Talk:Brett Kavanaugh/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Judy Munro-Leighton

A fourth woman whom accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault has admitted to lying about the incident. https://nordic.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11?r=US&IR=T Shouldn't this be included in the article? /Jonipoon (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that was discussed in the Senate memo I posted above. I personally think the results of that memo should be included. Emperor001 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include. I think this lacks enough WP:WEIGHT of coverage in press to mention it. Googling, I get Swetnick (the prior entry) at 1.8M hits, and with "false claims" is 365K, but this name is only 464K and 291K with false claims. I think it was late and not credible so the press did not give it much attention, and it may actually have more press about the retraction than the accusation got, perhaps because the admission is being waved about. Less than one third the Swetnick WEIGHT just seems down into covering the tabloid tidbits, and not suitable for BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

414 Page Memo

Should the article include references to this memorandum regarding the investigation? https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf I have not read the whole thing yet but from what I understand it comments on how another man claimed to be responsible for the sexual assault on Dr. Ford, that a fourth woman (presently not mentioned in the article) admitted to falsely accusing Justice Kavanaugh, and other details of the Senate's investigation. Emperor001 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Emperor001 - it could go in section 6.4 here for FBI investigations. I think that it would be better at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination as detail not directly about his life or enduring impact. I'd prefer more about the nomination/investigation be there instead, but since it's here then it makes sense to also be mentioning the item and coverage of it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Criminal investigation against Kavanaugh accuser

This seems sorta relevant: Senate has referred Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick for criminal investigation regarding false claims about sexual assault.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/chuck-grassley-refers-michael-avenatti-and-julie-swetnick-for-investigation.html

Aside from including it in the relevant section in the article, should the section with Swetnicks claims also be cut down in size, since these claims are apparently false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.133.229 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I will be WP:BOLD and add a line on it at the end of the section. I'm thinking trimming of that paragraph is not as needed, but if someone else does that it would be fine by me. I actually think most of the section on Nomination is not his biography so should move from Brett Kavanaugh over to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, but doing that should be done with some TALK consensus first. Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this section because D.Creish removed Avenatti's response to the allegations, describing them as "sniping." While it certainly seems relevant that the Republican-led committee has called for a criminal investigation, it is unfair and inappropriate to discuss the committee's allegations without also including Avenatti's response to those allegations. Since D.Creish apparently does not want us to include the latter, we can hardly include the former. I am not opposed to a well-sourced and balanced section which includes both the Republican-led committee's allegations and Avenatti's response, so if we can come to a consensus on some wording for that, we can re-add it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems not equivalent. There’s two issues with this - WEIGHT and that it adds bonus sniping.

• WEIGHT issue is that his response got less coverage than the referral, so the 21 words to convey the referral should not have 33 words of rebuttal.
• Bonus sniping issue is that this particular response dragged in bonus sniping. The event and charge is simply reporting objective fact about the status of Swetnick claims without commentary, but the section on Avenatti response went beyond the referral and into alleging Grassley wrongdoing... While I believe that is one of his responses reported, it is sniping so then then we owe Grassley a response mmm maybe the referred for ADDITIONAL criminal investigation would do but then we owe Avenatti another turn? And that additional referral is about the 4th woman WP isn’t even mentioning so ...

I suggest state the referral about the Swetnick claim, and allow any response about the Swetnick claim or the referral ... But no expansion bonus sniping allowed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly

Since their goal is to write a book about the allegations [1] (which are unsubstantiated according to the lengthy report), can we cite them? Their articles are very biased, so I think they should receive less weight here and other sources should be seeked. I'm a bit disappointed in the NYT here. wumbolo ^^^ 17:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

How are they biased? You seem to be letting your own Bias come into play. Maybe you should take a step back and not edit when your own bias are so clear. If you have facts that can be backed up by reliable sources then post them here. But you make claims of bias with no support other than your own. ContentEditman (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that their work is biased, Wumbolo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC -- polls on nomination

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus on whether these two sentences should be be kept in the article. "Yes" opinions suggest that the public opinion is important information about Kavanaugh and his nomination, while "no" opinions suggest that the information is of undue weight with little long-term significance. Editors are roughly evenly divided between including and excluding the sentences. I note slightly higher support for including (1) than including (2), but there is overall no consensus on both. feminist (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

---

(1) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:

Between September 10 and 16, 2018, Kavanaugh had the highest opposition (42%) of any of the eleven Supreme Court nominees Gallup has polled about since Robert Bork in 1987.

(2) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:

A YouGov/The Economist poll on September 23–25 found 55% of Republicans thought he should be confirmed even if the allegations of sexual assault were true, compared to 28% of the whole sample and 13% of Democrats.

Please note that both sentences are already in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article. They are at the Public reactions and polling section.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes to both (1) and (2). The material is significant in the history of this individual and in American political history. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. The polls are relevant to the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Public reactions and polling article. They are undue weight for this article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both, these do not belong as the lead to the Nomination section, not part of the subsections nor preceeding it in chronology. And particularly no for #2 -- discussing how Republicans felt re confirmation and guilt is not biographical, it's an indication of partisan divide at confirmation process. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. We need to take a 10 year horizon as to what would be important. These may seem to be important facts now when the nomination is still fresh in our minds, but 10 years from now people wont care what polling said on any given day. Leave these details to the page about the nomination itself. -Obsidi (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• No as I stated before. The sentences come across as out of place in the context of a biography. They are more appropriate in the article about Kavanaugh's nomination. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes this is informative info about US public opinion. Opinion polls change but this is what they were saying during the process, which is in itself of interest to many different readers (those interested in political science, in history, in public opinion, in gender relations, I could go on).--Calthinus (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both; the location in the article isn't great (nor is the section on the nomination high quality in general), but some brief measure of popular opinion is justified in this article, and the two polls listed are a reasonable summary of that opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. Not appropriate for a biography, unless these polls actually impacted his life, which they didn't. I mean, he got confirmed, right? The nomination article is the appropriate place for this information. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to (1) per power~enwiki; Neutral on (2). I think some indication of popular opinion with regards to his confirmation is warranted and due in a biography as it contextualizes perception of him during the process. The first sentence I feel is better for contextualizing general public perception of him, while the second one is incredibly specific and perhaps better suited for the spin-off article. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both; that his was an unpopular nomination is material to his future career as a Justice. The nomination was a one-time event, so it's reasonable to include this here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both - The polling is very noteworthy and it's at least as WP:DUE as the Minnesota Law Review article and his marathon running. - MrX 🖋 11:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Yes to both as its more then notable, well referenced, and shows the context of the fight and sentiments of the nation as it went on. ContentEditman (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both - meaningless trivia. Polls mean nothing in relation to Kavanaugh as a nominee and its all moot now anyway since he was nominated. Seems to also fall into the WP:NOTNEWS category. Really inappropriate for a bio, as well. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both. The reaction of the public, as expressed by demonstrations and opinions voiced when polled (e.g RealClearPolitics), is noteworthy and needs to be included. (And I need to get back to the section and add the later reactions with RS.) I agree with Power~enwiki's edit that there is quite a bit of actual trivia that could (and should) be cut. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to keeping (1). No objection to removing (2). I feel the overall public opinion of him and his nomination should be included in his biography, but I don't really think the hypothetical opinions on confirmation if things get proven or not is needed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both. This seems like sufficient coverage to support a sentence for each. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both - a clear case of recentism. It properly belongs in the article on his nomination. Atchom (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. It's just trivia that does not belong in a professional encyclopedia article. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2, I agree with WikiVirusC, 1 is notable but 2 is UNDUE/NOTNEWS Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2, (Summoned by bot) No. 1 is fine, No. 2 is excessive detail Coretheapple (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, I'm neutral on (2). --Thi (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. The polls are relevant to the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Public reactions and polling article. They are undue weight for this article. Per PackMecEng. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both. Relevant and well sourced. Calling this "trivia" is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 14:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. I fail to see long term relevance (WP:10YT).LM2000 (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both. Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination is the peak of his career, and should be properly summarized in this article. Moreover, there are 13 paragraphs about the sexual assault allegations on this article, so two sentences for a sub-section on the nom article are fine. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 16:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to both. While it is certainly possible, as some have speculated, that some time in the future the national controversy over his nomination will fade. I speculate that it is unlikely that this will occur anytime in the Trump administration. All speculation aside, the material is certainly significant now and should remain. (Note: I was contacted by Legobot to respond here) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• No to both: It is WP:UNDUE to include them -- especially #2 -- in this article, and it would violate WP:NOTNEWS. These polls should definitely be kept/added at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Public reactions and polling. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• No to both. Clear fail WP:10Y and WP:UNDUE. The article at present is overly detailed on the very rancorous nomination (and various allegations around it) - a single event. This article should summarize the nomination process, stating clearly the political and social divide, but not go into nitty-gritty details, particularly since we have a spin-off article on the nomination. Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure why/how this has gotten to the point of needing an RFC; I see half a dozen more serious concerns with the article. We have useless "positive" trivia such as he noted that he has repeatedly described the four greatest moments in Supreme Court history as being the cases Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel, and United States v. Nixon, and "negative" content such as The Democrats also complained that 42,000 pages of documents had been received at the 11th hour, the night before Day One of the hearings. The polls are also mentioned deep in the eleven (!!) paragraph section on Dr. Ford. I really have better things to do than to deal with the complaints that taking a hatchet to that section would generate, but it is sorely needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel it is unnecessary. The previous discussion on whether to include this from a few weeks ago (Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh/Archive_5#Polls) was very close with 8(keep) to 7(omit), which settled down with keep. But an editor recently moved the content, then removed it from the article, and there was an WP:AE filing over it. I was hoping that by bringing in new voices we could solidify the decision and avoid the reverts and conflict that has arisen based on this content.

