This essay investigates the ways in which credibility is created, maintained, and undermined throughout two similarly controversial Supreme Court confirmation hearings: Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. The two case studies provide insight into the ways in which the Senate Judiciary Committee’s process and procedure have changed in some ways and remained the same in others. Drawing from scholarship on the rhetorical situation and image construction/repair, I argue that while the socio-political context has shifted since the Thomas hearing, most notably with the advent of the #MeToo movement, systemic issues remain concerning the obtuse standards required for the individuals involved.
"Crafting Credibility: The Confirmation Hearings of Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh,"
The Year in C-SPAN Archives Research: Vol. 5
, Article 3.
Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ccse/vol5/iss1/3