Roger Cohen nailed the Kavanaugh operetta well:

What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm. Brett Kavanaugh actually got teary over keeping a calendar because that’s what his dad did. His performance was right out of Norman Rockwell with a touch of “Mad Men.”

This is what you get from the unexamined life, a product of white male privilege so unadulterated that, until a couple of weeks ago, Kavanaugh never had to ask himself what might have lurked, and may still linger, behind the football, the basketball, the lifting weights, the workouts with a great high-school quarterback, the pro-golf tournaments with Dad, the rah-rah Renate-ribbing yearbook, the Yale fraternity, and the professed sexual abstinence until “many years” after high school.

Oh and one more thing, that doesn’t get enough attention – the Catholicism. There’s nothing like religion for making unreflective people think they’re inherently and necessarily better than other people. A good Catholic boy would never try to rape a girl! That’s something an atheist would do! Or a Jew or a wimpy liberal Protestant.

Christine Blasey Ford rang true. I’ll take her “100 percent” over his. She felt no need to yell. Nor did she hide behind a shield of repetition. She did not succumb to pathos (“I may never be able to coach again”). She spoke with a deliberation, balance and humanity missing in the judge.

This was a job interview, not a criminal trial. The accusation against Kavanaugh — involving an incident 36 years ago in an undetermined location, uncorroborated by those present — would not currently stand up in a court of law. As a juror, with the available evidence, I could not say “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he committed this assault. (This, of course, is precisely the evidence that the F.B.I. investigation that Kavanaugh evaded backing, and that Senator Jeff Flake has now decisively endorsed, might produce.)

But Kavanaugh’s bleating about due process and presumption of innocence — his rage at a supposed “national disgrace” — misses the point. He failed the job interview. Who would want this spoiled man pieced together on a foundation of repressed anger and circumscribed privilege — this man who quite plausibly was the teenage drunk near-suffocating Christine Blasey Ford as he ground his body against hers, this man who may now have perjured himself — occupying a place for life on the highest court in the land?

Who indeed; it amazes me that anyone would, Republicans included.

Jennifer Rubin argues that Kavanaugh’s enraged performance makes him a terrible fit for the Supreme Court.

…here I want to focus on what may be the most significant issue — whether Kavanaugh’s “big reveal” that he is an angry partisan who thinks Democrats conspired to get him — now disqualifies him to sit on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.

That’s one of those questions that demand a single answer. No, an angry partisan who thinks Democrats conspired to get him should not be on the Supreme Court, because the court is emphatically not supposed to be a party-based institution.

The judiciary’s role in vital, hot-button issues has increased, making the Supreme Court seats precious, but the Senate acted as a brake, ensuring that qualified and temperamentally fit people were confirmed. Then the GOP became a right-wing, radical party that eschewed long-held principles such as truth, humility, decorum and respect. Republicans radicalized, and with no filibuster to sift out the political operatives from the judges, we get Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but should not Kavanaugh recuse himself from every case involving a left-leaning group that is part of the conspiracy he decried?

As he yelled at Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was not hard to imagine that he would be less than evenhanded if they were a party in litigation. “With his unprecedented attacks on Democrats and liberals, Kavanaugh must now likely broadly recuse himself from matters including those groups,” says ethics guru Norman Eisen. “It may wipe out a substantial portion of his docket should he be confirmed. We have a rule of thumb in government ethics: When recusals are so broad that the nominee can’t do his job, then maybe he shouldn’t be confirmed to the position. It is time to consider that question here.”

But the rules about recusal are different for the Supreme Court…which is looking very unfortunate right now.

“As a Supreme Court justice, Kavanaugh would not be bound by the rules applicable to judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals with respect to recusal,” says Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe. For lower-court judges operating under those guidelines, Tribe argues “there is a very strong argument that Kavanaugh’s intemperate screed attacking liberal groups and spinning conspiracy theories when he testified on Thursday afternoon now requires him to recuse in any case where such groups appear before the Court of Appeals on which he sits.” Tribe continues, “For him to remain on a three-judge panel that sits in judgment on any legal claim affecting such a group would obviously create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and probably an actual conflict.”

He explains, “It follows – not from rules that wouldn’t technically bind him but from the principles about which Norm Eisen, Judge [Timothy] Lewis and I wrote in our Brookings Report of September 4 about the substantive areas from which Kavanaugh would have to recuse under cases like Williams-Yulee (and from the importance of maintaining the Supreme Court’s credibility as a fair arbiter of core legal questions) – that Judge Kavanaugh could not credibly cast a vote or participate in any way as a Supreme Court Justice in any of the very substantial number of cases that court decides each year involving litigants, whether individuals or organizations, that Kavanaugh evidently blames for orchestrating what he sees as an outrageous attack on his integrity, his decency, and his very life as well as the life of his family.”

