October 4, 2018

The intemperance of the law professors' "judicial temperament" letter.

I see over 1,000 names on this anti-Kavanaugh letter, many of them names of people I know. I've been with a lot of law professors over the past 4 decades, and the best law professors I have known have routinely expressed disbelief that the judicial opinions they read state the real reasons why the judges decide the cases the way they do. And I don't believe the law professors when they say they oppose Brett Kavanaugh because they have concerns about his "judicial temperament."

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.

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.
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?
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?!

342 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 342 of 342
Drago said...

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....

Annie C said...

Salt or Sugar?

The eternal grits debate.

ussmidway said...

The TV show "The Lives of Others" about the Stasi in East Germany in the 1970s has a revealing scene where new agents are being taught about interrogation methods. The Stasi instructor teaches that truly innocent suspects will object vigorously to unfair accusations, becoming more indignant as the session drags on. Guilty suspects remain calm and repeat the same rehearsed answers over and over again, refusing to lose their composure.

By this analysis, Kavanaugh clearly came across as innocent delivering his scathing critique and pushing back against the Senators who were out to get him. the scene from the TV show is a wonderful example of this technique. They may have been evil, but the Stasi were not stupid people -- just bad Germans.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lives+of+others+interrogation&&view=detail&mid=DDA4E0565D10F7504D44DDA4E0565D10F7504D44&&FORM=VRDGAR

Michael K said...

Rick, that Purdue thing is worrying but, kind of like surgeons, the results show up pretty soon.

Bridges collapse on roads and stuff like that.

Darrell said...

1000 female doctors signed a letter supporting Ford body, mind, souls, spirit, and strength before the hearing even began. One of the Democrats entered that into the record. Dems think shit like that are game changers. All it proves is that you can always find 1000 partisan ninnies.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

*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.*

Funny that is first time I hear Marshall having wearing two hats then.

To be accurate and consistent ... The CONNING of the Constitution is ongoing.

What has it done to foundation of the Republic?

gahrie said...

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.


I remember it. I think it was one of Monday's posts. She complained that her math teacher didn't recommend she keep taking math classes and that her parents wouldn't pay for her to go to private school at the same time. It was supposed to be a blanket condemnation of the Patriarchy oppressing her.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

I have heard that Dred Scot case was a put up/ con also ... Any truth to that?

gahrie said...

Funny that is first time I hear Marshall having wearing two hats then.

I was a Political Science major who concentrated on the Constitution and Supreme Court and I didn't figure it out until about five years ago. Not one of my teachers or professors ever mentioned it.

Char Char Binks said...

"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?"

That's why BK should have recused himself from the Senate hearing. Anyway, we already knew how everybody was going to vote, except for a Flake or two.

gahrie said...

I have heard that Dred Scot case was a put up/ con also ... Any truth to that?

The Court was dominated by Southern racists at the time, but they were quite open about it.

narciso said...

Only a case he deliberated on for the dc circuit, anyways that would be the custom,

But this is the duke 88 cubed.

FullMoon said...

Ann Althouse said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"Surely, you are smart enough..."

I hate that kind of talk.

Kinda goes with "Ann finally realizes the NYT is biased.." sort of comment

Ralph L said...

The eternal grits debate.

Salt and butter, beef or pork jus (not kosher) if you got it.

I didn't know it was sold or eaten in the Upper Midwest.

I wonder if Ford came up with One Beer because that was her policy after she got a DL.

Ann Althouse said...

"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."

You don't get every detail and you ought to know how to resist making a lot of assumptions about people. There are many different kinds of experiences. And I never — not at any age — went to a party where people got drunk and attempted to do anything sexual with each other. I never went to a high school or college or young adult party where the men had the idea or plan to get the women drunk and then to see what advantage they could take -- not even ones where they stopped at no.

The whole scene is completely alien to me. I never drank alcohol in high school, and I didn't drink in college in any rowdy or risky environment — only maybe a single drink on a handful of occasions and always in a public place and probably only with the idea that we were making fun of old people who drank and whose culture we believed was rapidly fading.

The experience I had, which I mentioned in a particular context that you might want to refer to, was as an elementary school student, where I was alone in a room with a teacher and I immediately stopped him, because somehow I knew right away it was wrong. I was compelled to go to school, and I didn't go there looking for any sort of action, and the teacher had a very serious responsibility toward me that he violated. I told my mother, and she thought about it a lot and talked to me but convinced herself and me that it would be better not to ruin this man's life. Years later, after watching some unknown number of Phil Donohue shows, she brought it up out of the blue and made a sincere apology. I think she understood in retrospect that not to accuse the teacher was to leave him to violate other children, who probably wouldn't, like me, instantly figure out he was wrong and yell at him. So my recollection here is of being aware of the difference between right and wrong, even as a child, and able to stop him so I was not hurt. But I did absorb the larger social context from my mother. I assumed when I went home that day that she would spring into action. I was righteously indignant and surprised at what she explained to me, but I understood and accepted her view of what to do. She later realized she was wrong. It took a while. But how did I know, on the spot, that something I never expected was plainly wrong and something to immediately report to the authorities?

