ShareThis Page
Pa. senators remain split over Kavanaugh nomination |

Pa. senators remain split over Kavanaugh nomination

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool)
Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says he sexually assaulted her. (Michael Reynolds/Pool Image via AP)
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (Jim Bourg/Pool Photo via AP)

Pennsylvania Sens. Pat Toomey and Bob Casey stuck to their opposing views on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after a day of heated testimony over Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school.

Toomey, a Lehigh Valley Republican, said he found Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee “to be sincere and moving, but lacking important specifics.”

“Judge Kavanaugh’s repeated and unequivocal denial was also sincere and very persuasive,” Toomey said in a statement Thursday night. He added that Kavanaugh’s testimony was “corroborated” while he found other witnesses “failed to corroborate or refuted” Ford’s accusation.

“Taking into account today’s testimony and everything else that has been presented about Judge Kavanaugh’s exemplary character and record, I look forward to voting to confirm him to the Supreme Court,” Toomey said.

Casey, a Scranton Democrat, said Thursday night on Twitter that he believes Ford, whom he described as “credible and persuasive.”

“She is also unbelievably brave,” Casey wrote. “Until I heard her talking about what she experienced, I didn’t fully appreciate the terror she felt in that moment, the horror of the physical assault and the psychological trauma of believing she might die.”

“As I’ve said before, I will vote against this nomination,” Casey said in another Thursday night Tweet.

Neither is on the Senate Judiciary Committee but both will vote on the nominee as part of the confirmation process, which requires 51 votes to appoint a nominee to the court.

In a surprise move, Senate Republican leaders agreed Friday to delay a final vote on Kavanaugh to allow time for an investigation by the FBI at the request of Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

President Trump said Friday afternoon that he would give the FBI one week to investigate — a reversal for the administration, which had argued that Kavanaugh already had been vetted.

The Washington Post first reported allegations by Ford, a California college professor, that Kavanugh had groped her and covered her mouth with his hand at a house party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has called the allegation “completely false.”

Neither Toomey nor Casey immediately returned requests late Friday to address if and how the FBI investigation could affect their vote.

Toomey supported Kavanaugh after meeting with him before the assault allegation emerged. Casey announced his opposition to Trump’s nominee before the president announced who it would be, saying he objected to the process by which Trump selected his potential nominees.

Kavanaugh says he’s done “everything” the Senate has asked of him and “will continue to cooperate.”

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Natasha at 412-380-8514, [email protected] or via Twitter @NewsNatasha.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.