Talk:Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

Split to Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Oppose

---

<Start of discussion> I'm proposing that the Sexual assault allegations be moved to its own article given the notability of the subject and the length of the section in general. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, because the length of it is overwhelming the information about the confirmation process itself. Also, this takes into account the fact that the allegations kept having a life of their own after the confirmation process was over. New events regarding the allegations have happened recently, e.g. referrals for prosecution on some witnesses and lawyers, which have nothing to do with the nomination itself. — JFG ^talk 09:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegations do appear to have become a continuing issue separate from the nomination event itself. A summary of the allegations up to the nomination vote, then a link to the sexual allegation issue as it continued past the vote. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that’s wrong and they are not severable. These are a large part of the WEIGHT for the confirmation process, and the Ford testimony in the confirmation hearings in particular. That they are major part of the article matches to they were a major part of the confirmation. Further note that allegations even occurred was said to be due to his nomination. Lastly... if it is all removed from here then LEAD would no longer support them being prominent in the top of the article, which again I think it should be. Not in his BLP, and not in its own article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think it's pretty much a dead issue. The confirmation is a done deal, and the criminal referrals were to a large part pre-midterm election posturing. The investigation is going to run into the same problem as before, not enough evidence either way, and it's not going to go anywhere (if it does we can reopen the discussion). The accusations and their handling are an important part of the confirmation process; I think it's better to keep it all in one article. We should remove Munro-Leighton altogether. It's clear that it was a hoax, whatever her motives. Did the Senate committee even mention her email to them before the vote? I did a cursory check, didn't find anything, so probably more pre-midterm election posturing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x I suggest you start a new TALK section about removing that one. It seems removable to me on WEIGHT, but there have been past RFCs tagging to RS about how a spectrum of accusations are part of the landscape, and realistically debunked accusations do get bonus WEIGHT from retractions and from folks waving them around. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — The sexual assault allegations are an integral part of the nomination hearings, and cannot be properly separated from this topic. Any attempt to split this off into a separate article is just going to result in us having all the content in yet another place (see Brett Kavanaugh#Sexual assault allegations and Christine Blasey Ford#Sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh). Bradv 17:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: there's no need; the material is fine where it is. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to agree these things are to intertwined to be separated. Layout and presentation seems fine in the same place. ContentEditman (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- Makes as little sense as doing a separate article for the Clarence Thomas accusations. Activist (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

<End of discussion>

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction

The New York Times made a correction to one of its stories about Kavanaugh. This should be mentioned

References

Avenatti

Given subsequent developments regarding Avenatti, should this section either be removed, edited, or at the least have some caveat's regarding statements from Avenatti put in? The stetements of a now disbarred lawyer, convicted of fraud, embezzlement, extortion, etc should be taken with a very large grain of salt, if at all. Especially when that lawyers own clients said that he lied about what they said, it really reduces the encyclopedic value of the entire section. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You can add something like that in if you like, it could arguably be considered relevant context; but I think as it stands, the article makes quite clear that the allegations made public by Avenatti were not widely considered credible, even before he was disgraced and disbarred. Robofish (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Klobachar dialog with Kavanaugh

I inserted the following. And it has been rejected, and it seems after over a decade and hundreds of edits to articles, I'm on the Sh-t list. I do have opinions but followed the rules ,including valid references. I've been one Wikipedia's strongest advocates, and fear something has changed. The following is my edit, that is referenced with a CNN video.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, began her questioning by descriing her own father having a drinking problem. When questioned about his, Kavanaugh said he "liked beer" and asked if she had a drinking problem herself. "Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh combatively responded to questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) about his drinking habits. He apologized after the committee took a short break." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Lack of political context

I feel the article right now explains the facts and details of what happened, but doesn't really give the political context - i.e. the "Kavanaugh effect" and why the Republicans (allegedly?) got a boost in the Senate races. Someone who isn't super familiar with US politics won't really understand what happened.

I'm gonna work on adding some of that, but I figured I'd post in here first in case others had opinions on it as well. - Jushyosaha604 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Section added: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Political_impact. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Age if you look under Christine Blasey Ford she said she was 15 . Bret Kavanaugh is a year younger. Physically this is a difference. She I belive it said during the hearings was 2 yrs ahead of him in school. Higher grade people seldom if ever hang authors those in lower grades

Bret Kavanaugh he if you read Wikipedia on Christine Blasey Ford her age was 15 so he was 14 physically younger. I remember during hearings he was a few grades behind her . Seldom do older students hang anyplace younger students are Tinylp (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tinylp: “ Seldom do older students hang anyplace younger students are” is NOT an objective fact-based statement, it is your own perception of what is “typical”. And the circumstances would not need to be typical for them to be either true or false. Additionally, Brett Kavanaugh is older than Christina Blasey Ford, not vice-versa. You are not proving or disproving anything with this tangent. SecretName101 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"voting" alignment

seems like the wrong term? This isn't about who voted for him but about his anticipated rulings. 149.103.10.5 (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)