So I don't identify with the situation Christine Blasey Ford described. It doesn't correspond to my experience at all.

Dennis Braswell said...

I for one want judges who can be outraged by false -- assuming these are false -- accusations. I think good judicial temperament includes some outrage, and not only if accusations are personal. Also, BTW, Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution calls the supreme Court judges "Judges," not "Justices." Why should we deviate and call them "Justices"?

Andrew said...

@Chuck,
", President Trump is proving himself to be a member of the Republican Party."

Trump does not need to prove anything. Have you been paying any attention this past two years? Trump is not a member of the Republican Party, he is the leader of the Republican Party. He is remaking it in his image. In my lifetime I have not seen a greater example of leadership, in any context. I believe he is already as great a president as Reagan, and in some ways greater considering what he's up against. He is transforming this country and the entire world through complete force of will. It is amazing to behold. His presidency is divine Providence.

AZ Bob said...

"Bottom line, Shakespeare was right. “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.”

Shakespeare wrote the line which was delivered by a character named Dick the Butcher who was involved in a plot to overthrow the Crown.

So, was Shakespeare agreeing with this sentiment?

(Note to Althouse: Keep using the Socratic method.)

Chuck said...

Drago said...
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....


But wait. Throughout the Kavanaugh nomination, I have been an ardent supporter. As ardent a supporter as exits here. I have complained about certain instances of Trump's fumbling around in communicating about the nomination. Just like the Senators whose votes are desperately needed to confirm Kavanaugh have.

When I say I'd happily sign the hypothetical letter demanding that Sessions not be fired, it is intended as sarcasm toward the lefties who opposed Sessions from the time of his nomination but who now think he is useful to them. That's not me. I liked Sessions from the beginning, and I felt that he was Trump's most consequential cabinet nomination. I like Sessions, and I said so. And I haven't changed. Not like some of the Trumpist nutballs who loved Sessions just like they loved all of Trump's picks, but who turned on Sessions as quickly as the leftist lawprofs switched from hating Sessions to praising Sessions.

I'm consistent. I'm consistent in opposing extremist leftism, and extremist Trumpism.

Annie C said...

Being able to yell at your elementary school teacher. That is something. I had a similar experience with a lay teacher at my catholic elementary school, but did not have the courage to yell. I just backed up, grabbed my math book and left the classroom to go to lunch.

Never thought to tell my Mom, just went on with my world and still only vaguely remember it now and again. The thing I remember more about him was how I learned about blackheads when I asked another girl if he shaved his nose because it looked like stubble.

A thorough study of memories in people could probably take a couple thousand lifetimes.

tim in vermont said...

He lost his cool because he wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition, I hear that can happen to anybody.

Richard said...

I checked and sure enough Laurence (Twitter) Tribe signed the letter. Judicial temperament, my foot.

Yancey Ward said...

Welcome back, Cruel Neutrality Practitioner, you have been missed.

rhhardin said...

Note to Althouse: Keep using the Socratic method

Valery has a dialogue Socrates talks to his physician that is the definitive word on the method.

Valery for as long as google books keeps giving pages.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“If only they'd read his *calendars*, they'd have surely been moved to the verge of tears.”

LOL! Funny! Humor is an essential thing not to lose nowadays.

rhhardin said...

"I marvel at what you must be, you and your medicine, in order to obtain from my nature that blessed oracle and to have a presentiment of its propensity for the better. This body, which is mine, confides and entrusts itself to you and not to myself; to which latter it only addresses itself in the form of troubles, fatigues, and pains, which are as it were the insults and blasphemies which it can utter when it is displeased. It speaks to my mind as to a beast, which one drives without explanations, but by violence and abuse; whilst it tells you clearly what it wishes and does not wish, and the why and how of its state. It is strange that you should know a thousand times more than I do about myself, and that I should be as it were transparent to the light of your knowledge, while I am for myself quite obscure and opaque..."

page google thoughtlessly omits

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
He lost his cool because he wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition, I hear that can happen to anybody.



Noooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Yancey Ward said...

The very first line of the letter is an obvious lie- who really believes they "regret" having to do this? Anyone believe that?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“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?”

Because 99% of her commenters would not read such a blog. They want red meat and they want to eat it raw. This blog seems to be her life, even on vacation she doesn’t skip a day, everything she does or thinks is written about in this blog. She would be lost without you folks.

Of course I am only guessing. I base my observation on reading this blog since 2011.

buwaya said...

