The Senate’s contentious confirmation of Emil Bove to a lifetime judicial appointment underscores how a painful moment in the chamber’s history continues to loom over current political deliberations and procedural norms.
As the Senate prepared to vote last week to confirm Emil Bove to a lifetime seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, familiar names from the 2018 Supreme Court confirmation crisis reappeared. This episode, which saw senators grapple with ethical and political dilemmas, is now being referenced as lawmakers consider Bove’s nomination.
Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which occurred seven years ago this October, was marked by a highly emotional and politically fraught process that tested personal beliefs and partisan loyalties. The Bove confirmation has not reached the same level of intensity, but both parties have used the Kavanaugh episode to frame their arguments. Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa accused Democrats of ‘dusting off the playbook’ they used for Kavanaugh to discredit Bove, while Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island criticized how Trump allies attempted to ignore ethical questions about Bove in the same way they downplayed allegations against Kavanaugh.
Whitehouse remarked, ‘There’s a similarity here. It smells like political maneuver.’ This sentiment illustrates how the Senate continues to be haunted by the fallout from the Kavanaugh confirmation, particularly among lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee, which has historically operated on bipartisan lines but is now increasingly polarized.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a senior member of the Judiciary panel whose defense of Kavanaugh in 2018 propelled him to conservative prominence, stated, ‘Kavanaugh has kinda become a verb.’ This reflection highlights how the episode has transcended its original context, becoming a reference point for current procedural and political disputes.
At least three whistleblowers came forward ahead of Bove’s confirmation vote with allegations against him, a former criminal defense attorney for President Donald Trump before becoming a senior Justice Department official. Democrats pressed Bove about his involvement in dismissing federal corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams and his potential role in advising on the executive’s immigration policy. While the allegations against Bove are different in nature from those against Kavanaugh, the tactics used by both sides have echoed each other, with accusations of bad faith and political maneuvering recurring.
In both cases, Democrats and Republicans have accused each other of acting without integrity. In Bove’s case, each party used the behavior from the Kavanaugh episode to undermine the credibility of the opposing side. Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dick Durbin of Illinois emphasized, ‘I think it was an embarrassment to the Republicans, with Kavanaugh, that someone would come before us and literally tell her story under oath, a very credible presentation.’ He echoed this sentiment, saying the same applies to the whistleblowers in Bove’s case.
Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, submitted to Democrats long before they became public, drastically altered the anticipated process of his confirmation. Similarly, with Bove, Democrats accused Republicans of rushing to confirm him without sufficient scrutiny, including refusing to hold additional hearings with whistleblowers. Conversely, Republicans accused Democrats of timing their revelations strategically in the lead-up to Bove’s confirmation vote, undermining the legitimacy of the process.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who previously opposed nominees who supported the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and was involved in the dismissal of prosecutors tied to that event, noted, ‘I felt like it was Kavanaugh-esque.’ Tillis, who is not running for reelection, cast a ‘yes’ vote for Bove, despite his previous stance, which highlights how the fallout from the Kavanaugh incident has continued to influence current political strategies.
Despite the procedural challenges and criticisms, Bove was ultimately confirmed by a narrow 50-49 vote, with two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, opposing the nomination. Notably, neither Murkowski nor Collins formally opposed Kavanaugh during the original confirmation process, with Collins opting to support him and Murkowski voting ‘present.’
As the shadow of the Kavanaugh saga continues to affect the Bove confirmation, the partisan tensions and political tactics from both episodes may further deepen. Democrats are already preparing for the possibility that Trump could appoint another justice to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs, setting the stage for another high-profile confirmation battle. Meanwhile, Trump is signaling that loyalty will be a defining factor in his judicial appointments, shifting the focus from ideological alignment to party allegiance in his second term.
Additionally, Trump is pressuring Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley to abandon the practice of allowing home state senators to effectively veto potential U.S. attorneys or district court judges for their own state. Senate GOP leadership is considering amending the chamber’s rules to expedite the confirmation process for some nominees, further challenging the traditional norms of judicial appointments. Both developments suggest a growing shift in the Senate’s procedural landscape, raising questions about the future of judicial confirmations and the integrity of the process.