Establishment media outlets repeatedly bungled their coverage of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, spreading misinformation as a result.

Here are nine instances in which media outlets pushed misinformation about Kavanaugh.

Multiple media outlets accused Kavanaugh of lying about the term “devil’s triangle” in his high school yearbook, which Democrats claimed was a reference to a group sex act. When asked by Democratic Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Kavanaugh said that “devil’s triangle” was a drinking game played with quarters and three cups. The Huffington Post called Kavanaugh’s explanation a “lie.” Seven witnesses — including the classmate credited in the yearbook for inventing the game — have corroborated Kavanaugh’s account of “devil’s triangle.” Politico on Thursday published a video that cited the website Urban Dictionary to suggest Kavanaugh was lying. Politico later deleted the video and issued an apology for its “outdated information.”

Multiple media outlets claimed Kavanaugh described some forms of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” HuffPost’s article, “Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’ At Confirmation Hearing,” has been shared 110,000 times. The Cut (a New York Magazine website) titled its article: “Brett Kavanaugh Calls Birth Control ‘Abortion Inducing Drugs.’” In fact, Kavanaugh was citing the defendant’s description while explaining his dissent in the case, which went against the plaintiff. PolitiFact rated “false” Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris’s claim echoing the misleading reporting.

3. New Yorker’s first-hand source knocks down its second-hand source on second accuser

The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow have faced criticism over their sourcing in reporting on the second allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez accused him of drunkenly displaying his penis in her face at a party. Neither she nor the New Yorker included any other attendee at the party who could corroborate her story. The New York Times later reported that Ramirez herself had told classmates she wasn’t sure if Kavanaugh was the one who had exposed himself. The only corroborating witness in the story was a former Yale classmate who told the New Yorker that he remembered hearing about Kavanaugh’s exposure from a party attendee. The classmate, who remained anonymous in that story, said he was “100 percent sure” that he had been told of Kavanaugh exposing himself to Ramirez, he told the New Yorker. Mayer repeatedly touted the unnamed source — later revealed to be current Princeton Theological Seminary professor Kenneth Appold — in defending the story’s accuracy. When the New Yorker got in contact with the attendee Appold said told him about the incident, that person had no recollection of the event ever occurring. “No one made Farrow hitch his wagon to these deeply embarrassing and wildly irresponsible Kavanaugh hit jobs,” the Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams wrote in a column. “No one forced Farrow to treat Appold as a serious and credible source. This is all of Farrow’s own choosing.”

4. NYMag spreads Avenatti’s gang rape claim, not it falling apart

New York Magazine spread Michael Avenatti’s claim to have “significant evidence” that Kavanaugh was involved in drugging and gang-raping girls during high school. The magazine published a series of articles on the topic including, “New Accuser Says Kavanaugh Was Present When She Was Gang-Raped in High School,” “Michael Avenatti Implicates Kavanaugh in Pattern of Teenage Sexual Assault” and “Julie Swetnick’s Allegations Likely to Finish Off Brett Kavanaugh.” Avenatti has yet to produce any evidence, and Democrats have distanced themselves from Avenatti’s claim. Avenatti’s client, Julie Swetnick, contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with NBC News, which could not find any corroborating witnesses or evidence to support her claim. Swetnick was also revealed to have made dubious claims in a 1994 lawsuit, reportedly had a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend and was sued for sexual harassment. But those facts undermining Swetnick and Avenatti’s credibility have yet to make it into NYMag’s coverage. When Avenatti produced an anonymous second “witness” — who produced no evidence — NYMag covered it, without mentioning Swetnick’s credibility issues. The magazine did not return an email seeking comment.

NBC faced scrutiny after reporting the Senate was pursuing an investigation on a “fourth allegation” of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The allegation in question was an anonymous letter allegedly from a woman who claimed to have heard that Kavanaugh pushed his girlfriend “up against the wall very aggressively and sexually” as they left a bar in 1998. The letter cited no evidence and provided the names of zero witnesses and was among multiple claims about which Senate Judiciary Committee investigators asked Kavanaugh as part their due diligence. NBC entitled its original story: “Senate probing new allegation of misconduct against Kavanaugh.” Kavanaugh’s 1998 girlfriend, now a federal judge, wrote a signed letter to the judiciary committee the same day as the NBC story. She disputed that Kavanaugh ever treated her the way the letter described. “To the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend who was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd,” Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in the letter, which was first obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. NBC has not yet updated its story to note Freidrich’s signed statement challenging the anonymous, evidence-free letter as of publication.

Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, in the course of doing their due diligence, also asked Kavanaugh about a Rhode Island man’s claim that Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assaulted his friend on a boat in 1985. Like NBC’s “fourth allegation,” the man presented no evidence for his claim. Senate investigators noted several tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.” The man recanted his accusation and said he “made a mistake.” CNN and The Hill’s initial coverage reported on the allegation without noting that the man leveling it had recanted. The New York Daily News hasn’t updated its story treating the recanted allegation more seriously. “Brett Kavanaugh questioned about alleged sexual assault on Rhode Island boat in 1985,” is how the paper titled its coverage. The paper has not covered the man’s retraction as of publication.