The Spanish Inquisition was a model of due process.
It’s proceedings were also handled mainly through documents, and hearings were private.

The only objection anyone, even in modern times, could have of such an exemplary system (for its time, remarkably so) was the nature of the crimes being investigated.

Hagar said...

By today's rules, John Marshall should have recused himself from a lot of cases, but he lived in his own time. It should also be noted that he was famous for buttressing his opinions with extensive reasoning, leading not only to unanimous SCOTUS decisions, but general agreement among the public that his reasoning was sound.

Dred Scott was indeed a "put up job" connived at by Dred Scott and his owner. Roger Taney worked hard to get his decision in the case, but is credited, perhaps generously, with the belief that it would avert civil war however awkwardly arrived at. I do not remember if it was an unanimous decision.

PB said...

Those who signed this letter are unfit to practice or teach the law. Further, they are proof the Law of Natural Selection is inoperative as these people exhibit traits that should have been eradicated from society long ago. They are people to whom insufficient corporal punishment was applied during their formative years.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"Why did so many law professors sign this text?"

Because they are partisan hacks.

Caligula said...

The letter is fundamentally dishonest.

They are rejecting Kavanaough for political reasons yet, because we have no reason to respect the politics of law professors over anyone else's politics, they must pretend to have reasons which they, due to their being law professors, are uniquely qualified to evaluate.

They are, however, fooling no one: everyone knows it's the politics. And because the letter is inherently dishonest, it inevitably has more to say (and more derogatory to say) about those who wrote and/or signed it than about Kavanaugh.

SeanF said...

Ann Althouse: I never drank alcohol in high school, and I didn't drink in college in any rowdy or risky environment — only maybe a single drink on a handful of occasions and always in a public place and probably only with the idea that we were making fun of old people who drank and whose culture we believed was rapidly fading.

How do you know? Maybe you went to a party in college, drank a lot, raped some poor boy, and you just don't remember it because you drank so much you blacked out.

Maybe it happened more than once.

I mean, you can't deny you might have done it and just don't remember it, right?

rhhardin said...

Imus in the 70s, to woman caller who said she was a virgin, "How do you know? Did you ever fall asleep on the bus?"

rhhardin said...

It ought to be mnemory, anyway. The etymology has been forgotten.

rhhardin said...

You don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you have a dog. Dogs are happy to clean any peanut butter jar, at least.

rhhardin said...

I have an audio clip I saved of a Radio Japan interviewee trying to say barrel.

Kassaar said...

Court Officer: My Lord, this is the man who murdered Babbie.
Judge: That man must hang. How did he do it?
Court Officer: He cut her up in little bits and pickled her.
Judge: That was very wrong of him ... he must be hanged.
Lothario: My Lord, I haven’t murdered Babbie! I have fed her and clothed her and looked after her ... I can produce witnesses to testify that I am a good man, and no murderer.
Judge: You must hang! You aggravate your crime by conceit. It’s not seemly for a person who is ... accused of something to consider himself a good man.
Lothario: But, my Lord, I have witnesses to confirm it. And since I am accused of murder ...
Judge: You must hang! You’ve cut Babbie up, pickled her, and you are self-satisfied ... three capital offences! ... Who are
you, my good woman?
Woman: I am Babbie ...
Lothario: Thank God! My Lord, you can see I haven’t murdered her!
Judge: Hm ... aye ... perhaps! But what about the pickling?
Babbie: No, my Lord, he hasn’t pickled me. On the contrary, he has been very kind to me. He is a noble man!
Lothario: You hear, my Lord, she says I am a good man.
Judge: Hm ... so the
third charge stands. Officer, take this man away, he must hang. He is guilty of conceit. Recorder, cite in the preamble the judgment of Lessing’s Patriarch ...

From: Multatuli, Max Havelaar (1860)

Chuck said...

Skippy Tisdale said...
"Why did so many law professors sign this text?"

Because they are partisan hacks.


And not just liberal-partisans; also busybodies. Most lawyers realize how fraught all of this is with partisanship. How the ABA's judicial ratings damaged the reputation of the organization almost beyond repair. (Even if they agreed with the leftist-lean of those ratings!)

There is a certain kind of figure in the law, and especially law schools, that believes in lawyers as a kind of social clergy. That lawyers have special input on government. And when it involves the judiciary, they cannot help themselves; they cannot resist telling the nation what it is supposed to do.

Althouse has done a magnificent job in this blog post, critically analyzing the language and terminology of the letter. To add to that, there is the process of making such a letter. It is a loosely organized -- but absolutely organized -- group of like-minded law school faculty members. Although it is a disparate group actually, employment-wise. Larry Tribe is tenured faculty at Harvard with an endowed chair and a national media presence. Other signatories are nobodies who have crummy legal jobs and barely make ends meet, and would be financially in trouble but for some part time income and perhaps some health/insurance/parking benefits from teaching a night school class as a clinical. Those groups have about as much in common with each other as the Head Football Coach of the Wisconsin Badgers, and an assistant high school offensive line coach in Racine.

rcocean said...

