The Women's March was in such a hurry to oppose President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court that it forgot to insert his name before issuing an official statement. Seems that the group is dead set against XX.

The Washington Times reports:

The feminist group blasted out a statement shortly after Mr. Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying him confimation would “further erode protections for almost every marginalized group in America.”

The introduction to the statement read “In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

But then the group got a name and they knew they were opposing somebody called "Brett Cavanaugh."

Could that be the same as Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Trump actually nominated?

The Women's March statement called the Cavanaugh (sic) nomination "a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States" because it threatened to "move our nation's highest court dangerously to the right" and "further erode protections for every marginalized group in America."

It continued:

Trump is following through on his most threatening campaign promises: The Muslim ban. The crackdown on immigration. Now, overturning Roe v. Wade.

White patriarchal supremacists, and to enable them, now have free reign (sic) to advance their oppressive agenda in all three branches of government. . . .

As Jason Seher observes of the statement:

Everyone needs a copy editor, example number 4, 732.

If you're like me, you probably know some personable, well-educated women who participated in the Women's March.

Do they really believe that this sort of thing is the way to argue persuasively against a Supreme Court nomination?

Judge Kavanaugh is an impressive nominee. Ed Whelan has a terrific piece at National Review Online examining Kavanaugh's judicial record.

The Wall Street Journal editorial section also has a good piece on Kavanaugh as an originalist, somebody who interprets the Constitution as it was written and understood by the Founders.

How to interpret the Constitution–that's a good argument to have. But it is not the one we are going to have. The debate will be about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling, and it will involve scare tactics (patriarchal white supremacists!).

Devolving into ranting is easier than mounting arguments, and so that is what we are going to see.

The thing about arguments is that sometimes somebody disagrees with you: you takes your chances.

The left seems determined not to have an argument but instead to shout and attempt to scare people.

In other Supreme Court news, the scene outside the Court building last night resembled a mob.

It was so heated that Fox News host Shannon Bream, an intrepid reporter, ditched plans to broadcast from the steps, tweeting this:

Very few times I've felt threatened while out in the field. The mood here tonight is very volatile. Law enforcement appears to be closing down the 1st street in front of SCOTUS.

If you watched the announcement on TV instead of going outside to protest, Haley Byrd of the Weekly Standard filed a report on the scene outside the Court