In a situation where rules actually operated, Kavanaugh’s performance on Thursday would have killed his nomination stone dead. We’re not in that situation; the rules have been indefinitely suspended.

A good number of Americans already believe the Supreme Court is nothing more than a mini-legislature with two warring factions, fighting for that fifth seat to deliver “wins” for its side. Putting a judge on the Supreme Court who expressed hatred and resentment toward a wide swath of the Democratic Party would shred whatever is left of the court’s intellectual integrity.

Before Christine Blasey Ford stepped forward, I speculated that Kavanaugh’s smaller misstatements and evasions in testifying (e.g., his role in Charles Pickering’s confirmation, his knowledge that reports from a GOP operative came from emails purloined from Democrats) might have been part of an effort to tone down his role as a partisan. He had been a dogged antagonist of the Clintons as a lawyer working for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, after all,  and any additional sign of hyperpartisanship could have been curtains for him in 2006.

It seems I was more right than I possibly could have anticipated. This is a man soaked in the Clinton wars, who delivered dozens of speeches thrilling conservative activists at the Federalist Society and now lets on that he harbors rabidly hostile views of the Democrats. It’s inconceivable someone so biased, someone who vowed revenge (“What goes around, comes around,” he shouted), could be elevated to the Supreme Court. And yet, he might.

He might.

Matt Damon does Kavanaugh:

Trump is telling the FBI it can’t investigate what it needs to investigate to get at the truth about Kavanaugh.

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.

…

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.

The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.

Well they don’t want to risk actually finding something.

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.”

The president also said he thinks Flake’s role in delaying the vote is fine. “Actually this could be a blessing in disguise,” Trump continued. “Because having the FBI go out, do a thorough investigation, whether its three days or seven days, I think it’s going to be less than a week. But having them do a thorough investigation, I actually think will be a blessing in disguise. It’ll be a good thing.”

No, you pud, it’s not “in disguise” – finding out the truth is a good thing.

(Also odd that he thinks seven days is less than a week, but whatev.)

If the FBI learns of others who can corroborate what the existing witnesses are saying, it is not clear whether agents will be able to contact them under the terms laid out by the White House, the two sources briefed on the matter said.

Some areas are off limits, the sources said.

So the goal isn’t to find out the truth but to pretend to do that and come back waving empty hands and shouting “Nothing there!”

Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez’s lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.

The conditions under which the FBI’s reopened background check are occurring appears to differ from the one envisioned by Flake, who used his leverage as a swing vote to pressure the Trump administration to order the FBI investigation.

Flake said Friday he thought the FBI should decide the scope of the investigation.

“They’ll have to decide — the FBI you know, how far that goes,” he told reporters. “This is limited in time and scope and I think that it’s appropriate when it’s a lifetime appointment and allegations this serious and we ought to let people know that we’re serious about it.”

Updating to add elucidation by a law school professor:

This is to avoid referral for a criminal investigation into perjury. Even GOP would have a hard time confirming someone under criminal investigation

— Rebecca Roiphe (@rroiphe) September 29, 2018

So Kavanaugh can perjure himself right in front of us but as long as the FBI is blocked from talking to witnesses who can say “Oh yeah he was lying through his teeth,” he will still sail right on through to spend 20 or 30 or 40 years on the Supreme Court.

Then there’s the whole “I got into Yale!!” thing.

At one point, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse pursued a line of questioning about the “Beach Week Ralph Club,” a phrase that appeared in Kavanaugh’s yearbook next to his senior photo. Kavanaugh told Whitehouse that “Ralph” probably referred to vomiting, something that Kavanaugh attributed to his “weak stomach, whether it’s with beer or with spicy food or anything.” Whitehouse asked if the “Ralph Club” reference had to do specifically with alcohol, and Kavanaugh responded:

Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.

It was a deflection, but the particular shield he raised was telling. His response seems to suggest a belief that a prestigious education stands as evidence of moral rightness.

I interpreted it a bit differently. Whitehouse was pressing on the drinking too much theme, and I think Kavanaugh was saying “Drunk or not, I still worked hard and got into Yale.” I think it was more about not being a sloppy drunk, a loser, a wastrel, a schmuck who drank away his future. He got drunk on his ass, he ralphed a lot, but by god he also put in the hours and grabbed the brass ring.

Which is true, and even sort of relevant if his point is that drinking a lot doesn’t mean he won’t do the work of a Supreme Court justice. It’s sort of relevant that he can both drink and do his job.

Sort of relevant, but also sort of not, because it’s more than the hours, it’s more even than the work. There is also for instance the matter of judgement: problem drinkers tend to have bad judgement. Maybe Kavanaugh is the exception to that tendency, but by god he spectacularly failed to demonstrate any such immunity on Thursday. I can’t begin to express how much I do not want an entitled enraged screaming asshole like that on the Supreme Court, and I am far from the only one.

