Saturday Night Live post-confirmation locker room celebration of Kavanaugh’s confirmation

October 7, 2018 • 9:45 am

Last night, just hours after Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Saturday Night Live broadcast a spoof of the Republican celebration. Appropriately, it takes place in a Senate “locker room.” (Clearly much of this was written in advance, as Kavanaugh’s confirmation wasn’t in much doubt.) It’s pretty good, though not as good as the skit with Matt Damon as Kavanaugh. Two Democrats show up at the end.

All the GOP principals (and principles) are there.

39 thoughts on “Saturday Night Live post-confirmation locker room celebration of Kavanaugh’s confirmation”

      1. FWIW, here in US we’re blocked from many videos posted from outside the US. Youtube is just honoring the copyright holders’ wishes.

  2. Rather than treat Collins as a mature, serious, independent woman who made a great, and logical, speech, we get the usual belittling of women.

    1. Collins’ speech was neither great, nor logical. She lamented the sad state of polarization without noting that her Boss Mitch is responsible for it, lamented the lack of supporting evidence for Ford’s allegation without mentioning what a sham the hamstrung FBI investigation was, made no mention of BK’s disqualifying lying, temperament and partisanship, and finally claimed she could not let go of the presumption of innocence when the standard for an interview for a job as important as this should be well short of that.

      1. Very much agree with that review. Collins even long ago said she was in it for two terms. If she held to that she would have been gone a dozen years ago. When you see women becoming lap dogs to Trump it is too much to take.

        2. Trump gets in trouble when he calls women dogs, glad to see it’s okay when we do it.

          1. In no way were those two comments (Trump’s and Randall’s) similar. Context matters, as I suspect you know perfectly well.

            Your comment was disingenuous.

            cr

          3. The difference between calling a woman a “dog” and a “lapdog” is the difference between lightening and a lightening bug.

            The first mocks a woman for her looks; the second criticizes a politician for her conduct in office.

            You’re being obtuse.

    2. Yes, indeed, if the American republic shall perdure for another thousand years, people will say that this was Aunt Clara’s finest hour.

      Susan Collins is too gullible to be let out of her house unaccompanied, for fear she’ll sell the family cow for a a handful of magic beans.

      1. Personally, I don’t think Susan Collins is gullible. I think she’s deceptive, putting on an act.

    3. @ Ken B
      “Collins…who made a great, and logical, speech,”

      For a more accurate description of her speech, I recommend the column in the Washington Post, Susan Collins’s Declaration of Cowardice

      Briefly, she offered wishful thoughts that “centrist” Kavanaugh won’t outlaw abortion, won’t champion executive power and “will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court.” This about someone who campaigned for the job on Fox News and through an op-ed in the WSJ, who testified about Democrats’ “smears” and seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” He threatened that “what goes around comes around.”

      She praised Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who on his way to her speech had said Republican women don’t want to serve on his committee because “it’s a lot of work.”

      She bowed to McConnell, never mentioning the Garland nomination that was held up for over a year. It was a long speech and the list goes on and on.

      1. Anyone who believes Brett Kavanaugh won’t provide a fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is a stone fool. Susan Collins claims she had lengthy academic discussions with Kavanaugh concerning the fine filigree of stare decisis, but she apparently never got around to asking him the single dispositive question: whether he believes the US constitution contains a “right to privacy” that covers a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy (a non-textual constitutional right, like the right to interstate travel, or the right to marry, or the right to private association).

        The Faustian bargain the evangelicals struck with Donald Trump is that they would forgive him his vulgar immorality and his transparent falsehoods about being a practicing Christian, in exchange for his appointing originalist justices, strict constructionist who would overrule Roe. The names on the Federalist Society list from which Trump makes his selections have been vetted to a fare-thee-well to ensure that end. Does anyone really think that Kavanaugh (or Gorsuch) will say that they believe (as surely they do) that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but that because it’s been around or 40-odd years, pregnant women must be suffered evermore to murder their unborn children?

        All that remains now is for Chief Justice John Roberts to say whether he will allow Roe to be overruled in one fell swoop, or whether he will insist (for so long as he remains the deciding vote in a five-person conservative majority) that the edifice of reproductive rights be dismantled plank-by-plank, beam-by-beam, doorjamb-by-doorjamb.

        2. I think they can effectively neuter Roe v. Wade without technically overturning it; and I think a piece-by-piece shaving away at women’s rights will be they path that take – the proverbial boiling the frog slowly.

          1. I think that’s probably the approach CJ Roberts will take; I’m not so sure about Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

            Were a Republican to get to appointment another off the Federalist Society list to replace Justice Ginsburg, I suspect Roe would be toast.

            The whole point of appointing Kavanaugh, and the reason the Republicans fought so hard to confirm him, is that (unlike others before him, such as Souter and Kennedy) Kavanaugh is a dedicated, field-tested soldier in the right-wing cause.