NBC published an article Monday night that challenged Kavanaugh’s testimony under oath that he hadn’t heard of former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s accusation against him before a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker. Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her at a party during college, though she herself was reportedly unsure if Kavanaugh was indeed the alleged flasher. NBC cited text messages showing members of Kavanaugh’s team working to prepare a response to the unproven allegation before The New Yorker published its article. NBC presented the texts as evidence that Kavanaugh misled the public in his testimony. But the article, which has since been updated, was misleading for two reasons. First, the network’s original story left out part of Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony in which he said he had heard Ramirez was “calling around to classmates” to ask if they remembered the details of her allegation. (To date, none of the attendees from the alleged party have yet corroborated Ramirez’s account.) “They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that — that she was doing that,” Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 25. Second, NBC’s portrayal of Kavanaugh’s comments — that he swore to have heard nothing of the story before it was published on Sept. 23 — clashed with the fact that Kavanaugh was quoted in that same Sept. 23 New Yorker article.

Kavanaugh conceded in his sworn testimony that he sometimes drank too much alcohol during high school. “I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today,” Kavanaugh said. “I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many,” Kavanaugh said. But media outlets at times represented his testimony to indicate that Kavanaugh testified that he hadn’t drank excessively, even though he confirmed that he did. TheNYT corrected a story that claimed Kavanaugh “said he did not drink to excess.” HuffPost, which did not return a request for comment, claimed “former Kavanaugh acquaintances” have “publicly refuted his claims that he did not drink excessively, one of several lies he may have told during his Senate testimony last week.” Another HuffPost article claimed that during Kavanaugh’s testimony, “he lied under oath — a lot — especially about his excessive drinking.” Those articles left out Kavanaugh’s admission that he did indeed drink excessively in high school.

CNN contributor Brian Karem claimed in the local paper he runs, The Montgomery Sentinel, that investigators in Montgomery County, Maryland, were probing another “allegation” against Kavanaugh. Local police denied any such investigation.

Bonus: The New York Times issued an apology after a writer who previously stated her opposition to Kavanaugh reported that Kavanaugh once was accused of throwing ice across a college bar.

The FBI investigation found no corroborating evidence for either Christine Blasey Ford or Deborah Ramirez’s allegations against Kavanaugh, according to a report released by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.</s>Senators voting to eventually confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court were forced repeatedly to stop so that protesters could be cleared from the room.

The scene unfolded Saturday afternoon as Kavanaugh was officially being placed on the nation's highest court. Protesters could almost immediately be heard as Vice President Mike Pence oversaw the voting.

Before Pence called for the first vote, protesters began angrily yelling and were dragged out of the chamber by police.

“I do not consent,” a woman screamed more than a minute after she was taken away.

Pence, who is also president of the Senate, had to ask the sergeant at arms to restore order in the gallery at least a half dozen times.

Outside the chamber, one woman’s cries of “rape” could be heard echoing down the hallway as plastic handcuffs were assembled by a dozen police.

The Women's March group took credit for the protests on Twitter as they were unfolding.

Protestors in the gallery rose one by one, many of them wearing black, and began shouting. Some yelled: “Shame on you. Shame on You.”

Right before Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake voted in favor of Kavanaugh, one man stood up and shouted: “You are a coward Flake, a total coward.”

And when it came time for Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, to vote, a protester yelled, “History is watching. We will not forget.” Manchin voted in favor of Kavanaugh.

Capitol Police escorted the protestors, many of them still yelling, out of the chamber.</s>President Donald Trump speaks to supporters and local politicians at an event at Manchester Community College The president addressed the ongoing opioid crisis which has had a devastating impact on cities and counties across the nation.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump was minutes into a fiery speech at a rally in southern Minnesota this week when he launched his latest rhetorical attack on the political storm surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

On the eve of a crucial and uncertain showdown over Kavanaugh in the Senate, the president revved up the raucous crowd, blasting Democrats for "trying to destroy" the Court of Appeals judge and predicting they would pay a price in the November elections.

"Their rage-fueled resistance is starting to backfire," Trump told the audience, which responded with chants of Kavanaugh's name. "These people are loco."

The comments were the latest indication that Trump views the fight to confirm his embattled Supreme Court nominee as a potent issue for the midterms and one that could rile up the Republican base in a year when Democrats are seen as the more energized party.

In an election where turnout will almost certainly decide control of Congress, Republican operatives say the president saw an opportunity to turn a liability around.

More: Brett Kavanaugh: Who are the key votes for him to get confirmed?

More: Brett Kavanaugh: Outside groups rush in with political ads

White House aides had initially taken a more cautious approach, advising the president to tread carefully around a controversy that may still sour suburban women and independent voters. But in recent days Trump changed tack, viewing an outcry over the last-minute allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh as a way to drive turnout.

“The springs are all wound pretty tight right now,” said J.C. Martin, chairman of the Republican Party in Polk County, Florida.

"People aren’t going to calm down after this."

But the strategy carries a big risk, analysts said, particularly if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Democrats believe Trump's decision to mock Kavanaugh accuser Rachel Blasey Ford will drive a wedge between suburban women voters – a key demographic – and the Republican party. And Democrats say their core supporters are already energized.

Even those who voted for Kavanaugh acknowledged that Ford’s testimony was credible.

"The confirmation process – especially Trump's mockery of Dr. Ford – only exacerbated the movement away from Trump among key demographics," said Democratic consultant Ian Russell. "

Those key voters, he said, "aren't going to forget or move on."

Republicans have cheered early polling and fundraising numbers indicating that the Kavanaugh controversy helped to close an enthusiasm gap between the parties. A 10-point split in July between the number of Democrats and Republicans who described the election as "very important" all but disappeared, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll this week.

