What do you think?
Rate this book
Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy slipped out of the Supreme Court building on June 27, 2018, and traveled incognito to the White House to inform President Donald Trump that he was retiring, setting in motion a political process that his successor, Brett Kavanaugh, would denounce three months later as a “national disgrace” and a “circus.”
Justice on Trial, the definitive insider’s account of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, is based on extraordinary access to more than one hundred key figures—including the president, justices, and senators—in that ferocious political drama.
The Trump presidency opened with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. But the following year, when Trump drew from the same list of candidates for his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the justice being replaced was the swing vote on abortion, and all hell broke loose.
The judicial confirmation process, on the point of breakdown for thirty years, now proved utterly dysfunctional. Unverified accusations of sexual assault became weapons in a ruthless campaign of personal destruction, culminating in the melodramatic hearings in which Kavanaugh’s impassioned defense resuscitated a nomination that seemed beyond saving.
The Supreme Court has become the arbiter of our nation’s most vexing and divisive disputes. With the stakes of each vacancy incalculably high, the incentive to destroy a nominee is nearly irresistible. The next time a nomination promises to change the balance of the Court, Hemingway and Severino warn, the confirmation fight will be even uglier than Kavanaugh’s.
A good person might accept that nomination in the naïve belief that what happened to Kavanaugh won’t happen to him because he is a good person. But it can happen, it does happen, and it just happened. The question is whether America will let it happen again.
Justice on Trial, the definitive insider’s account of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, is based on extraordinary access to more than one hundred key figures—including the president, justices, and senators—in that ferocious political drama.
The Trump presidency opened with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. But the following year, when Trump drew from the same list of candidates for his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the justice being replaced was the swing vote on abortion, and all hell broke loose.
The judicial confirmation process, on the point of breakdown for thirty years, now proved utterly dysfunctional. Unverified accusations of sexual assault became weapons in a ruthless campaign of personal destruction, culminating in the melodramatic hearings in which Kavanaugh’s impassioned defense resuscitated a nomination that seemed beyond saving.
The Supreme Court has become the arbiter of our nation’s most vexing and divisive disputes. With the stakes of each vacancy incalculably high, the incentive to destroy a nominee is nearly irresistible. The next time a nomination promises to change the balance of the Court, Hemingway and Severino warn, the confirmation fight will be even uglier than Kavanaugh’s.
A good person might accept that nomination in the naïve belief that what happened to Kavanaugh won’t happen to him because he is a good person. But it can happen, it does happen, and it just happened. The question is whether America will let it happen again.
375 pages, Hardcover
First published July 9, 2019
1582 people are currently reading
1081 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 311 reviews
September 3, 2019
Mollie Hemingway is the senior editor at the Federalist. The Federalist is a conservative web magazine and podcast. Carrie Severino is Chief Counsel and Policy Director of the Judicial Crisis Network. The JCN is a conservative activist political campaign organization. Severino also was a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas.
The book is well written and researched. The authors attempted to be neutral in their presentation, but the conservative leaning comes through. I like to study a situation from all view points before I develop an opinion. Accordingly, I have been reading a variety of books including books about the Supreme Court confirmation process. The authors provided a history of the confirmation process to the Supreme Court and then a detailed account of the Kavanaugh hearing. They also spent a chapter discussing originalism vs activism. They did not cover the role of Senator Mitch McConnell in accelerating polarization in the confirmation process. I was already familiar with the majority of the information, but I did discover some new information that had not been previously covered. I found the information about the Supreme Court’s law clerks most interesting.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is eleven hours and fifteen minutes. Mollie Hemingway does a good job narrating the book.
The book is well written and researched. The authors attempted to be neutral in their presentation, but the conservative leaning comes through. I like to study a situation from all view points before I develop an opinion. Accordingly, I have been reading a variety of books including books about the Supreme Court confirmation process. The authors provided a history of the confirmation process to the Supreme Court and then a detailed account of the Kavanaugh hearing. They also spent a chapter discussing originalism vs activism. They did not cover the role of Senator Mitch McConnell in accelerating polarization in the confirmation process. I was already familiar with the majority of the information, but I did discover some new information that had not been previously covered. I found the information about the Supreme Court’s law clerks most interesting.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is eleven hours and fifteen minutes. Mollie Hemingway does a good job narrating the book.
August 26, 2019
There are not many who have not witnessed in some way what went on at the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. Perhaps you caught snippets of the Senate hearing, perhaps you saw it on the news, or perhaps you were a witness to history as a man who supposedly led an exemplary life was tried and convicted, not by any evidence, but by the testimony of one person. This was a trial that was not a trail, for in this country we have always believed in and followed the rule of law, the one that states innocent until proven guilty. Proven is the key word in all court proceedings from the lowest level civil courts to the highest court in the land. There must be proof always.
So why was it that in this case there was no proof? Some would say this was not a trial and yet we saw paraded out for all, accusations that were unproven and supposed witnesses who did not witness anything. In itself it was a mockery of justice. It was one thing alone and that was a political ploy. It was trying to keep a well qualified person from a position that some didn't want him to have. It was innuendo followed by more innuendo and a political strategy that was abhorrent. It was being lied to even as the accuser had been lied to by a panel of lawyers and being paraded out in front of America as an accuser who had no proof. She was a pawn in this game, a game that placed her in the middle of one of the hugest controversies ever.
While Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed, it was at a great price paid and the burning question that brings us forward in the future is, how can we attract people of high standards, of great intellect, of fair and impartial bearing if this is the way nominees will be treated? That is the fear going forward for what man or woman would subject themselves, their families, and their friends to this miscarriage of justice?
The rules of civility seemed to have been forgotten, the rule of law seems to have been waylaid, and the fact that one can be tried and convicted in the court of social media , television, and the internet without one shred of evidence is both appalling and frightening.
Thank you to Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino for writing this book. These ladies were able to present facts and did so in a way that was straightforward and informative. As I write this review, Justice Ginsberg has once again taken ill. If she should step down, one has to wonder what will happen to any nominee that is chosen. Will he/she go through the same hell or will it become an even worse one?
My review plus a podcast with the two authors can be seen here:
http://yayareadslotsofbooks.wordpress...
So why was it that in this case there was no proof? Some would say this was not a trial and yet we saw paraded out for all, accusations that were unproven and supposed witnesses who did not witness anything. In itself it was a mockery of justice. It was one thing alone and that was a political ploy. It was trying to keep a well qualified person from a position that some didn't want him to have. It was innuendo followed by more innuendo and a political strategy that was abhorrent. It was being lied to even as the accuser had been lied to by a panel of lawyers and being paraded out in front of America as an accuser who had no proof. She was a pawn in this game, a game that placed her in the middle of one of the hugest controversies ever.
While Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed, it was at a great price paid and the burning question that brings us forward in the future is, how can we attract people of high standards, of great intellect, of fair and impartial bearing if this is the way nominees will be treated? That is the fear going forward for what man or woman would subject themselves, their families, and their friends to this miscarriage of justice?
The rules of civility seemed to have been forgotten, the rule of law seems to have been waylaid, and the fact that one can be tried and convicted in the court of social media , television, and the internet without one shred of evidence is both appalling and frightening.
Thank you to Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino for writing this book. These ladies were able to present facts and did so in a way that was straightforward and informative. As I write this review, Justice Ginsberg has once again taken ill. If she should step down, one has to wonder what will happen to any nominee that is chosen. Will he/she go through the same hell or will it become an even worse one?
My review plus a podcast with the two authors can be seen here:
http://yayareadslotsofbooks.wordpress...
November 25, 2024
A thoughtful and well-researched book. And with Trump set to have four more years to reshape the court--even more than he already has--also quite timely.
The book shows how angry Democrats were at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. This is hardly surprising. Stepping back and assessing the court since 2000 puts the vitriol into perspective. There have been numerous catastrophic setbacks for Democrats.
