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

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 Comments

  1. Historian
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    The skit captures the essence of what happened.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      And as always, NZers are blocked from viewing it! 😦

      • Mike Anderson
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

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

  2. Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:15 am | Permalink

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

    • Giancarlo
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      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.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink

        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.

        • Blue
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

          I quite concur, Mr Giancarlo / Randall, as
          well with thus: near its comments’ end …
          … mine =

          http://www.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmed-50-48/#comment-1661360

          Blue

        • mordacious1
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

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

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted October 7, 2018 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

            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

            • mordacious1
              Posted October 7, 2018 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

              If Trump said it in that context, CNN would take him over the coals.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

                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.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

                That’s “lightning and a lightning bug.”

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      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.

      • Mike Anderson
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

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

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

          The two are not mutually exclusive, Mike.

    • tomh
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      @ 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.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

        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.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

          I am confident the Pope will show them the way. To hell with any law books.

        • Mike Anderson
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

          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.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

            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.

          • Marta
            Posted October 8, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

            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.

    • Mike Anderson
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

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

  3. Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Btw, there are no republicans behaving at all here, either well or badly.

  4. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    It would be good to have a red baseball cap that says
    MAKE AMERICA 2016 AGAIN.

  5. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:32 am | Permalink

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

    • Wunold
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      Here in Germany, too.

  6. tomh
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    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.

    • Dana
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

      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. Mike Anderson
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    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.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      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.

      • Mike Anderson
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        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. Dana
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    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.

    • Sastra
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      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.

      • Dana
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

        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.

    • tomh
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      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. Dana
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    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. mordacious1
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    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.

    • Harrison
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

      Anticipating the death of someone with “popcorn” is pretty despicable.

      • Diane G
        Posted October 8, 2018 at 2:15 am | Permalink

        + 1


%d bloggers like this: