“Liberal” “feminist” corporate lawyer Lisa Blatt reaches a whole new level of integritude:
When Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, he’ll be introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and attorney Lisa Blatt.
Blatt is the least well-known of the trio, but her function is just as important. She is a former clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and heads the appellate and Supreme Court practice at the elite law firm Arnold & Porter. She’s a powerhouse lawyer, having argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court ― more than any other woman.
Her main role at the hearing will be to lend some bipartisan credibility to Kavanaugh as the author of an op-ed in Politico called, “I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh.”
Blatt has made a name for herself representing major corporations, and Kavanaugh, conveniently, is expected to further cement the court’s pro-business leaning. As a federal appellate court judge, Kavanaugh has often sided with businesses in cases about the environment and consumer protection.
That sort of record is excellent news for Blatt and her clients. And there’s a good chance that if he is confirmed, Blatt will appear before him in a case ― and she’ll then stand before a friendly face she helped get on the Supreme Court.
Blatt boasts in her law firm bio that she helped get a $10 billion verdict against Philip Morris overturned in a case about whether the company misled consumers about the safety of so-called “light” cigarettes.
She was also the lead counsel for PhRMA in a successful case that allowed pharmaceutical companies greater access to doctors’ prescription information in order to market their drugs. And she assists the Republican-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce in selecting which cases to get involved in. She even helped write an amicus brief for the Chamber in a case that made it tougher for employees to sue their employers for workplace harassment.
The Washington Post credited her with being the “legal mind” behind the Washington football team’s fight to keep its federal trademark registrations for the Redskins, in the face of objections from Native Americans and activists that the name is a racial slur.
Indeed, it strikes me that irrespective of who she voted for in 2016 she really shouldn’t be presented as a “liberal” in the context of lending spurious bipartisan support for a reactionary judge who figures to advance her professional interests. She’s about as meaningfully liberal as Alan Deshowitz — who I’m sure also voted for Clinton! — in 2018. I look forward to the raft of articles when her friends think less of her after her good friend Brett Kavanaugh votes to overrule Roe v. Wade.