From the letter, which I'm reading in the NYT:
We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.He was confronted with devastating allegations that were vague and uncorroborated. He knows his own life, yet he was supposed to be committed to "judicious inquiry" about it?! He was supposed to be "open"?! He was supposed to act as though he were absorbing the facts for the first time, like a judge deciding a case? Who wrote this letter? Why did so many law professors sign this text?
The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners.
Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired.But the hearing really was partisan! Yes, the Senators were in a tough spot, since they were trying to figure out what happened, but Kavanaugh knows what he himself has done. Kavanaugh was supposed to be supportive of the predicament the Senators got themselves into and not defend himself vigorously?
He was under a vicious attack, and he knew it was unfair and cruel — unless he was lying. If he was lying, then that's why he shouldn't be on the Court. But this "judicial temperament" idea is designed to work even if he was telling the truth.
So we need to read this letter in light of the professors' intent. Imagine an innocent Kavanaugh, under an outrageous attack and subjected to a horrendous ordeal. He expresses indignation and challenges his accusers. But he was supposed to remain calm and be deferential to the Senators, and because he didn't — and for no other reason — he doesn't belong on the Court. Who believes that?!
Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators....Why would Kavanaugh need to "to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised" — he knows what happened in his own life — and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!
Posts
340 comments:
1 – 200 of 340 Newer› Newest»“But he was supposed to remain calm and be deferential to the Senators, and because he didn't — and for no other reason — he doesn't belong on the Court. Who believes that?!”
I believe Chuck Schumer will be seen on the Senate floor stating this belief in time for the evening news.
And yes Chuck will believe it.
He might even tell us how he passed a lie detector test administered by a former FBI Agent.
You read 1000 Law Professors as authors. I read 1000 Anti-Trump Democrats.
Being a Democrat is a dirty business.
I noticed that too.
Their strategy is to change the rules. They didn't sign it for the reason they say they signed it.
@Kevin I didn't ask who states that belief. I'm asking who actually has that belief. Big difference.
The new rules are the same as the old rules, just not presuming or even imagining innocence. It's nothing to be alarmed about. We're law professors.
I wonder how many of the signers of the letter read the text carefully and thought about whether it makes sense. I can't imagine signing a letter without being very careful about whether I wanted all of the statements attributed to me.
Cargo cult justice.
The cost benefit analysis was strongly in favor of signing. Other than some critical remarks can you imagine any sort of negative consequences for these respected scholars?
Speaking of lack of a scintilla of evidence: Is there ANY evidence that a single Democratic Senator was searching for anything but an excuse to derail Kavanaugh? That is the only 'truth' they seemed to be aiming for.
And I sincerely doubt that any of the Squish Republican Senators were looking for anything but cover to avoid a difficult vote. They don't care about the truth but they sure are searching what will get them re-elected.
So this characterization of any acting in good faith by these Senators is as questionable as Fibbing Fords testilying.
Why did so many law professors sign this text?
Why did 88 Duke professors sign an letter condemning the Duke lacrosse players?
Surely, you are smart enough to figure that out, "Professor"!
There's 206 ABA-accredited law schools in the US. So five per school signed this. Law schools have more than five professors, don't they?
Sid Rosenberg on WABC said that semen is good for eliminating stretch marks. He's pretending to speak, like a law professor, from authority on the matter, but listeners may suspect he has an ulterior interest. They suspect it enough to make it work as a joke.
There's so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?
> Yes, the Senators were in a tough spot, since they were trying to figure out what happened
Which ones were "trying to figure out what happened"? Booker? Harris? Leahy? Difi, who held the letter? Blumenthal?
Grassley? Graham?
Nothing but a second rate show for the election...
Looks like Ford met life buddy, the "never married" Monica McClean ex FBI SDNY to put together the letter and hook up with ex FBI - polygraph, PR, Internet scrubbers, McCabe's ex 2nd Bromwich now Ford's lawyer...
"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Tuesday evening on MSNBC after host Rachel Maddow
I'm surprised somebody hasn't mentioned the 88 professors that did something similar during the Duke Lacrosse case.
I looked to see if there were any from my local university. I see there is one - JoAnne Sweeny. When I look her up, it says, "Some of Professor Sweeny's most recent research has focused the present and historical criminalization of consensual sex, such as the prosecution of teenagers under child pornography laws because they have "sexted" each other nude or erotic photos of themselves."
From that excerpt, I would have assumed she was against criminalizing teens sexting, but now I'm not so sure. I hope none of those sexting teens grow up to want to do be a judge or a politician (at least not a Republican one.)
“You can’t tear down the master’s house with the master’s tools” - Some Leftist.
Besides the fact that you actually could tear down his house with his tools, this is a statement of strategy by the left, and it’s a rejection of logic. It’s revolutionary truth that’s important, and truth is that which serves the revolution. This is all well known.
Is there a deep human need to be part of a mob?
reading poetry
A commentary on James Tate "Blue Booby" would be nice
The Blue Booby
Observing and writing about Democrats is a dirty business
so little honesty in law and politics
It's a lit crit exercise to give a good reading of what's going on in dishonesty. It's the only route to honesty.
"Surely, you are smart enough..."
I hate that kind of talk.
First of all, I never said I couldn't figure it out. I chose to write in the way I did for a reason, using questions to draw the reader along. The idea that I don't know the answers to my questions is just plain wrong. It's a matter of refraining from saying things in an uglier way.
Second, I don't like that approach to addressing a person. You're stupid unless you see what I see. For 15 years, as I've written this blog, people have talked to me that way. It's trite and it's rude and it doesn't leverage your statement as much as you may think. Maybe some people are tricked into going along with something because they're afraid if they don't they're not smart, but it's offensive rhetoric, and I literally hate it.