The first came in late 2000 when the court decided—sharply along partisan lines—the presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. In Bush v. Gore, five conservative justices gave Bush the victory. Having unelected judges decide a presidential election—in either direction—was sure to enrage half the country. And Democrats’ distrust of the court multiplied as Bush appointed two conservative justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Then came the second major setback. In Barack Obama’s last year in office, 2016, sitting justice Antonin Scalia (a conservative) passed away. Obama nominated centrist federal appellate judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. But the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings. Led by the Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, Republicans asserted that it was up to the Senate majority—alone—to decide whether to consider the president’s nomination. “The president nominates. The Senate confirms. The American people should have a voice, not this lame duck president out the door,” McConnell said. “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”
This refusal to confirm Garland betrayed Republicans’ core Constitutional responsibilities: the presidential prerogative to appoint justices isn’t void merely because it’s an election year. Yet it worked. Donald Trump, a Republican, was elected president several months later. And Trump, in turn, quickly nominated conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, who McConnell and Senate Republicans giddily confirmed.
Democrats seethed. And then things got worse. In 2018, Ronald Reagan-appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy resigned and Trump nominated Kavanaugh, a more conservative judge than Kennedy in key areas (including abortion). As the book shows in sordid detail, at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers. The whole thing was a bloodbath of he-said, she-said innuendo and accusation. The Senate confirmed Kavanaugh 50–48.
Then came yet another setback. Sitting justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton) passed away in 2020, just a few months before the presidential election. And Senate Republicans flip-flopped. Confirming a justice during a presidential election year suddenly wasn’t a problem. And in strode another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, to replace Ginsburg. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now 70, has refused to step aside for a younger justice while Joe Biden is president.
Thus, three instances of happenstance—Bush v. Gore, McConnell’s betrayal, and Ginsburg’s replacement—placed four new conservative justices on the nine-person court. Consider a simple counter-history: if Al Gore had won a few more votes in Florida, if Scalia had died a few months earlier, and if Ginsburg had retired a few years earlier, then so much would have been so different. Today the court would have seven liberals dominating its jurisprudence rather than three being marginalized.
Then came the 2024 presidential election. So from bad, to worse, to worse still.
Is it any surprise Democrats are angry?
The book shows how angry Democrats were at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. This is hardly surprising. Stepping back and assessing the court since 2000 puts the vitriol into perspective. There have been numerous catastrophic setbacks for Democrats.
The first came in late 2000 when the court decided—sharply along partisan lines—the presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. In Bush v. Gore, five conservative justices gave Bush the victory. Having unelected judges decide a presidential election—in either direction—was sure to enrage half the country. And Democrats’ distrust of the court multiplied as Bush appointed two conservative justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Then came the second major setback. In Barack Obama’s last year in office, 2016, sitting justice Antonin Scalia (a conservative) passed away. Obama nominated centrist federal appellate judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. But the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings. Led by the Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, Republicans asserted that it was up to the Senate majority—alone—to decide whether to consider the president’s nomination. “The president nominates. The Senate confirms. The American people should have a voice, not this lame duck president out the door,” McConnell said. “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”
This refusal to confirm Garland betrayed Republicans’ core Constitutional responsibilities: the presidential prerogative to appoint justices isn’t void merely because it’s an election year. Yet it worked. Donald Trump, a Republican, was elected president several months later. And Trump, in turn, quickly nominated conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, who McConnell and Senate Republicans giddily confirmed.
Democrats seethed. And then things got worse. In 2018, Ronald Reagan-appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy resigned and Trump nominated Kavanaugh, a more conservative judge than Kennedy in key areas (including abortion). As the book shows in sordid detail, at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers. The whole thing was a bloodbath of he-said, she-said innuendo and accusation. The Senate confirmed Kavanaugh 50–48.
Then came yet another setback. Sitting justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton) passed away in 2020, just a few months before the presidential election. And Senate Republicans flip-flopped. Confirming a justice during a presidential election year suddenly wasn’t a problem. And in strode another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, to replace Ginsburg. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now 70, has refused to step aside for a younger justice while Joe Biden is president.
Thus, three instances of happenstance—Bush v. Gore, McConnell’s betrayal, and Ginsburg’s replacement—placed four new conservative justices on the nine-person court. Consider a simple counter-history: if Al Gore had won a few more votes in Florida, if Scalia had died a few months earlier, and if Ginsburg had retired a few years earlier, then so much would have been so different. Today the court would have seven liberals dominating its jurisprudence rather than three being marginalized.
Then came the 2024 presidential election. So from bad, to worse, to worse still.
Is it any surprise Democrats are angry?
September 28, 2020
I have decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2020 US Presidential Election. Many of these will focus on actors intricately involved in the process, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.
This is Book #12 (a re-read) in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.
In this highly detailed piece about the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino take the reader not only through the lead-up and full-on circus of the event, but also provide some poignant history to place the entire experience in context. When Justice Anthony Kennedy secretly met with President Trump at the end of the 2017-18 term of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the president knew he had a major coup on his hands. Able to not only to place another legal mind of his choosing to the Court, but also tip the balance in the oft-cited ideological split, Trump hurried to choose a nominee. He was sure the strong legal mind of Brett Kvanaugh would be an easy pick that both Senate Democrats and Republicans could support. Little did he realise the fight that the Dems were ready to put to Kavanaugh in the hopes of stalling a SCOTUS nomination only months ahead of the mid-term elections, slated for November 2018. Thus began the war that Hemingway and Severino depict in this well-crafted piece. From the early barbs about his past working in the Starr Special Prosecutor’s Office and in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself in private meetings with senators, as well as in the Judicial Committee. It was only when things were running smoothly that some Democrats urged the release of a damning letter that turned the hearings from a simple partisan division of views into something that caught the attention of the world. The discovery that Christine Blasey Ford remembered being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh when they attended a high school party in the 1980s opened a can of worms few expected. As the narrative moves from legal and judicial questions to those of the allegations, the authors make an interesting parallel to the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas skirmish the Judiciary Committee faced in the early 1990s. Both sides held firm that the truth was on their side, with a few Republican senators serves as fence-sitters throughout. Smears and mud throwing came, as the nominee sought to distance himself from the allegations, relying on political barbs of his own and a president willing to Tweet the truth into oblivion with his own smears. When the dust settled, a truth the majority of the Judiciary Committee and Senate as a whole could stomach emerged, allowing Trump his second nominee. A wonderfully written piece that Hemingway and Severino use to push their own perspective. Recommended to those who want an insightful look into the process of Supreme Court nominations, as well as the nitty-gritty of what took place in the summer of 2018.
I had no idea what to expect when I opened this book, having lived through and thoroughly enjoyed the drama that was the Kavanaugh nomination process. Never one to hide my dislike of the current POTUS, I was eager to see how the authors would handle his involvement, as well as the spin taken on how a man accused of assault would spin it and seek to shine his halo. The authors painstakingly offered not only a strong narrative of events, but also injected poignant backstory to put the current events into context, which serves to strengthening the process as a whole. With inside information that fills in many of the gaps that media reports at the time likely did not know, the authors give a full view of events, even if they choose to use some of their own smear tactics. The subtlety of their attacks is to be applauded, though it does not take away rom the overall reading experience, as many attentive readers will sift through this and see truths as they emerge. It is not for me to stand atop a soapbox and explore the two sides of a sexual assault, which includes knee-jerk reactions to a victims statements and the accuser’s replies. Hemingway and Severino do that, both in their own words and through the voices of the senators on the committee. That being said, there is much to be attributed to the narratives offered by both sides, as well as the reaction of the public. As mentioned before, the parallels drawn between this and the Hill/Thomas clash are quite strong and I applaud the authors for doing so. Whatever the truth might be, when one removes all the lies and spun truths, the reader will be able to decide for themselves, irregardless of the authors’ repeated himpathy—recently discovered word that fits perfectly here—which drips from each page. Politics at its most entertaining and to be expected when King of the Misogynists sits in the Oval Office. Is everyone ready for 2020 and the next big battle? One can hope RBG is and can hold onto her SCOTUS seat until then!