As to your other concerns, I have only been following a few aspects of this lengthy and rapidly changing and evolving article. I did watch the beginning of the confirmation and was interested in his reasons for picking those particular cases, and it's nice to be able to look them up here. The drama over the 42,000 pages was a big todo at the hearing, but I agree with you that neither will have any great significance in Kavanaugh's life, U.S. history or U.S. law, so probably should be deleted from this article in the near future. His having a public opinion even lower than Bjork--who failed--and still get approved, to me, that is very significant historically.

As for the Ford allegations, handling that fairly in appropriate proportion at the time, and in the future, that is thorny for a WP:BLP, so I see strong arguments for detail and strong reasons for reducing the length to a paragraph or two. Because of these concerns, I have actually deliberately avoided reading the Ford allegations with hopes that level-headed thinking will prevail. But if it something is horribly wrong with that section, I might be enticed to take a look. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

To go along with the trimming. The whole Sexual assault allegations section go use a good cut as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:David Tornheim - thanks for putting up the RFC, it is getting a lot of response. The BRD discussion above did not get reply from ContentEditman, and I think its moot now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Prior Discussion

• Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#Polls
• Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh/Archive_5#Polls
• Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Polls_-_part_of_opposition_or_part_of_nomination_?
• Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination/Archive_1#Worst_polling_ever_sentence.

Notification of this RfC to those who participated in the prior discussion: @K.e.coffman:, PackMecEng (no ping necessary: already weighed in), @Winkelvi:, @HaeB:, @InedibleHulk:, @Calthinus:, @Sagecandor:, @Anachronist:, David Tornheim (me) (already weighed in), @MrX:, @ContentEditman: @Seraphim System:, @Ktrimi991:, @Obsidi:, @Markbassett:, @MelanieN:. Notification to 2605:6000:6947:AB00:492F:506F:FA3D:BC6C: [2]. Please let me know if I left anyone out. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In discussing polls/placement at the nomination article, there was also User:Space4Time3Continuum2x recently, and the discussion over wording here had User:Obsidi

Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Added both above. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Notification of this RfC to those who participated in the prior two discussions just added: @Galobtter:, @Space4Time3Continuum2x:. (Obsidi already pinged and weighed in.) --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the U.S. Supreme Court

Besides myself, i know there is at least one or two other editors working to improve the article by adding some of what will be the earliest of Justice Kavanaugh's decisions, votes, and opinions. When more decisions are released, I was thinking we could label the section early decisions based off of how the page for Chief Justice John Roberts is organized. That is just one suggestion though. Please, help to expand on his now tenure on the Supreme Court. Glad to be here with you all!SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

At the end of the section "Senate Judiciary Committee public hearings" is the following text: "The report was transmitted to the White House on October 3 and from there to the Senate on October 4, where Senators were permitted one at a time to review the report in secrecy. Majority Leader McConnell said the Senate would vote on the confirmation on October 6.[187] Democrats criticized the FBI investigation as incomplete, a "farce", a "sham" and "a horrific cover-up" that omitted key witnesses at the White House's direction.[188][189]"

I PROPOSE ADDING A SENTENCE: ".... review the report in secrecy." <INSERT> The Senate judiciary committee released an Executive Summary of the report, which concludes: "The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez." </INSERT> "Majority Leader..."

The URL to reference the above sentence is:

While the report itself is unavailable, I feel that a complete discussion of the topic should at least include what is publicly available about the contents of the report. Zzybaloobah (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. wumbolo ^^^ 16:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Uhh... maybe I'm missing something, but this was rejected with "please provide reliable sources". I gave the URL to the US Senate Judiciary Committee. If you follow the URL, the conclusion I quoted is near the bottom of the page. Is the Senate Judiciary Committee not a reliable source? Even if you think that the FBI report is flawed, my statement is factually true: The Senate Judiciary Committee released a summary of the report with a conclusion. That statement is supported by the URL I provided. So, what am I missing? Zzybaloobah (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Wumbolo for comment. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Yes, the Committee is a reliable source for its report. However, third-party (WP:SECONDARY) reliable sources should be provided to show that this information has sufficient WP:WEIGHT to be included in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's 3 secondary sources that state an executive summary was released and provide a summary (and 3 more that simply summarize the contents of the FBI report):

1) 'Late Thursday, the office of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released its own "executive summary" of the FBI's findings. It concluded, "There is no corroboration of the allegations" made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford or Ramirez.' (note this ref is already #188 in the existing article)

2) 'The FBI investigation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh found "no corroboration of the allegations" of sexual misconduct against him. That conclusion was part of an executive summary of the report released by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, late Thursday night. "The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez," the report concluded.'

3) 'Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released an executive summary of the FBI's confidential supplemental background investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh late Thursday..."The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez," the Judiciary Committee Republicans wrote.'

4) 'Six days after Trump reluctantly ordered the FBI to scrutinize the accusations— which allegedly occurred in the 1980s and Kavanaugh has denied — leading GOP lawmakers briefed on the agency's confidential document all reached the same conclusion: There was no verification of the women's past claims and nothing new.' (note this ref is #186 in the existing article)

5) 'Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — two decisive Republican votes — indicated Thursday that the additional FBI probe was adequate, although they both cautioned they would continue to read the closely held report. Flake also told reporters that “we’ve seen no additional corroborating information” to bolster the allegation from Christine Blasey Ford, who in emotional testimony last week said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers.'

6) 'The FBI’s renewed investigation found no corroborating information for the assault, which was alleged to have occurred in 1982 in suburban Maryland. But Democrats on Capitol Hill said it had been limited in scope and rife with political interference.'