The ABA lost its credibility when it refused to give Bork its highest rating.

rcocean said...

Perot didn't give us the Clintons - Bush did.

In 1988, he ran as Reagan II, and he governed as Jerry Ford Part II.

He probably could've survived Perot and a Rescission if he hadn't pissed everyone off, by betraying his "no new taxes" pledge, appointing Souter, signing the quota bill, and not being a good politician.

People forget Bush ran for Senate twice and lost. Won in a safe R district and then lost to Reagan in 1980. If Reagan had not selected him as VP, he never would've been president. He was NOT a good politician.

Michael K said...

I'm consistent. I'm consistent in opposing extremist leftism, and extremist Trumpism.

Chuck, when you've lost Brett Stephens....

Jael said...

“There is no need to call law enforcement about these birds as they should sober up within a short period of time.."

Chuck said...

rcocean said...
The ABA lost its credibility when it refused to give Bork its highest rating.


That is incorrect. The ABA -- its Standing Committee on the Judiciary, that is -- DID give Judge Bork its highest "Well Qualified" rating. It just wasn't unanimous. And the dissenters (I forget what the number was, it was something like 5 out of 15) made sure that their objections were leaked to the press. As was typical of the far left in that nomination, and with Thomas, and with RobertsAlitoGorsuchKavanaugh.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
I'm consistent. I'm consistent in opposing extremist leftism, and extremist Trumpism.

Chuck, when you've lost Brett Stephens....


lol. But as you know, Brett Stephens is "back"! No longer lost. As ardent a Kavanaugh supporter as I am!

Michael K said...

If Reagan had not selected him as VP, he never would've been president. He was NOT a good politician.

People forget why Reagan chose him.

Reagan was that dangerous right winger who would start a war with Russia. He needed the wimp factor for the squish members of the party,

One thing about getting old, you remember all this stuff, like the whore's child at the wedding.

Ford was actually not as bad as you say. He had Bill Simon Sr (His son was another squish) who talked turkey about spending and the deficit.

You should read his 1978 book, "A Time for Truth"

Ford had the Watergate Congress of 1974. We are lucky they did not surrender to the USSR,

Michael K said...



Oh I know. I was teasing but he is glad that Trump is there. He knows, and I sometimes doubt you do, that only Trump would stand this strong in such a shit storm.

pchuck1966 said...

This letter from over 900 esteemed law professors and $2.57 will get you a Grande cup of Pike Place Roast at Starbucks.

Trumpit said...

I haven't formed an opinion about the integrity of law professors in general. Shouldn't each person be considered individually? From my experience with them, lawyers are liars and thieves. I would socialize the legal profession just like I'd socialize medicine. @Michael K, you are single-handedly destroying the Althouse Blog by monopolizing the comments' section with your inane comments, and frequent insults. Only a fool would read them anyway.

buwaya said...

"There is a certain kind of figure in the law, and especially law schools, that believes in lawyers as a kind of social clergy. "

That's because they are just that, a sort of social clergy. Most of the law, other than that bit which is all about being a venue for power struggles, is ritualistic. To put it bluntly the legal process is there as a sop to the losers or the likely losers in social competition. Just like the public aspects of religion the law is a social lubricant.

Ken B said...

Kassaar
Nice.

Douglas said...

A friend of mine on the UofC law faculty says it's not easy, even there, to express support for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Doing so invites student protests and catty remarks from colleagues, at best. I can only imagine what it's like at Michigan or Yale or Georgetown or Harvard.

Comanche Voter said...

Robin Abcarian, an idiot who writes for the Los Angeles Times (but that's nothing special--she's just one of many idiots on their staff) said that Kavanaugh's "partisan" outburst at the Senate hearing disqualified him from the Court. I've always thought that, mentally, she was a sandwich shy of a picnic lunch. This simply confirms it. The hearings are just "a job interview" and the burden of proof is on the applicant etc.

Brian McKim and/or Traci Skene said...

Upon realizing that there are at least A THOUSAND law professors in America, I am reminded of (and can suddenly relate to) Kevin McCarthy's character in the final (?) scene of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Michael K said...

Anoter good post on Powerline.