Kudos, Madams Hemingway and Severino, on this book I could not stop reading. It goes to show that even with an agenda, you two can pen a wonderfully insightful book on a contentious subject.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
This is Book #12 (a re-read) in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.
In this highly detailed piece about the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino take the reader not only through the lead-up and full-on circus of the event, but also provide some poignant history to place the entire experience in context. When Justice Anthony Kennedy secretly met with President Trump at the end of the 2017-18 term of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the president knew he had a major coup on his hands. Able to not only to place another legal mind of his choosing to the Court, but also tip the balance in the oft-cited ideological split, Trump hurried to choose a nominee. He was sure the strong legal mind of Brett Kvanaugh would be an easy pick that both Senate Democrats and Republicans could support. Little did he realise the fight that the Dems were ready to put to Kavanaugh in the hopes of stalling a SCOTUS nomination only months ahead of the mid-term elections, slated for November 2018. Thus began the war that Hemingway and Severino depict in this well-crafted piece. From the early barbs about his past working in the Starr Special Prosecutor’s Office and in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself in private meetings with senators, as well as in the Judicial Committee. It was only when things were running smoothly that some Democrats urged the release of a damning letter that turned the hearings from a simple partisan division of views into something that caught the attention of the world. The discovery that Christine Blasey Ford remembered being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh when they attended a high school party in the 1980s opened a can of worms few expected. As the narrative moves from legal and judicial questions to those of the allegations, the authors make an interesting parallel to the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas skirmish the Judiciary Committee faced in the early 1990s. Both sides held firm that the truth was on their side, with a few Republican senators serves as fence-sitters throughout. Smears and mud throwing came, as the nominee sought to distance himself from the allegations, relying on political barbs of his own and a president willing to Tweet the truth into oblivion with his own smears. When the dust settled, a truth the majority of the Judiciary Committee and Senate as a whole could stomach emerged, allowing Trump his second nominee. A wonderfully written piece that Hemingway and Severino use to push their own perspective. Recommended to those who want an insightful look into the process of Supreme Court nominations, as well as the nitty-gritty of what took place in the summer of 2018.
I had no idea what to expect when I opened this book, having lived through and thoroughly enjoyed the drama that was the Kavanaugh nomination process. Never one to hide my dislike of the current POTUS, I was eager to see how the authors would handle his involvement, as well as the spin taken on how a man accused of assault would spin it and seek to shine his halo. The authors painstakingly offered not only a strong narrative of events, but also injected poignant backstory to put the current events into context, which serves to strengthening the process as a whole. With inside information that fills in many of the gaps that media reports at the time likely did not know, the authors give a full view of events, even if they choose to use some of their own smear tactics. The subtlety of their attacks is to be applauded, though it does not take away rom the overall reading experience, as many attentive readers will sift through this and see truths as they emerge. It is not for me to stand atop a soapbox and explore the two sides of a sexual assault, which includes knee-jerk reactions to a victims statements and the accuser’s replies. Hemingway and Severino do that, both in their own words and through the voices of the senators on the committee. That being said, there is much to be attributed to the narratives offered by both sides, as well as the reaction of the public. As mentioned before, the parallels drawn between this and the Hill/Thomas clash are quite strong and I applaud the authors for doing so. Whatever the truth might be, when one removes all the lies and spun truths, the reader will be able to decide for themselves, irregardless of the authors’ repeated himpathy—recently discovered word that fits perfectly here—which drips from each page. Politics at its most entertaining and to be expected when King of the Misogynists sits in the Oval Office. Is everyone ready for 2020 and the next big battle? One can hope RBG is and can hold onto her SCOTUS seat until then!
Kudos, Madams Hemingway and Severino, on this book I could not stop reading. It goes to show that even with an agenda, you two can pen a wonderfully insightful book on a contentious subject.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
July 12, 2019
Couldn’t Put it Down
I actually skipped work all morning because I couldn’t put this book down. It is brilliant. Well-researched and well-written. I enjoyed learning about some of the unsung heroes behind the scenes. Highly recommended
I actually skipped work all morning because I couldn’t put this book down. It is brilliant. Well-researched and well-written. I enjoyed learning about some of the unsung heroes behind the scenes. Highly recommended
January 6, 2020
Growing up, I remember my Mom asking my grandparents about momentous historical events they lived through, such as MLK and freedom marches or Kennedy's assassination. It always bewildered her how easily they shrugged these events off. "Stuff happened but we were trying to build a career and raise a family," they'd say. Current events were merely peripheral to their daily life.
And even though today our access to media has certainly expanded, I sometimes feel like I do the same thing. Important stuff goes on, but so does my everyday life.
Which makes a book like this so interesting. Many of the events it chronicles took place less than a year ago. But besides occasionally making me go, 'oh yes, I vaguely recall that...' it was mostly new to me! Which, let's be clear, is particularly egregious on my part as I am a law student who loves political machinations. If anyone should pay attention, it would be me. But I didn't. And that is why a book like this is useful. It catches you up on what you missed.
Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino do a great job with the subject. The tone is decidedly pro-Kavanaugh. But they make an effort to provide loads of background, from listing the political context of earlier Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to many of the headlines of the day during the confirmation hearing. This is not a book that fails for lack of topic. The over one hundred interviews conducted by the authors come across fluidly and insightfully. It is well-grounded. And very readable!
However, I would say the book only barely squeaks in with 5 stars. 97% is great. Pro-Kavanaugh but after so much negativity in the media, it is nice to get 'the rest of the story.'
The 3% that frustrated me was when the authors get fed up with the slanderous rhetoric of the media and senators and decide to give it back, calling people 'snowflakes' or pointing out hypocrisy using vitriolic language more fitting for Townhall than an impartial narrative. Much like the much-criticized moment when Justice Kavanaugh lost his temper in the confirmation hearings, they finally start snapping back. And I get it. What the Kavanaughs went through is appalling and frustrating. But responding in such a manner loses the book some of its hard-won legitimacy. I guess that is the problem with writing history so soon after its completion. Emotions are still running high.
But for the most part, I think this is a book that will stand the test of time. It engages directly with the people who went through it. Accordingly, there is much to be learned from it and I think it will only be more relevant as the stage sets for the 2020 election and any future Supreme Court battles.
Pre-Review
Why is the cover so ugly??
It looks like a cop-memoir from the 90s or something.
And even though today our access to media has certainly expanded, I sometimes feel like I do the same thing. Important stuff goes on, but so does my everyday life.
Which makes a book like this so interesting. Many of the events it chronicles took place less than a year ago. But besides occasionally making me go, 'oh yes, I vaguely recall that...' it was mostly new to me! Which, let's be clear, is particularly egregious on my part as I am a law student who loves political machinations. If anyone should pay attention, it would be me. But I didn't. And that is why a book like this is useful. It catches you up on what you missed.
Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino do a great job with the subject. The tone is decidedly pro-Kavanaugh. But they make an effort to provide loads of background, from listing the political context of earlier Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to many of the headlines of the day during the confirmation hearing. This is not a book that fails for lack of topic. The over one hundred interviews conducted by the authors come across fluidly and insightfully. It is well-grounded. And very readable!
However, I would say the book only barely squeaks in with 5 stars. 97% is great. Pro-Kavanaugh but after so much negativity in the media, it is nice to get 'the rest of the story.'
