Throughout the past two weeks, much of the country’s headlines have surrounded Judge Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearings have proceeded onward toward his final confirmation vote scheduled for this afternoon. On Thursday, September 27, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a professor from Palo Alto University, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee with an emotional, detailed account of a sexual assault, allegedly by Kavanaugh, in 1982. It’s an allegation that Kavanaugh has continuously, vehemently denied. Thus far, President Donald Trump has stood by his initial endorsement of Kavanaugh, taking to Twitter on the day of the Committee hearing to double down on his nomination.
Meanwhile, across the globe, First Lady Melania Trump has spent much of the past week on a solo international tour of Africa—her first since her husband took office—traveling to Ghana, Malawi, Kenya, and Egypt with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The White House has positioned this trip as an opportunity for the First Lady to learn more about “how the U.S. can play a role in providing assistance to help countries become self-sufficient” with a particular focus on “maternal and newborn care in hospitals [and] education for children.” While in Egypt on the tail end of her travels, Trump was asked by reporters if she agrees with her husband’s continued support of Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh.
“What I will say, if we’re talking about the Supreme Court and Judge Kavanaugh, I think he’s highly qualified for the Supreme Court,” she said. “I’m glad that Dr. Ford was heard; I’m glad that Judge Kavanaugh was heard. The FBI investigation was done, it’s completed, and [the] Senate voted.”
When pressed by the reporter as to whether she herself believed Dr. Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, the First Lady initially declined to answer but returned to the question with a general statement: “I think all the victims—we need to help all the victims, no matter what kind of abuse they had, but I am against any kind of abuse or violence.”
Last week, the world watched as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford stood in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to publicly allege that Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative D.C. judge whom President Donald Trump had nominated to the Supreme Court, had drunkenly groped her at a party, attempted to forcibly remove her clothes, and covered her mouth when she attempted to scream. Dr. Ford’s affecting, emotional account of the alleged assault immediately ignited a rippling #MeToo effect across the country, as women from Busy Phillips to Ellen Degeneres began sharing their own traumatic sexual assault experiences—feeling emboldened to do so after hearing Dr. Ford’s powerful testimony.
Actor and activist Amandla Stenberg chose to open up about her sexual assault in an op-ed for Teen Vogue published Saturday. In the powerfully penned piece, the Hate U Give star wrote about her own experiences with sexual assault and explains she felt compelled to go public with her own story after watching the Kavanaugh hearings and listening to Dr. Ford’s testimony.
“As I live-streamed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in a hotel room and a humid drizzle painted the windows an opaque gray, I found myself relying heavily on the tool of my breath… My breath was the tool I relied on when I ended up in a foreign country on a three-hour train ride to find an emergency contraceptive,” she wrote. “The night before, what started as a consensual experience had turned forceful. Painful things had been done to my body that made me feel broken and disposable. I was unable to consent to them, and was silenced verbally and physically when I protested.”
The actress goes on to describe the emotional weight she carried after this traumatic experience, feeling at times guilty, as though what happened to her had somehow been her fault. “I was sitting in that soup of guilt and shame that often follows an unwarranted sexual experience,” she said. “My body hurt and my mind was on a one-track loop, dissecting all the things that I was culpable for, that must have led me to my predicament.”
Stenberg explains that her assaulter was someone who was “respected” by her peers, stating: “It seemed to me that often the trade-off of being invited into spaces by these sorts of cis straight men and getting their approval was the acceptance that what I had to contribute was the value of my body as a woman. Implicit within that was the notion that, because my body served such a transactional purpose, it was no longer just my property. That was a form of social currency I was familiar with and, honestly, at times accepted.”
An often-debated topic throughout the Kavanaugh hearings revolved around the question of whether or not Dr. Ford should have come forward with the sexual assault allegation sooner. But as Stenberg points out in her essay, doing so immediately throws assault survivors into “a battle where you’ve been appointed defender of your own legitimacy.” She goes on: “You are given the responsibility of, after having just been subjected to devastating trauma, navigating impossible protocols, lest you be charged as the culprit in your own attack. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Damned to subject yourself to physical and public scrutiny, more vulnerability and social repercussions, or damned to allow the residual feelings to fester inside. Either way, you sacrifice comfort and safety within your own body, and sometimes it’s easier to just keep that pain to yourself and hope it goes away. And that is understandable and OK. We should not be condemned for being unsure of how to move through pain.”