Isn't their letter just gussied-up Civility Bullshit?
Althouse: Why did so many law professors sign this text?
It's never been about the facts in this case. It's about Trump. And about stopping Trump from getting his choice on the court. Anything that the left can find that they feel might bolster their case against the nominee, no matter how trivial and incredible (correct usage of word, i.e. not credible), must be used.
Dem operatives. No one takes The Legal Academy seriously.
There are some good law professors. None of them signed this Dem Operative Open Letter.
If Kavanaugh had acted like Michael Dukakis at the hearing, the Dem Operatives in The Psychology Department would have signed a letter trashing Kavanaugh for being uncaring. An Innocent Man Would Be Indignant.
None of these Dem Operative Law Professors signed an Open Letter to Justice Ginsburg after she made partisan political remarks against Trump in an interview. None of them.
They are Hacks. Cross Reference these signatures with the Open Letter Regarding Bush v. Gore or any of The Open Letters. These people are a joke.
Yes, there is much dishonesty in politics.
I suggest you cure your own problem here.
Get rid of the completely fabricated feminist grievance you've been lying about for 50 years.
Your grievance is bullshit. Your lying is a form of vicious self-dealing and personal corruption.
Pull the mote out of your own eye.
Third, many people are not smart. The world is full of people with average and below average intelligence. These people don't deserve to be referred to as you prod somebody to agree with you. These people are as human and valuable as those born with more of a gift and they don't deserve the collateral damage.
These people are as human and valuable as those born with more of a gift and they don't deserve the collateral damage.
It's the moron joke joke.
I used to tell Polish jokes and the Polish complained. I used to tell Italian jokes and the Italians complained. So I switched to moron jokes and now the morons are complaining.
"Isn't their letter just gussied-up Civility Bullshit?"
Yes.
It's nice for students to know whom to avoid and how to suck up if they can't.
Women: stupid people sadz. Men: joke structure.
Who do these people (and others) think that Senators are to be accorded some kind of special deference, especially when the *are* pursuing a “a calculated and orchestrated political hit?”
It's mind-boggling to see that these people want a person to just sit and take this abuse.
My unsadz, going for structure: character matters, IQ does not.
It's like gangs. Regardless of beliefs, if you're part of the gang, you participate in all activities demanded. That's a direct contradiction to what the founders envisioned, but they were substantially more wise than most of the politicians now in office.
The 88 Duke Professors didn’t apologize to the students. They should have been fired for their rush to judgment mob mentality. They shouldn’t be near a classroom.
Duke is a disgrace. It’s a basketball school. Unless your awesome at basketball don’t go there. Coach K can protect the hoops players but everyone else there is at the mercy of the mob.
It’s a lit crit exercise to give a good reading of what's going on in dishonesty.
Sometimes I curse my degree in lit, but you know what? It serves you well in life. Maybe not anymore, where they seem to teach what to think rather than how to think, but in the late ‘70s it was worthwhile. The problem is that it keeps you from enjoying movies, for example, where you can see the manipulativeness of the director in everything from casting to color choices. I once pointed out to a friend who BTW, hates Trump how the actors in a movie were all extremely good looking who represented one point of view, and how this was an attempt to bypass your critical thinking and talk directly to your brain stem, manipulating you, and she said “I never wonder if I am being manipulated, I just enjoy the movies!” But she is %100 percent sure she is right about Trump and I am wrong.
They want him to have been calm the way Bill Clinton was when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Forrest Gump was about character, which nobody seems to notice.
I Am Sam.
Why do women like to lecture men?
The feminist bitch operates in the shadows of traditional religious morality. In traditional Christianity and Judaism, women were considered to be responsibile for upholding personal moral standards.
Feminist women have chucked traditional moral values, but held onto the conviction that they are men's moral arbiters.
The problem is that they are inflicting their jackass Marxist feminist stupidity on us with their constant bitching.
We now have women with no moral standing, who have embraced an evil, stupid ideology, trying to continue the religious practice of playing the moral arbiter over men.
You've got no standing to be moralizing, Althouse. You're one of the people responsible for creating the current hysteria. If you want to lead us to a better place, the thing for you is to apologize for your 50 years of lying that you ever had a grievance because you are a woman.
Until then... up yours.
First of all, I never said I couldn't figure it out. I chose to write in the way I did for a reason, using questions to draw the reader along. The idea that I don't know the answers to my questions is just plain wrong. It's a matter of refraining from saying things in an uglier way.
Bullshit.
1. “Why did so many law professors sign this text?” Because they are emotional partisan hacks who are obsessed with Roe and sick with TDS.
2. In nearly 40 years of reading Nebraska Reports I can’t recall any political decision or any decision influenced by politics.
A lit crit test, why the negative blowback from men against Althouse, all of it target-missing. What was the target though.
There's so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?
Or you could go to work full time for Amazon.
Buh-bye.
I'm guessing the law professors who signed the letter haven't spent a lot of time in the courtroom or not for a long time. Judges aren't really known for being deferential or even all that pleasant. Some are downright cantankerous when the mood strikes. And not afraid to show it. Which really has nothing to do with the ability to be a competent judge.
Althouse, “why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?”
Go watch the Badgers destroy the Cornhuskers on Saturday. A beautiful WI win. I’m serious.
"There's so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
I've said something similar about myself. With a bunch of hobbies and still being employed full time I am able to walk away from this nasty business (politics for me, the only law in my life concerns business contracts). But I'm always drawn back in, much like the highway driver rubbernecking a crash in the opposite lane, trying to see if anything interesting or spectacular is going on.