The 3% that frustrated me was when the authors get fed up with the slanderous rhetoric of the media and senators and decide to give it back, calling people 'snowflakes' or pointing out hypocrisy using vitriolic language more fitting for Townhall than an impartial narrative. Much like the much-criticized moment when Justice Kavanaugh lost his temper in the confirmation hearings, they finally start snapping back. And I get it. What the Kavanaughs went through is appalling and frustrating. But responding in such a manner loses the book some of its hard-won legitimacy. I guess that is the problem with writing history so soon after its completion. Emotions are still running high.
But for the most part, I think this is a book that will stand the test of time. It engages directly with the people who went through it. Accordingly, there is much to be learned from it and I think it will only be more relevant as the stage sets for the 2020 election and any future Supreme Court battles.
Pre-Review
Why is the cover so ugly??
It looks like a cop-memoir from the 90s or something.
July 18, 2019
The struggle to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was one of the biggest stories of 2018. This book, by two conservative writers, tells the story of the process. While it is clear that they supported Kavanaugh's appointment - I think the book is the best summary of all the issues in what turned out to be a bizarre process.
Kavanaugh was, by all accounts, a distinguished jurist with more than 300 decisions under his belt when he was nominated to replace Anthony Kennedy (who he once clerked for). But progressive activists decided that this would become the fight of their lives. Paid activists invaded the committee hearing room in the first set of hearings with the sole purpose of disrupting the process. As the process continued more and more odd accusations began to be advanced. In the end that may well have compromised the initial accuser's story.
The media ignored two key parts of the story. While there was lots of parsing of Kavanaugh’s prep school yearbook no one bothered to check out the Holton Arms yearbooks which seem to have had a bit of a randy reputation. Second, no one seemed interested in the disrupters. Evidently the media believed that all those people came to DC spontaneously. Both misses worked to the disadvantage of Kavanaugh.
American jurisprudence assumes and accused is innocent until proven guilty- but with the advent of the #MeToo movement - that assumption is thrown out. Many in the movement suggest that simply making an accusation is dispositive of guilt.
The story of this process is interesting because of all the odd things that happened. Many of those things seem to suggest that opponents were willing to do anything to slow or derail the process. For example, Senator Feinstein got a letter from Kavanaugh's initial accuser and seems to have sat on it for several weeks not mentioning it or following up with either committee investigators or with the FBI. When she met with the nominee she did not ask about the accusation in the letter. Kavanaugh had one real accuser and a number of others (about 10 in the end) who made increasingly non-credible claims. But even with Blasé Ford no individual came forward (and indeed on person who Blasé-Ford claimed to be a corroborating witness) to verify any details. The time and place of the incident; the number of participants; how Blasé-Ford got to and got from the party - none of those details had a shred of corroboration. The book goes through all of those incongruities and the even less credible claims by Kavanaugh's other accusers in a careful way.
One cautionary tale is that even in defeat opponents of a jurist will continue to try to influence the history. At the time that Clarence Thomas was approved by the Senate - a huge majority of Americans believed his story over that of Anita Hill. Now the polls are reversed.
One of the most disappointing parts of the story is the hyper response that opponents had against liberals who came out against Blasé-Ford's story or in support of the nominee. From the start Kavanaugh had a long list of supporters across the political spectrum. Kavanaugh had an exemplary record of hiring female clerks who supported his candidacy. Many of those who supported hum lost friends; Senator Collins received death threats and indeed last spring when I was in SMA I spoke with a person from Maine who said she was a Republican but would actively work against Collins in her re-election campaign - exclusively on the basis of Collins' vote on Kavanaugh. The book provides some detail on how senators including Collins came to their conclusion. At the time, I thought Collins' speech in support before the floor vote was a remarkable presentation.
One wishes that individuals could do the advice and consent process without the drama. But that is not likely. Be prepared for a very ugly process if Trump has the chance to nominate a third Supreme Court Justice. That simply is not the intended way that "Advice and Consent" was thought to work. But that is the world we live in. But in a time when Congress has abdicated its appropriate law making power to the bureaucrats the stakes for who sits on the court are forever higher.
Kavanaugh was, by all accounts, a distinguished jurist with more than 300 decisions under his belt when he was nominated to replace Anthony Kennedy (who he once clerked for). But progressive activists decided that this would become the fight of their lives. Paid activists invaded the committee hearing room in the first set of hearings with the sole purpose of disrupting the process. As the process continued more and more odd accusations began to be advanced. In the end that may well have compromised the initial accuser's story.
The media ignored two key parts of the story. While there was lots of parsing of Kavanaugh’s prep school yearbook no one bothered to check out the Holton Arms yearbooks which seem to have had a bit of a randy reputation. Second, no one seemed interested in the disrupters. Evidently the media believed that all those people came to DC spontaneously. Both misses worked to the disadvantage of Kavanaugh.
American jurisprudence assumes and accused is innocent until proven guilty- but with the advent of the #MeToo movement - that assumption is thrown out. Many in the movement suggest that simply making an accusation is dispositive of guilt.
The story of this process is interesting because of all the odd things that happened. Many of those things seem to suggest that opponents were willing to do anything to slow or derail the process. For example, Senator Feinstein got a letter from Kavanaugh's initial accuser and seems to have sat on it for several weeks not mentioning it or following up with either committee investigators or with the FBI. When she met with the nominee she did not ask about the accusation in the letter. Kavanaugh had one real accuser and a number of others (about 10 in the end) who made increasingly non-credible claims. But even with Blasé Ford no individual came forward (and indeed on person who Blasé-Ford claimed to be a corroborating witness) to verify any details. The time and place of the incident; the number of participants; how Blasé-Ford got to and got from the party - none of those details had a shred of corroboration. The book goes through all of those incongruities and the even less credible claims by Kavanaugh's other accusers in a careful way.
One cautionary tale is that even in defeat opponents of a jurist will continue to try to influence the history. At the time that Clarence Thomas was approved by the Senate - a huge majority of Americans believed his story over that of Anita Hill. Now the polls are reversed.
One of the most disappointing parts of the story is the hyper response that opponents had against liberals who came out against Blasé-Ford's story or in support of the nominee. From the start Kavanaugh had a long list of supporters across the political spectrum. Kavanaugh had an exemplary record of hiring female clerks who supported his candidacy. Many of those who supported hum lost friends; Senator Collins received death threats and indeed last spring when I was in SMA I spoke with a person from Maine who said she was a Republican but would actively work against Collins in her re-election campaign - exclusively on the basis of Collins' vote on Kavanaugh. The book provides some detail on how senators including Collins came to their conclusion. At the time, I thought Collins' speech in support before the floor vote was a remarkable presentation.
One wishes that individuals could do the advice and consent process without the drama. But that is not likely. Be prepared for a very ugly process if Trump has the chance to nominate a third Supreme Court Justice. That simply is not the intended way that "Advice and Consent" was thought to work. But that is the world we live in. But in a time when Congress has abdicated its appropriate law making power to the bureaucrats the stakes for who sits on the court are forever higher.
July 16, 2019
While this was a difficult book to put down, it was also a disturbing one to read. The abject abandonment of journalistic integrity and impartiality is on full display here as the authors provide example after example of bogus, false, and fabricated stories about Brett Kavanaugh that appeared in the media throughout his confirmation process.
Perhaps most disturbing is the solid evidence proving that the Washington Post knowingly printed false information about Kavanaugh and manipulated their coverage in order to coincide with Ford's narrative.
It's frightening to consider the path that future Supreme Court confirmations will take following the Kavanuagh precedent. Luckily, a good man sits on the Supreme Court today despite the best efforts to destroy him.
"Justice on Trial" is a great page-turner and an intense behind-the-scenes look at a D.C. feeding frenzy gone wild.