          2. That’s the approach that Thurgood Marshall took in the 50’s to overturn school segregation, culminating in Brown v Board of Education in 1954.

    4. We’re not belittling women, we’re belittling Susan Collins. To many, she is a conniving, lying, politician.

  5. “This video contains content from NBCU_Shows, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds” 🙁

  6. As far as I’m concerned, Murkowski is right there with Collins for title of biggest hypocrite in the Senate. Knowing they didn’t need her vote, she votes Present, after supposedly opposing Kavanaugh, which she did to assuage the Alaska Native groups in her state who were responsible for getting her there in the first place. Kavanaugh has ruled against native fishing rights in Alaska, as well as opposing regulations on climate change that affected them, and even questioning federal rights for native groups. They opposed him as soon as he was announced.

    After the vote, Murkowski was asked if she had a message for anti-Kavanaugh protesters who disrupted the start of the final vote. She replied, “I was closing my eyes and praying — praying for them, praying for us. I’m praying for the country. We need prayers. We need healing.” Hypocrisy at its finest.

    1. No, not hypocrisy, courtesy.

      She voted present so Sen. Daines wouldn’t have to leave his daughter’s wedding.

      Explanation:

      Murkowski’s vote was technically a “pair no”, not “present.” The difference is that a “present” vote counts towards the quorum and changes the majority of votes needed to win, while a “pair no” (or “pair yes”) does not when paired with a .absent vote. If she had voted “present” then they would have needed 50 votes to win (and there couldn’t be a tie-breaker), putting pressure on Manchin to be the swing vote. Doing it this way keeps the margin as 2 and reduces the total needed to win to be 49. That makes Manchin not be the deciding vote since if he had flipped it wouldn’t change the outcome. Pence could break the tie.

  7. I think the most significant problem of our (USA’s) system is that a minority (~40%) has so much power. This disparity of power is almost always a recipe for disaster.

    Most of the other problems (polarization/anger) stem from the unequal representation. Remember, the nation was founded on a revolt against unequal representation.

    1. But what is wrong here is not that 40 percent or 35 percent. It is the 50 plus percent in the Senate and we know exactly why they have it. We also should know why, with a majority in the Senate we have rules and procedures that give the majority extreme powers they have only because the Senate gave it to them, both democrats and republicans. Only the people can change that reality, no one else. Go ahead and ask your friends or google why was the Senate able to stop Obama’s pick for the Supreme court some time ago. Because the Senate majority holds the cards to do this. All the Constitution said was, the Senate will advise and consent. It did not say, the party in majority can stop the whole process as long as they like by simply refusing to vote, refusing to put it on the calendar. Is this nuts or is it just fine? Apparently it is just fine and no need to fix the rules here.

      1. There are 2 separate and bad problems: one that the Senate majority represents 44 percent of the people, and the the other problem is that the Senate majority has so much more power than the minority.

  8. No, not hypocrisy, courtesy.

    She voted present so Sen. Daines wouldn’t have to leave his daughter’s wedding.

    Explanation:

    Murkowski’s vote was technically a “pair no”, not “present.” The difference is that a “present” vote counts towards the quorum and changes the majority of votes needed to win, while a “pair no” (or “pair yes”) does not when paired with a .absent vote. If she had voted “present” then they would have needed 50 votes to win (and there couldn’t be a tie-breaker), putting pressure on Manchin to be the swing vote. Doing it this way keeps the margin as 2 and reduces the total needed to win to be 49. That makes Manchin not be the deciding vote since if he had flipped it wouldn’t change the outcome. Pence could break the tie.

    1. Ah, I see.

      Trouble is, this involved a matter of her professional calling to public life and politics, a major vote which will probably change the course of history. She could have taken a bold and honorable stand for its symbolic worth, a woman displaying courage in protesting a process which ignored women in order to eventually remove their rights.

      Instead, she took a stand for being courteous, a woman kindly declining to be selfish and intractable so that a man might not be inconvenienced, because family ought to come first.

      On a personal level, what a lovely gesture. How womanly of her.

      But by quietly changing her “no” to “ present,” Murkowski lost an opportunity to stand for the women who had no voice.

      1. I saw this explanation on a news site (vox, I think) and thought it worth mentioning.

        Senators do this kind of thing routinely to help each other out (especially within their party) when it won’t change the outcome.

        Judge it as you will.

    2. Well, I hope her constituents realize that she was only a No vote as long as it was convenient and wouldn’t change the outcome.

  9. I saw this explanation on a news site (vox, I think) and thought it worth mentioning.

    Senators do this kind of thing routinely to help each other out (especially within their party) when it won’t change the outcome.

    Judge it as you will.

  10. So I hear there’s a GoFundMe page to buy Ginsburg a truckload of Geritol. Just imagine how poorly the Dems will treat her replacement. I bet it will be Amy Barrett. Popcorn for everyone.

Comments are closed.