Polls in marquee Senate races, including North Dakota, Missouri and Arizona, showed Republicans gaining some ground during the height of the Kavanaugh fight.

“This whole story has boomeranged against the Democrats in ways no one could have predicted,” said Texas-based GOP political consultant Matt Mackowiak. “Now the challenge is not losing the intensity."

The approach Republican candidates are most likely to take, several political consultants said, is to blame Democrats for the process, including the last-minute nature of the allegations and the partisanship that followed. That is a message many Republicans can support, regardless of their thoughts on Kavanaugh.

"Democrats have been trying to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh," Trump said at a recent rally, laying out the message in stark terms. "The Dems are willing to do anything to hurt anyone to get the power they so desperately crave."

The political calculus is much easier for Democrats. Already energized by their aversion to Trump, Kavanuagh's confirmation may serve to crystallize the importance of the election, driving turnout. Democrats were already questioning the rosy picture some Republicans read into the polls, and whether the increase in enthusiasm was anything more than the usual tightening of a context before the election nears.

Trump’s approval rating, meanwhile, hovered in the low 40 percent range in five separate polls this week. A poll for Rasmussen Reports, which tends to show more favorable numbers for the GOP than the average, pegged Trump's approval at 51 percent this month.

“The GOP is in trouble because [of a] nationalized election around Trump and his 40 percent approval has shifted voters against him,” said Democratic pollster and strategist Stanley Greenberg.

Opposition, Greenberg added, is found among “all types of women and college graduates and the suburbs.”

Democrats need to flip 23 seats to take control of the House in the Nov. 6 election. Control of the Senate, where Republicans hold a 51-to-49 seat majority, is also in play.

A wave of protests poured over the Capitol in the days leading up the Senate votes, an indication of energy on among anti-Kavanaugh forces. Some confronted Republican senators, including Collins and Flake, in emotional episodes broadcast on cable news. In one particularly well-publicized exchange, a tearful woman approached Flake as he stood in an elevator

"Look at me when I'm talking to you," she said. "You're telling me that my assault doesn't matter."

Trump dismissed the protesters as "elevator screamers" and "troublemakers" in a tweet on Friday. Citing no evidence, the president described the protesters as "professionals" paid for their outrage by major Democratic donor George Soros.

"Don’t fall for it!" Trump tweeted. "Look at all of the professionally made identical signs. Paid for by Soros and others."

More: Brett Kavanaugh: What the FBI report could (or could not) have uncovered

More: Expert who questioned Christine Ford says she wouldn't prosecute Kavanaugh

While some Republicans have raised concerns about maintaining the momentum for the next several weeks and into the election, others said the benefits are tangible and lasting. Martin, the county GOP official from Florida, said he has heard from Republican voters who haven't been active in the party for years.

"People are coming out of the woodwork," Martin said. "And I have volunteers coming out of my ears."</s>Federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh officiated in August at the swearing-in of Judge Britt Grant to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

WASHINGTON – Brett Kavanaugh will bring a lot of baggage with him to the Supreme Court, adding to perceptions that the third branch of government is just as political as the other two.

Kavanaugh's 50-48 confirmation ends a tumultuous three months in which he was accused of sexual assault and lying under oath. He responded by accusing Democrats and liberal interest groups of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit."

For a high court that already features four conservatives named by Republican presidents and four liberals chosen by Democratic presidents, the addition of a justice viewed as partisan, intemperate or both is almost certain to fuel doubts about the court's legitimacy.

“The court relies to a large extent on people’s sense that it’s not just another partisan institution," says David Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "It’s going to be tougher for people to see the court that way.”

Kavanaugh's confirmation was destined to be controversial. Two years ago, Republicans brazenly blocked President Barack Obama's third high court nominee and gave the seat to President Donald Trump's choice. Then Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement put the court's ideological balance in play.

From a list of 25 potential nominees, Trump chose the judge with the longest paper trail and the most political pedigree, someone who had pursued President Bill Clinton toward his eventual impeachment, then served President George W. Bush over two-thirds of his presidency.

With Republicans united behind him, Kavanaugh, 53, survived all that. For several days before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early September, he cited Chief Justice John Roberts in saying that when it comes to politics, judges must "stay not just away from the line, but three zip codes away from the line."

But then came sexual misconduct claims and allegations of excessive drinking in high school and college, which led to a series of embarrassing questions and evasive answers at a second Judiciary Committee hearing last week. With his reputation in tatters, Kavanaugh displayed a temperament judges are supposed to keep hidden.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside, left-wing opposition groups," he said.

With that single declaration, Supreme Court experts say, he made himself – and, by extension, the court – appear as partisan as the White House and Congress.

“I do think that there’s going to be a lot of hostility toward the court in the new term," says Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "The question is whether that entrenches the justices in their positions, or whether it becomes sort of a lever to moderate the court.”

Associate Justice Elena Kagan, speaking at Princeton University Friday, said increased partisanship would be a mistake.

"This is a really divided time," Kagan said. "Part of the court’s strength and part of the court’s legitimacy depends on people not seeing the court in the way that people see the rest of the governing structures of this country."

Clarence Thomas decried what he called a "high-tech lynching" during his 1991 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh will be watched closely in the days, weeks, months and years ahead for signs of reconciliation or revenge. His behavior on the bench during oral arguments will be one clue, including how he gets along with the other justices on what he has called a "team of nine."