Perhaps most disturbing is the solid evidence proving that the Washington Post knowingly printed false information about Kavanaugh and manipulated their coverage in order to coincide with Ford's narrative.
It's frightening to consider the path that future Supreme Court confirmations will take following the Kavanuagh precedent. Luckily, a good man sits on the Supreme Court today despite the best efforts to destroy him.
"Justice on Trial" is a great page-turner and an intense behind-the-scenes look at a D.C. feeding frenzy gone wild.
July 20, 2019
A journalist wrote it
You can tell this was written by a journalist. Who, what, where and when. Also how we got here. The double dealing and the hypocrisy of some. Especially Spartacus and Senators Faucahontas and Harris is appalling.
Ps I am convinced Sen. Feinstein leaked the letter.
No will Amazon post this
You can tell this was written by a journalist. Who, what, where and when. Also how we got here. The double dealing and the hypocrisy of some. Especially Spartacus and Senators Faucahontas and Harris is appalling.
Ps I am convinced Sen. Feinstein leaked the letter.
No will Amazon post this
July 22, 2019
I watched the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing (the final one with Mrs Ford and Justice Kavanaugh testifying). I was appalled at the behavior of the Senators of the Democratic Party, particularly, Kamela Harris and Cory Booker. I was confused by their flat out meanness, their sneering, condescending, patronizing tone. Mrs Feinstein frankly looked and sounded senile. After reading this book and now understanding better the history of Supreme Court confirmations and what has happened over the last 50 or so years, I understand why the Democratic Party did not want Justice Kavanaugh to be confirmed. Shame shame on them.. what low character... to what depths will they sink to “get their way.” And for what reason? They clearly do not have the interests of the American people at heart, they are interested in power and think the “Democratic” Party mechanism will give it to them. They are playing a game, and they don’t care who is hurt. By standing firm through the hellacious confirmation process, Justice Kavanaugh has shown that he is strong and courageous and that he will not break under pressure. P.S. after watching the confirmation hearing and the recent Democratic Party Debates, I will NEVER vote for Kamela Harris or Cory Booker for President. They are both grandstanding people of low character who will apparently say anything to get attention.
July 14, 2019
Justice on Trial is a well written account of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. But more than just a rehash of the hearings, this book provides a look at the history of confirmation hearings, as well as a look at the actual work that goes into the process. Regardless of your political leanings I think this book is well worth reading.
August 18, 2019
If you want to hear how Republicans are perfect and liberals are lying cheating fools this is the book for you. If you want a independent evaluation of both side good and bad this will not tell you anything.
September 14, 2019
I was expecting this to be biased, but it was far worse than that.A Hyper partisan polemic masquerading as a researched narrative, reading this actually made me feel nauseous.
July 31, 2019
Jimmy Kimmel relentlessly mocked him, playing the clip about his high school and college virginity to audience jeers. After rehearsing all the unsubstantiated allegations against him, Kimmel said, “I think there’s a compromise here; hear me out on this. So, Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, okay. Well, in return we get to cut that pesky penis of his off in front of everyone.”
I was so saddened by this book. The ingrained flaws of our country were never more apparent than when Justice Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. There was absolutely no presumption of innocence as the media and liberal networks impaled this man long before he was even able to utter a public word in his defense. According to the Liberals, he was guilty of anything and everything salacious.
Diane Feinstein obviously held onto Christine Blasey Ford’s letter as her “Trump card,” to whip out at the last second and cause an uproar. And what an uproar she caused!
Cory Booker publicly called Brett Kavanaugh “evil.” How do you make a statement like that without evidence of any wrong-doing? What ever happened to the decency, respect and civility that used to be prominent in our country?
The animus toward Justice Kavanaugh (a sinful conservative from the Left’s perspective) was unrivaled - at least in my lifetime. The “Party of Tolerance” did everything in their power to destroy this man’s sterling reputation. His wife and two young daughters were a by-product of the Liberal’s intentional destruction - simply collateral damage. The ruination of four lives is justified by their “win-at-all-cost” mentality.
The print media never printed a word spoken by those who came forward to advocate for Brett Kavanaugh’s character. And apparently, there were many.
I was riveted to the television when Dr. Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and I found her to be credible at first glance. But upon further contemplation, I found some of her testimony quite conflicting. If she was so traumatized by the incident of which she was accusing Justice Kavanaugh, why could she not recall what house she was in? Or how she got there? Or how she got home? And furthermore (and more importantly yet), why did the witnesses she named - including her best friend Leland Keyser - refuse to corroborate Dr. Ford’s story. Leland Keyser said she was pressured by many people to change her story to align with Dr. Ford’s, but she was quoted as saying she had to remain honest.
As most open-minded individuals, I gave this a great deal of thought for days. Family and friends were all discussing and debating this monumental event. The turning point for me was when I read Christine Blasey Ford’s account of going to marital counseling in 2012 because she and her husband were revisiting a disagreement about adding a second door to their home. Dr. Ford explained that she needed that second door as an escape route from her bedroom because she had been sexually assaulted in her teens and was traumatized by it. She said her husband was opposed and the addition of the second door was not aesthetically pleasing, but it was very important to her, so they ultimately added the door. Interestingly enough, that story too, has some inconsistencies. Dr. Ford spoke about this second escape door to emphasize her neurosis/panic/anxiety as a result of Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged assault, but for me, this story didn’t ring true.
The following points left me doubting everything she claimed...
1) How did Christine Blasey Ford deal with the lack of that second entrance/exit door prior to 2008 when they did extensive renovations on the whole house?
2) After the renovations and the addition of the second door, they moved out of that master bedroom and rented the room out to a marital counselor who utilized it as an office. How did Dr. Ford then cope with the anxiety of being in a different bedroom with only one door?
3) The Fords own a home in Santa Cruz on or near the beach and the home has only one door in the master bedroom. They have renovated the Santa Cruz home also, but in that renovation, they did not add a second escape door in their master bedroom. How does she feel comfortable and safe in that bedroom without a second escape door?
“Justice on Trial” was extremely well researched and well written. It was not an enjoyable book, but it is one of importance.
I was so saddened by this book. The ingrained flaws of our country were never more apparent than when Justice Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. There was absolutely no presumption of innocence as the media and liberal networks impaled this man long before he was even able to utter a public word in his defense. According to the Liberals, he was guilty of anything and everything salacious.
Diane Feinstein obviously held onto Christine Blasey Ford’s letter as her “Trump card,” to whip out at the last second and cause an uproar. And what an uproar she caused!
Cory Booker publicly called Brett Kavanaugh “evil.” How do you make a statement like that without evidence of any wrong-doing? What ever happened to the decency, respect and civility that used to be prominent in our country?
The animus toward Justice Kavanaugh (a sinful conservative from the Left’s perspective) was unrivaled - at least in my lifetime. The “Party of Tolerance” did everything in their power to destroy this man’s sterling reputation. His wife and two young daughters were a by-product of the Liberal’s intentional destruction - simply collateral damage. The ruination of four lives is justified by their “win-at-all-cost” mentality.
The print media never printed a word spoken by those who came forward to advocate for Brett Kavanaugh’s character. And apparently, there were many.
I was riveted to the television when Dr. Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and I found her to be credible at first glance. But upon further contemplation, I found some of her testimony quite conflicting. If she was so traumatized by the incident of which she was accusing Justice Kavanaugh, why could she not recall what house she was in? Or how she got there? Or how she got home? And furthermore (and more importantly yet), why did the witnesses she named - including her best friend Leland Keyser - refuse to corroborate Dr. Ford’s story. Leland Keyser said she was pressured by many people to change her story to align with Dr. Ford’s, but she was quoted as saying she had to remain honest.