I do find it ironic that this article has a sentence quoting Democratic opposition to the report, but no reference to the report itself -- shouldn't a primary reference in this case take precedence over secondary sources? Is the thrust of the article: "What is in the report? (and here's a summary of it)", or is it: "Democrats object to the report? (and here's proof that they object)". Finally, I note that there's many conservative media sites that could also be cited here, I tried to stay with more mainstream media. Zzybaloobah (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

So... what's the status on this? What's the problem with the primary and secondary sources I cited? Zzybaloobah (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me ping @Wumbolo: for comment since they were the last one to review this request. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has expired. You should be able to edit the article yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Spintendo  02:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Update

it is expected that Chief Justice John Roberts will become the median swing vote on the Supreme Court if Kavanaugh is confirmed. - LOL, he was confirmed. Change that sentence. 2601:647:4200:D900:3D4F:3DA9:4DEC:4048 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Ward20 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage Texts

Deborah Ramirez and Brett Kavanaugh's Yale classmate, Kerry Berchem exchanged text messages with Kavanaugh's ex-college girlfriend, Karen Yarasavage before the publication of the September 23rd New Yorker article about Ramirez's allegations. The texts indicate Kavanaugh had prior knowledge of Ramirez's story, earlier than he stated under oath, as early as July. Kerry Berchem made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to submit the text message exchange to the FBI. In one text exchange, Yarasavage wrote: "Yes, and Brett asked me to go on record and now New Yorker aren’t answering their phones!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historymajor1999 (talk • contribs)

Okay. And? Morganfitzp (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Removal of party from scotus justice pages?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Removal of party from scotus justice pages. jhawkinson (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Incumbent?

The info box just below Kavanuagh's photo says "Incumbent". Is that an artefact that should be removed? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

These seems to be an artifact of the infobox judge template. If you look on the infobox examples page, most of the judges display that way. I have placed a note on the talk page of that template. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Julie Swetnick

Without getting into a loud argument with dozens of people, and rehashing the entire incident, I would like to suggest the paragraph on Julie Swetnick be removed. Not only because it is the least plausible, but because the lawyer involved, Mr. Avenatti, has been indicted for multiple counts of fraud. This indictment appears to confirm the questionable motives of the attorney and hints that the entire claim of Ms. Swetnick was a mere publicity stunt on behalf of Avenatti. It is unfair to Justice Kavanaugh under WP:BLP to have this allegation kept on his biography, and removing it would not harm the article. The fraud indictment of Mr. Avenatti so soon after the convenient Swetnick story suggests that the claim itself is fraudulent.AlexanderSoul (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Liberal Voting

Justice Kavanaugh, being appointed by the 45th U.S. President Donald Trump sided with the more liberal justices in the case of Apple v. Pepper. The Kavanaugh-Gorsuch split came as a surprise to many as both of the aforementioned justices were appointed by the same U.S. president. In contrast, Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices while Kavanaugh dissented with the conservative opinion in a Native American treatise case.173.108.174.166 (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Improper Tense Concerning Federal Probe

Under "Teaching and scholarship" at the end of the second paragraph is a sentence which reads "This article garnered attention in 2018 when Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, whose 2016 presidential campaign is the subject of an ongoing federal probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller." The Mueller Probe has since concluded on March 22nd, 2019. This sentence should now read as "whose 2016 presidential campaign was the subject of an ongoing federal probe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdonrock (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Y Marquardtika (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ralph Blasey reported support of Brett Kavanaugh

Would it be appropriate to include comments from Ralph Blasey to Ed Kavanaugh in regards to Brett's appointment? It has been reported that Ralph stated, “I’m glad Brett was confirmed,” to Ed at the Burning Tree Club (golf club) in Bethesda, Maryland, where both are members. The comment has been widely reported to have "caused a stir at the close-knit private golf club as staff and members shared the news".47.214.14.22 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This seems like a non-story to me, and I don't have a good opinion of any of those sources. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

All these sources are doing is conveying rumors (By their own admission). They don't have any evidence Ford's father did this. GergisBaki (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence needs grammar fix

This sentence:

In his dissent, Linda Greenhouse says Kavanaugh criticized the majority...

Probably should read something like this:

In his dissent, according to Linda Greenhouse (a NY Times opinion writer), Kavanaugh criticized the majority...

Or better yet, maybe this Greenhouse quote is not particularly relevant. She is a journalist who made the assertion in her NT Times article. A better entry would use the Kavanaugh quote and cite the actual Kavanaugh document as support, rather than a newspaper article.

Documents: Law Library of Congress and National Archives

• https://www.loc.gov/law/find/kavanaugh.php
• https://search.archives.gov/search?affiliate=national-archives&query="Brett+Kavanaugh"
• david ferriero. "National Archives Works to Release Records Related to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh". archives.gov.

New story involving unnamed student

I've created a new section based on recent New York Times reporting: Brett_Kavanaugh#Unnamed_student. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• If, as is reported on Twitter, the "unnamed student" denies remembering the event, maybe this "new story" should be as lightly regarded - i.e. not mentioned - as the Rhode Island boat story. MaineCrab (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that's nonsense. The "unnamed student" didn't "deny" remembering the event. She said she didn't remember it because she was passed out when it allegedly happened. By definition, you can't remember anything that happened when you're unconscious. The fact that a witness has reported it happening is entirely relevant. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• OK, since this is a BLP, I've removed my recent additions, until there's more input:

Daily Caller video
In 2019, The Daily Caller posted a video of Ford's lawyer Debra Katz saying "When [Kavanaugh] takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character...It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine [to come forward]."

Unnamed student

In September 2019, The New York Times reported that there was another story that had similarities to Ramirez's allegation. According to Times sources, a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's told senators and the F.B.I. that he witnessed Kavanaugh with his pants down at a party, and that he saw friends push Kavanaugh's penis onto an unnamed female student. After the September 2019 story broke, multiple Democratic presidential primary candidates called for Kavanaugh's impeachment on Twitter, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Julián Castro. Meanwhile President Donald Trump Tweeted that Kavanaugh should "start suing people for libel".

References
References

WanderingWanda (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with MaineCrab - the student herself does not remember such an incident, and there are some claims that Max Stier may not be an unbiased witness. Better to leave it out unless more details come out. This claim seems to have surfaced to help drum up interest in a new book that is coming out soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MaineCrab, and Mr. Early. The story and its source appear to be suspect. I also suggest that the items currently highlighted in green should be removed, which I will leave to the discretion of WanderingWanda. They may inadvertently repeat claims and accusations which have no corroboration, and the opinion of Democratic presidential candidates does not seem relevant.Argentine84 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not in favor of recording every blip on the radar, this is more than that. We should leave the material in there, editing for clarity regarding the uncorroborated nature of the claims and victim denials, and appending to it the fallout and criticism appearing in RS - Notably Given that high profile politicians have co-opted the story to renew calls for Kavanaugh's impeachment, while members from both sides of the aisle are roundly criticizing NYT, this latest event is part of the lengthy ongoing wrangling over his appointment and is worthy of inclusion, for broader context. RandomGnome (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Then it needs to be covered carefully and fully. The witness, Max Stier's history as a Clinton attorney would be important, as would the NYT misleading coverage (failure to include in the original story that the alleged victim does not remember the event). I still say leave it out. These smears against Kavanaugh are some of the most disgusting tactics I've ever seen used in politics. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would argue again that it's important to include all the detail, to factually represent what happened according to RS, including the reported tactics of using Opinion columns as a tool to attack political figures without proper corroboration of evidence. But editors who would surely be very busy bees on a political figure of a different stripe facing similar mistreatment, are strangely silent here. RandomGnome (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've so far reverted two insertions of the material regarding the unnamed student allegations, citing lack of consensus on the talk page and lack of sufficient clarity regarding the RS reported problems with the NYT opinion piece. Obviously this needs more discussion as this issue has been so widely reported in RS, while current consensus remains the same. RandomGnome (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I thought the edit was pretty good. Why not just fix what you think is wrong?Patapsco913 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ford's Attorney Claims Political Motivation