Ultimately, it was watching Dr. Ford’s testimony that pushed the actress to “move through discomfort that [she’d] buried” and speak out: “Although these tipping points are chaotic, disorienting, infuriating, and often heartbreaking, I like to believe that real change begins with the eruption of truth.”
If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, you can seek help by calling the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE (4673). For more resources on sexual assault, visit RAINN and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.
Christine Blasey Ford’s decision to publicly accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault irrevocably changed her life. If her claims, which the judge adamantly denies, help keep him off the bench, her decision may also change the course of American history.
America was watching when the California college professor testified about Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Among those who may have watched extra closely: Women still privately weighing whether to speak out against their own assailants.
Ford’s challenge to Kavanaugh has energized talk of a new era of empowerment for accusers. But there are still fears that what she’s experienced since coming forward—and the final Senate verdict on Kavanaugh, which has now been delayed pending a brief FBI inquiry—could convince some women to stay silent.
“There’s a very, very high cost to the accuser when they report,” says Professor Linda Martín Alcoff of the Graduate Center and Hunter College of the City University of New York—whether emotional, financial, or professional. Before taking the risk, women consider what they’ve seen happen to both public figures and people they know: “They’re guessing what the cost will be—and they’re making reasonable guesses that the cost is going to be high,” she says.
Even with that, Martín Alcoff says the outcome of the Ford-Kavanaugh confrontation will affect attitudes toward reporting sexual assault “for years to come” because it is unique. Specifically, it’s what she calls a “best-case scenario” for an accuser.
First, she says, Ford’s accusation is being taken seriously—something not every accuser can count on. She has the benefit of a legal team on her side. Ford has also been able to produce evidence to support her claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in 1982, including polygraph test results and health records.
Despite those advantages, Martín Alcoff says, Ford still got enough threats after she went public to compel her to flee her home.
And though Ford’s claims come after the rise of movements like #MeToo and #TimesUp, Martín Alcoff, also the author of Rape & Resistance, says Ford’s case may face some of the same procedural hurdles—and skeptical attitudes—Anita Hill confronted in 1991 when she alleged in groundbreaking testimony that then-SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.
Thomas was confirmed by the Senate, 52 to 48. He still sits on the high court today.
If Ford’s testimony does help tip the Senate away from confirming Kavanaugh, it’s likely she’ll be cheered in other circles: His rejection might be hailed as vindication for assault survivors—particularly those who dare to challenge the powerful. (Separately, those who call Kavanaugh a threat to abortion rights wouldn’t mind if he tanked; President Donald Trump’s foes might love to see his nominee implode, particularly in a hot election year.)
Ford certainly appears to have more public support (and Kavanaugh less) than was the case in the Hill-Thomas showdown. Hill was castigated for her testimony, but on Monday, women (and men) hit the street to show their faith in Ford; in a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, whose claims Kavanaugh also denies; and to telegraph a message to survivors: We Believe You.
That profession of faith got even louder on Thursday, when Ford supporters (and, in fairness, some detractors) descended on Washington to bear witness as Ford testified before Judiciary.
“These actions reinforce to victims that they have no voice [and] will not be believed … the chilling effect will last for years to come.”
Celebrities have come forth in force to signal-boost that message—including by sharing their own stories of #WhyIDidntReport and applying pressure to other public figures, like Ivanka Trump. Also, as the organization RAINN (Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network) noted, calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline have jumped since Ford spoke out—the kind of uptick often seen when misconduct stories make headlines.
Ford has already paid a price for accusing Kavanaugh of having drunkenly groped her—and covering her mouth when she resisted—whether in the threats she’s fielded or the critiques of her integrity and motives, including some from the president himself.
On the flip side, Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, has also reportedly received violent, threatening messages at work. The judge’s supporters (and the judge himself) say he has been unfairly forced to defend his reputation against unsubstantiated accusations.
Martín Alcoff says many of her students have told her of “being stalked, and harassed, and threatened” by someone they accused—and his pals.
Social media may broaden the public debate about sexual misconduct, but for accusers in high-profile cases, Martín Alcoff says, it also means “you have to fear retaliation not just from the person’s friends,” but faceless “hashtag activists” who may know neither accuser nor accused. Their mobilization may show something bigger at play than this or any one case: “It seems like really what they want is to push back the growing power the victims, generally women, are gaining in the public sphere,” she says.