As most open-minded individuals, I gave this a great deal of thought for days. Family and friends were all discussing and debating this monumental event. The turning point for me was when I read Christine Blasey Ford’s account of going to marital counseling in 2012 because she and her husband were revisiting a disagreement about adding a second door to their home. Dr. Ford explained that she needed that second door as an escape route from her bedroom because she had been sexually assaulted in her teens and was traumatized by it. She said her husband was opposed and the addition of the second door was not aesthetically pleasing, but it was very important to her, so they ultimately added the door. Interestingly enough, that story too, has some inconsistencies. Dr. Ford spoke about this second escape door to emphasize her neurosis/panic/anxiety as a result of Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged assault, but for me, this story didn’t ring true.
The following points left me doubting everything she claimed...
1) How did Christine Blasey Ford deal with the lack of that second entrance/exit door prior to 2008 when they did extensive renovations on the whole house?
2) After the renovations and the addition of the second door, they moved out of that master bedroom and rented the room out to a marital counselor who utilized it as an office. How did Dr. Ford then cope with the anxiety of being in a different bedroom with only one door?
3) The Fords own a home in Santa Cruz on or near the beach and the home has only one door in the master bedroom. They have renovated the Santa Cruz home also, but in that renovation, they did not add a second escape door in their master bedroom. How does she feel comfortable and safe in that bedroom without a second escape door?
“Justice on Trial” was extremely well researched and well written. It was not an enjoyable book, but it is one of importance.
July 20, 2019
I will start by saying that I am 100% supportive of women coming forward and reporting incidents. I hope moving forward, these incidents will all but die down, but if not,
at least the environment be as such that makes women brave and safe to come forward. However, being the parent of two boys, I am careful to sign on to the "accusations are
enough to publicly convict regardless of proof"
As of this writing, we still have the presumption of innocence. It seems that the progressive movement is trying to move us away from that. See the Trump, Russia, Collusion,
obstruction circus. We need to ensure that the accused have their day in court with proper legal representation. Else we will never have an elected official. Anyone running
for any office at any level could be removed simply with someone (really only a woman) saying they were sexually assaulted. No trial, proof, or anything else; just the allegation
would be enough to have them removed from the ticket.
The purgery traps are an insidious weapon used by lawmakers. I just read the Papadopoulos book and found it appalling that they asked him about a date and he, not having his
calendar or notes, responded in a certain way, later to be charged with lying to the FBI.
I am concerned that someone or a group of people are perfectly fine with destroying someone's life for the sole purpose of political party and expediency. I think there should be
equal if not more punishment for bringing false accusations against someone. Not only is it libel and slanderous to the person and can destroy someone's life and family but it
diminishes those who are truly victims of real sexual assault. Any politician found orchestrating the like should be impeached and held to the same. This cannot remain as acceptable
behavior.
Avenatti, the attorney, informed the public that he was representing a victim. Only to find that she herself had been charged with sexual misconduct, filed false reports and other
discrediting acts. But then again, look at the attorney. This attorney is facing over 335 years in prison. Sadly, Avenatti was the liberal media's choice to run for POTUS against Trump.
His client did not have an ounce of believability. Even mainstream media distanced themselves after it was shown that her allegations were baseless.
It is pretty disturbing how the Senate unfairly and maliciously went after Robert Bork, which created the verb of being "borked" forevermore. And in hind site, that hearing looked like the Mickey Mouse Club compared to this circus. The crazy part about it is that if you listen to the speech
given my Ted Kennedy at the time siting what would happen if Borked was confirmed, is exactly what the Democratic Party has become. I can only imagine what the atmosphere will be like 30 years from now. It seems like the attacks and total war are getting more violent, more heartless, and without care for anyone.
This book gives a good history on Supreme Court nominees from other administrations. As expected, it goes into detail about the Kavanaugh confirmation and the unsuccessful attacks
that we later saw unravel because of the falsehood of allegations by politically motivated hitmen (or women as it were). I think the women's groups should stand against these false
allegations and rebuke those spewing them as they give a bad name to their movement(s).
Sadly, in 2024 when the Dems take back the WH, they will find a Republican Party that will need to ratchet up the rhetoric and be more vicious than the Dems which will then get
repeated on the Dem side when the Republicans take the WH again. So logically speaking, the situation will exponentially get worse as time goes by. The new norm is you are guilty as long as someone comes forward, evidence and proof be damned, is a double-edged sword. No one will be able to hold office and thus we will have anarchy. If every Congress person, Senator, judge, mayor, governor, POTUS, or any other office is accused, without the need to prove the allegations, then how will anyone be permitted to run for public office, or worse yet, who would be stupid enough to run
at least the environment be as such that makes women brave and safe to come forward. However, being the parent of two boys, I am careful to sign on to the "accusations are
enough to publicly convict regardless of proof"
As of this writing, we still have the presumption of innocence. It seems that the progressive movement is trying to move us away from that. See the Trump, Russia, Collusion,
obstruction circus. We need to ensure that the accused have their day in court with proper legal representation. Else we will never have an elected official. Anyone running
for any office at any level could be removed simply with someone (really only a woman) saying they were sexually assaulted. No trial, proof, or anything else; just the allegation
would be enough to have them removed from the ticket.
The purgery traps are an insidious weapon used by lawmakers. I just read the Papadopoulos book and found it appalling that they asked him about a date and he, not having his
calendar or notes, responded in a certain way, later to be charged with lying to the FBI.
I am concerned that someone or a group of people are perfectly fine with destroying someone's life for the sole purpose of political party and expediency. I think there should be
equal if not more punishment for bringing false accusations against someone. Not only is it libel and slanderous to the person and can destroy someone's life and family but it
diminishes those who are truly victims of real sexual assault. Any politician found orchestrating the like should be impeached and held to the same. This cannot remain as acceptable
behavior.
Avenatti, the attorney, informed the public that he was representing a victim. Only to find that she herself had been charged with sexual misconduct, filed false reports and other
discrediting acts. But then again, look at the attorney. This attorney is facing over 335 years in prison. Sadly, Avenatti was the liberal media's choice to run for POTUS against Trump.
His client did not have an ounce of believability. Even mainstream media distanced themselves after it was shown that her allegations were baseless.
It is pretty disturbing how the Senate unfairly and maliciously went after Robert Bork, which created the verb of being "borked" forevermore. And in hind site, that hearing looked like the Mickey Mouse Club compared to this circus. The crazy part about it is that if you listen to the speech
given my Ted Kennedy at the time siting what would happen if Borked was confirmed, is exactly what the Democratic Party has become. I can only imagine what the atmosphere will be like 30 years from now. It seems like the attacks and total war are getting more violent, more heartless, and without care for anyone.
This book gives a good history on Supreme Court nominees from other administrations. As expected, it goes into detail about the Kavanaugh confirmation and the unsuccessful attacks
that we later saw unravel because of the falsehood of allegations by politically motivated hitmen (or women as it were). I think the women's groups should stand against these false
allegations and rebuke those spewing them as they give a bad name to their movement(s).
Sadly, in 2024 when the Dems take back the WH, they will find a Republican Party that will need to ratchet up the rhetoric and be more vicious than the Dems which will then get
repeated on the Dem side when the Republicans take the WH again. So logically speaking, the situation will exponentially get worse as time goes by. The new norm is you are guilty as long as someone comes forward, evidence and proof be damned, is a double-edged sword. No one will be able to hold office and thus we will have anarchy. If every Congress person, Senator, judge, mayor, governor, POTUS, or any other office is accused, without the need to prove the allegations, then how will anyone be permitted to run for public office, or worse yet, who would be stupid enough to run
August 1, 2019
It would be nice to live in a society where the events described in this book were merely the imaginings of an overwrought conspiracy theorist. Sadly, they’re not.
Rather than rehash the shameful details set out in this book, I’ll say it’s well researched and provides a good history of the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process, going back even before the shameful Bork and Thomas hearings. (I’m using the word “shameful” a great deal. It’s the best word for the job.)