Can we send another bouquet of flowers to Harry Reid for starting the process of ending the filibuster for judicial nominees? Democrats did that for the purpose of packing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (Kavanaugh’s current post) because they knew that a lot of Obama’s executive actions were vulnerable to challenge in that venue. Then, Democrats decided that they had to filibuster—for the first time ever for the Supreme Court—Neil Gorsuch’s nomination, even though he was replacing Scalia and wouldn’t have affected the ideological distribution of the Court at all. There were apparently some cooler heads among Democrats who thought they should not have forced the GOP to nuke the filibuster and kept it in reserve for the next nomination, which turned out to be . . . now. But they couldn’t help themselves, because Resistance! I doubt the Senate Republicans would have had the nerve—or the votes—to abolish the judicial filibuster for Kavanaugh. Once again, Democrats outsmarted themselves.

Is Inga plotting the Dims strategy ? Sounds like it.

Michael K said...

@Michael K, you are single-handedly destroying the Althouse Blog by monopolizing the comments' section with your inane comments,

Thank you. "To be called a dastard by a dastard is to be seen as a righteous man by all others."

Real American said...

I can get the judicial temperament argument if Kavanaugh came off as angry and called it a political hit job when the idiots on the SJC like Krazy Kammy, Dirty Dianne and Spartacus were simply misrepresenting his prior rulings. In that context, he displayed the right judicial temperament.

However, in the context of the last hearing, at the last minute he had been ambushed by accusations of ancient heinous acts with zero evidence of support - conduct that the alleged witnesses actually refuted, and an accuser who was obviously being handled by leftist activists with ties to the Clintons. Her handlers were playing games and only trying to delay matters, which they're still trying to do.

That is on top of the stated intent by Schmuck Schumer to stop him with everything they had (and stuff they didn't have!). The Democrats stated strategy was to delay and obstruct. They employed the campaign of slander of the worst sort to do so. They are despicable and they're still lying about it.

BK displayed the type of righteous indignation that one would expect of someone falsely accused in this political context. I think most people who saw him understand that. He wasn't acting as a judge in this context. He shouldn't be expected to be neutral in a situation where he has no interest. He's the accused here. He sure has hell shouldn't be expected to be "open minded" about the possibility that he's a gang rapist. That's simply ridiculous. These law professors are simply lending their support to the Democrat smear machine and should be ashamed of themselves. They also hurt their own credibility to professors of the law.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
If Reagan had not selected him as VP, he never would've been president. He was NOT a good politician.

People forget why Reagan chose him.

Reagan was that dangerous right winger who would start a war with Russia. He needed the wimp factor for the squish members of the party,



Every step of this is why we would never accept Pence.

Pence would have caved on Kavanuagh. Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, and all of the other deep bench would have caved.

Kasich would have nominated Garland.

This is why we have Trump. No more losers.

walter said...

"I told my mother, and she thought about it a lot and talked to me but convinced herself and me that it would be better not to ruin this man's life."
And Dad?

The Crack Emcee said...

I wrote a blog post about this blog post and almost forgot to post it on this blog post.

I swear.





stan said...

Being a liberal means never having to think. Even for liberal law professors. They don't care about truth. They don't care about fairness, due process, or basic human decency. All they care about is political power.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

**Dred Scott was indeed a "put up job" connived at by Dred Scott and his owner. **

How did it go up to SC?
Just simply appealed? Or What jurisdiction dispute was at issue? Conflicting decisions in free state and slave state?

Narayanan Subramanian said...

***These law professors are simply lending their support to the Democrat smear machine and should be ashamed of themselves. They also hurt their own credibility to professors of the law.***

Title IX? Trigger warning for constitutionalist minded student's

Chuck said...

Michael K that is another great post and link. Fantastic. And I don't know about you, but I agree with the appraisal as to how the Dems have fumbled the last three years of the Supreme Court nominating process.

Someday, Mitch McConnell will get the credit he deserves as the best Republican Senate Majority Leader in a century at least.

Michael K said...

I agree with the appraisal as to how the Dems have fumbled the last three years of the Supreme Court nominating process.

I'm trying to figure out who is doing their strategy. George Mitchell defeated Bush by blocking a capital gains tax cut, hence the 1991 recession which was over by the 1992 election.

Harry Reid brought the "Continuing Resolutions' that kept Democrats from having to vote for spending but I don't think it did them any good.

The Senate was resurrected by Lyndon Johnson, even if I disagree with most of what he did. Since he left, it seems to me to slipped back into irrelevance. Of course, I don't want most of that they would do to be done but, as an institution, it has waned badly.

I suspect that this will be the last public hearing for a nominee.

Michael K said...

McConnell seems to be doing a bit better but he made a huge mistake by blocking Mo Brooks from funding for the Senate seat vacated by Sessions. That's how we got Moore, then Jones.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

****He needed the wimp factor for the squish members of the party,****

Who advised Reagan to accept "Boland " and cheat around it?

Michael K said...

Who advised Reagan to accept "Boland " and cheat around it?

I'm not sure. Steve Hayward probably knows but its been a few years since I read his Reagan bios.

Imagine what he could have accomplished if he did not have a Democrat Congress.

They let him win the Cold War as long as he let them spend.

