[Disestablishmentarian]

There was a clear eyed legitimate purpose behind Kavanaugh’s odd appearing Supreme Court vote. I do know what you are talking about. It was rather convincing, but danged if I can remember what it was!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

50-48

Daines R. MT would have voted yes but missed vote for daughter's wedding

This gave Murkowski R. AK an excuse to abstain as a courtesy to Daines, since she would have voted NO.

This would have left it 49-49 so Pence could break the tie

HOWEVER, the fact the confirmation was going through anyway meant Manchin D. WV could vote YES, allowing him to be re-elected without alienating the rest of the RATS.

Final tally 50-48, one absent, one voting "present."

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the details, slowly coming back to me.

[RitaOK]

I put my query poorly. *Trump Kit Cat Girl was unnerved by Kavanaugh’s very first decision as a justice on the Supreme Court. Many were unnerved, as was I, and I guess that many still are.

While it got very little play, nevertheless, somewhere there actually was a legitimate explanation for Kavanaugh’s odd decision that he rendered, and saw him join with all the wrong justices to decide what I believe was his very first case for him, as a justice.

I have no record now of the case, the exact outcome, and most important, no memory of who or where it was that said he most assuredly did the right thing, and explained how and why his seemingly un-conservative decision was the correct decision to render.

Maybe Andrew McCarthy or Jonathan Turley in an appearance on FOX, or a column, but it eased my own initial disappointment with his decision against the plaintiff. It was not a Q drop or an Anon, I don’t believe.

Would you happen to recall?