Despite the historically close vote, Kavanaugh isn't alone in emerging from confirmation with battle scars.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48 in 1991 after being accused by Anita Hill of sexual harassment in the workplace and enduring what he called a "high-tech lynching" at the hands of the Judiciary Committee. Thereafter, he went into self-imposed isolation from the media. He almost never participates in oral arguments.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed 58-42 in 2006 after a hearing in which he was forced to say, "I'm not any kind of bigot" – a line of questioning that caused his wife to leave the room in tears. He has said he still avoids walking by the Senate building where his confirmation hearing was held.

"These confirmation fights leave lasting injuries for nominees,” says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. Kavanaugh, he says, “knows that many people in the country will never accept his denials, so he will be forever an asterisk justice."

Kavanaugh warned senators at last month's sexual assault hearing that "what goes around comes around," which some took to imply revenge from the bench. His allies say the reference was to future nominations, not his actions on the court.

"Some people will never see him as legitimate or worthy of being on the court, but most of those people didn’t like him to begin with," says Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "So at the end of the day, I think he’ll be attacked and supported sort of in the same way that Thomas has been.”

With a solid conservative majority now, the court will be watched to see if it moves the country that way or issues surprising rulings in the other direction.

Three years after the high court handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush by a 5-4 vote many saw as highly partisan, the justices issued two major rulings applauded by liberals. They struck down sodomy laws aimed at gay couples and upheld the limited use of college affirmative action programs.

“Some of the unfortunate perception that Bush v. Gore left with at least a large chunk of the American public was to some degree ameliorated," Vladeck says.

Along those lines, Kavanaugh will be watched for instances in which he sides with those who opposed his confirmation, rather than his conservative supporters.

Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge and director of the constitutional law center at Stanford Law School, predicts Kavanaugh will change public perceptions "by acting as a judge the way he always has, and not how partisan opponents have tried to portray him."

Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe wrote in The New York Times that the newest justice should recuse himself from "cases involving individuals or groups that Judge Kavanaugh has now singled out, under oath and in front of the entire nation, as implacable adversaries."

That, however, is unlikely. Supreme Court justices decide for themselves when to step aside, and they generally do it only if they have a financial stake in the outcome or have been involved in the case at an earlier stage.

Former Supreme Court associate justice John Paul Stevens said this week that Brett Kavanaugh lacks the temperament to serve on the high court.

The anger Kavanaugh displayed in his second Judiciary Committee hearing wasn't welcomed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who concluded that he lacks the temperament to serve.

What remains unclear is how Kavanaugh's new colleagues feel. Many know him well: Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch clerked with him for Kennedy a quarter-century ago. Kagan hired him to teach a class at Harvard Law School when she was its dean. Roberts, Thomas and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served on the same federal appeals court, though at different times.

“It’s highly unlikely that this is going to create a division on the court on some personal level,” Turley says. “The size of this court demands not just compromise but collegiality. It is hard to get anything done if you carve out justices you don’t want to deal with.”

Roberts, only the nation's 17th chief justice, will be watched closely as the keeper of the court's reputation. Coincidentally, he also moves to the center of the court ideologically with Kennedy gone.

“Now more than ever, the pressure’s really going to be on the chief justice,” Vladeck says.

One thing that could rankle the other justices is the likely presence of protesters inside the august marble courtroom, usually a place for polite oral arguments where even whispering is frowned upon. After the Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000 and the Citizens United v. FEC campaign finance ruling a decade later, protests proliferated.

"I wouldn’t be surprised if they ramped up security a little bit,” Shapiro says.

Ultimately, one test of the court's ability to maintain its reputation will be the reaction of other levels and branches of government. States and lower courts can drag their feet when it comes to implementing Supreme Court directives. Presidents can put pressure on sitting justices. The House of Representatives can bring impeachment proceedings.

“The long-term effects on the court might be substantial," Strauss says. "There are a lot of ways in which the court can lose its influence.”

More: Republicans, Democrats face risks and rewards in Brett Kavanaugh's embattled Supreme Court nomination

More: 'Sparks will fly' at Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

More: Abortion, race, gay rights, death penalty: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could make the difference</s>WASHINGTON, D.C. (NEWS CENTER Maine) — Senator Susan Collins voted yes in a 51-49 Senate vote to move Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination to a final vote that is expected on Saturday. Collins said she will announce how she plans to vote on embattled U.S. Supreme Court nominee during a 3 p.m. Senate floor speech on Friday.

All eyes have been on a handful of senators, including Collins, who have been undecided on President Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting a Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when both were teenagers and of being a heavy drinker.

Kavanaugh vehemently denied both allegations under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week where he was visibly upset and later said in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal that he "might have been too emotional."

RELATED | Kavanaugh said he might 'have been too emotional'

Pressure has been especially intense on three Republican senators, Collins, Sen. Jeff Flake from Arizona and Sen. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. The three Republicans hold the nominee's future in their hands and potentially much more, as Kavanaugh's rejection could set a precedent for sexual assault victims.

Collins issued a statement Thursday morning after she reviewed some of the 46-page FBI investigation report into the sexual assault allegation of Judge Kavanaugh saying:

“It appears to be a very thorough investigation, but I am going back later today to personally read the interviews. That's really all I have to say right now.”

