UPDATED: Oct. 8, 2018 at 6:36 p.m.

Syracuse University students and professors who opposed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the Supreme Court expressed “outrage” with the Senate’s vote to support the 53-year-old judge, while the leader of SU’s College Republicans backed the move.

Kavanaugh, who was confirmed Saturday by a 50-to-48 vote, faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault. Kavanaugh denied the allegations.  

Crystal Letona, president of Students Advocating Sexual Safety and Empowerment, said she was outraged by Kavanaugh’s confirmation — she was disappointed with how Sen. Susan Collins (R-M.E.) defended Kavanaugh despite sexual misconduct allegations by three women.

“It is going to make survivors feel like no matter what, even if we’re yelling from the rooftop, people are not listening to us, not believing us,” said Letona, who organized two recent protests against Kavanaugh on SU’s campus.

Despite her initial feeling of defeat, she will continue to fight against sexual violence and rape culture, she said.

“We only lost a small battle whereas right now there’s a whole war against women survivors, trans folk, women of color, queer folk, and it’s not gonna end here,” Letona said.

Domenic Biamonte, a sophomore finance major and president of SU’s College Republicans, said he supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation. He said he believed Kavanaugh’s angry Senate testimony was justified because the judge watched his reputation “sink into a game of ‘he said, she said’” and experienced death threats against himself and his family.

“I would probably have the same temperament that he did,” Biamonte said. “I don’t think it disqualifies him at all because his temperament is reflective of all the nonsense that was thrown at him over a couple weeks.”

He said many Republicans are enthusiastic about Kavanaugh’s nomination because it was the most hard-fought Supreme Court nomination since that of Justice Clarence Thomas. Biamonte said the confirmation process was highly-politicized, and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.  

Christine Blasey Ford, one of Kavanaugh’s accusers, described an alleged sexual assault against her by Kavanaugh in a public Senate hearing in late September. When asked about Ford’s credibility as a witness, Biamonte said he believed she was sexually assaulted but the lack of evidence created a difficult situation.

Andres Victoria, president of the SU College Democrats, said he thought Republicans did not acknowledge Ford’s testimony and instead made Kavanaugh a victim.

Biamonte said deciding to cancel Kavanaugh’s nomination after the allegations were made would have been a “disservice” to Kavanaugh and due process. But not listening to survivors of sexual assault would have also been disservice to them, he added.  

“It’s not really a win-win situation here,” Biamonte said. “One side was going to feel the sting of some sort of injustice either way. It was just a matter of which one.”

Victoria said he believed Kavanaugh was clearly partisan.

“I think it’s sad,” Victoria said. “It’s showing that even our one branch that’s supposed to remain unbiased is becoming polarized.”

Thirteen SU law professors signed a letter last week in The New York Times with more than 2,400 other law professors around the nation opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination after his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That letter was sent to the Senate on Thursday.

Janis McDonald, professor emerita of law and co-director of the college’s Cold Case Justice Initiative, is one of the professors that signed the letter.

“The key thing about being a judge is your impartiality, your ability to be neutral, your ability to be the calm, cool collected person in the situation where people’s tempers are often very high and extreme,” McDonald said. “The fact that we have neutral judges, that’s the key to society accepting the rulings of the highest court in the land.”

Kavanaugh claimed during the hearing that the investigation was “a calculated and orchestrated political hit” against him by the Clinton family and left-wing groups. McDonald said this further disqualified him because he revealed his political beliefs, calling into question his ability to be impartial as a justice.

The American Bar Association announced on Friday that it was reconsidering its high rating of Kavanaugh after his testimony, citing his “temperament,” according to The Washington Post.  

David Driesen, a professor of law who also signed the letter in The Times, said Kavanaugh didn’t act in a judicial manner and that his testimony was “blatantly partisan.” Driesen said it’s common for partisan politicians to accuse members of their opposing party of conspiring against them, but not judges or justices.

“You don’t expect that from a judge,” he said. “It’s very disturbing.”

William Wiecek, a professor emeritus of law, said he was motivated to sign the letter in The Times because Kavanaugh’s testimony was “unacceptably partisan.”

He said Kavanaugh’s testimony was an “angry, weepy, self-pitying performance” that represented his calculated thought because he had time to prepare his speech.

“I was expecting something a lot more reasoned and calm. He could have defended his position in any number of ways,” he said. “Instead he turned it into what really read like a Republican Party talking points memorandum.”

CORRECTION: In a previous version of this article, Sen. Susan Collins’ political affiliation was misstated. The Daily Orange regrets this error. 

Published on October 7, 2018 at 9:01 pm

Contact Casey: casey@dailyorange.com | @caseydarnell_