-sw
This letter is such BS. It seems to me that once these serious accusations were leveled at Kavanaugh, he was no longer in the role of judge. He was in the role of the accused. In other words, he was the Defendant. He cannot adjudicate his own guilt and should not be expected to do so. These signatories are obtusely and willfully ignoring that fact. In other words, they believe that in certain cases (political expediency), a defendant is not entitled to vigorously defend himself/herself.
They wanted him to be calm the way Michael Dukakis was when asked a hypothetical about his wife being raped. It was widely viewed as a gaffe at the time, making him appear too robotic to be president.
"and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!"
Because they're partisan hacks.
Why would Kavanaugh need to "to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised" — he knows what happened in his own life — and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!
Now we’re back to the “did you ever black-out from drinking” question.
and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!
Because if they don't, their students will protest them, harass them, intimidate them, demand they themselves be put under a Title IX investigation, and demand they be fired.
This is the Great Leap Forward these commie 'educators' have been laying the groundwork for over the last 4 decades.
They are up to 1000 signatures now?
Already at less than 700, I thought that the letter refutes itself as obviously coming from an organized political campaign, and the professors would have been under considerable institutional pressure to show their loyalty and solidarity with their peers and sign it.
This is Buwayas "war," and not any individual concern about Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.
Althouse saiid...
There's so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?
Because Althouse is an altruist, as are most people who truly care about the republic and care about what is done in its name.
This is the unintended consequence of Nixon's southern strategy. As Republicans have become a party of the rural south, the traditionally conservative rich Northeast is recoiling. Ninety six percent of millionaires now identify against their pocket book and vote Democratic.
Kavanaugh's judicial temperament is apparent in his performance as a judge for decades NOT in his temperament in trying to protect himself from false accusations meant to literally destroy his life! This letter is a last ditch political hit job and absolute bull shit!
Those lawyers should be ashamed that they participated in such a lie.
Self-discipline, sticktoitiveness, and honesty with oneself are more important than IQ unless you are talking about theoretical physics or something, where you need all four in quantity.
I would take 1 Althouse over these 1,000 pretentious law school idiots.
@Ann, "Maybe some people are tricked into going along with something because they're afraid if they don't they're not smart, but it's offensive rhetoric, and I literally hate it."
I understand your anger. No one would want to be in your position. But you lack the blogger's temperament. I'm afraid you'll just have to retire.
Just kidding.
I appreciate the analysis of the letter. I tried to read it objectively, but constantly lapsed into trying to figure the motivation, rather than content. I'll admit I am too quick to do that, and have paid the price. For me, the best is to take the message at face value, and go from there.
But you invite us to suss out motivation. How can a group that offered full throated support, bail so quickly, over a 36 year old allegation of something that is a long way from disqualifying? Add to the mix, Kavanaughs' denial that left no room for him to negotiate a position if more info came to light. Kavanaugh is by all accounts very smart. Working in the White House for several years. Had to learn to negotiate a very treacherous environment interacting with everyone that is only looking for ways to walk over others to gain power.
He sat on the Bench for how long? Long enough to understand all the moving parts and apply game theory to reach the best decisions for himself. Kavanaugh is intelligent, educated, experienced, and successful.
How can college professors ignore so much, to come to such a poorly thought out position?
Academia has lost a lot of prestige over the last 40 years or so. letters like this document that continued decline.
If you're going to paint flowers, be sure to keep the overspray off Meade's lush foliage or it will reduce the following year's bloom.
There is nothing judicial in the temperament of this attack letter that stupidly pretends an appointed sacrificial victim at a liberal auto da fe that fights back only proves that he deserves to be slaughtered.
They have made Kavanaugh into a Protestant, because he dared to protest his being robbed of his earned career and slaughtered like silent foetus by fake priests of the Law Schools.
If only they'd read his *calendars*, they'd have surely been moved to the verge of tears.
What's that you say? A bunch of people in an overwhelmingly Liberal profession are against a Conservative being place on the SCOTUS?
I'm shocked, truly SHOCKED...!
*SNORT*
Why did so many law professors sign this text?
Rhetorical question, right?
While I hope Kavanaugh is confirmed, I don't feel any personal attachment to him.
He's a grade grind, a species that I met all too often in corporate law firms. His story is pretty common. 30 years old before he left the classroom to gain any social experience among normal people. These grade grinds are often incredibly clutzy oafs.
Kavanaugh is also, obviously, a careerist drone. He seems to have carefully checked off all the boxes on his resume to present the appearance of the choir boy who worships the God of Diversity.
There's some humor, as well as a lot of tragedy, in that a lifetime of ass kissing like a goodie two shows schoolboy didn't save him from having his ass reamed out. I hoped he learned from this.
But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?
I go to auto races, and I admire the skills of the drivers and the skills of the crew setting up the cars so that the drivers can get the maximum out of them. But I can’t take my eyes off an accident.
Wondering if you, Althouse, heard of it or was asked to sign it before it was published?
The names of more than 1,000 law professors simply means the names of more than 1,000 Democrats.
Remember the question asked of Dukakis in 1988, "Governor," Bernard Shaw asked, "if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
Dukakis answered as if the question had been, "What are the general steps done in changing your car's oil?"
When attacked personally, answer personally. In the case of any conservative, no matter how feeble the commitment to conservative principles, the Ds will attack.
"I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
I can't speak for you, obviously, and you won't agree with what I'm about to say. But for many of us, the reason we can't completely detach and withdraw from politics, despite the anger it provokes in us, is because there's a war on. We simply can't ignore it. As Aragorn famously said, "Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not." Some of us, at the very least, are drawn to pay attention.