In an unprecedented turn of events, only one FBI report was released to all Senators in a secured room for review. Senators had to take turns reading the report that included interviews from nine people including Marc Judge who Dr. Christine Blasey Ford claimed was in the room when she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

Democrats have criticized the report for being limited in scope and for the selection of those interviewed. They have said they feel the report was tailored to not offer any new information into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.</s>Federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh officiated in August at the swearing-in of Judge Britt Grant to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

WASHINGTON – Brett Kavanaugh will bring a lot of baggage with him to the Supreme Court, adding to perceptions that the third branch of government is just as political as the other two.

Kavanaugh's 50-48 confirmation ends a tumultuous three months in which he was accused of sexual assault and lying under oath. He responded by accusing Democrats and liberal interest groups of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit."

For a high court that already features four conservatives named by Republican presidents and four liberals chosen by Democratic presidents, the addition of a justice viewed as partisan, intemperate or both is almost certain to fuel doubts about the court's legitimacy.

“The court relies to a large extent on people’s sense that it’s not just another partisan institution," says David Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "It’s going to be tougher for people to see the court that way.”

Kavanaugh's confirmation was destined to be controversial. Two years ago, Republicans brazenly blocked President Barack Obama's third high court nominee and gave the seat to President Donald Trump's choice. Then Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement put the court's ideological balance in play.

From a list of 25 potential nominees, Trump chose the judge with the longest paper trail and the most political pedigree, someone who had pursued President Bill Clinton toward his eventual impeachment, then served President George W. Bush over two-thirds of his presidency.

With Republicans united behind him, Kavanaugh, 53, survived all that. For several days before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early September, he cited Chief Justice John Roberts in saying that when it comes to politics, judges must "stay not just away from the line, but three zip codes away from the line."

But then came sexual misconduct claims and allegations of excessive drinking in high school and college, which led to a series of embarrassing questions and evasive answers at a second Judiciary Committee hearing last week. With his reputation in tatters, Kavanaugh displayed a temperament judges are supposed to keep hidden.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside, left-wing opposition groups," he said.

With that single declaration, Supreme Court experts say, he made himself – and, by extension, the court – appear as partisan as the White House and Congress.

“I do think that there’s going to be a lot of hostility toward the court in the new term," says Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "The question is whether that entrenches the justices in their positions, or whether it becomes sort of a lever to moderate the court.”

Associate Justice Elena Kagan, speaking at Princeton University Friday, said increased partisanship would be a mistake.

"This is a really divided time," Kagan said. "Part of the court’s strength and part of the court’s legitimacy depends on people not seeing the court in the way that people see the rest of the governing structures of this country."

Clarence Thomas decried what he called a "high-tech lynching" during his 1991 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh will be watched closely in the days, weeks, months and years ahead for signs of reconciliation or revenge. His behavior on the bench during oral arguments will be one clue, including how he gets along with the other justices on what he has called a "team of nine."

Despite the historically close vote, Kavanaugh isn't alone in emerging from confirmation with battle scars.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48 in 1991 after being accused by Anita Hill of sexual harassment in the workplace and enduring what he called a "high-tech lynching" at the hands of the Judiciary Committee. Thereafter, he went into self-imposed isolation from the media. He almost never participates in oral arguments.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed 58-42 in 2006 after a hearing in which he was forced to say, "I'm not any kind of bigot" – a line of questioning that caused his wife to leave the room in tears. He has said he still avoids walking by the Senate building where his confirmation hearing was held.

"These confirmation fights leave lasting injuries for nominees,” says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. Kavanaugh, he says, “knows that many people in the country will never accept his denials, so he will be forever an asterisk justice."

Kavanaugh warned senators at last month's sexual assault hearing that "what goes around comes around," which some took to imply revenge from the bench. His allies say the reference was to future nominations, not his actions on the court.

"Some people will never see him as legitimate or worthy of being on the court, but most of those people didn’t like him to begin with," says Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "So at the end of the day, I think he’ll be attacked and supported sort of in the same way that Thomas has been.”

With a solid conservative majority now, the court will be watched to see if it moves the country that way or issues surprising rulings in the other direction.

Three years after the high court handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush by a 5-4 vote many saw as highly partisan, the justices issued two major rulings applauded by liberals. They struck down sodomy laws aimed at gay couples and upheld the limited use of college affirmative action programs.

“Some of the unfortunate perception that Bush v. Gore left with at least a large chunk of the American public was to some degree ameliorated," Vladeck says.

Along those lines, Kavanaugh will be watched for instances in which he sides with those who opposed his confirmation, rather than his conservative supporters.

Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge and director of the constitutional law center at Stanford Law School, predicts Kavanaugh will change public perceptions "by acting as a judge the way he always has, and not how partisan opponents have tried to portray him."

Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe wrote in The New York Times that the newest justice should recuse himself from "cases involving individuals or groups that Judge Kavanaugh has now singled out, under oath and in front of the entire nation, as implacable adversaries."

That, however, is unlikely. Supreme Court justices decide for themselves when to step aside, and they generally do it only if they have a financial stake in the outcome or have been involved in the case at an earlier stage.

Former Supreme Court associate justice John Paul Stevens said this week that Brett Kavanaugh lacks the temperament to serve on the high court.

The anger Kavanaugh displayed in his second Judiciary Committee hearing wasn't welcomed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who concluded that he lacks the temperament to serve.

