Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s fierce rhetoric and emotion during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee refuting allegations of sexual misconduct raised concerns over whether his temperament was fitting for that of a Supreme Court justice.

Legal experts differ as to whether the bruising confirmation process could have a clear effect on his demeanor as a justice on the high court.

“The answer is probably a little yes and a little no,” Charles Gardner Geyh, a law professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University Bloomington, said. “I think that given his outburst when he testified, this is clearly an emotional issue, an issue that’s generating anger in him.”

“It’s impossible for me to imagine that someone who is that angry and that upset isn’t going to be affected by that life experience,” he continued.

[Click here for complete Kavanaugh coverage]

But Geyh said the degree to which Kavanaugh’s demeanor toward the parties he invoked during his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee — Democrats and the Clintons — could be impacted by Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I fully expect that [Roberts] will or does run the court in a way that really emphasizes the importance of public perception and would convey the message to everyone, up to and including Judge Kavanaugh, that it’s simply unacceptable to manifest that kind of partisan anger on the court,” he said.

Geyh said it’s unclear whether that message to Kavanaugh is necessary because he appears to understand “his own legitimacy has been challenged and he hardly deals with that problem in the sense of making it go away by acting in an overly partisan way.”

“The better way for [Kavanaugh] to appear that he’s the right choice is to carefully allow none of that to show when he’s on the bench,” Geyh said.

Eric Segall, a law professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, said it’s unlikely the heated confirmation process will affect his demeanor on the bench.

Rather, it’s Kavanaugh’s professional experience that will be more impactful, he said, as he worked in the White House for President George W. Bush and for independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton administration.

“We have not had a justice in a long time who spent so many formative years not only working in the executive branch but during such a partisan time and on such partisan issues,” Segall said.

Kavanaugh, Segall continued, would be “our most partisan justice in a long time” and is predicted to mostly side with the GOP’s interests in cases before the court.

Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a remarkable hearing last week, during which he and the woman who accused him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, were questioned about the alleged incident.

The Supreme Court nominee vehemently denied Ford’s allegation and excoriated Senate Democrats, as well as the larger Democratic Party, for orchestrating a campaign designed to “blow me up and take me down.”

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from left-wing opposition groups,” Kavanaugh said. “This is a circus.”

Some have drawn comparisons between the hearing last week to Justice Clarence Thomas’s own confirmation hearing, during which he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill.

[Related: Kavanaugh's final plea: Admits was 'too emotional' in Senate, vows to be 'even-keeled' justice]

Like Kavanaugh, Thomas offered a forceful rebuke to the allegations against him and lambasted the Senate Judiciary Committee for overseeing a “high-tech lynching.”

Segall noted, though, that both jurists approached their hearings in manners similar to the demeanors of the presidents who appointed them — President George H.W. Bush for Thomas and Trump for Kavanaugh.

“Thomas reflected the Republican Party at the time, and I think Kavanaugh reflects the Republican Party today, for better or for worse,” he said.

But Geyh said there were key differences in Thomas’s and Kavanaugh’s condemnations.

Thomas, he said, was angry with the Senate Judiciary Committee in particular, while Kavanaugh was “essentially tarring with an incredibly broad brush” the entire Democratic Party and the Left.

Once Kavanaugh takes his seat on the Supreme Court, he is expected to approach cases with a textualist and originalist judicial philosophy. During an earlier appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early September, Kavanaugh described a “good judge” as one who acts as an umpire.

“My judicial philosophy is straightforward,” he told the panel during his opening statement. “A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written. A judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

Kavanaugh’s approach to judging while sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit fulfills a promise Trump made during the 2016 presidential campaign to name Supreme Court justices in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

If confirmed, Kavanaugh is expected to join the court’s conservative wing, causing the Supreme Court’s ideological bent to shift to the Right for decades to come.

That prospect has raised the stakes of his nomination and led to what has been a heated confirmation battle.

But the allegation of sexual assault from Ford roiled the contentious fight and resulted in last month’s public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh’s fierce denunciation of the accusations and political rhetoric then led some to call into question his temperament and ability to act as a neutral arbiter if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,” former Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday in a rare rebuke. “And I think there is merit in that criticism and that the senators should really pay attention to it.”

Facing questions about his temperament following his impassioned defense, Kavanaugh sought to quell concerns with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, one day before the Senate voted to advance his nomination in a narrow 51-49 vote.

“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,” he wrote.

Reflecting on his disposition during his testimony, Kavanaugh conceded he was more emotional than he had ever been.

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

Geyh said Kavanaugh’s op-ed reflected regret toward having overreacted, something everyone has experienced before. Still, he contended that “every aspect of this process is orchestrated by both sides.”

“Going on the record, certainly for his own supporters, reassures them that, from his supporters standpoint, there isn’t anything to the claim that he isn’t fit and this is what all human beings do and we need to forgive that,” he said.

It’s unclear when Kavanaugh will officially take the bench if the Senate approves his nomination.

The court’s docket this term is so far lacking in blockbuster cases, and given the highly partisan nature of Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle, the justices could steer clear of controversial cases until the dust settles.

“Coupled with these latest developments, I think the chief justice is rightly concerned about making sure that he basically takes his foot off the gas and lets things coast for a while,” Geyh said.