Or to quote a non-fictional personage, John Adams:
"I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."
We are in a very peculiar civil war, and it will find you wherever you are. Political junkies are at least aware of it. Many average citizens (who don't have the time or inclination to investigate the news) are not. But events like the Kavanaugh hearing are waking them up.
Having said that, a person should strive to enjoy life (painting, music, etc.) in the midst of the storm. This country is better for that than almost anywhere else.
Good post, Althouse.
The professors are trying to make Kavanaugh radioactive. If you do not denounce him you are complicit in sexual assault. You are a deplorable and clearly do not belong in the academy.
It reminds me of Cory Booker's questioning of Kavanaugh. (paraphrasing) "Do you wish Dr Ford never would have come forward?"
What is Kav supposed to say? Yes, of course he does. But the moment we are having right now is you have to listen to the woman who says she is a victim. What an odd question!
To think, just a few short weeks ago, we were getting lectured about how unfair, sexist, and racist it was to judge a woman for expressing anger during a tennis game.
"Surely, you are smart enough..."
I hate that kind of talk.
It's a turn of speech. A hackneyed turn of sppech, but hardly anything to over-read and become indignant about.
First of all, I never said I couldn't figure it out.
I really don't think Doug is saying you couldn't figure it out. When did you become so literal-minded?
Third, many people are not smart. The world is full of people with average and below average intelligence. These people don't deserve to be referred to as you prod somebody to agree with you. These people are as human and valuable as those born with more of a gift and they don't deserve the collateral damage.
Oh good grief.
Good main post; weird comments.
It's all such a hunger for ruining lives. We used to be this way (humans did), we were much more callous toward each other. And now we are back at it in a new way. Why can't all these people just write a letter saying they don't want Roe v Wade overturned and so don't support Kavanaugh. Much more honest, without ruining someone's life.
I proposed in a previous post that one way to evaluate Kavanaugh's resistance to overseeing his own execution is in terms of Flannery O'Connor's theatre of the grotesque. But the goal of subjecting a character to "evil and grace" (in O'Connor's terms) is to gain insight into the mystery of character, not to parse out the man's social adherence to a resume. So I have nothing to offer to the law professor's crusade.
"...why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
What Andrew said.
There are a few of the brave. Eugene Volokh refused to sign the letter. He explained why on his blog THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY where he reprinted the letter he wrote in response. Alan Dershowitz also refused to sign the professors screed. The pressure on the younger untenured professors to sign OR else was huge.
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/02/my-thoughts-on-the-judicial-temperament
Doesn't make me want to send my kid to law school.
Re government employees, it has always amazed me how they live in constant fear of being fired, though we all know it is almost impossible to get them fired.
For all of us private employees, who are never more than three steps away from the exit door, it is had to understand why they are so afraid of it.
Why do Law School Profs sign this letter? Easy. The U S News rankings of Law Schools give 90% of the weight to whether schools have the proper number of super liberal Celebrity Professors on their faculty. That is why they recruit them. One Professor leaving and going to another Law School moves the left school down 2-3 rankings and raises the acquiriing school 2-3 rankings. It's all politics done by Faculties desperate for money as Law Schools wither away.
Your profession has turned into sh*t. All smalz and no substance. Look at you, a lawyer who doesn't believe in truth,a relativist!How would anyone have confidence in any of your judicial decisions.
The term judicial temperament is so broad that anyone with any issue can fit it under that penumbra.
So yes they can find themselves believing it.
I chose to write in the way I did for a reason, using questions to draw the reader along. The idea that I don't know the answers to my questions is just plain wrong.
Maybe, but I read one of your posts and what I came away with was that you were molested when you were in high school, and Kavanaugh has been accused of molesting a high school girl when he was also a high school student, so he must stand As a scapegoat for you and every teenager who has ever been raped or molested. Is that not what you meant? Then the onus is on you to write what you mean.
Better question, to my mind:
What is the purpose of all of the political ugliness?
To my mind the point is to reduce political participation by the broad middle. Disgust keeps many people away from watching. People look elsewhere because some people intend that result.
Now ask whether politeness can, theoretically, overcome the ugliness.
To think, just a few short weeks ago, we were getting lectured about how unfair, sexist, and racist it was to judge a woman for expressing anger during a tennis game. - Lyssa
I hang my head in shame for not having written this great comment.
There are 16 Fordham signers. I'm not surprised there were some, but 16?!? How disappointing.
Remember, initially there were 150 signatures. A reporter from Huffpo took to twitter and started a campaign for more signatures. Once it hit 500, it snowballed. Why? In the mentions, you have comments like "OMG my professor hasn't signed??" and "Why isn't KU represented?"
Most of these professors were bullied into signing.
To think, just a few short weeks ago, we were getting lectured about how unfair, sexist, and racist it was to judge a woman for expressing anger during a tennis game.
Heh.
“But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry.“
Kavanaugh was a witness and the defendant, not a judge in those proceedings.
That these people don’t seem to know the difference is alarming.
They're giving the word "mob" a bad name.
Althouse for the win.
1 vs. 1000
score!
Imagine an innocent Kavanaugh, under an outrageous attack and subjected to a horrendous ordeal.
That's the trouble. They can't imagine an innocent Kavanaugh; they've already decided he's guilty and everything else they see is interpreted through that lens. Just as all the think pieces about "entitlement" and "white male rage" are being written from the assumption Kavanaugh is guilty of assaulting Ford, and probably guilty of all sorts of other heinous behavior. (Plus, he hates women and wants to control their bodies.)