Nicaragua was the Democrats' Cuba without Eisenhower. Dodd, et all spent more time there than they did in the Senate.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Disgrace to survivors.’ Sara Gonzales’ thread detailing how she went from believing to disbelieving Ford is CRUSHING

"I believed Dr. Ford experienced sexual assault at some point in her life. After reading the letter her lawyers sent to @ChuckGrassley yesterday, I don't believe her anymore. At the beginning of her testimony, she said: "

... more at link.

Ken B said...

“The child isn't the intended audience for this cartoon. We, the adults, are seeing an image of a child and it may move us, because children draw out emotion. They represent innocence and vulnerability. That's why the second interpretation jumped out at me. ” The second interpretation was one entirely inconsistent with the publication, the cartoonist, and frankly the cartoon. It was based on the assumption that BK was at the very least a drunkard. It was in short an excuse of the cartoon, which under other circumstances would have triggered your usual reaction towards the use of children or their images in politics. Normally you would have known that she and her classmates would see this cartoon. Maybe you could be neutral if you noticed this bias in your response, but you deny it.

gahrie said...

I suspect that this will be the last public hearing for a nominee.

One can hope...but if Trump gets another nomination is there anyway the Dems don't freak out and grandstand even worse? Especially if it's RBG's seat.

Marc said...

Cato Renasci, I'd appreciate seeing your list of law faculties not beneath contempt.

The 1000 are now 1700+; went to look because I wanted to see how many of the Catholic law professors had managed to refrain from the bandwagon but, eh, am not searching through a thousand names. The three or four names I expected to be absent are indeed not there, Deo gratias.

I hope someone at the Federalist Society or the White House is making a list of law personalities to most definitely not nominate for anything.

gahrie said...

Someday, Mitch McConnell will get the credit he deserves as the best Republican Senate Majority Leader in a century at least.

Yeah...but that's like getting an award for being the tallest dwarf.

Ni Silver said...

Kavanaugh, when he spoke to the Senate, was not a judge on the bench. He was the man in the dock.

Jim at said...

Once again - after serving how long? as a judge - there wasn't word one about Kavanaugh's 'judicial temperament' until leftist thugs started trashing him and his family.

And don't kid yourself for a second. If he hadn't gotten mad, they would be using that as proof of his guilt.

Fuck them.

Jim at said...

Michael K, you are single-handedly destroying the Althouse Blog by monopolizing the comments' section with your inane comments, and frequent insults. Only a fool would read them anyway. - Trumpit

Now THAT's funny.

weh said...

Have any of these profs ever appeared before an impatient federal judge?

Chuck said...

Jim at said...
Once again - after serving how long? as a judge - there wasn't word one about Kavanaugh's 'judicial temperament' until leftist thugs started trashing him and his family.

And don't kid yourself for a second. If he hadn't gotten mad, they would be using that as proof of his guilt.

Fuck them.


I think it is worse than that, for the Kavanaugh critics. Because we didn't just have 3 hours of Kavanaugh last Thursday; we had 30 hours of Kavanaugh the week before. 30 hours when he was open, brilliant and entirely civil under hard questioning. Hard, but not defamatory, questioning. That, after 30 YEARS of stellar performance as a lawyer in the White House and the Department of Justice.

To get Judge Kavanaugh to the point of anger, it seems, mere legal disagreement and hard argument is not enough. (Like, uh, legal stuff.) No; to get Judge Kavanaugh to the point of anger, you have to degrade him, defame him, insult him. How often does that happen, to a Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, or an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?

N-E-V-E-R.

Otto said...

@ walter- I asked myself the same question Why didn't Ann tell her father, so that he can get that punk. The more we get a glimpse of Ann's life we see a weak family core. Sad but probably true. That was a period where family and Christian values was starting to be overtly undermined by the media, intelligensia and the Frankfurt School.

California Snow said...

Althouse, your former profession is dying.

Michael K said...

That, after 30 YEARS of stellar performance as a lawyer in the White House and the Department of Justice.

There are "demonstrators" in the Senate office building raising hell. I hope they keep it up until November 6.

Mike Sylwester said...

Suppose you are a male law professor.

All the female law professors at your school sign the letter.

Your choice is this:

* If you too sign the letter, then you might get to have sex with some of those female law professors.

* If you do not sign the letter, then you will have no hope that you ever will have sex with any of them.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

You know what’s the best thing that came out of this whole fiasco? Drago cannot hound Chuck anymore and get people here to join in. Interesting how this incident made people see Chuck in a new light, because he is pro Kavanaugh. You people now will have to either explain why Chuck is great now, but won’t be the minute he bashes Trump again...if he does.

Drago most affected. Let’s hear Drago call Chuck “LLR Chuck” again, just for old time sake!

LOL!

Brad said...