A Facebook post (I don’t know who O. B. is):

O.B. : I was a dude who went to parties in the eighties, and worked on the yearbook staff, so let me shed some light on a few things:

“Boofing” doesn’t refer to farts or flatulence. Boofing is a very specific category of anal insertion. He lied about that. Under oath.

A comment said it’s a variant of BuFu, geddit?

“The devil’s triangle” is not and has never been a drinking game. It’s a euphemism for a threesome involving two men and one woman. He lied about that too. Under oath.

Yearbook editors do not doctor or change copy provided by students for their dedication page without their permission. Whatever he wrote in his yearbook is 100% his own words. He lied about that as well. Under oath.

Just like he lied about his drinking, just like he lied about never having assaulted anyone, just like he lied about the reasons why he won’t agree to an FBI investigation to prove his innocence, just like he lied about not having tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party.

The boy who tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party was exactly the same entitled, binge-drinking jock douchebag who got away with the same exact crap at your school in the eighties and nineties.

That’s who Brett Kavanaugh is.

I don’t even have to believe Dr. Ford. I do, but I don’t have to. I just don’t believe him. None of what he said today was true, and it was obvious. His lies were absurd and easy to debunk. He isn’t even a good liar.

Here’s a photo of the real Brett Kavanaugh. Not the sniveling gaslighting jackass in a cheap suit who barked at Senators today and whined about not being handed a job he feels entitled to.

Here’s the guy who shoved an innocent girl into a room with his friend, locked the door, tried to rape her, and then went on about his day. That’s his true face.

He lied under oath for the better part of an hour today, and every man who grew up in the same era fucking knows it.

Now the FBI is going to spend the next week investigating him.

Over the course of the morning I read, via a slew of name lawyers on Twitter, that both the American Bar Association and Yale Law school had withdrawn their endorsements of Kavanaugh pending an investigation. Greg Sargent at the Post wrote about it early in the day:

During his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Brett Kavanaugh defended his qualifications for the Supreme Court by repeatedly citing his support from the American Bar Association. Crucially, Kavanaugh noted that the ABA had vetted him for the position. Kavanaugh said this not once but twice.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kavanaugh’s chief defender, a man who melted down in a fit of histrionic rage at the sight of Kavanaugh getting confronted with the thoroughly credible testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, also cited the ABA’s support for Kavanaugh. Graham specifically cited the ABA, which he called the “gold standard,” in making the case that Kavanaugh “lived a good life” and that “his integrity is absolutely unquestioned.”

Now the ABA has issued a new letter calling for a renewed FBI background check into the charges against Kavanaugh, insisting that the Judiciary Committee must not hold any vote on his nomination until this happens:

The American Bar Association urges the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (and, as appropriate, the full Senate) to conduct a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination only after an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Ford and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

So bang went Kavanaugh’s claim that the ABA had vetted him for the position. (Does that count as yet another of his many lies?)

What’s more, the ABA is also asserting that voting to move him forward now — absent a reopened FBI background check — would represent a complete abdication of advice and consent duty on the part of individual senators, one that would flout the rule of law and due process.

That is, a complete abdication of duty by senators like Jeff Flake of Arizona.

So any Republican senators who are lawyers might be deeply uncomfortable with that.

Sargent says the decision to order the FBI investigation means they will interview Mark Judge.

Kavanaugh absolutely would not say he was willing to have an FBI investigation yesterday, no matter how hard the Democrats pressed him. So with any luck this is curtains for that hateful whiny entitled blowhard.

So. It flipped at the last minute. You probably already know by now, and if you don’t you probably don’t care (this is very US-centric, but then again when the US sneezes the world catches antibiotic-resistant TB, plus there is the whole hostile indifference to women issue), but here it is anyway. Jeff Flake voted with the Republicans to move Kavanaugh from the committee to the full Senate, but he also made that conditional on an FBI investigation first. Which they should have done all along. Flake on his own would have left things as they are because Pence would break the tie, but it turned out Flake wasn’t on his own.

But Flake — as well as Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar — suggested in the moments before the 11-10 vote that there were other Republicans who felt the same as Flake. As in, they would not support Kavanaugh’s confirmation unless and until the FBI investigation happens. Those senators are, presumably, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

None of what Flake did was binding — until the White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in. McConnell formally requested the White House to instruct the FBI to do supplemental background check, which “would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee announcement means that McConnell, as expected, has bowed to the fact that he does not currently have the votes. Presumably, Flake would not have a) made the one-week FBI investigation request and then b) voted for Kavanaugh to move favorably out of committee unless c) he knew that he had Murkowski and/or Collins (or some other Republican) was with him. (Murkowski confirmed to reporters after the session that she supports Flake’s proposal.)

President Donald Trump bowed to the inevitable on Friday afternoon, ordering an FBI investigation.

That’s an improvement on the grim march to the gallows of this morning.