What remains unclear is how Kavanaugh's new colleagues feel. Many know him well: Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch clerked with him for Kennedy a quarter-century ago. Kagan hired him to teach a class at Harvard Law School when she was its dean. Roberts, Thomas and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served on the same federal appeals court, though at different times.

“It’s highly unlikely that this is going to create a division on the court on some personal level,” Turley says. “The size of this court demands not just compromise but collegiality. It is hard to get anything done if you carve out justices you don’t want to deal with.”

Roberts, only the nation's 17th chief justice, will be watched closely as the keeper of the court's reputation. Coincidentally, he also moves to the center of the court ideologically with Kennedy gone.

“Now more than ever, the pressure’s really going to be on the chief justice,” Vladeck says.

One thing that could rankle the other justices is the likely presence of protesters inside the august marble courtroom, usually a place for polite oral arguments where even whispering is frowned upon. After the Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000 and the Citizens United v. FEC campaign finance ruling a decade later, protests proliferated.

"I wouldn’t be surprised if they ramped up security a little bit,” Shapiro says.

Ultimately, one test of the court's ability to maintain its reputation will be the reaction of other levels and branches of government. States and lower courts can drag their feet when it comes to implementing Supreme Court directives. Presidents can put pressure on sitting justices. The House of Representatives can bring impeachment proceedings.

“The long-term effects on the court might be substantial," Strauss says. "There are a lot of ways in which the court can lose its influence.”

More: Republicans, Democrats face risks and rewards in Brett Kavanaugh's embattled Supreme Court nomination

More: 'Sparks will fly' at Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

More: Abortion, race, gay rights, death penalty: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could make the difference</s>Kavanaugh is a judge on the D.C. Circuit federal court of appeals, generally regarded as the second-most-prestigious court in the country, and a former senior aide to George W. Bush.

Every Republican senator except for Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is supporting Kavanaugh. Every Democratic senator except for Manchin is opposed.

Three women have accused Kavanaugh of assault. Ford testified to Congress last Thursday that he assaulted her when he was 17 by pinning her to a bed, groping her, trying to take off her clothes, and covering her mouth.

Kavanaugh responded with fury and partisanship. In his own testimony, he described the allegations as "a calculated and orchestrated political hit."

His vehemence helped drive the Republican base to his side. It also raised widespread questions about his personality, prompting more than 2,400 law professors to sign a public letter opposing him on the grounds that he did not display the necessary "impartiality and judicial temperament."

Kavanaugh sought to assuage such concerns with an unusual op-ed Thursday night in the Wall Street Journal, in which he acknowledged, "I said a few things I should not have said."

Kavanaugh would replace Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who voted with the court's four liberals on some key issues. At age 53, he could potentially sit on the court for decades.

Supporters of abortion rights are concerned that Kavanaugh would provide a fifth vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the right to an abortion for most of a pregnancy. Collins, who is pro-choice, said she was satisfied Kavanaugh would not vote to eliminate Roe or try to limit abortion rights "by stealth."

The Senate voted 51-49 on Friday morning to move forward to Saturday's final vote. The vote came after a brief FBI investigation into some of the allegations. Republicans said the FBI report, which has not been made public, did not do anything to substantiate the claims against Kavanaugh.

But Democrats pointed out that the probe appeared to have been sharply limited by the White House. Numerous people who said they had relevant information about Kavanaugh's behaviour said they did not receive a response from the FBI.

"This is a complete sham," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on Twitter.

The appointment of Kavanaugh could exacerbate an election gender gap that was already unusually large. Women overwhelmingly prefer Democrats, polls suggest, while men more narrowly prefer Republicans. Trump has made a particular effort to motivate men, warning that they too could be the subject of unfair allegations.

Citizens returned to Collins's office after the vote to register their displeasure. There were varying levels of optimsim that Kavanaugh's confirmation would galvanize women against Republicans in the election.

"Our country is highly partisan, and people are believing what they want to believe."

Daniel Dale is the Star's Washington bureau chief. He covers U.S. politics and current affairs. Follow him on Twitter: @ddale8</s>Judge Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in before testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27. The procedural vote on the Kavanaugh nomination is scheduled for Friday at 10:30 a.m. EDT.

The U.S. Senate will move forward with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be elevated to the Supreme Court. A procedural vote, called a "cloture" vote, on the Kavanaugh nomination is scheduled for Friday at 10:30 a.m. EDT. If it passes, it could pave the way for a final vote as early as Saturday.

It's an important vote because it effectively blocks any filibuster attempt by Democrats to delay a vote on Kavanaugh and officially gives the Senate 30 hours to debate the nomination.

The 30 hours gets divided equally between Republicans and Democrats. The debate could take less than the 30-hour maximum if either party decides not to use all of its allotted time. Senators will take to the Senate floor to give speeches and make a last effort to sway votes.

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who is a reliable vote for Kavanaugh, will be walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding on Saturday and will not be available to vote. That could lead Republican leaders to delay the final vote on Kavanugh until Sunday or next week.

USA Today will be providing live coverage in the player above of the Senate floor for the votes and debate on the Kavanaugh nomination.</s>WASHINGTON — Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice Saturday night after the bitterly polarized U.S. Senate narrowly confirmed him. The Senate vote delivered an election-season triumph to President Donald Trump that could swing the court rightward for a generation after a battle that rubbed raw the country's cultural, gender and political divides.

Kavanaugh was quickly sworn in at the court building, across the street from the Capitol, even as protesters chanted outside.