Ann,

They're just against Kavanaugh. The reasons are irrelevant - but you know that.

They object to his conduct during the hearing because it was effective, and they know it.

They prefer the genteel nominees who sit there and "take it."

JaimeRoberto said...

Nobody expects a judicious inquiry.

Unknown said...

I just can not WAIT until trump nominates the replacement for Ginsburg. It is going to be delicious.

Darrell said...

Achilles said...
Pence would have caved on Kavanuagh. Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, and all of the other deep bench would have caved.

Kasich would have nominated Garland.

This is why we have Trump. No more losers.


This. X1000

Michael K said...

* If you too sign the letter, then you might get to have sex with some of those female law professors

I see that you need a refresher course on The Hot Crazy Matrix.

Female law professors are on the crazy matrix at about 7.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
"That, after 30 YEARS of stellar performance as a lawyer in the White House and the Department of Justice."

There are "demonstrators" in the Senate office building raising hell. I hope they keep it up until November 6.


I like to be accurate on this subject, and I just caught myself in a minor error. Judge Kavanaugh has been a lawyer for more than 30 years, but the totally correct summary of the 30+ years would have been, "...as Supreme Court law clerk, Independent Counsel associate and Supreme Court advocate, Kirkland & Ellis partner, and White House counsel... and then, 12 years as a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit."

Michael K said...

He was also held up for two years in the DC Circuit nomination because Hillary wanted revenge for the Starr Report,

Rick said...

Jim at said...
[Michael K, you are single-handedly destroying the Althouse Blog by monopolizing the comments' section with your inane comments, and frequent insults. Only a fool would read them anyway. - Trumpit]

Now THAT's funny.


I see your point, but I think the funniest element is someone who makes no contribution and is only interested in ruining the blog complaining that someone else is (in his opinion) better at ruining the blog.

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
Achilles said...
Pence would have caved on Kavanuagh. Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, and all of the other deep bench would have caved.

Kasich would have nominated Garland.

This is why we have Trump. No more losers.

This. X1000



President Bush 41 stood by Clarence Thomas when all of that pressure was on.

The champion and the genius of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh isn't Trump. It's Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society.

You Trumpkins love to bash Lindsey Graham; he's been a solid rock in the Kavanaugh fight. You love to bash Susan Collins and Jeff Flake; I expect that they are going to vote for Kavanaugh.

I'll stick with facts and real history. I have no use for your trashtalk. We may both be celebrating Kavanaugh's confirmation. But we won't be celebrating together.

I think that if Trump felt that he was losing support based on the Kavanaugh nomination, Trump would have been the FIRST to jettison his nominee. Trump doesn't care about the federal judiciary half as much as the Republicans you named. Trump would sacrifice anybody for his own popularity. There is no ideology.

Michael K said...

I expect that they are going to vote for Kavanaugh.<

Not Flake. He has, I think, said he won't. He is job seeking since Arizona can't stand him.

I think that if Trump felt that he was losing support based on the Kavanaugh nomination, Trump would have been the FIRST to jettison his nominee.

Now, you are back to the Chuck that we know and love. Read that Stephens column again.

Michael K said...

I hare to disappoint crazy trumpit but de Gaulle is calling and I have sprinklers to fix.

readering said...

Just got around to reading this letter and the signatures, up to over 2,400. My guess is that 98% of them believe he did commit sexual assault, but they don't think they will convince 51 Senators with a letter, so they go with the tack they are taking (and of course a small group made that decision and then the rest joined on).

A lot of professors are involved as amici in the US Supreme Court. I am guessing those tended not to sign on for fear of provoking his demonstrated temper and obsession with revenge as a motive for things.

Ralph L said...

Female law professors are on the crazy matrix at about 7.

The blonde ones are 8, 9 if a second marriage.

Chuck said...

Dr. Michael K I loved that Brett Stephens column, and again I thank you for posting it.

Heightened Awareness said...

Thank you for this post. I'm surprised that my reaction to seeing the large number of terrific and brilliant law professors on that petition was one of extreme sadness.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...

Althouse wrote (long ago) -

"I can't imagine signing a letter without being very careful about whether I wanted all of the statements attributed to me."

That's just you, and to your credit. For most, if not nearly all of the signers, this is just box-checking. It's a low/no cost avenue to virtue signalling. Just one example, but can you point to a single negative consequence that accrued to any of the 80? Duke academics who signed the letter condemning the lacrosse team?

Since you know many of the signers in this present case, don't pose the issue to us, ask them! Their responses to you would be a more revealing, and interesting, blog post than this one.

CWJ said...

Heightened Awareness,

From your comment I trust you're onside with my suggestion to Althouse.

readering said...

From news report, Stevens agrees with the professors:

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said that high court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court.

Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Boca Raton, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested that he lacks the temperament for the job.