Should attorney Debra Katz's statements be included under the Christine Blasey Ford section? — 47.214.14.22 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Though mainstream coverage of this is light, so I would appreciate input from others about whether inclusion is really due. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I would leave it out. Especially if we are leaving out all the much-more-highly-covered new allegations against him. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You say "allegations" - is there more than one? Mr Ernie (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The new "allegations" have had a "correction" posted as well as additional information (including the fact that the "victim" claims no such event happened). However, there is MUCH reporting of the video of Debra Katz making the claim that Mrs. Ford was attempting to stain any possible judgement by Kavanaugh in regards to Roe v Wade; a pure political maneuver. How many publications would you like to see reporting on this (trying to skip any far-right-biased news agencies, at least according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)? — 47.214.14.22 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is funny how the speed of Wikipedia can so mimic a government agency. Sometimes the frantic pace of change introduces many errors (needing correction, sometimes for years after) & at other times, the snails pace is an embarrassment when viewed by the general public (especially by those required to produce results in order to be profitable). Can anyone explain the reason Ms. Katz's comments aren't being added at this point? Is it:

• Lack of coverage by major news outlets
• Potential shadow cast on Mrs. Ford's entire accusation (NPOV or the like issues?)
• Her comments aren't of a level of importance required to be included
• Just lack of action by editors

Not trying to be a jerk, but honestly curious what the hold up (process) is. I have witnessed both ends of the spectrum here. — 47.214.14.22 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The lack of response on this is disappointing. The accuser's attorney has stated publicly (video of the comment as well) that part of the reason for the accusation (true or not) was fear of the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who could tip the balance, possibly reversing current law, if a Roe vs. Wade case were brought before the court. This is not worthy at least of discussion? — 47.214.14.22 (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Confirmation, once again

After reading the article here, the allegation of misconduct is in two places - the section on the Senate hearing, and a separate, much longer section on the accusers. In each case (and I would appreciate not being denounced for saying it), the allegations had no actual evidence like photographs or letters to back them up. They are claims. The idea that Ms. Swetnick's lawyer has been arrested for fraud is a giveaway that her claim is suspect. So I suggest is is appropriate to merge the longer sections into the Senate confirmation section, in an abridged form. A year has gone by. Perhaps the intensity of the moment has passed and we can trim down the sections that appear to cross the line with Wikipedia's undue weight policy.Argentine84 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Swetnick didn't retain an attorney because he was perpetrating frauds, so please don't blame it on her any more than you should attribute Michael Cohen's conviction as being proof that Trump is crooked. Activist (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Undo affiliation listing

KingOpti101 I can't think of any SC nominee since Rehnquist and maybe Bork who is more associated with either party than Kavanaugh. His affiliation is listed 13 times in the article's text. He is most closely affiliated with the Clinton impeachment in which he played a major part. (Listed 11 times in the article.) His was the closest vote in decades with only one Democrat (from a red state) supporting and one Republican (from a red state) voting present. Activist (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Length of sexual assault allegations mentioned in another article talk page

FYI. I mention the length of this article's Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault_allegations section here:

Talk:Rosario_Dawson#lawsuit (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Brent Kavanaugh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brent Kavanaugh. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

This article should be deleted; it's so biased. The Sexual Assault Allegations section is blatantly biased in favour of Christine Blasey's account. No mention that Leland Keyser stated she never even met Brett Kavanaugh before, let alone socialized with him and his friends and as far as she was concerned, neither had Christine Blasey. She stated months later that she doesn't believe the alleged attack happened. No mention of the scramble to hear her testimony as expeditiously as possible, Senator Chuck Grassley reported in the media offering to hear her testimony over the phone or Skype because Blasey claimed she was afraid of flying (because of phobias arising from the "attack"). Prosecutor Mitchell questioned Blasey about her surf holidays and long-distance flights to Hawaii and Tahiti and why hadn't she taken up their offer of remote testimony. She did not have a convincing response and many people believe the 'fear of flying' was a ploy to delay the hearings til beyond the midterms. No mention of her ex-boyfriend Brian Merrick's testimony under oath that she once flew in a turboprop plane with him in Hawaii without displaying any fear whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:60A3:8A80:4401:2B4:D96:5AE9 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New reversions

I've made some recent reversions attempting to pare down the Blasey Ford section. It was way too long given how long Kavanaugh's been in public life (WP:UNDUE). I think the current section still describes nearly all of the relevant details, after some of the superfluous was filed down. The other 2 allegations are only a paragraph each in length (6 paragraphs), so I think the new length maintains a decent balance. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reversions have only damaged the article, which appears to be your intent. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE argument seems quite reasonable. Do you have evidence that the intent is to damage the article? Or is it just speculation?--JOJ ^Hutton 04:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Their record of contributions makes it pretty clear that their motivations are not pure. Judge for yourself. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links to evidence of unpure motivations.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(retracted) If anything, the article does not put ENOUGH emphasis on the fact that Kavanaugh was never actually acquitted or proven innocent. The charges were dropped because the FBI investigation was sloppy. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Mr. Ernie's intentions. You haven't linked any evidence to support your accusations that he is downplaying the allegations and I can't see anything obvious on his talk page that supports your theory that his intentions are impure. I have however found statements by you that seem to show that you are seriously biased in your intentions. Such as these, Calling conservatives names, Trump Cultists, MAGA KIDS, Pushing Right Wing Agenda, Calling the President an Idiot, Trump lies everytime he opens his mouth. I'm pretty sure that it's you who have impure intentions. I'll be looking at maybe taking this up at WP:ANI since there are some serious WP:BIAS and WP:Civil issues with many of your comments.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(retracted) 46.97.170.78 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are referring to this edit from Mr. Ernie. Seems to be nothing said in that comment that doesn't match the facts and the reliable sources on this topic. Appears to be a civil comment and even though it does appear the Mr. Ernie questions the accusations against Kananaugh, it doesn't automatically make his intention here unpure.

That said, you have in turn, violated many Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your short editing history with this ip account. You violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, to name a few. And although most of this has occured on talk pages, it can be just as disruptive, especially when you are attempting to use Wikipedia talk pages to shame other users. You have no proof of an agenda by Mr. Ernie, you are just attempting to silence an opposing viewpoint. I'm assuming that the previous ip in this thread is also you, but I'm not so sure if you use other ips or whether or not you have a regular main account. A quick WP:CHECKUSER might be in order if it is determined that you are attempting to use Wikipedia for fraudulent reasons. Using mulitple accounts, especially multiple ip accounts isn't against Wikipedia policy, per se, but it is against policy to use multiple accounts to skirt guidelines or to use them as WP:SOCKPUPPETS to disrupt discussions. Again if this is determined to be the case, a person can be blocked or in extreme cases, even banned from editing Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being treated unfairly then by all means, file a report at ANI. It might save me the trouble. Otherwise, if you have anything useful to add to this conversation then please contribute in a fair and unbiased manner and do not accuse other users of malice or poor intentions without hard proof. All viewpoints are welcome. What is never welcome are unproven attacks against other editors.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally the only reason I'm using an IP is because I can't be bothered to make a regular account. Why would I go through the trouble of making multiple sockpuppets? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the "Julie Swetnick" section required?

The section mostly states the obvious facts, ie, that this story, instigated by a lawyer currently in jail (or on temporary health-related leave), was not substantiated in any way whatsoever, and in fact the "accuser" herself stated that she had not in fact witnessed anything! This section should be deleted! If some kook aided by a known criminal lawyer, states some nonsense, never prosecutes it, and wikipedia automatically includes it in a bio, and even gives it a subsection of its own, well, that's borderline slander! How is anyone protected from this sort of BS? 46.109.139.100 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Note, for comparison purposes, that Joe Biden's article still has no section called "Tara Reade". 46.109.139.100 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It was still part of the case. Also, there is no ongoing case against Biden. So far the Tara Reade allegations against Biden are nothing but that: allegations. And they will never become anything more, because they're just political grandstanding meant to exploit the MeeToo movement.46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Was she "part of the case", though? There is nothing in the article that substantiates that claim, it is merely mentioned that she gave an interview with NBC. If she indeed was part of the case, the article should at least refer to that. But then I don't even understand what "case" are you talking about. 46.109.139.100 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Her allegations were heavily publicized at the time, and the paragraph is well balanced in that it details the various ways in which doubt has been cast on her allegations. IMO, rather than removing it to "protect" Kavanaugh, it benefits Kavanaugh and his reputation to have this paragraph here - so that people don't go away wondering why there is nothing and whether there has been some kind of coverup. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove Mention of Sexual Assault Allegations in Lede

Snooganssnoogans - There is no need to have mention of sexual assault allegations in the lede. That topic is covered in depth within the article. This is similar to the decision to remove language regarding Justice Sotomayor's controversial sexist, racist "wise Latina" statements from the lede in her article. Indeed, the argument for inclusion of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are weaker.