It's a sad thing when whether someone deserves to be treated fairly is all dependent upon whether you personally like or sympathize with them. But apparently, even among those who are supposed to know better, that's the norm and the ACLU defending Nazis and Westboro was an aberration.
Luckily for the country, most people have no respect for law professors. Even less than they have for actual lawyers. And re: judicial temperament. Wasn't there some brouhaha a while back about the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices assaulting one another?
We are in a very peculiar civil war, and it will find you wherever you are. Political junkies are at least aware of it. Many average citizens (who don't have the time or inclination to investigate the news) are not. But events like the Kavanaugh hearing are waking them up.
I agree with Andrew. But I don’t think it will remain bloodless forever. There is too much violent rhetoric, and threats of violence, and outright violence coming from the Left side. Some of those crazed young lefties are going to lose control and the results will be ... nottbwhat they expect.
I am a Civil War buff, and what I have read was that the leaders of the Southern Democrats, called “firebrands,” thought that they could get away with threats of violence, and actual violence against Republican Senators (c.f. Charles Sumner). One firebrand predicted that he’d be able to mop up all the blood spilled with his handkerchief. Didn’t work out that way. Won’t this time either.
The Democrat Senators should be glad it wasn't me being so vilely accused. My mother would have given them quite a stern rebuke, probably much more emphatically than did Kavanaugh. And I'm not even her favorite child.
I kid, I kid. I am her favorite child.
Why would Kavanaugh need to "to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised" — he knows what happened in his own life — and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!
Because they are Rabid Democrats.
Althouse for the win.
1 vs. 1000
score!
____________
They've got her surrounded, poor bastards.
How many law professors can dance on the end of a pin?
I do think it's good for people to see what political people are willing to do in the name of politics.
They talk a lot about getting out and voting, but that really isn't enough. They are willing to destroy, and we can see it clearly.
What you are witnessing is one side of an impossibly thin coin, the other side is of course “Cavanaugh’s failure to vigorously deny and defend himself makes his guilt certain”.
Just about every line of the letter describes the role of a JUDGE in a legal proceeding.
The esteemed scholars can't see, or willfully ignore, that Kavanaugh was the DEFENDANT in the Senate shitshow (okay, hearing.)
A defendant is allowed to defend himself -- energetically -- he believes he has been charged falsely. That's sort of the point.
Surprised these wise persons can't make the distinction.
Looks to me like signatories are objecting to K being judgment.al re senators by being in.deferential or admonishing.
K could have made things clear with props ... Gavel and pad. Instead of blowing up.
Of course K is not Trump.
There are 16 Fordham signers.
Out of 72.
The beauty of the "judicial temperament" claim is that there is no standard against which to judge it. There is no way to prove it wrong because it is whatever they say it is.
"Law Professors". BFD.
BLS says about 16,000 law profs in the US.
Plus, now there are 1000 law professors that in the event they’re ever a party to a Supreme Court case know they won’t receive an impartial hearing. The case for rejection just keeps getting stronger.
If you start a counter-petition of law professors, who would sign it? Probably no one as the teaching climate at law schools is so leftist. Good for you for pointing this out.
A verdict from a thousand kangaroos.
Hager said...
Re government employees, it has always amazed me how they live in constant fear of being fired, though we all know it is almost impossible to get them fired.
Maybe not fired, but for many careerists a languishing, loss of ascendency within the organization because you’ve been ostracized. “Passed over”, as it were.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/a7f94102-bcf4-4896-ab63-1395f5618d21
Whoa, whoa, Althouse, you are being 'intemperate, inflammatory, partial and discourteous,' here!
Besides, what reasonable adult ever believed Law professors were especially bright, fair and apolitical? Even the ABA is a pratfall in this stupid affair.
"If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
If you're like me it's because you fear you'd be abandoning power over your life to fools, idiots and worse. I completely understand the sentiment.
Big Mike said...but I read one of your posts and what I came away with was that you were molested when you were in high school,
I've seen a couple of people reference this but I think you're attributing to her a story she was blogging for consideration.
They talk a lot about getting out and voting, but that really isn't enough. They are willing to destroy, and we can see it clearly.
How long do you think leftists are going to tolerate elections if they keep failing to yield them power?
Sorry to ignore your questions, Althouse, but I feel compelled to address a false statement in the letter. The thousand lists assert that Kavanaugh declined to show openness to their witch hunt. But I watched his testimony very clearly. Every time (and it did happen with almost every Democrat) he was asked if yet another FBI check should be done he responded with “I will do whatever the committee wants to do.” He never said no. He did recommend that the committevssk him the questions they have since they are the ones who decide. That was a very slight push back given the aggressive questioning he endured.
“Even the ABA is a pratfall in this stupid affair.”
Let’s not forget the ACLU.
Just a very quick scan of the signing lawyers indicated a significan preponderance of people who identify as women. Hmmmmm.
Its a filthy conflict indeed, the lies are so ubiquitous, and the disrespect for the public is blatant. But this is what everything has come to in fact. And it will only get worse. And it already is unavoidable if your profession has some connection with large institutions and public affairs.
If you can retire away and avoid hearing of it then the better for you. But some of us have the historians itch, the inability to turn away, what kept Thucydides interested in the debacles for decades, after he was sacked in an early injustice.
This is history happening, and its often petty and ugly.
