Scalia and RBG is having listened to their demeanor during oral arguments. Both of them could be rude, short tempered and down right nasty to any counselor arguing a case when they found them meandering around the issue. Maybe impatience is a common trait amongst those really brilliant type of people? They can sure turn on the charm when hob nobbing with all their upper crust like minded friends. Imagine that!!

So, what bothered you is that they were impatient with lawyers not getting to the point???
And you found that "rude, short-tempered and down right nasty"?

From my observations, lawyers who try to obfuscate the issues rather than to delineate them precisely, will get chewed up by smart, tough judges, much less when they are arguing in front of SCOTUS. Same for students at the top law schools. And if a lawyer persists in beating around the bush, or making poorly founded arguments, judges will rip them. And they should. Their time is precious and their decisions are very important to get right. That's the gig.

It bothers me far more when a Justice like Thomas sits passively and doesn't engage both counsels in getting the issues delineated for the Court fully.

Pretty clear that Scalia and RBG respected each other, regardless of their disagreements on legal philosophy. And liked each other interpersonally.

Lawyers "meandering", not so much.

[cradleandshoot]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

That is my opinion of her. If you want to kiss her feet and adore her then knock yourself out. She is a strange, squirrely and bizarre person. I have watched and listened to her over the course of the years and my opinion has never changed. I do find it interesting that her and Justice Scalia were such close friends. Maybe two people that both have a reputation for being of little patience and with the ability to be as ornery as a wet hen when listening to other lawyers prattle on gave them at least one thing in common.

I don't mind in the least that you find her to be outside of your comfort zone. It's the sexism, the misogyny, that is so objectionable.

On she and Scalia, my hunch would be that they recognized in each other a brilliance that most of us on here have difficulty even comprehending (certainly that could explain your 'squirrelly' comment).

And that they both were quite quite charming, interpersonally generous people. My parents spent quite a few hours in the company of Scalia on multiple weekends as fellow guests on the Eastern Shore (also with Sandra Day O'Connor) and found Scalia to be charming too. If you watched Scalia and RBG on stage together you could tell that their affection was quite genuine, regardless of their differences on matters of legal interpretation and emphasis.

One thing I remember about Scalia and RBG is having listened to their demeanor during oral arguments. Both of them could be rude, short tempered and down right nasty to any counselor arguing a case when they found them meandering around the issue. Maybe impatience is a common trait amongst those really brilliant type of people? They can sure turn on the charm when hob nobbing with all their upper crust like minded friends. Imagine that!!

So, what bothered you is that they were impatient with lawyers not getting to the point???
And you found that "rude, short-tempered and down right nasty"?

From my observations, lawyers who try to obfuscate the issues rather than to delineate them precisely, will get chewed up by smart, tough judges, much less when they are arguing in front of SCOTUS. Same for students at the top law schools. And if a lawyer persists in beating around the bush, or making poorly founded arguments, judges will rip them. And they should. Their time is precious and their decisions are very important to get right. That's the gig.

It bothers me far more when a Justice like Thomas sits passively and doesn't engage both counsels in getting the issues delineated for the Court fully.

Pretty clear that Scalia and RBG respected each other, regardless of their disagreements on legal philosophy. And liked each other interpersonally.

Lawyers "meandering", not so much.

Let me clarify it for you. I used too much window dressing for you to get the message. Scalia and Buzzi acted like complete assholes on many occasions. That probably comes from the fact that they were each in their own right a pair of arrogant condescending elitist snobs. They can sure go to an elitist snob cocktail party and charm to heck out of everyone. Bet they didn't browbeat their uppercrust fellow elitist snobs. Hey what the hell if you ridicule and demean a lawyer arguing his/her case in front of you. So you are fine with them browbeating lowlife lawyers and putting them in their place. You of all people are the one person posting here who advocates being respectful to people all the time. That must have an exclusion for certain SCOTUS judges who can do and say whatever they please free of any judgement. Take a listen to Judge Roberts. I don't believe at any time I have ever heard him denigrate an attorney arguing a case in front of him. It can be done. What I am getting from you here MD, correct me if I am wrong but the bigger a jerk you are as a SCOTUS judge the higher in regard and esteem you should be hell.

[MDlaxfan76]

"She is a squirrelly strange person."

This is just the silliest comment. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, except maybe that she is not like you.

That is my opinion of her. If you want to kiss her feet and adore her then knock yourself out. She is a strange, squirrely and bizarre person. I have watched and listened to her over the course of the years and my opinion has never changed. I do find it interesting that her and Justice Scalia were such close friends. Maybe two people that both have a reputation for being of little patience and with the ability to be as ornery as a wet hen when listening to other lawyers prattle on gave them at least one thing in common.

I don't mind in the least that you find her to be outside of your comfort zone. It's the sexism, the misogyny, that is so objectionable.