Despite the court of public (and social media) opinion, only the full Senate decides if Kavanaugh gets that lifetime SCOTUS seat or not.
The Senate considers the judiciary committee’s recommendation, but isn’t bound to agree with it. Still, the panel’s willingness to move to the recommendation stage so quickly concerned Ruth Glenn, president of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who told Glamour earlier this week that “the disregard and disdain with which Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez [have] been treated will have a real effect on victims reporting their assaults.
“These actions reinforce to victims that they have no voice [and] will not be believed,” she says. “They will continue to be stigmatized and traumatized, not just today, but the chilling effect will last for years to come.”
Overall, Martín Alcoff says the vitriol surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation “will certainly demoralize future accusers, both because of the fact that these accusers have had to actually put their [lives] in danger, and because of the flippant way their accusations have been dismissed without investigation.”
Still, she says, “I feel confident victims will continue to speak out. The accusers have had support from coast to coast, with their supporters willing to share the abuse and get arrested. It’s a sad moment, but all the more inspiring since women are not backing down.”
Celeste Katz is senior political reporter for Glamour. Send news tips, questions, and comments to celeste_katz@condenast.com.
There is, perhaps, no person in America better suited to weigh in on the current state of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination hearings than Anita Hill.
In 1991, the law professor found herself in a position similar to that of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in that both had come forward to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of sexual misconduct. Hill testified about a pattern of sexual harassment during her time working with now-Justice Clarence Thomas, while Ford alleges that Kavanaugh drunkenly assaulted her during a party while they were in high school. (He has denied her allegations, just as Justice Thomas denied ever harassing Hill.)
Ford is reportedly considering testifying at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings about the matter, pending an FBI investigation requested Tuesday by Ford’s lawyer to “ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner.” Hill, having had some experience in this area, is offering some words of wisdom to the Senate Judiciary Committee to get it right this time around.
“Today, the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades,” Hill writes in the New York Times. “That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.”
Here are some takeaways from Hill’s powerful op-ed:
Don’t mix messages.
Hill says that confronting sexual harassment and ensuring the integrity of the Supreme Court are not things that are at odds with each other. “Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy,” she writes.
Neutrality is key.
Hill suggests that a neutral body with experience in the subject of sexual misconduct should lead an investigation into Ford’s claims so as not to be tainted by the rampant partisanship we see on almost every current political matter. And after that, senators must rely on the results and act as fact-finders when asking their own questions. “The investigators’ report should frame the hearing,” says Hill. “Not politics or myths about sexual assault.”
Slow down.
Rushing the hearings is a mistake, according to Hill. She says it sends the message that these types of allegations are not important. “Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges,” she says.
Say her name.
“Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply ‘Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.’ Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.”
Hill also wisely points out that Kavanaugh has the benefit of organized support for his side while Christine Blasey Ford will be “outresourced” and that “imbalance may not seem fair.”
While it may be too late to heed all of Hill’s warnings, we can only hope that the process is not as problematic as it was for her in 1991. I remember watching the coverage of those hearings as an almost 16-year-old and taking away the unfortunate message that it was extremely hard to be believed as a woman, no matter how credible your claims.
In the media run-up to Monday’s hearing, it would seem that not a lot has changed. I hope I’m proven wrong.
You like drama? Stories with strong female voices? Shade in spades? Then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings are the show for you—oh, also because they’ll directly, and significantly, affect your life. Unfortunately, this bit of must-see TV airs when most everyone’s working or watching their kids, so we’ll be here all to recap each day of these monumentally important proceedings.
Did everybody you encountered on Thursday seem a little more energized than usual? Did your boss whistle on her way to her desk? Did you spot your UPS delivery man dancing down the street with a package? Did even your dog seem to trot with a little more pride, perhaps forgoing her typical shame-eyes while she watched you pick up her poop?
That’s because all of them saw Senator Cory Booker (D—New Jersey) lean over his mic at the Kavanaugh hearings and utter two words in response to Senator John Cornyn’s (R—Texas) threat to have him expelled from the Senate for leaking committee-confidential emails.
“Bring it,” Sen. Booker said. “Bring it.”
Somehow the day managed to have a perfectly bitchy tension, kind of like when you rent a house with friends and the trip goes on one day longer than it should.