@Rick, then why did Althouse make a point of mentioning her being molested in a post devoted to her resentment of Kavanaugh’s elite high school, and how he didn’t deserve to sit on the court, if not for the reason I commented on? I went to a good, but not great, high school in the outer suburbs of Chicago, and I would have been thrilled to have the to take calculus in high school. And there never was a chance my parents could pay for an out of state school, much less private college.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I wonder how many of the signers of the letter read the text carefully and thought about whether it makes sense.
This is herd instinct. Several comments have explained why. The students are mindless automatons in leftist's war on logic.
They were bullied and they are leftists anyway. What is amazing is that the ABA, which has turned hard left the past 20 years, actually gave him a highly qualified rating. The last minute letter from one board member was amusing.
I have read about law schools closing and applications being down.
A more important observations that this fight is bring NeverTrumpers, like Bret Stephens, who has been vitriolic, back into the Trump party,
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
I'm surprised the Times let him write it.
This has been a catastrophic own goal for the Democrats. I feel 1994 coming.
"why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!"
Because they have strong feelings.
It's interesting that the video of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" has been scrubbed from Google and Youtube.
I wonder why that is?
There was a time when I was grateful that DiFi was sort of the best we could hope for from California, now I am like “Bring on the nutcase!”
ALTHOUSE says:"If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
Because you LUV it out there on the bloody coliseum floor. Duh. Or was that a trick/fake rhetorical question?
Great analysis Professor Althouse - of what is a very troubling sign of the state of legal education in the US.
If Ann is right that the letter does not accurately or completely state the reasons these professors oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, then have 1000 law professors perjured themselves in a communication to the Senate? Certainly by the standards bandied about re Kavanaugh's description of his teenage drinking they have.
Why did so many law professors sign this text?
Because they’re liberal Democrats. (And even if they weren’t, nearly everyone around them is. Backing the wrong horse is a good way to lose one’s job these days.)
I'm surprised the Times let him write it.
So long as he gets in an "ugly and gratuitous" slap at Trump, he's ok with the NYT editors.
"There's so little honesty in law and politics."
Which is why I chose engineering as a career, not law. For engineers, only facts and the laws of nature matter.
"A lawyer's mistake winds up in jail; a doctor's mistake winds up in the grave; but an engineer's mistake falls down in front of everyone."
Bottom line, Shakespeare was right. “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.”
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the American Bar Association?
Michael K;
Thanks again for another fine link. Seems that for the last couple of days, my reading has basically been Michael K's Bedside Reading List.
I don't know, if Bret Stephens (or I) will ever join The Trump Party. I really do feel that in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and sticking by him and resisting all pressures to withdraw the nomination the way that President George H. W. Bush stuck by Judge Clarence Thomas, President Trump is proving himself to be a member of the Republican Party.
F**K them all, every last one of them, for their dishonesty. If they don't like his judicial approach or philosophy they should say so and give examples, argue their case as it were. This is just vile, and doubly so considering the source.
Was there a male to female ratio in that 1000 number? I would like to believe that the majority of the 1000 were not women.
but an engineer's mistake falls down in front of everyone
Or on top of everyone, thinking of Florida International University.
Dr K, everybody should read that column in the NYT. In fact, I subscribed from it. I was thinking about subscribing anyway, but I wanted the impact of subscribing from a column like that with which I thoroughgoingly agree.
Next WSJ.
*Most of these professors were bullied into signing.*
Calling oneself feminist is preemptively submission to bullying that would result otherwise.
Professora ... You could hark to individualism and assert "a woman should be secure in her person with constitutional protection"
But that is not way of a collectivism/feminist
A judge acting in an intemperate manner? Oh my goodness! I wonder how many of these law professors have ever actually tried a case before a real judge and how seen how judges really act.
President Trump is proving himself to be a member of the Republican Party.
That’s Chuck who said that Democrat fanbois and gurls.
Bart said...
I'm surprised somebody hasn't mentioned the 88 professors that did something similar during the Duke Lacrosse case.
I checked on that. There were zero Duke lawprofs among the Group of 88. I did not know that before checking. And this latest story inspired me to check.
That Group of 88 will be forever tainted by their actions.
Did you remember who was the Duke student who informally led the anti-Group of 88 pushback? It was a Duke undergrad by the name of Stephen Miller. Who was a column writer for the Duke student newspaper, The Chronicle.
[i]Sally327 said...
I'm guessing the law professors who signed the letter haven't spent a lot of time in the courtroom or not for a long time. Judges aren't really known for being deferential or even all that pleasant. Some are downright cantankerous when the mood strikes. And not afraid to show it. Which really has nothing to do with the ability to be a competent judge[/i]
This could change over the course of today, but as of the time of this post -none- of the professors st my law school (Baylor) have signed. Given Baylor’s focus on practical litigation preparation (with consistently the highest bar passage rates in the state), that would be some suggestion that your guess has merit.
"97% of law professors agree that Kavanaugh does not have the temperament to serve on the Supreme Court".
The purpose of this petition is to give anti-Kavanaugh forces an authority they can appeal to. Inga has done it here a few times already.
A similar approach is taking by the pro-AGW forces. They cite their "97% CONSENSUS!" figure all the time in order to bludgeon and shame dissent.
With the Duke lacrosse case we found that black women can lie. With the Kavanaugh case we will eventually confirm that white women can lie. The unavoidable conclusion: women can lie. Just like men. That the left went down this “You must believe women who cry rape” path is not surprising but the fact that many Democrat senators went on record with it is a sign of the depravity of the Democrat Party today. I will be surprised if they not only don’t win the House but in fact lose seats. They are in complete ethical collapse.
"There's so little honesty in law and politics."
There can be no honesty if you don't hold to individual as the base for such discussions ... When you do it's the easiest thing in the world.