The near party-line Senate vote was 50-48, capping a fight that seized the national conversation after claims emerged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted women three decades ago — which he emphatically denied. Those allegations magnified the clash from a routine Supreme Court struggle over judicial ideology into an angrier, more complex jumble of questions about victims' rights, the presumption of innocence and personal attacks on nominees.

Acrimonious to the end, the battle featured a climactic roll call that was interrupted several times by protesters in the Senate galleries before Capitol Police removed them. Vice President Mike Pence presided over the roll call, his potential tie-breaking vote unnecessary.

Trump, flying to Kansas for a political rally, flashed a thumbs-up gesture when the tally was announced and praised Kavanaugh for being "able to withstand this horrible, horrible attack by the Democrats."

The vote gave Trump his second appointee to the court, pleasing conservative voters who might have revolted against GOP leaders had Kavanaugh's nomination flopped. Instead, "It's turned our base on fire," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters.

Democrats hope that the roll call, exactly a month from elections in which House and Senate control are in play, will do the opposite, prompting infuriated women and liberals to oust Republicans.

"Change must come from where change in America always begins: the ballot box," said Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, looking ahead to November.

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, confronting a tough re-election race next month in a state that Trump won in 2016 by a landslide, was the sole Democrat to vote for Kavanaugh. Every voting Republican backed the 53-year-old conservative judge.

Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose the nominee, voted "present," offsetting the absence of Kavanaugh supporter Steve Daines of Montana, who was attending his daughter's wedding. That rare procedural maneuver left Kavanaugh with the same two-vote margin he'd have had if Murkowski and Daines had both voted.

Republicans hold only a 51-49 Senate majority and therefore had little support to spare.

It was the closest roll call to confirm a justice since 1881, when Stanley Matthews was approved by 24-23, according to Senate records.

Within minutes, dozens of political and advocacy groups blasted out emailed reactions.

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY's List, which contributes to female Democratic candidates, assailed the confirmation of "an alleged sexual assailant and anti-choice radical to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. But we will carry that anger into the election. Women will not forget this."

Kay Coles James, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the vote "a victory for liberty in America" and called Kavanaugh "a good man and good jurist."

The outcome, telegraphed Friday when the final undeclared senators revealed their views, was devoid of the shocks that had come almost daily since Christine Blasey Ford said last month that an inebriated Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a 1982 high school get-together.

Since then, the country watched agape as one electric moment after another gushed forth. These included the emergence of two other accusers; an unforgettable Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which a composed Ford and a seething Kavanaugh told their diametrically opposed stories, and a truncated FBI investigation that the agency said showed no corroborating evidence and Democrats lambasted as a White House-shackled farce.

All the while, crowds of demonstrators — mostly Kavanaugh opponents — ricocheted around the Capitol's grounds and hallways, raising tensions, chanting slogans, interrupting lawmakers' debates, confronting senators and often getting arrested. Capitol Police said 164 were arrested, raising that count in recent days well into the hundreds.

Demonstrators protest the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in Washington DC, on October 6, 2018.

Inside the Senate, resentments fanned by the battle showed no signs of receding.

Schumer called the GOP's push for Kavanaugh "one of the least transparent, least fair, most biased processes in Senate history." McConnell said a vote for Kavanaugh showed that the Senate was "a chamber in which the politics of intimidation and personal destruction do not win the day."

Democrats said Kavanaugh would push the court too far, including possible sympathetic rulings for Trump should the president encounter legal problems from the special counsel's investigations into Russian connections with his 2016 presidential campaign. And they said Kavanaugh's record and fuming testimony at a now-famous Senate Judiciary Committee hearing showed he lacked the fairness, temperament and even honesty to become a justice.

But the fight was defined by the sexual assault accusations. And it was fought against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement and Trump's unyielding support of his nominee and occasional mocking of Kavanaugh's accusers.

About 100 anti-Kavanaugh protesters climbed the Capitol's East Steps as the vote approached, pumping fists and waving signs. U.S. Capitol Police began arresting some of them. Hundreds of other demonstrators watched from behind barricades. Protesters have roamed Capitol Hill corridors and grounds daily, chanting, "November is coming," ''Vote them out" and "We believe survivors."

On Friday, in the moment that made clear Kavanaugh would prevail, Collins delivered a speech saying that Ford's Judiciary Committee telling of the alleged 1982 assault was "sincere, painful and compelling." But she also said the FBI had found no corroborating evidence from witnesses whose names Ford had provided.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who has repeatedly battled with Trump and will retire in January, wavered but also backed Kavanaugh.

When Trump nominated Kavanaugh in July, Democrats leapt to oppose him, saying that past statements and opinions showed he'd be a threat to the Roe v. Wade case that assured the right to abortion. They said he also seemed too ready to rule for Trump in a possible federal court case against the president.

Yet Kavanaugh's path to confirmation seemed unfettered until Ford and two other women emerged with sexual misconduct allegations from the 1980s.

Kavanaugh replaces the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a swing vote on issues such as abortion, campaign finance and same-sex marriage.

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Matthew Daly, Padmananda Rama, Ken Thomas and Catherine Lucey contributed to this report.

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.</s>WASHINGTON — Brett Kavanaugh, with the clock ticking down to the end of the most politicized Supreme Court confirmation battle in years, is campaigning for every last vote.