1. The allegations against Kavanaugh were unfounded, unproven, and lacked credibility; Sotomayor's "wise Latina" staements were very real - she made the statements repeatedly in speeches to a number of groups. While there is a lot of doubt that Kavanaugh did anything wrong, there is absolutely no doubt that Sotomayor made the statements.

2. The conduct alleged against Kavanaugh was far in his past; Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statements took place while she was a judge.

3. In both cases, the improprieties were front and center during Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

In short, you cannot have it both ways - you argued that the controversial and very real "wise Latina" statements did not merit inclusion in the lede of the Sotomayor article, while you argue that the controversial yet unfounded sexual allegations against Kavanaugh need to be included in the lede for this article. The bottom line is that mention of the sexual allegations need to be removed from the lede in this article, or the "wise Latina" statements re-inserted into the lede in the Sotomayor article. GlassBones (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What happens on other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant to what happens on this one. The "wise Latina" thing is a faux controversy which did not jeopardise her nomination nor has had any coverage since some opportunistic right-wing actors decided to make hay over it at the time. Rape is a felony, he was accused by several women, one of those women testified in front of Congress in a highly publicized manner, Kavanaugh responded by whimpering and lashing out at Democrats in front of Congress and the TV cameras, and his nomination was in jeopardy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There was zero substantiation of any of the "accusations," several fell apart when looked into, and one appears to have been completely fabricated by an attorney recently indicted for extortion and fraud. But you still somehow seem to really believe them, all of them, to be true. Fortunately for us and for the law, accusations need to be substantiated, so people aren't thrown in jail due to mob excitement, but none in this case were. Regarding Ford's accusation, every named witness denied Ford's account, including Ford's friend Keyser, who was pressured to change her story to support Ford. Ford's lawyer admitted her client wanted an asterisk next to Kavanuagh's name. Kavanaugh knew he was innocent of the smears and fought them hard. The topic itself is notable enough for the lead, since that is what dominated the topic, but we need to present the weaknesses in the accusations a bit better. Character assassination shouldn't be rewarded on Wikipedia articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• If we want to get into comparisons, seems the better would be Clarence Thomas, where we definitely include Anita Hill in the lead, and have for almost a decade now. GMG^talk 14:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans -What happens in other Wikipedia articles is certainly relevant regarding the standard for inclusion of material in a lede. You keep calling the controversy regarding Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statements a "faux controversy" in a laughable effort to downplay the controversy, and you want to build up the allegations against Kavanaugh. Please, if you can, try to make your point without such obvious bias. We all know rape is a felony. But Kavanaugh was never charged with rape, much less convicted. These allegations against him, while controversial, were unproven, unfounded and in the opinion of many simply not credible. On the other hand, the statements by Sotomayor were also controversial, but in contrast to the Kavanaugh allegations they were indisputably real, and she made them repeatedly to a number of audiences. And - despite the controversies, both Sotomayor and Kavanaugh were confirmed. GlassBones (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just gonna skip right over the Thomas thing then huh? GMG^talk 20:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The real issue is that the Thomas article lede should include mention of Anita Hill, the Kavanaugh article lede should include mention of sexual assault allegations, and the Sotomayor article lede should include mention of her "wise Latina" remarks. I was just pointing out that there seems to be a different standard applied to Wikipedia articles on conservative vs. liberal justices.GlassBones (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, we treat real controversies different from faux controversies. That's the difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, the sexual assault allegations are a huge part of his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, for the moment I can see why it is there. It is certainly not a huge part of his biography as Muboshgu suggests, but it is something. Almost a whole paragraph might be a bit much tough. PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention in the lead that no factual/proven evidence of the accusation was discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandfour (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On a global basis, the allegations against him are what got him so much coverage. Wikipedia should strive to represent the interests of a global audience, and the allegations against him are important because that's what made him exceptional even within his field. I can assure you any quick comparison of global coverage between Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will make this exceedingly clear. It is defining by any sensible criteria. 181.115.61.109 (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Lede section

I've been informed that the norm is not to include allegations like this in the lede of important politicians. From the Biden talk page Non-compliant lede:

• per The_Four_Deuces There have been accusations against against the most recent U.S. presidents and several VPs and cabinet officials of war crimes, which are far more serious, yet we don't put them in their leads. That's because criminal acts do not in themselves have weight. When news media start referring to these people as accused mass murderer rather than former president or whatever we should change the leads.
• per MelanieN Take a look at the article Donald Trump: he has been accused by so many women that there is not just a section in his biography but a whole separate article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations; and yet we don't mention that subject in the Donald Trump lead.

The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are not the most important points in his life, and should not be mentioned in the lede. Moreover, there is a NPOV issue by mentioning only the allegations and not the fact that none of them have any corroboration, and that a few named parties, including Ford's best friend, have said it did not happen, as can be seen by reading the related sections we're supposedly summarizing.

The SA allegations were removed from the Lede here by me, and returned here by Snooganssnoogans

Additionally, for some reason, my addition of denials was removed here, even though I am citing CNN and the WaPo. petrarchan47คุก 05:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What WP:OTHER pages say is irrelevant. However, since that the is the crux of this talk page section, the comparable case is Clarence Thomas, whose lead of course includes the Anita Hill accusation, which is clearly one of the notable aspects of Thomas's life and career. Just as the accusation against Kavanaugh, which was the focus of the his confirmation hearing, and led to him to rant, rave and call for vengeance on Democrats in front of the nation, is a notable aspect of his life and career. If he becomes President, invents a COVID-19 cure and does many other notable things in his life, then we can reconsider whether this aspect is notable enough to belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Weight is determined by the degree of coverage of a story in reliable sources. At the time the accusations against Biden had received little if any attention in mainstream media, while there has been substantial coverage of the allegations against Kavanaugh, just as there was in the Thomas case. If that's unfair, the unfairness comes from senators who dwelt on these issues during confirmation hearings and the news media that reported them. TFD (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What TFD said. There is not one either-or rule applying to everyone - “always include allegations in the lead” vs. “never include allegations in the lead”. Individual situations vary. The primary reason for including allegations is coverage by Reliable Sources. How much coverage did the allegations get at the time? Was it one-time coverage, or are the allegations still being reported/mentioned? How much do we say about the allegations in the article - that is, what proportion of the article is about them? The other key issue is, how important are the allegations in the total span of the person’s life and biography? For some people, such as Trump or Biden, there is so much to say about them and their lives that the allegations don’t make the cut. For other people, such as Kavanaugh, the allegations are a key part of their biography - for most people, the first time they ever heard of him and one of the main things they know about him - so they need to be in the lead.

Note that inclusion or exclusion does not depend on whether we personally believe or disbelieve the allegations, or whether we personally consider them to be important or trivial. That type of argument carries no weight. We are an encyclopedia, and we reflect what published sources say and do, mostly in proportion to the coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that though. How the public first heard of him is not necessarily a consideration. As an encyclopedia we reflect the most important aspects of his life as a whole. While the allegation was indeed significant, I would argue that is not little overall impact. PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The way we determine what is most important is the relative weight of coverage in reliable sources. That's not to say that is the best or only way. A legal encyclopedia for example would probably give very little coverage to the allegations although it would probably mention them. It would dwell on his legal career. TFD (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV is violated by including these allegations but avoiding the fact that none of them have a shred of corroboration, and that Ford's "witnesses" have said it didn't happen. This came out the year after the story made headlines, so it isn't the fault of editors here who missed it. But we do need to update the Lede to include these details.