MountainMan, one quibble.
"A lawyer's mistake winds up in jail; a doctor's mistake winds up in the COURTROOM; but an engineer's mistake falls down in front of everyone."
FIFY. It doesn't even have to be a mistake. My one malpractice suit that went anywhere was tried and I was awarded $25,000 in costs, which of course we never collected.
Maybe Trump was bullied by Democrats into Republican arms too. It’s said you dance with who brung you, but I add that you marry who sticks by you.
A pharmacy school professor knows more about judges and how the courts work than does any law school professor.
This was an outstanding -- beautiful, even -- blog post by you, Althouse. I don't understand your critics on this subject.
Since judicial temperament is paramount, so much so it can be disqualifying "for any judge"...
Will these law professors now examine the temperament of the judges first, before moving on to nuts and bolts of the cases they use to teach?
They say they object to his temperament. I think they spelled testosterone wrong.
The world is full of people with average and below average intelligence.
Not in certain parts of Minnesota where everyone is above average.
1000 law professors. These are people who hold the future of any conservative law student in their hands. As the WSJ editorializes:
"Republicans across America can see, and certainly their Senators voting on Judge Kavanaugh should realize, that the left hates them as much or more than they loathe Mr. Trump. Conservatives understand that, for the American left, they are all deplorables now."
Do you have any conception of how badly the current generation of leadership screwed this up? Deliberately in many cases.
Blasey is the lair.
What a disgrace.
btw- she doesn't talk like a baby girl all the time
ugly and gratuitous way
What I saw was neither. FAKE opinions.
The rot of American institutions has been fully uncovered by Trump. This is exactly why I jumped on the Trump train. Trump and Trump alone has the force of character to withstand the onslaught as he pulls back blanket after blanket exposing maggot-infested decay. The media, the legal profession, the arts, academia, the Left ... he is heroic in exposing them all.
That’s twice I am in thoroughgoing agreement with Chuck today. Thank you DiFi for unifying the Republican Party!
Trump and Trump alone has the force of character
If I were in his position I would've ordered air-strikes on CNN and the NYT a long time ago.
Not that I'm giving Trump ideas or anything like that ...
The real reason the collective left want to stop Kavananaugh is because the balance of the court might stop leftwing corruption.
PERIOD.
I’m not going to lie and say I knew beforehand that Drumpf would be better than Reagan. If it hadn’t have been for the Democrats offering Hillary as the alternative, I am sure I wouldn’t have voted for him.
I most humbly apologize to the Universe.
Sarah Palin was the harbinger that change was coming to America. Trump is the event. Let’s give Sarah some love for staking out the path.
@ Tim
Maybe Trump was bullied by Democrats into Republican arms too.
I've often thought that. Trump is a fairly liberal guy.
The obvious answer-- and I know you hate stating the obvious-- to why the law professors signed this letter is, as others said, partisan politics. This country is polarized and in the midst of a cold civil war. These professors are just signaling which side they've chosen. That may be an ugly way to put it, but is it not accurate?
Your questions are an admirable attempt to highlight the unfairness of the professors' position. But unfortunately there is no fairness in partisan politics and there never will be.
Chelsea Clinton is out there complaining about how partisan Kavanaugh is. Such hypocrisy; such civility bullshit.
@Dickin... “I've often thought that. Trump is a fairly liberal guy.“
Was.
HER story is full of holes, inconsistencies, and shape shifting memory.
SHE has no one to back her up.
SHE never told a friend and it only bothered her after Trump won the election.
SHE flies all the time
SHE is not a baby-talker - that was all a show.
MEDIA treat her like she's a poor victim and the bad man raped her last week.
LATE NIGHT TALK Shows + Media = free campaign ads for democrats.
Blogger M Jordan said...
Sarah Palin was the harbinger that change was coming to America. Trump is the event. Let’s give Sarah some love for staking out the path.
I agree and Ross Perot, whatever his motives, showed the possibility.
Althouse, we're here to state the obvious so you don't have to. It's only fair since you read the mainstream media rags so we don't have to.
The real reason the collective left want to stop Kavananaugh is because the balance of the court might stop leftwing corruption.
To paraphrase Emerson, they struck at the king but did not kill him.
Like all tribes, the Law Professor tribe has their own set of norms, peer pressure and and overall collective will. Of course many of the individuals within that tribe know damn well that it's logically ludicrous to indict Kavanaugh for the reasons state here, but they sublimate that thinking for the will of the collective.
Well, when you’re investigating important Democrats like Harvey Weinstein, you’ve got to nail all the details down with surgical precision. When you’re going after Republicans, you can just fling poop.
BK gave too much leniency to the Senate's injudicious inquiry. He answered questions about FFFFFFF, Devil's Triangle, and "bouf", etc.
I believe he lied about them, but I don't care -- he shouldn't even have entertained those clown questions. He should have just said, "I don't know, it was 36 years ago, I don't remember if I or someone else wrote that, and I don't care. They were juvenile jokes. If I can get past them, so can you."
robother said...
1000 law professors. These are people who hold the future of any conservative law student in their hands. As the WSJ editorializes...
I thought about this.
A couple of things. One; if 1000 lawprofs signed it, it means that 79,000 didn't sign it. I know that Althouse (wisely) questions the process by which letters of this kind get invented, developed, circulated, signed and promoted. It would be fabulous to get inside the several listservs that carried this letter around.
Two; I mentioned this to Althouse in an email last night. Do you guys remember that there was ANOTHER lawprof protest letter when Jeff Sessions was nominated as Attorney General? THAT'S RIGHT; 3000 lawprofs "signed" an open letter suggesting that Sessions must not be confirmed. LMFAO. They would now all doubtlessly sign a letter demanding that Sessions must not be fired. (Having been offended at their first Sessions letter, I might sign the second hypothetical letter myself.)
