The New Yorker employs 4-year-olds

That's the only possible explanation for this ahistorical piece of crap article from toddler Amy Davidson Sorkin: "The Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings may only be the beginning."  Babygirl Sorkin is very upset at the tone and line of questioning at the Jackson hearings.  Very upset at the lack of decorum.

Word search on this article for "Kavanaugh" = zero mentions.

Little Amy joins Joe Biden and the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus as very serious people who are peeved by Justice Jackson being asked to answer questions about her (checks notes) judicial philosophy and sentencing guidelines.  Charles C.W. Cooke responded to Marcus' false equivalence:

Ah, yes. On the one side we have the Bork hearing, the Thomas hearing, and the abomination that was the Kavanaugh hearing — all of which involved deliberate and egregious character assassinations. And on the other side, we have the . . . Senate exercising its powers under the Constitution. (I’d put the Gorsuch filibuster into this category, too. I personally favored Gorsuch’s appointment, but the Senate was not obliged to, and it was permitted to filibuster him if it so wished.)

Even the slightest inspection here would reveal that there is no similarity between these things whatsoever. One suspects that the reason Marcus would rather breezily say that “neither side has clean hands” than “endlessly debate” her own evidence is that, in her heart of hearts, she knows it.

I suspect baby-teeth Amy Sorkin also knows this too unless she was distracted watching episodes of "Dora the Explorer."

Extra - Federalist: "Don’t Be Gaslighted About How Insane The Kavanaugh Hearings Were Even Before Blasey Ford Accusations."