The Washington Post's editorial board published an opinion column urging lawmakers to vote 'no' on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

The column published on Thursday is the first time in more than 30 years that the newspaper's editorial board urged senators to reject a nominee to the high court. The last time was in 1987, when President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

The column said that Kavanaugh "poisoned any sense that he could serve as an impartial judge," following his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27.

The Senate is expected take an initial vote on Friday morning. A final vote is expected to happen on Saturday.

The Washington Post's editorial board urged lawmakers to vote 'no' on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

The column published on Thursday is the first time in more than 30 years that the newspaper's editorial board urged senators to reject a nominee to the high court. The last time was in 1987, when President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

The editorial board said that Kavanaugh "poisoned any sense that he could serve as an impartial judge," following his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27.

During the hearing where he defended himself against sexual misconduct allegations from Christine Blasey Ford and two other women, Kavanaugh denied the accusations and launched into a lengthy attack on Democrats.

"He gratuitously indulged in hyperpartisan rhetoric against 'the left,' describing his stormy confirmation as 'a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election' and 'revenge on behalf of the Clintons,'" The Post's editorial board wrote. "He provided neither evidence nor even a plausible explanation for this red-meat partisanship, but he poisoned any sense that he could serve as an impartial judge."

"Democrats or liberal activists would have no reason to trust in his good faith in any cases involving politics," the newspaper added. "Even beyond such cases, his judgment and temperament would be in doubt."

The opinion column went live shortly before The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed written by Kavanaugh, in which he described his testimony as "forceful and passionate" and affirmed his commitment to "keep an open mind in every case."

Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

"I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been," Kavanaugh wrote in The Journal.

"I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said."

Critics rejected Kavanaugh's rationale because he had told lawmakers that he wrote the remarks himself before reciting them in front of the committee. Kavanaugh's partisan comments were not the result of an unscripted outburst.

"Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good," Kavanaugh added.

The Post's editorial board said of Kavanaugh: "Unfortunately — and unnecessarily; it didn't have to be this way — too many questions remain about his history for senators to responsibly vote 'yes,'" The Post said. "At the same time, enough has been learned about his partisan instincts that we believe senators must vote 'no.'"

The Senate is expected take an initial vote on Friday morning to begin the process for final voting on Kavanaugh's nomination.

The votes are primarily split along party lines with the exception of a few lawmakers, such as Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia; and Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Susan Collins of Maine.