Conservative columnist explains why Brett Kavanaugh's 'emotionally wrought, belligerent testimony' is enough to disqualify him

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's scorched-earth opening statement in last Thursday's hearing, in which he accused a vast left-wing conspiracy involving the "Clintons" of working to thwart his confirmation, continues to make many commentators uneasy.

The latest is Washington Post conservative Jennifer Rubin, who has penned a new piece in which she explains why Kavanaugh's "emotionally wrought, belligerent testimony" is exactly what we don't need on the highest court in the land.

As she explains, justices are expected to recuse themselves from any matter in which they may be biased. Based on Kavanaugh's testimony, that might include all leftwing advocacy groups, the Clintons, or the other people he singled out as plotting against him.

"The country would have every reason to doubt than an adverse 5-4 ruling against a Democratic/progressive group was arrived at by a fair application of the law and facts," Rubin writes.

There was a way for Kavanaugh to express himself without the partisan rage, Rubin writes. But his Trumpian conspiracy rant should be disqualifying.

"One could even have countenanced a spontaneous outburst, short-lived and followed by a composed performance. However, Kavanaugh actually wrote out his rant, presumably had time to edit it and maybe even practice," she writes. "Moreover, he remained defiant and rude throughout the hearing."

Read he full piece here.