I'm also confused by the fact that Donald Trump's SA allegations aren't in his Lede. Can someone explain this given the arguments above? petrarchan47คุก 19:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing details of Senate Hearing

Where is the mention of "boofing", and Kavanaugh's redefinition of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B1BD:3019:D14A:741F:AB9A:F196 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is trivial. The article is a biography of Brett Kavanaugh, not an exhaustively detailed account of his Senate confirmation hearing. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Circuit Assignment for Brett has been changed. He now presides over the Sixth and Eighth Circuits. Can you fix that? Please. 2601:40A:8480:1750:EC6C:36D6:C80A:8F16 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 23:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Melmann: Same source as was used for supporting the existing statement: [3]. RudolfRed (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, per the SCOTUS source above and the source directly cited where the material was changed. PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we merge sexual assault allegations into §Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States?

This is a really sensitive topic so I'm not going to do this unless people see it as a good idea but I think that for the sake of chronological continuity the section on sexual assault accusations ought to be merged into the nomination process section. This is done in the article for Clarance Thomas (I understand this is an imperfect comparison but the cases are at least similar in circumstance) and I think it's the best way to do it. I'd also suggest deleting the sections about the two recanted accusations, I think it's understandable and even good to mention these (they did receive wide-spread coverage after all) but a cursory glance at the TOC would suggest to someone that 3 people are accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault when in fact 2 have stated that they were not referring to him in their accusations.

Anyway I know it's easy to see the political motivations for something like this but I'm honestly just messaging this cause I think we should strive for good editing, even on controversial articles. Abandw1 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense to me, but I've learned from experience that sometimes even a minor improvement on a controversial article can bring a swarm of angry editors out of the woodwork. I would recommend going ahead and making the change since nobody has objected so far, but we'll have to see if anybody gets upset by it. DiscoStu42 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That "angry editors" bit is probably the result of your trying to make some disputed changes on the Hogg article. I don't see how that has anything to do with this proposal. Drmies (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I never said that it did, I was basically just complaining :) DiscoStu42 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW I still don't see any objection to the proposed change DiscoStu42 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The senate and all the law enforcement agencies decided the allegations were baseless so they don't deserve such an undue weight in this BLP. Move all that nonsense to the nomination article. 2600:8801:B04:2000:3C54:CC99:9C2A:7A31 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I object to the previous removal of any description of the recanted allegations. It's a removal of context. Just like I disagreed with the (past, since undone) removal of the, dismissed (apparently false) rape allegation against Patrick Kane, it's a removal of a significant news story related to the individual, whether the allegations were true or not is irrelevant. So long is it is made clear that the allegations were recanted, I see no problem with including them. Removing them removes context. The article, as it reads now, has a lead which makes me as a reader wonder, "gosh, what were those recanted claims. When were they recanted" and read the article to find no answers in it. That is problematic. SecretName101 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you ask me, though, it should be its own article. Shocked that is not currently the case. These do not need to be taking up so much room of his main article, and were consequential/notable enough to warrant their own article. SecretName101 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses Deny Ramirez Account

The 9/23/18 article by Ronin Farrow in the New Yorker actually took statements from several eyewitnesses. According to the article the eyewitnesses denied the event described by Ramirez took place From the article: In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.” Mrdthree (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes are this article quote be embedded in the reference/citation to Farrow et al 2018. The sentence stating the NewYork times was unable to contact any eyewitnesses be removed or modified to include statements from eyewitnesses in the New Yorker. Mrdthree (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Julie Swetnik Never Accused Kavanaugh of Sexual Assault

Julie Swetnik never accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. She spoke to his presence at parties where assault allegedly took place. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3rd-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-has-history-of-legal-disputes/ Mrdthree (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change is to remove section because of biographies of living persons. She never alleged sexual assault, never claimed to see Kavanaugh spike drinks at the party. Her heavily contested allegations are that he was present at parties where sexual assault took place. Mrdthree (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it’s mislabeled I think the best solition is to reduce the item to a couple supporting sentences in the Blaisley-Ford section Mrdthree (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I would support just merging the section in with Ford's. It is almost all duplicated there already. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Although she did not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her personally, she did accuse him of assaulting other women. Here are two excerpts from her sworn declaration: "During the years 1981-82, I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to "spike" the "punch" at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say "No"", and "I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be "gang raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their "turn" with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh". Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Party affiliation in infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

I feel that this should be settled here before an argument breaks out in the main article (in terms of edit wars). As far as party affiliation in the infobox goes, though he is a registered Republican, should that info be included or excluded from the infobox, given this info is not in the infoboxes of other incumbent jurists, let alone other incumbent Associate Justices or the Chief Justice? I just want some clarification regarding this and whether or not it should be included or excluded. Unknown0124 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I don't see why it shouldn't be, as long as it is verified. Partisanship on SCOTUS is a legitimate issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as we do not do it for any other justice I don't see a need to do it with this one.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] PackMecEng (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, that's a logical fallacy, though. If we had verifiable info on any of their party affiliations, we could easily add it there and it's solved. Why shouldn't we add it for those judges, assuming we know what their registered as? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, because it just isn't that important. Yes otherstuff is a thing but otherstuff 7 times for the same situation is a thing and should be consitered. I have no doubt we could find RS for each of them but I also have no doubt that it does not matter. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, exactly. That's why I questioned the addition of the party affiliation in the first place. Unknown0124 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So the source for his party is a 2006 hearing in which he says he's a registered Republican. This 2020 source says Kavanaugh is a "confidential voter" in Maryland whose registration data may remain private. Same as John Roberts. RBG was a registered Democrat, and so are Kagan and Breyer. Sotomayor is not registered with a party. Gorsuch was previously registered as a Republican, current status unknown. Thomas and Alito are unknown. If we're going to include a party affiliation in the infobox, we should obviously consider all of the articles of current (and past) Supreme Court Justices. And we need to come up with a standard for inclusion. Is it self-reported party status? Reported by a third party? Is the standard whether they have ever been registered with a party, or whether they are currently registered with a party? Marquardtika (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Marquardtika, nice work you did there. It doesn't surprise me, regarding Kavanaugh and Roberts, as Maryland's board of elections has a way of looking up your voter info online, where all you need is a first and last name, date of birth, and a zip code. This system is basically an easy way of finding out which place you're going to be going in order to cast your ballot for a particular election. The only downside is, if you have that info I just listed, you can look up anyone you desire, and now they might end up stalking them, or worse, doxing them. Unknown0124 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Whenever there is accurate information on a person, it should be included in their infobox. Since Kavanaugh himself has stated that he is a registered Republican, it should be included. Plenty of other former justices of SCOTUS have their party affiliation in their infoboxes, such as Lewis F. Powell Jr., Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, and Sandra Day O'Connor, just to name a few. That is the entire point of having the 'party affiliation' parameter in the infobox. Deliberately ignoring this goes against precedent, and the removal of this sourced piece of information is unwarranted. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Accurate information should not always be added. Just because their favorite color is blue isn't reason for it to be listed in the article. Secondly, it looks like you came up with a very selected example of past justices who have their party affiliation in their infoboxes, but no active justice has this in theirs. Unless you think it should be added for every justice, I don't think it's useful or overly relevant. StalkerFishy (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically WP:INDISCRIMINATE just because something is verifiable does not mean it needs to be included. Again looking at the examples of all the other justices we do not list it for anyone else, even though sources exist for those, so why would we include it here? PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