This is a book review, not a political blog, so I’ll refrain from going into my personal thoughts on the whole Kavanaugh matter, except for the following:
- The kindest assessment I can make regarding Christine Ford is that perhaps she’s mentally ill and really believes her allegations, à la celebrity stalkers who believe themselves to be in special relationships with the objects of their obsession.
- Ford’s testimony was completely unbelievable and her demeanor confirmed my disbelief. She was lying.
- The words “credible” and “compelling” are meaningless to me now.
- Not a single Democratic senator behaved honorably and I cannot even consider voting for any of them for president.
- Almost all of the news media have abandoned any pretense of journalistic ethics and standards. Only a very few outlets retained my respect.
I listened to the audio version of the book, read by the authors. It was cathartic.
Rather than rehash the shameful details set out in this book, I’ll say it’s well researched and provides a good history of the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process, going back even before the shameful Bork and Thomas hearings. (I’m using the word “shameful” a great deal. It’s the best word for the job.)
This is a book review, not a political blog, so I’ll refrain from going into my personal thoughts on the whole Kavanaugh matter, except for the following:
- The kindest assessment I can make regarding Christine Ford is that perhaps she’s mentally ill and really believes her allegations, à la celebrity stalkers who believe themselves to be in special relationships with the objects of their obsession.
- Ford’s testimony was completely unbelievable and her demeanor confirmed my disbelief. She was lying.
- The words “credible” and “compelling” are meaningless to me now.
- Not a single Democratic senator behaved honorably and I cannot even consider voting for any of them for president.
- Almost all of the news media have abandoned any pretense of journalistic ethics and standards. Only a very few outlets retained my respect.
I listened to the audio version of the book, read by the authors. It was cathartic.
July 19, 2019
Thoroughly researched, gripping account of the nomination, character assassination, and Senate hearings for SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This book reads like a thriller, while conveying substantive background on the key players and relevant history of the Supreme Court. The authors do an exceptional job arguing for a depoliticized nomination/confirmation process.
August 15, 2019
Great!
Huge indictment of the liberal media with CNN and NBC leading the way. An in depth critique - not of what the liberal media reports,but what it doesn’t report. Democrat senators are also destroyed in this hard hitting book. While Diane Feinstein’s own action and inaction indicate that she’s an inept stooge controlled by an ultra liberal staff, other Democrat senators, including all of the 2020 presidential candidates are shown to willfully disregard law and human decency. Finally, not to let conservatives off the hook, this book served as a lesson on the sheer weakness of Republicans over the course of political history as far back as the Eisenhower administration regarding these political fights.
Huge indictment of the liberal media with CNN and NBC leading the way. An in depth critique - not of what the liberal media reports,but what it doesn’t report. Democrat senators are also destroyed in this hard hitting book. While Diane Feinstein’s own action and inaction indicate that she’s an inept stooge controlled by an ultra liberal staff, other Democrat senators, including all of the 2020 presidential candidates are shown to willfully disregard law and human decency. Finally, not to let conservatives off the hook, this book served as a lesson on the sheer weakness of Republicans over the course of political history as far back as the Eisenhower administration regarding these political fights.
August 22, 2023
I read this book because I wanted to see another view point. The only saving grace in this book is that Kavanaugh sounds like he maybe a fair judge. I am almost finished and just can’t take much more bad mouthing partisans crap. The author comes off very biased right wing religious velot. Sadly this did not give me anything more than more heartburn over more extreamism. Sadly neither side see how very much alike they are.
2023. Clearly I was wrong in underestimating the damage Kavanaugh could inflict! He certainly doesn’t respect religious freedom not to mention women’s rights. UGH! Nothing supreme about this court!
2023. Clearly I was wrong in underestimating the damage Kavanaugh could inflict! He certainly doesn’t respect religious freedom not to mention women’s rights. UGH! Nothing supreme about this court!
July 17, 2019
If you were interested in the Kavanaugh confirmation, this book is right up your alley. I read this book slowly because there were so many names and so much information. Touches on several items that never surfaced in the media and will likely continue to be ignored.
Book summary: Democratic senators and leftists are shameless.
Book summary: Democratic senators and leftists are shameless.
July 24, 2019
This book brought me back to this terrible and embarrassing time in our history. The advise and consent of a supreme court justice derailed by lies and deception to a level previously not seen before. I thought the confirmation of Justice Thomas was bad but this one was reprehensible. The protestors and the intimidation of the Senators and just the general lack of decorum throughout was brought back through this excellent and well-researched book. These authors went further than the Senators in investigating the so-called sexual harassment of this fine man. I hope that all of the people involved in his smearing never sleep again for the unbelievable torment they put his family and friends through all because of political differences. It's shameful.
November 9, 2020
Obstructionist Court Confirmations
Review of the Regnery Publishing hardcover edition (July 2019)
I read Justice on Trial as part of my reading survey of various books in relation to the 2020 American Election. As a Canadian I’ve generally ignored American politics and elections in past years, but the drama of the situation in 2020 has heightened my interest.
Although the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, hearings & confirmation from July 9, 2018 (nomination) to October 6, 2018 (confirmation) predates the 2020 election cycle, it is still provides a deep dive view into the partisan animosity between the political forces in the United States. It is also somewhat of a preview of the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination (September 26, 2020 (nomination) to October 26, 2020 (confirmation) which proceeded more smoothly, but with similar protests.
Hemingway and Severino report the ups and downs of the confirmation process in a straightforward factual manner documenting the on the record speeches, statements, questions and answers. There is no question which side comes out looking the worse in this.
This quoted excerpt summarizes the situation the best:
Review of the Regnery Publishing hardcover edition (July 2019)
I read Justice on Trial as part of my reading survey of various books in relation to the 2020 American Election. As a Canadian I’ve generally ignored American politics and elections in past years, but the drama of the situation in 2020 has heightened my interest.
Although the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, hearings & confirmation from July 9, 2018 (nomination) to October 6, 2018 (confirmation) predates the 2020 election cycle, it is still provides a deep dive view into the partisan animosity between the political forces in the United States. It is also somewhat of a preview of the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination (September 26, 2020 (nomination) to October 26, 2020 (confirmation) which proceeded more smoothly, but with similar protests.
Hemingway and Severino report the ups and downs of the confirmation process in a straightforward factual manner documenting the on the record speeches, statements, questions and answers. There is no question which side comes out looking the worse in this.
This quoted excerpt summarizes the situation the best:
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most celebrated liberal on the Supreme Court, lamented that Kavanaugh's hearing was a "highly partisan show." " The vote on my confirmation was ninety-six to three, even though I had spent about ten years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU," she told an audience at the George Washington University Law School on September 13. She reminded the audience that Antonin Scalia's confirmation was unanimous, adding, "That's the way it should be... I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to the way it was."
October 3, 2019
Well-researched look at the Kavanagh confirmation, by 2 talented authors. Fascinating book-- I appreciated learning a little history of the Supreme Court and little-known facts about Kavanagh and his accusers.