On the eve of a dramatic day in the Senate that could dictate his fate, and with several key Republicans undecided, Kavanaugh attempted damage control in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal.

He appeared to be trying to draw the sting from his explosive testimony last week in which he denied claims that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were teenagers in the 1980s. His performance raised concerns that his hyper-partisan style was incompatible with the independence and decorum expected of the nine justices who sit on the nation’s top bench.

“I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times,” wrote Kavanaugh.

“I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad.”

It was not clear whether Kavanaugh’s unorthodox move was motivated by concern that his nomination was in trouble, or whether it was an early attempt to mitigate the political toll of his confirmation fight in the expectation that he will shortly take a seat on the Supreme Court that could cement a conservative majority for many years.

Several White House sources said that the op-ed was Kavanaugh’s own idea and was intended to show he could rise above the partisan fury that has consumed his nomination.

But it was another sign of how the former White House operative for President George W. Bush has adopted political tactics to support his candidacy in a way that would not have been considered appropriate for many previous nominees. When Ford’s allegations first became public, for instance, Kavanaugh appeared on Fox News with his wife, in a move that made him look like an under fire political candidate. His op-ed on Thursday night was slightly reminiscent of a presidential candidate who campaigns almost into election day to sway wavering voters.

During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, he shocked many observers by accusing Democrats of trying to destroy him in a “political hit” designed to avenge Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election loss.

Senators, especially the three Republicans who will decide the destiny of his Supreme Court hopes, have reached the moment of decision after a confirmation battle that has widened America’s tortured political and societal divides.

They must examine their consciences and loyalties, their legacies or hoped-for political futures and decide whether the allegations of sexual assault should disqualify him from spending the rest of his life on the high court — no matter what it means for them.

Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a Senate vote for Friday at 10:30 a.m. that will force Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski to finally reveal their hands. The vote is not a final verdict on Kavanaugh but is likely to establish his chances of reaching the Court.

The vote will come eight days after California professor Ford gave tearful, poignant testimony in an epochal Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, alleging that Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were teenagers at a house party in the early 1980s.

With the rest of his party straining for the chance to elevate Kavanaugh and enshrine a conservative majority on the court that will validate half a century of movement politics, McConnell can only afford to lose one vote from his side.

And so far, Flake, Collins and Murkowski, who have been under fearsome pressure from the left and the right for days, have not said how they will vote, even after reading a updated FBI background check that delayed votes on Kavanaugh’s nomination for a week.

Each one of the trio understands that however they vote, they will face a tide of fury — and be branded traitors either to the conservatism that has its moment of triumph in sight or, in the case of Collins and Murkowski, to their gender as the #MeToo movement challenges conventions that for generations constrained women making allegations against powerful men.

That dilemma has already been faced by Heidi Heitkamp, a Democratic senator facing an uphill re-election fight in Trump country.

A decision that will linger for a lifetime

The North Dakota senator defied warnings that opposing the judge could hurt her in an uphill race and said she would vote against Kavanaugh, even though it could expose her among the more conservative voters of her home state.

“There’s an old saying, ‘history will judge you but most importantly you will judge yourself,” Heitkamp, who voted for Trump’s first Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch, told WDAY television.

“And that’s really what I’m saying. I can’t get up in the morning and look at the experience I’ve had and say yes to Judge Kavanaugh.”

Another Democrat who is yet to declare how he will vote — Sen. Joe Manchin, who faces a re-election race in West Virginia, another state Trump won easily — also faces a tough choice.

“Heidi made her decision, I’ll make mine,” he said on Thursday.

During a day of bitter partisan brawling, protests and anger, Kavanaugh’s chances appeared to improve on Thursday, as senators read through an FBI supplementary background check on the judge’s past.

Both Flake and Collins spoke positively about the report, prompting speculation that it had given them sufficient political cover to move towards a “Yes” vote on Kavanaugh.

Trump’s team seemed increasingly confident as his campaign blasted out an email with the subject line “Kavanaugh Cleared.”

During a campaign rally in Minnesota on Thursday night, Trump said Kavanaugh’s been a target for Democrats since he was nominated.

“Democrats have been trying to destroy Judge Kavanaugh since the first second he was announced,” Trump claimed, touting his “incredible intellect” and calling him an “incredible person.”

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Trump would fulfill campaign promises to conservative voters that were instrumental in cementing his political coalition and will go down in history as the President who gave the conservative movement its Supreme Court.

But underscoring the uncertainty and political tumult around the nomination, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he didn’t believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

As dissent boiled on Capitol Hill, police arrested 302 protesters in the Hart Senate Office Building. Comedienne Amy Schumer was seen amongst those being detained. Earlier, at a rally in Washington anti-Kavanaugh demonstrators chanted: “Hey hey, ho ho, Kavanaugh has got to go”

In another scene that has become typical in recent days, a group of protestors confronted Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch in a corridor, and reacted furiously when he told them to “grow up.”

As momentum appeared to be building for Kavanaugh, Ford’s lawyers wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray to complain that the bureau did not interview Ford or witnesses who had information on her allegations.

“The ‘investigation’ conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice,” read the letter from attorneys Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich.

Democrats tried to counter Republican arguments that the FBI investigation, which will not be released to the public, contained nothing to corroborate Ford’s allegations that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh when they were teenagers in the Washington suburbs in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.

“It looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the White House,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is confirmed when a final vote takes place, with 50 senators for his confirmation and 48 against.