Political party affiliation in infobox, again

I realize that there is already a weak consensus to exclude Kavanaugh's affiliation as a registered Republican in the infobox, but I think that this needs to be re-examined. The entire political party parameter in the officeholder infobox is meant to display a person's political affiliation, especially if they are in public service. Kavanaugh stated in his 2006 confirmation hearing in response to a question that he is a registered Republican and that he supported Reagan in the 1984 election, meaning that there is established proof that he is a Republican. This debate centers around whether it is appropriate to include his political party in the infobox. I believe it is, and I also seek to refute the arguments presented in the above discussion, in the following 3 rationales:

• There is no reason to exclude this information. Kavanaugh's political party is public information, and it is already mentioned in a section of the article. I don't see why the infobox's political party parameter should be left empty when there is proof that Kavanaugh is a Republican. No American politician/public figure, other than some SCOTUS justices, have their political affiliation excluded from their infobox when it is actively known.
• There is plenty of precedent of other Supreme Court justices including their political parties in their respective infoboxes. One objection to the inclusion of this information might stem from the fact that SCOTUS is officially a nonpartisan, independent institution, and the justices are not overly Republican or Democrat, unlike Congress or the President. However, there are plenty of SCOTUS justices with their political parties in their infobox, including David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, Earl Warren, John Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr. are a couple of examples among many, each with references verifying their affiliations. Additionally, while the fact that SCOTUS as a whole is officially independent is true, the individual justices each have their own political affiliations and are registered members of a political party. Many other federal judges, such as Circuit Judges, also have their political affiliations included when it is known. Another argument against inclusion, which was made in the previous discussion by PackMecEng (talk · contribs), mentioned that none of the current justices have their political parties in their infoboxes, but that is mostly due to the fact that they are unknown. (Note: in this 2008 article, it mentions that Stephen Breyer, a current justice, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were registered Democrats, while Antonin Scalia was a registered Republican. And this 2020 investigation, which was actually "inspired" by that 2008 article, found that Elena Kagan is a registered Democrat and Neil Gorsuch, also both currently serving as justices, was a registered Republican in Colorado. This article by Politico also mentions that Amy Coney Barrett has voted in both GOP and Dem primaries, although her official voter registration is unknown. This means that the party affiliations of at least 3 current justices other than Kavanaugh [Kagan, Breyer, Gorsuch], as well as 2 former justices who served until recently [Scalia, Ginsburg], are known but are not included in their infoboxes. These sources could be used to add their respective political parties to their infoboxes, along with Kavanaugh). It was noted in the previous discussion by Marquardtika (talk · contribs) that Kavanaugh, along with John Roberts, is a "confidential voter" in Maryland according to the 2020 investigation mentioned above, which is true, but that doesn't matter, as Kavanaugh has already publicly stated that he is a registered Republican, even if it is officially private. That investigation said that "it's unclear if they've [meaning Roberts and Kavanaugh] indicated a party", and Kavanaugh clearly did in 2006.
• Kavanaugh also worked in the George W. Bush White House as the White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006, until he was appointed a Circuit Judge by Bush. This is a clearly partisan role, as Kavanaugh worked in a Republican administration. Additionally, every other article about a White House Staff Secretary, other than Paul T. Carroll, Andrew Goodpaster, and Jerry H. Jones, includes their respective political affiliation (which is 18 out of 21, not counting Kavanaugh), and the only reason why their affiliations are not included is because they are unknown. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is a known Republican, and this should be included.

I'm pinging @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @Muboshgu:, @Marquardtika:, and @PackMecEng:, who all took part in the previous discussion. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, Politicsfan4 thank you for the detailed arguments presented above. Your first contention is kind of unhelpful, it just states pretty much that there is precedent of not including party in infobox for SCOTUS justices. You're second contention brings up examples of SCOTUS justices who do in fact have there party affiliations in infoboxes, as a way of showing that there is some sort of precedent for inclusion. You say the main reason that other justices don't have this parameter is simply because their party remains unknown. However, the reason is not because we don't know it's because it's simply not relevant to their position. Also, all the justices you brought up, except Powell and Souter, have held partisan positions at some point in their career, even Souter was attorney general of New Hampshire which is sort of partisan. Generally, I believe that SCOTUS justice's affiliation is not needed since it's a nonpartisan office, meaning their party is not significant under MOS:INFOBOX. However, if the justice has formally held a partisan office it is warranted. So that brings us to contention 3, with the question being if Kavanaughs service as Staff Secretary means he has held a partisan position warranting an party parameter inclusion. You argued that the position is a inherently partisan since it's part of a presidential administration and even more significant there is extensive precedent of putting party for White House Staff secretary's. Because of Kavanaughs position as staff secretary, I agree we should include party. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe we should exclude the party in the infobox because membership in a political party can end or change, and I don't see recent evidence of party membership for Kavanaugh. The last evidence we have is Kavanaugh's 2006 confirmation hearing, in which he said he was a Republican. That was 16 years ago, and prior to him becoming a member of the Supreme Court. He's currently registered as a "confidential voter." Being a registered member of a recognized political party is different than being associated with a party or ideology. I highly doubt that Kavanaugh, or any other member of the Supreme Court, is registered with a party once they joined the Court. Did he say anything about party membership at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing? Since being a Justice of the Supreme Court is not a partisan office, and since no other current Justices of the Court have parties in their infobox, I think this would be needlessly confusing. If there's a move to add political parties to current justices, that should probably be a broader conversation held elsewhere, like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. I just don't know what this would be adding. We can see the party of the appointing president, so a self-disclosed fairly long ago party registration doesn't seem to me to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Marquardtika (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: - Kavanaugh actually did mention his political affiliation at his SCOTUS hearings here. He said that he had not changed his registration, meaning he was still a registered Republican, in response to questions from Senators Graham and Cruz. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! It seems to me he's saying there that he was registered as a Republican and had not to his knowledge changed the registration. And he also seems to be saying that he is following in the mold of Justice Harlan and not voting in elections or donating to politicians. So that brings up an interesting question, actually, of what does it mean to be a member of a party...if you don't vote or contribute financially, are you still a member? This is worth exploring. I wouldn't be against putting this in the infobox with a footnote explaining the context (his last known registration and comments), but I wonder if this might be better explained in the body? I also do think if we end up putting party in the infobox here we should go around and do that on other sitting Justices, to the extent that there is available sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: I don't think every justice needs a party parameter. The only reason I'm supporting this for Kavanaugh is because he has held a typically partisan position in the past.For other justices their party is not relevant and should not be in the infobox under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: I believe that if you are a registered voter of a political party, then you are a member of that party, even if you don't vote or donate to it. There are plenty of registered voters in the U.S. who don't vote (for example, in the 2020 election for president, turnout was only 66.2%, which was the highest in over a century. That means that more than 1 in 3 registered voters did not cast a ballot). Plenty of partisan public figures have admitted to a spotty voting record, with some neglecting to vote in nationwide/statewide elections, such as Molly Gray or Caitlyn Jenner, just to name a few. This doesn't mean that they aren't a member of their registered political party, though. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Politicsfan4. Being registered as a member of a political party indicates that, at the very least, a person is willing to align themselves with the ideological viewpoint of that party. Simply because they deviate from it traditionally does not mean that their affiliation is moot. GuardianH (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Proposal to reword a line

I want to change "In September 2021, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court declined an emergency petition to temporarily block a law in Texas that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy; Kavanaugh was in the majority, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett." (41 words, 245 characters) to "In September 2021, with a 5-4 vote the Court declined an emergency petition to temporarily block enforcement of the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans nearly all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Kavanaugh was in the majority, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett." (44 words 276 characters).

Five advantages of the change: Avoids repeated commas in the beginning of the sentence; avoids a vague pipelink: this is one of many laws in Texas and there are at least five Wikipedia articles dealing with law(s) on abortion in Texas; enforcement was blocked, technically not the law itself; the law bans nearly all abortions, not all abortions; the new version includes a pipelink to the section of the article where the decision on the petition is explained.