On she and Scalia, my hunch would be that they recognized in each other a brilliance that most of us on here have difficulty even comprehending (certainly that could explain your 'squirrelly' comment).

And that they both were quite quite charming, interpersonally generous people. My parents spent quite a few hours in the company of Scalia on multiple weekends as fellow guests on the Eastern Shore (also with Sandra Day O'Connor) and found Scalia to be charming too. If you watched Scalia and RBG on stage together you could tell that their affection was quite genuine, regardless of their differences on matters of legal interpretation and emphasis.

One thing I remember about Scalia and RBG is having listened to their demeanor during oral arguments. Both of them could be rude, short tempered and down right nasty to any counselor arguing a case when they found them meandering around the issue. Maybe impatience is a common trait amongst those really brilliant type of people? They can sure turn on the charm when hob nobbing with all their upper crust like minded friends. Imagine that!!

So, what bothered you is that they were impatient with lawyers not getting to the point???
And you found that "rude, short-tempered and down right nasty"?

From my observations, lawyers who try to obfuscate the issues rather than to delineate them precisely, will get chewed up by smart, tough judges, much less when they are arguing in front of SCOTUS. Same for students at the top law schools. And if a lawyer persists in beating around the bush, or making poorly founded arguments, judges will rip them. And they should. Their time is precious and their decisions are very important to get right. That's the gig.

It bothers me far more when a Justice like Thomas sits passively and doesn't engage both counsels in getting the issues delineated for the Court fully.

Pretty clear that Scalia and RBG respected each other, regardless of their disagreements on legal philosophy. And liked each other interpersonally.

Lawyers "meandering", not so much.

Let me clarify it for you. I used too much window dressing for you to get the message. Scalia and Buzzi acted like complete assholes on many occasions. That probably comes from the fact that they were each in their own right a pair of arrogant condescending elitist snobs. They can sure go to an elitist snob cocktail party and charm to heck out of everyone. Bet they didn't browbeat their uppercrust fellow elitist snobs. Hey what the hell if you ridicule and demean a lawyer arguing his/her case in front of you. So you are fine with them browbeating lowlife lawyers and putting them in their place. You of all people are the one person posting here who advocates being respectful to people all the time. That must have an exclusion for certain SCOTUS judges who can do and say whatever they please free of any judgement. Take a listen to Judge Roberts. I don't believe at any time I have ever heard him denigrate an attorney arguing a case in front of him. It can be done. What I am getting from you here MD, correct me if I am wrong but the bigger a jerk you are as a SCOTUS judge the higher in regard and esteem you should be hell.

Just to be clear, cradle, I'm not enthusiastic about anyone being demeaning to anyone. Tough, demanding, challenging. All fine.
And if tough, demanding, challenging is too 'hot' for someone, get out of the kitchen.

Don't kid yourself that the lawyers appearing before SCOTUS aren't amongst the 'elite' themselves. You don't just magically get to argue in front of SCOTUS as some "lowlife lawyer". These are supposed to be the best legal advocates in the nation. If not, they have no business being there.

But if you show up ill-prepared, or worse with a pile of BS, you're going to get ripped by most top judges. Even those who are well-prepared and quick on their feet will find their arguments challenged and pressed. That's what is supposed to happen.

Roberts has a very different role as Chief Justice. He's there in large part as an institutionalist and a referee to be sure that that the various Justices fully examine the legal arguments...which is what Justices like Scalia and Ginsburg do. He's the right guy for that job.

[seacoaster]

John Paul Stevens has died; he was 99:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ob ... c1b86b1fd7

[Brooklyn]

John Paul Stevens has died; he was 99:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ob ... c1b86b1fd7

The USSC and a few other federal courts can use a handful of justices like him. It sure would be a better and more just world.

[thatsmell]

Kavanaugh Fight was no "Win"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaugh- ... 1563136659

When the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh 50-48, it was a victory over American politics’ most vicious smear campaign in decades. Or was it? The left failed to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, but it did irrevocable damage to his reputation and to America’s institutions—for which it has paid no price.

The left opposed Judge Kavanaugh from the start. Minutes after President Trump named him, leftist groups had dispatched protesters to the Supreme Court’s steps. Weeks later, activists flew into Washington, where they received training in how to disrupt the confirmation hearings and cash to pay bail. Hundreds were arrested even before Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of teenage sexual assault became public.

Democratic Judiciary Committee members flagrantly disregarded Senate rules and norms. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California circumvented the well-established confidential investigative process designed to protect accusers. Instead she sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations until it was clear that other means wouldn’t block Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. More than a month earlier, Mrs. Feinstein had personally connected Ms. Ford to Debra Katz, a high-powered—and highly partisan—Washington lawyer. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey violated longstanding Senate rules by releasing confidential documents, then boasted: “This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.”