It was a hell of a kickoff—and a fitting one. Day Three, given that we watched the same people open their mouths, over and over, should have had all the thrill of a slowly deflating balloon. And if we’re honest, it wasn’t some great success. Both Democrats and Republicans spent much of the session launching valiant attempts to get Kavanaugh to promise he isn’t beholden to the president and that he wouldn’t thwart investigations into him. Kavanaugh’s response to their 600 efforts? Guys, stop! I hate labels—“yes” and “no” are so limiting. Let’s talk about something else—have I mentioned my “four greatest moments in the history of the Supreme Court?” Oh, I have, and it’s really pissing you off that I’m saying it again? Shh—gonna do it anyway!
Yet somehow the day managed to have a perfectly bitchy tension, kind of like when you rent a house with friends and the trip goes on one day longer than it should have and you’re like, Wait, I think I hate my friends. That’s where we’re at. Senator Mazie Hirono (D—Hawaii) is glaring at Kavanaugh like he’s the guy who picked the house but hasn’t paid his share yet. Senator Orrin Hatch (R—Utah) is grumbling about protestors like they’re the loud new boyfriend no one knew was coming. And Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D—Rhode Island) jaw is vibrating with that brand of fury specific to no one else but him ever taking out the goddamn trash.
Here’s your rundown of the best moments from the worst vacation ever.
Best 11th-hour sensation: Senator Kamala Harris (D—Calif.)
PHOTO: Chip Somodevilla
A mood.
Before we get to Day Three’s events, we need to talk about what happened at the end of Day Two—at least an hour after most of America had retreated from C-SPAN and rushed into the kinder arms of America’s Got Talent. As the eve wore on, Kavanaugh, too, looked like he was dreaming of getting home to his couch and his DVR pileup (Mentalist reruns in standard definition, I’d bet). Perhaps he was a little tired, and so he didn’t hear the bell ring when Sen. Harris took the mic. But soon enough, he realized: Night school was in session. She hammered him—watch the highlights here.
Fiercest ride-or-dies: Sen. Booker, Senator Dick Durbin (D—Illinois) and Sen. Hirono. After Sen. Booker’s “Bring it,” Sen. Hirono pointed out that she, too, leaked documents—come at her. And Sen. Durbin got all excited and said, “If there’s going to be some retribution against the gentleman from New Jersey, count me in.” Kinda love that Sen. Durbin’s rallying cry works equally well for Senate proceedings in 2018 and publick-house brawls in 1772.
Loudest dog whistle: In response to a question from Senator Ted Cruz (R—Texas), Kavanaugh used the term “abortion-inducing drugs” to refer to contraception. The language comes straight from the fiercest anti-choice advocates and is also inaccurate. Contraception is not abortion, signed millions of American women and all of our doctors.
Worst reverse age-shaming: Kavanaugh on Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of EducationSenator Amy Klobuchar (D—Minn.) voiced the question that’s been making heads across America hurt this week: How does Kavanaugh define the difference between precedent and settled law when it comes to Supreme Court cases? In his answer, Kavanaugh said that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law because it’s “historical”—64 years old. Sen. Klobuchar grinned. “Roe is now 45 years old,” she said. “Why isn’t that a thumbs-up settled law?” Kavanaugh didn’t have a good answer for her.
Hypocrisy slay of the day: Sen. Hirono. Sen. Hirono, once again running low on f—s, went in on Kavanaugh’s record concerning reproductive rights, making the man wish he never met the phrase “undue burden.” See, in one case Kavanaugh ruled on, he said that people who opposed birth control on religious grounds shouldn’t have to fill out a form approving their employees’ health coverage of it. That, in his estimation, was “undue burden.” The phrase came up again in Garza v. Hargan, in which Kavanaugh’s decision sought to deny an immigrant minor an abortion. Kavanaugh wanted the procedure delayed until the girl found foster parents who could talk it through with her—letting her pregnancy tick on towards the 20-week deadline for abortions under Texas law. That delay, he argued then, did not constitute “undue burden.” Sen. Hirono scoffed at the irony laid out by the two cases: “So filling out a two-page form was too much,” she said. “But it was not too much for [Jane Doe] to wait around for foster parents to be found.”
Best circus advocate: Senator Lindsay Graham (R—South Carolina).
PHOTO: Drew Angerer
Send in the clowns.