What do you think, @William M. Connolley:? (or anyone reading this)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There appear to be no objections to my proposed edit, so I will make the edit now on the basis of WP:SILENT.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Swing vote is not the same as "median"

Please see discussion in the Talk:John Roberts#Swing vote is not the same as "median" page. 2603:8000:B600:4000:8505:5CF5:668:4D5C (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add content (June 2022 Murder Attempt)

It might be a touch early, but the attempted murder against Justice Kavanaugh seems encyclopedia-worthy, just putting it out there in case anyone has a plan in place for adding any relevant details.

Thanks Red-Eyed Prophet^talk 01:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• edit*

Not sure what technical issues I had on this end, but I see this matter has already had a discussion started, please disregard this section.

Thanks Red-Eyed Prophet^talk 01:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

The Nicholas John Roske incident should be moved to a separate section titled assassination attempt. It should also mention the following:

House Again Delays Bill Bolstering Security for Supreme Court Justices

Bill that would increase security for families of Supreme Court justices is stalled in House

House Democrats relent to GOP demands and move Supreme Court security bill

AOC Touts Blocking Supreme Court Security Bill After Kavanaugh Threat

Also, the line above should be moved to the section as well as the leak led to the assassination attempt and was in violation of Federal Statute.71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in its own section, and also mentioned in the lede. I've done both. This is an article about Brett Kavanaugh though, not one about the legality of SCOTUS leaks (which we don't know if it was done by clerks of the Kagan/Souter side or of the Alito/Thomas side... it's perhaps more logical that it was leaked by Alito and/or Thomas). It's also not an article about the political games of AOC. Omnibus (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The House passed the bill today, anyway, reminding us all that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The bill was originated as a result of the attempt on Kavanaugh’s life. The assassination attempt was the motivation for Congress taking action. It is a corollary fact and should be included as well. Focus please, it is another relevant fact and has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I meant the AOC blocking the bill angle, not the entire thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, not a problem thank you for clarifying! I’d give you a thumbs up if I knew how to add an emoji. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the article, if you look at the cited law it doesn’t have anything to do with leaks, it has to do with intimidating or influencing a judge or any other member of the court. Doxxing a judge, showing up at their home and trying to intimidate them and their family is a violation of Federal Statute.

As far as the articles cited, see the reply to Muboshgu... the actions taken by Congress stemmed directly from the assassination attempt.

In any case you have updated the article which was the intent. The passage of the law should also be mentioned though. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The passage of the law was actually not a result of the attempt on his life, as the Senate already passed the identical law back in May (over a week before the attempt). Omnibus (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected but it all did stem from the same thing... the Roe v Wade leak and attempts to intimidate justices. 04:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I say it should be a subsection under the Supreme Court section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding Category Abortion

given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

Please change the infobox syntax from X to Y.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

X

Assumed office

October 6, 2018

Nominated by…Donald Trump

Political party…Republican

Y

Assumed office

October 6, 2018

Nominated by…Donald Trump

Political party…Republican

(Notelist)

24.23.196.80 (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed here. Consensus was to include party affiliation when the officeholder held a partisan position in the past and there was documented proof of their registration status. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Article currently reads: "In 2022, Kavanaugh's home was the site of protests following the leak of a draft majority opinion for the Supreme Court cas..."

Suggest "illegal" be added in front of "protests", as this detail is pertinent. Justices are protected by special legislation to prevent exactly this.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:5DB:3E2D:4810:B181 (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There is some debate over whether the protests were legal or not. The two sources currently in the article do not say they were definitely illegal, with the Times mentioning the law but saying only that critics say the protesters were breaking the law, so you'd have to find another reliable source before that could be added. Station1 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Another Edit Request

Kavanaugh attends the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in DC, not the one in Hanceville, Alabama according to the source cited in the article. AveChristusRex (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional Edit Request

The section titled "Voting Rights" only discusses rulings on the validity of expanded mail-in ballots. The section title is misleading, as the cases referenced were about the validity of states expanding mail-in ballots without legislative consent. Please update the section title to something more appropriate for the content. "2020 Election Mail-in Ballot Expansions" would be a more accurate title. The current references already detail this. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Edits to Christine Blasey Ford section

The article discusses Ford's friend, Leland Keyser's comments. Initially she said Kavanaugh was not at the party in question. She later changed her statement saying that she believed Ford. Subsequently she later stated that she changed here statement after being pressured by her FBI Agent friend, Monica McLean, to do so. This was later corroborated by text messages from McLean to Keyser.

Original article behind paywall though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152 Additional article referring to the WSJ article: https://thepoliticalinsider.com/leland-keyser-fbi-christine-ford/ 75.49.123.61 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Assassination attempt and gender identity

I don't know the how the gender ID policy applies to this, but I wanted to point out that the assassin identified as a woman and went by the name Sophie online. This is a bad source, but see this (transphobic) Townhall article. Is there a case for referring to her as Sophie Roske or including both names? Should we refer to her as "she" or "they" instead of "he?" TimPerkin9 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New draft

Everyone is invited to contribute to the new draft Draft:Alleged plot to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Justice (2023 film)

I just made an article for Justice (2023 film), the new film about Kavanaugh. I am unsure where it belongs in this article. Thriley (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The person who admitted to making a false accusation

This wikipedia article currently states: "Three other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, one of whom later recanted her story."

This article from Associated Press names the person who admitted to making a false accusation. Should her name be included in this article or not?

https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think not, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and for the link. That's a long article. Please quote the relevant part which says that we should not include the name of a person who confessed to committing perjury. Since this wikipedia article already mentions that its subject was falsely accused of rape, why can't the same wikipedia article also mention the name of the false accuser? What about the privacy of the person who was falsely accused of rape? Why doesn't wikipedia have a policy to protect his privacy? The false accuser is getting more privacy than the person who was falsely accused. That seems highly unfair. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant WP:BLPNAME, which says in part Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. ... The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. Brett Kavanaugh is a public figure, while the person who fabricated a rape allegation is not. Including her name could cause harm to her and, as leaving her name out does not harm the encyclopedic entry, we should err on the side of privacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Another source: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/i-was-angry-and-i-sent-it-accuser-referred-to-fbi-after-recanting-kavanaugh-rape-claim/ SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

As I assume that all of the sources that give her name are from the same early November 2018 timeframe, that would also put her under WP:ONEEVENT territory, where we should only be covering the event (the fabricated rape claim) and not the person behind it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

So the person who admitted to making a false accusation of rape gets more privacy than the person who was falsely accused of rape? That seems extremely unfair. That being said, you seem to understand wikipedia policy far better than I do, so I'll go by what you said. Thank you for your responses. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Third source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/ SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

She already has a section under her name, including the recantation and FBI referral. Sandizer (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thank you so much for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed it. Shame on me for not paying better attention. I apologize for wasting everyone's time. Thanks to all who were kind enough to respond and offer their opinions. I promise to be more careful in the future. Lesson learned. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Including her name doesn't add anything to the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Include her name if and when a conviction is reported in reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional details re: Avenatti

Is it appropriate to add a comment regarding Avenatti’s well sourced, multiple convictions of “fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, and stealing from [a] former client” to the Swetnick section to provide readers additional context as to the character of the lawyer representing her? Such content has recently been removed and I am seeking consensus to restore. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Off-topic here, coatracking, and poisoning the well. That's quite the trifecta. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it is any of those things. Swetnick claimed Avenatti twisted her words, and that her signed affidavit was not what she had told Avenatti. If she's accusing Avenatti of fraud, isn't his disbarment for fraud (among other things) relevant? I think it's important to be able to distinguish between Swetnick fabricating the claim and Avenatti doing so. The latter of which has much more supporting evidence.

StalkerFishy (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that is indeed on-topic as it's related to Kavanaugh and Swetnick. What was proposed by Mr Ernie was a very different matter not related to him. If you can find RS, then go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Valjean this goes against your usual "We must document what RS report" / WP:PRESERVE type comments I frequently see you make. Swetnick's lawyer was a big part of the story. He was all over TV during the nomination, and much more notable than Swetnick. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)