Sen. Kamala Harris of California baselessly insinuated that Judge Kavanaugh was hiding improper discussions about the Mueller investigation. Later, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii was heard crowing to Ms. Harris about what a great idea it had been to have Ms. Ford wear a blue suit and ask for a Coca-Cola —staged parallels to Anita Hill’s teal suit and unproven 1991 claim that future Justice Clarence Thomas once made an untoward comment about a Coke can.

Journalists avidly joined the anti-Kavanaugh campaign. The Washington Post published the first interview with Ms. Ford, in which it obscured her shifting details about the number of boys and girls present on the night of the purported assault. The New Yorker ran a lengthy story on an allegation against Judge Kavanaugh that a Yale classmate offered “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

NBC News sat for weeks on its own reporting that showed a supposed witness provided by attorney Michael Avenatti denied his account of her allegations. When two women angrily confronted then-Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, in an elevator, CNN correspondents praised them uncritically without reporting that one was a professional activist.

There has been little accountability for all this dishonesty and unprofessionalism. The Judiciary Committee referred some false accusers to the Justice Department, but none have been prosecuted. The Senate hasn’t investigated the leak of Ms. Ford’s accusation. The Ethics Committee reviewed Mr. Booker’s violations of confidentiality and “determined that no further action is appropriate.”

The media’s malpractice no doubt has contributed to a general climate of distrust, but no one was fired or humiliated for throwing out journalistic standards. Instead, journalists gave each other awards for their one-sided coverage.

True, four Democratic senators who voted against Justice Kavanaugh were defeated last November. One of them, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, said later that she’d been hurt by “the spectacle that occurred.” But those who orchestrated the spectacle remain in office, and Sen. Harris has emerged as a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

If you think the Kavanaugh battle ended in victory, ask yourself what will happen if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat becomes vacant. Is there any chance the left would treat a Trump nominee with an iota of decency or restraint?

[foreverlax]

Kavanaugh Fight was no "Win"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaugh- ... 1563136659

When the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh 50-48, it was a victory over American politics’ most vicious smear campaign in decades. Or was it? The left failed to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, but it did irrevocable damage to his reputation and to America’s institutions—for which it has paid no price.

The left opposed Judge Kavanaugh from the start. Minutes after President Trump named him, leftist groups had dispatched protesters to the Supreme Court’s steps. Weeks later, activists flew into Washington, where they received training in how to disrupt the confirmation hearings and cash to pay bail. Hundreds were arrested even before Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of teenage sexual assault became public.

Democratic Judiciary Committee members flagrantly disregarded Senate rules and norms. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California circumvented the well-established confidential investigative process designed to protect accusers. Instead she sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations until it was clear that other means wouldn’t block Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. More than a month earlier, Mrs. Feinstein had personally connected Ms. Ford to Debra Katz, a high-powered—and highly partisan—Washington lawyer. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey violated longstanding Senate rules by releasing confidential documents, then boasted: “This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.”

Sen. Kamala Harris of California baselessly insinuated that Judge Kavanaugh was hiding improper discussions about the Mueller investigation. Later, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii was heard crowing to Ms. Harris about what a great idea it had been to have Ms. Ford wear a blue suit and ask for a Coca-Cola —staged parallels to Anita Hill’s teal suit and unproven 1991 claim that future Justice Clarence Thomas once made an untoward comment about a Coke can.

Journalists avidly joined the anti-Kavanaugh campaign. The Washington Post published the first interview with Ms. Ford, in which it obscured her shifting details about the number of boys and girls present on the night of the purported assault. The New Yorker ran a lengthy story on an allegation against Judge Kavanaugh that a Yale classmate offered “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

NBC News sat for weeks on its own reporting that showed a supposed witness provided by attorney Michael Avenatti denied his account of her allegations. When two women angrily confronted then-Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, in an elevator, CNN correspondents praised them uncritically without reporting that one was a professional activist.

There has been little accountability for all this dishonesty and unprofessionalism. The Judiciary Committee referred some false accusers to the Justice Department, but none have been prosecuted. The Senate hasn’t investigated the leak of Ms. Ford’s accusation. The Ethics Committee reviewed Mr. Booker’s violations of confidentiality and “determined that no further action is appropriate.”

The media’s malpractice no doubt has contributed to a general climate of distrust, but no one was fired or humiliated for throwing out journalistic standards. Instead, journalists gave each other awards for their one-sided coverage.

True, four Democratic senators who voted against Justice Kavanaugh were defeated last November. One of them, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, said later that she’d been hurt by “the spectacle that occurred.” But those who orchestrated the spectacle remain in office, and Sen. Harris has emerged as a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

If you think the Kavanaugh battle ended in victory, ask yourself what will happen if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat becomes vacant. Is there any chance the left would treat a Trump nominee with an iota of decency or restraint?

Mollie Hemmingway....'nuf said.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The WSJ has become more Rupert Murdoch tripe.

[thatsmell]

So which part do you dispute?