Kavanaugh should have referred to himself in the third person.
To take one semi-random example:
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years?
KAVANAUGH: Yes, Brett Kavanaugh drank beer. His friends and Brett Kavanaugh, the boys and girls. Yes, they drank beer. Brett Kavanaugh liked beer. He still likes beer. They drank beer.
See? Sounds more objective already.
Ross Perot gave us the Clintons. That's the wrong kind of possibilities we needed.
@Dickin... “I've often thought that. Trump is a fairly liberal guy.“
Was.
A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.
Re: Trump's ability to withdraw nomination ... Can he or is it upon K?
Isn't this how judicial review got initiated?
Isn't it the case that if a judge is too close to a case for whatever reason (for example, he is a party to it) he can and would be expected to recuse himself?
M Jordan said...
The rot of American institutions has been fully uncovered by Trump. This is exactly why I jumped on the Trump train. Trump and Trump alone has the force of character to withstand the onslaught as he pulls back blanket after blanket exposing maggot-infested decay. The media, the legal profession, the arts, academia, the Left ... he is heroic in exposing them all.
I could have written this comment.
It takes more than will to take on corrupt American institutions. Early on I realized only Trump, and no one but Trump, had what it would take to stop the march of marxism and restore pride in individual Americans.
I also think Trump is a temporary reprieve.
I use the term liberal differently than Rush Limbaugh.
Liberals are dying. The corrupt progressive totalitarian leftist have taken their place.
I used to think, because they were more practically minded, law professors were a better lot than ordinary academics. Then I went to a top ten law school. Even 40 years ago I could see most were hacks, some well-meaning hacks, others not even well-meaning, just hacks. Ignorant of history (including the history of the common law and American law, which I bothered to read the Summer before I started law school), philosophy (especially - and tragically - political philosophy), and economics, they were busy teaching a bag of tricks (thanks H.L. Mencken!) without the content to make it meaningful.
And that was 40 years ago. They've only become worse and worse.
With perhaps a couple of dozen exceptions I know of, America's law faculties are beneath contempt.
Isn't it the case that if a judge is too close to a case for whatever reason (for example, he is a party to it) he can and would be expected to recuse himself?
You would think, but it usually doesn't happen. John Marshall should have recused himself in Marbury.
The cost benefit analysis was strongly in favor of signing. Other than some critical remarks can you imagine any sort of negative consequences for these respected scholars?
Perhaps, if any of them ever expect to argue before the court. It would be interesting if a copy of that letter somehow, someway was placed on their chair or desk to be discovered as they sat down for oral arguments.
Re: Trump's ability to withdraw nomination ... Can he or is it upon K?
Trump could pull the nomination until the floor vote is held.
Isn't this how judicial review got initiated?
No. Marbury was a total con job. Marshall created the controversy while Secretary of State and Chief Justice at the same time, and then used the controversy to create judicial review.
He lacks judicial temperament because he was an angry witness? I wasn't aware "judicial temperament" meant being able to do all the jobs in a (lower) court. He'd make a pretty bad court reporter. He's unqualified to be a bailiff. I bet he's out of practice doing cross-examinations, too.
As Althouse must know, the pressure to virtue-signal in the academy is intense. People aren't even allowed to stay out of politics, as leftists have told us that such people are "complicit" in the evils of the right.
Big Mike said...why did Althouse make a point of mentioning her being molested in a post devoted to her resentment of Kavanaugh’s elite high school
Do you remember which post this was? I don't read every comment thread but I read all the posts and I don't remember this. Further when the other commenter mentioned it I scanned back and still couldn't find it - but I did find two commenters mentioning their own experiences and one post Althouse post linking to someone else talking about themselves.
I’m not going to lie and say I knew beforehand that Drumpf would be better than Reagan. If it hadn’t have been for the Democrats offering Hillary as the alternative, I am sure I wouldn’t have voted for him.
True. But I can firmly state, with no prevarication, that I knew Trump would be a better President than Hillary. As that was the choice, to paraphrase Mike Hammer, 'It was easy' to act.
"There's so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
This is a healthy instinct. While there is a time and place for politics, there is also a need for rest and distance. I'd suggest that distance and time are both healthy and necessary to recharge. As a bonus a little break will help you maintain neutrality.
The last few weeks have been unusually intense politically, and perhaps because of the blog, you may feel a need to stay engaged for our sake.
I encourage you to take a break to recharge whenever you judge the time is right. I'm sure the fall in Madison is beautiful once the leaves start to change, and these are the last days of relative warmth before winter. Good time for bike ride, walk etc.
"Go watch the Badgers destroy the Cornhuskers on Saturday. A beautiful WI win. I’m serious."
I plan to watch the Brewers dissolve the Rockies tonight. Plus, I am eating grits this morning.
MountainMan said...
Which is why I chose engineering as a career, not law. For engineers, only facts and the laws of nature matter.
Not...anymore.
Indrek Wichman
Blogger Paddy O said...
Ross Perot gave us the Clintons. That's the wrong kind of possibilities we needed.
Oh, I agree but the fact that, in spite of being a bit crazy, he still got 25% of the vote told us something. Or should have.
LLR Chuck: "(Having been offended at their first Sessions letter, I might sign the second hypothetical letter myself.)"
This is what operational alignment with the lunatic left looks like.
Again.
And again.
And agaun....
Salt or Sugar?
The eternal grits debate.
Post a Comment