After Sen. Hatch mumbled that the proceedings had turned into “a circus,” Sen. Graham quipped, “I wanna defend circuses. Circuses are entertaining and you can take your children to them.” An excellent line, but I wasn’t surprised—the last 18 months have afforded Sen. Graham plenty of chances to defend a clown.
Guy we’re most done with: Senator John Kennedy (R—Louisiana). Of all the whining the Republicans have done this week about protestors exercising free speech, Sen. Kennedy’s has been the whiniest. After Kavanaugh himself said, in the wake of a protestor’s shouting, that the students behind him were getting a chance to learn about democracy, Sen. Kennedy—who’s a dead ringer for this choir-boy doll my grandmother used to put out at Christmas, though that’s neither here nor there—looked down at the girls and snooted of the interruption, “It’s happened over 200 times in the last three days. It’s not really how democracy’s supposed to work.” Actually, girls, it is. If democracy needs less of anything, it’s old white guys looking down from on high, telling you what to think.
The detective drama spinoff I’d most like to watch:Klobuchouse.
PHOTO: Bloomberg
Nothing but respect for my Law & Order candidate.
She—Sen. Klobuchar is the unflappable good cop, smiling with catlike calm when a suspect spits her questions back in her face. He—Sen. Whitehouse—is the keyed-up bad cop, a cross between Statler from The Muppets and that one snappish teacher from high school who, looking back, probably had some stuff going on at home. They’re good cops on their own—but together, they’re great.
You like drama? Stories with strong female voices? Shade in spades? Then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings are the show for you—oh, also because they’ll directly, and significantly, affect your life. Unfortunately, this bit of must-see TV airs when most everyone’s working or watching their kids—so we’ll be here all to recap each day of these monumentally important proceedings.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh spent nearly all of Day One of his Capitol Hill confirmation hearings in rapt attention. Listening, listening, listening. Sitting, bearing fidgety witness to the drama as it unfolded on the dais. But here we are on Day Two, though, like a ubiquitous Real Housewives “friend” turned full cast-member, he twirled into the spotlight. And if he had a Housewives tagline, it’d be this: “Nothing but respect for my precedent.”
Yes, “precedent” was the word of the hour, all the hours—Kavanaugh’s career, mantra, and brand all in one. (At one point, he even said “precedent on precedent”—which is, trust me, the closest Brett Kavanaugh has ever gotten to a rap). Every decision he’s ever rendered? Based on precedent, he told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every decision he intends to make in the future? Same. “Do you agree with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor that a woman has a right to control her reproductive life?” asked Senator Dianne Feinstein (D—Calif.), the ranking Democratic member on the committee.
Kavanaugh paused. “Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth by Roe v. Wade,” he answered.
“What would you say your position is today on a woman’s right to choose?” Sen. Feinstein followed up.
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court,” Kavanaugh said, leaving little doubt that he is, in fact, a scholar of Housewives in addition to constitutional law. These answers are nothing if not designed to be easily denied later—at the end-of-season reunion, or whilst striking down Roe v. Wade.
Later in the afternoon, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D—Conn.) arrived. He turned Kavanaugh’s love of a precedent reference against him! (Very Vicki Gunvalson!) Sen. Blumenthal proceeded to pull out an opinion of Kavanaugh’s in which he referred to Roe as “existing precedent.” Sen. Blumenthal insisted that he’d never seen precedent qualified like that before: “It’s a little bit,” he said to Kavanaugh, “like someone introducing you to his wife as ‘my current wife.’” Blumenthal tried to extract a guarantee from Kavanaugh that he’d never overturn Roe. That, as the pros put is, was a non-starter.
If he had a Housewives tagline, it’d be this: “Nothing but respect for my precedent.”
Kavanaugh’s marathon evasiveness was enough to make a gal wish for a guest spot from Andy Cohen, whose blithly exasperated, yet effective interview techniques were desperately needed here. I just get the impression that Andy would be able to get decisive yes-no responses on all the important issues—whether Kavanaugh would gut abortion rights, whether he believes Trump can be prosecuted, whether Ramona did attempt to go to Tom’s New Year’s Eve bash. (And then I’d like Sen. Blumenthal to take a crack at dissecting the Bethenny-Carole breakdown.)