“The media tend to confuse the legitimacy of the Court with respect for the Court, but there is a difference between the two. Acting according to law is the essence of legitimacy in a legal sense, while ‘respect’ is a sign only of social legitimacy in the eyes of the public… But legitimacy is not the same thing as popularity. The framers knew that good judges would not always- or even often- be popular. That’s why they gave them life tenure. They knew that the Court’s true legitimacy derives from its freedom to make decisions in accordance with law, not in its reaching decisions that will win favor.” -pp. 303, 304
About Lisa Blatt, a leftist who stood up for Kavanagh: “Her bluntness is refreshing in a world of snowflakes, forced apologies, and social ostracism. She called their bluff, and by walking away from their demands for conformity, she robbed them of their power. Imagine a world where fewer people were scared to stand up for what they believed. It could start a virtuous circle, in which every person who bucked the popular views would drive down the cost of standing up.” - p. 294
“The media tend to confuse the legitimacy of the Court with respect for the Court, but there is a difference between the two. Acting according to law is the essence of legitimacy in a legal sense, while ‘respect’ is a sign only of social legitimacy in the eyes of the public… But legitimacy is not the same thing as popularity. The framers knew that good judges would not always- or even often- be popular. That’s why they gave them life tenure. They knew that the Court’s true legitimacy derives from its freedom to make decisions in accordance with law, not in its reaching decisions that will win favor.” -pp. 303, 304
About Lisa Blatt, a leftist who stood up for Kavanagh: “Her bluntness is refreshing in a world of snowflakes, forced apologies, and social ostracism. She called their bluff, and by walking away from their demands for conformity, she robbed them of their power. Imagine a world where fewer people were scared to stand up for what they believed. It could start a virtuous circle, in which every person who bucked the popular views would drive down the cost of standing up.” - p. 294
January 6, 2020
As a lawyer interested in the Supreme Court and one who was riveted and sickened by Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process, I was looking forward to an intelligent, behind the scenes account. This book is not that. I began to sense the bias in the first ten pages, but I kept reading. Another 50 pages in and I couldn't take it anymore. There is some good research here, but it is presented in a skewed way and I just had to put it down. If I wanted such one-sided coverage, I could just watch Fox News. Oh wait, that is where one of the authors comes from! Shame on me for not looking into this more before picking it up - a quick reading of the book jacket would have sent me running. DNF
December 14, 2019
I knew there was a lot of stuff behind the scenes going on with the Dems' plan to detail this confirmation and to destroy an innocent man's life. Great book, lots of stuff then Liberal media left out that leads one to doubt Ford even more. Foot notes abound to check out on your own if you don't believe any of it. This book leaves little doubt, this was not about Ford or accusations. This was a Dem hit job for control of the most powerful court in the US.
November 22, 2019
I don't think I've ever been so happy to be done listening to a book! Partly because it brought me back to that horrible time in our history and partly because of the clear bias of the authors. So hard to listen to the one sided take on this.
July 13, 2019
Impressively researched
This was a very good book regarding the Supreme Court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. I found it quite readable.
This was a very good book regarding the Supreme Court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. I found it quite readable.
October 6, 2019
The title sounds like a book on political science of legal philosophy. However, this book actually focuses on the play-by-play stories behind the dramatic stories around the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Bret Cavanaugh in 2018. The only exceptions are the beginning of the book, where Trump’s effort of installing originalist judges was reviewed, and the last chapter of the book, where the author argued for the originalist approach to the legal system.
The author is not a neutral journalist but a biased conservative, as shown in her credential (senior editor at The Federalist) and her legal discussions mentioned above. However, the book is an enjoyable and engaging recount of the perhaps most dramatic Supreme Court confirmation in the century. Nonetheless, because of the author’s bias, I cannot be sure such a recount is accurate.
What strikes me most after reading the book is how dirty politics can be. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a branch of the Federal Government that is apolitical. The justices are supposed to make decisions based on their independent expertise on the constitution and other legal matters. However, especially over the past decade or two, the Supreme Court, at least its nomination process, has been sucked into the increasing polarizing political processes. It is a norm not only for the politicians but also for grassroots activists that a justice candidate is supported or opposed not based on his professional qualifications but on his political affiliations (i.e., who nominated him) and maybe his political inclinations.
What's more alarming is that people would try to achieve their goal in the confirmation process by any means, abandoning any consideration of fairness, constitutionality, or even basic human decency. And there is no accountability for the actors. If this process is the microcosm of our political operation, it is really saddening.
Another revelation I got from the book is how free people become in making ridiculous statements without being challenged. Many people said at the time that supporting Kavanaugh equals supporting rapists, never mind that the linkage between the two has been debunked by public hearing and FBI investigation. People also equate empathy and support for the victims of sexual assault to unconditionally believing any story a woman tells, even if it can potentially destroy the life of an innocent man. These statements do not help the progressive course; instead, they damage the credibility of the whole movement.
The book is also interesting in its portrayal of President Trump as a “normal” president, who was effective and firm in choosing Kavanaugh and supporting him through the process. This is a picture very different from descriptions of Trump by other books and by the media. Based on my impression of Trump's speeches and tweets, I find such normalcy hard to believe.
Overall, this book is an enjoyable reading. However, a reader should do due diligence before accepting the conclusions and implications.
The author is not a neutral journalist but a biased conservative, as shown in her credential (senior editor at The Federalist) and her legal discussions mentioned above. However, the book is an enjoyable and engaging recount of the perhaps most dramatic Supreme Court confirmation in the century. Nonetheless, because of the author’s bias, I cannot be sure such a recount is accurate.
What strikes me most after reading the book is how dirty politics can be. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a branch of the Federal Government that is apolitical. The justices are supposed to make decisions based on their independent expertise on the constitution and other legal matters. However, especially over the past decade or two, the Supreme Court, at least its nomination process, has been sucked into the increasing polarizing political processes. It is a norm not only for the politicians but also for grassroots activists that a justice candidate is supported or opposed not based on his professional qualifications but on his political affiliations (i.e., who nominated him) and maybe his political inclinations.
What's more alarming is that people would try to achieve their goal in the confirmation process by any means, abandoning any consideration of fairness, constitutionality, or even basic human decency. And there is no accountability for the actors. If this process is the microcosm of our political operation, it is really saddening.
Another revelation I got from the book is how free people become in making ridiculous statements without being challenged. Many people said at the time that supporting Kavanaugh equals supporting rapists, never mind that the linkage between the two has been debunked by public hearing and FBI investigation. People also equate empathy and support for the victims of sexual assault to unconditionally believing any story a woman tells, even if it can potentially destroy the life of an innocent man. These statements do not help the progressive course; instead, they damage the credibility of the whole movement.
The book is also interesting in its portrayal of President Trump as a “normal” president, who was effective and firm in choosing Kavanaugh and supporting him through the process. This is a picture very different from descriptions of Trump by other books and by the media. Based on my impression of Trump's speeches and tweets, I find such normalcy hard to believe.
Overall, this book is an enjoyable reading. However, a reader should do due diligence before accepting the conclusions and implications.
October 4, 2019
It wasn’t pleasant to relive the incredible “circus” that occurred in the hearings to approve the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. It could be said that this book is of primary interest to U.S. citizens, but I think it behooves any country with a democratic form of government to be aware of the dangers that can arise when one side determines that any tactic is okay to oppose someone you disagree with that prevents them from attaining that office. That’s what happened when a group used despicable means in order to destroy the reputation of a respected judge. This book goes into detail and supports with interviews, printed articles how the travesty took place. We also learn of the past Supreme Court vacancies and the problems with their replacements; so we gain a bit of history that I found interesting. I found the book very readable—I had a difficult time putting it down.
Even though Kavanaugh was affirmed, our country was the loser. How can we expect women and men of repute to be willing to present their names for service when they and their family may suffer the destruction and humiliation that Kavanaugh suffered. So regardless of which “side” a person professes, this should give us all pause to consider how we want to treat the opposite side.
Even though Kavanaugh was affirmed, our country was the loser. How can we expect women and men of repute to be willing to present their names for service when they and their family may suffer the destruction and humiliation that Kavanaugh suffered. So regardless of which “side” a person professes, this should give us all pause to consider how we want to treat the opposite side.
March 31, 2020
Too biased
Fox News employees wrote this book and it shows. The book talks about how bad the ‘left’ press is and glorifies the Republican Party.
Fox News employees wrote this book and it shows. The book talks about how bad the ‘left’ press is and glorifies the Republican Party.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 311 reviews