Here are some more takeaways from a long, long-winded day:
Fastest turnaround: Zina Bash. We now know the name of the aide sitting over Kavanaugh’s shoulder like a Club Monaco-clad guardian angel. She’s Zina Bash, and she was much more subdued than we saw her on Tuesday. Having to debunk Twitter theories that you were throwing white-power hand signals will do that to a person. Today, Bash barely had hands. Mostly, they manifested as quick blurs whenever she had to scratch an itch or answer an urgent email. If someone handed her a beverage, I feel sure she would have accepted it with her teeth.
Biggest distraction: Silicon Valley celebs.
PHOTO: Drew Angerer
Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, and Jack Dorsey’s community-Shakespeare-theatre beard were all on Capitol Hill this afternoon, too, talking about their platforms’ roles in 2016 election meddling. Somehow, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) even got into a fight in the hallway with a radio person. Can you imagine what it would have been like to attempt to concentrate on Kavanaugh while all that’s happening next door? It would be like that time you were in the class stuck making up a pop quiz while the rest of the school is at a pep rally—a pep rally where Marco Rubio, who was awarded “Crispest Khaki Creases” at graduation, is about to throw a punch!
Best successor to “moist,” the worst word on the planet: “Undergirds.” I’m not sure how many times Kavanaugh said the word “undergirds” today, but I know it was all the times too many.
Dad move of the day: Kavanaugh on Leahy’s emails. When Senator Patrick Leahy (D—Conn.), in an attempt to catch Kavanaugh in an alleged lie, showed him a printed-out email chain, Kavanaugh went into full-on naïve mode, blinking into the middle distance and repeating the name of a one-time Republican Senate staffer—“Mir-an-da?”—in the befuddled tone of a medium-developed toddler. Clearly, he’d practiced this response—but not in debate prep. Rather, it’s a move ripped from the official two-point fatherhood playbook.
When one of your daughters gets invited to a sleepover at the home of a friend you’ve deemed “fast,” here’s what you’ve got to do: Step one: “Lose” the invitation. Step two: When confronted, feign innocence: “An invitation from… who? Mir… an… da? The one who has her own vape pen and the boyfriend who drag races? Nope, I didn’t see it, sweetie! Let’s go hoop it up instead!”
Burn of the day: Senator Amy Klobuchar (D—Minn.).
PHOTO: Bloomberg
Sen. Klobuchar is on a two-day winning streak for the best daily zing. Today, she grilled Kavanaugh on his established reluctance to investigate or prosecute sitting presidents. The exception to his opinion, Kavanaugh once said, would be if the president did something “dastardly.” But as Sen. Klobuchar pointed out coolly, “How do we know something is dastardly or not if we can’t even investigate it?” Klobes! Rip that teeny little mic right out of the podium, then go ahead and drop it.
Most hilarious tactic: The Tremendous, Stupendous Brett Kavanaugh Loves Women Parade! Senator Orrin Hatch (R—Utah) may have been shaken by women on Tuesday. But a new dawn broke, and on Wednesday, he was like, “You know what? Women are good!”
Sen. Hatch’s allotted time was spent hyping Kavanaugh’s deep commitment to gender equality. “They say that you are one of the strongest advocates… for women lawyers,” Sen. Hatch said, adding, “The majority of your clerks in your office have been—women!” You should know he said “women” there with such a pure sense of awe, it seemed like he might have been less shocked if the clerks had turned out to be goats.
Giver of fewest f—s: Senator Mazie Hirono (D—Hawaii).
PHOTO: Zach Gibson
Whether she was expressing frank skepticism at Kavanaugh’s inability to remember a raunchy office email chain at one of his former jobs (eyebrows at 30,000 feet), slicing through his verbosity (“I think that’s a complete answer, thank you”), or eviscerating his support of a parental consent requirement for a minor’s abortion in a specific case (“Her parents were beating her up! How could you expect parental consent?”), Sen. Hirono was not having the bullshit this eve. Her turn didn’t come until dinnertime, and while everyone else in the room looked beat, and Kavanaugh was probably desperate for his linguine alla Heinz at that point, Hirono must have had a well-timed protein snack, because she looked like she could have gone until the midterms.
Kavanaugh will see her and her brooch in his nightmares. You’re welcome, Brett. Good night.
Megan Angelo writes about TV and is the author of the novel Followers, which will be published in 2019. You catch her Kavanaugh recaps on Glamour.com all week.