Stevens, a lifelong Republican who is known for falling on the liberal side of several judicial rulings, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

“At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said. “I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

CWJ said...

"I am guessing those tended not to sign on for fear of provoking [Kavanaugh's] demonstrated temper and obsession with revenge as a motive for things."

Readering, you're funny.

Jim at said...

Now we're dragging Stevens out of his box to talk about temperament?

Just vote already.

Yancey Ward said...

Eventually, readering will be linking to Scalia saying he agrees with the letter.

Michael K said...

readering, Stevens has been a reliable leftist for years,

Even so, he was an improvement on Douglas who he replaced.

Rick said...

It's interesting no one on the left thinks Senators who connived to prevent Ford from testifying at the original hearing lack the temperament to be Senators. Why it's almost like they invent standards for the right as they go while supporting none for the left.

tcrosse said...

Which state does Stevens represent in the U.S. Senate?

readering said...

Michael K, you mean there's hope for Kavanaugh?

Rick: I think it was just Feinstein, who will not get my vote next month.

readering said...

CWJ: Aw, shucks

Yancey Ward said...

I'll see your Stevens with everyone's favorite justice- Kennedy.

CWJ said...

You're welcome.

CWJ said...

Ni Silver -

"Kavanaugh, when he spoke to the Senate, was not a judge on the bench. He was the man in the dock."

Nailed it. In the regular hearings, he was a respondent. On September 27, he was a defendant. That it happened in the same room with the same cast was the only thing the two events had in common. Absolutely no reason to expect Kavanaugh to present the same demeanor. But they know that. It just doesn't make any difference.

Beldar said...

If the confirmation vote fails, Trump should renominate him again. In the next hearing, specifically on the subject of Judge Kavanaugh's judicial temperament, I propose that the Judiciary Committee call to testify in public (enforcing their call with a subpoena if need be) to the person who's had the best first-hand opportunity to observe Kavanaugh's judicial temperament:

The Hon. Merrick Garland, now Chief Judge and the most senior active-status Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Because Kavanaugh is second in seniority, and right next to Garland, therefore, at every en banc sitting, and on every three-judge panel on which both are (metaphorically) sitting, they literally sit next to each other on the bench. Garland likewise has participated with Kavanaugh in hundreds and hundreds of conferences, interchanges and comments upon written opinions, decisions on emergency motions, administrative meetings, etc. — every aspect of a circuit judge's duties — continuously since Kavanaugh's confirmation in 2006. No one has been in a better position to observe relevant facts, nor is anyone better qualified to opine on what judicial demeanor Kavanaugh's displayed, than Merrick Garland.

I believe Garland would be truthful in his factual testimony, and generous in his expert opinions; and I believe that both would therefore redound to Judge Kavanaugh's great benefit.

In particular, I believe Garland would readily confirm under oath that before these hearings, he's never seen or heard the hint of a whiff of an impression of a fragrance of any kind of sexual or alcohol-related misconduct, nor any example of injudicious speech or behavior, on Kavanaugh's part.

And I want to watch the Senate Dems try to impeach Chief Judge Garland on those opinions during their cross-examination.

*****

Before Justice Kennedy's retirement to senior status became effective on July 31, 2018, Chief Judge Garland and Judge Kavanaugh, as the two most senior active-status judges on the D.C. Circuit -- and the accompanying power to assign opinions that comes with that -- were, respectively, the tenth and eleventh most powerful judges in the United States. They're each often the most senior judge in the majority, or else the most senior judge in the minority, whenever there is a split on the en banc court, so they each get to assign a lot of opinions (to themselves or whomever they choose).

As of the day Kennedy stepped down, however, both moved up, temporarily, one step on the ladder — even though there remains a vast chasm between them and the eighth most powerful judge in the United States, the Hon. Associate Justice Elena Kagan.

That temporary ninth-place status is the highest that Chief Judge Garland will ever likely achieve. (Really, he never had a shot at SCOTUS confirmation anyway; and if Obama had thought otherwise, he'd have picked someone much younger than Garland, now 65, compared to Kavanaugh's 53; Kavanagh was a very young Circuit Judge appointee!) And whoever is appointed to Justice Kennedy's seat will again demote Chief Judge Garland to 10th again.

But if Kavanaugh is indeed confirmed, he'll leapfrog Garland and land in-between him and Kagan.

This is an awfully big fight, then, over whether during the next few years Kavanaugh will be the eleventh or the ninth most powerful judge in the country.

Michael K said...

readering said...
Michael K, you mean there's hope for Kavanaugh?


Hope he will confirmed? Yes.

Hope he will "grow in office" like Kennedy?

I thought that was possible until DiFi fired her torpedo which is now circling.

I've already posted his first discussion with Thomas.

Rick said...

I think it was just Feinstein,

Sure. She did it all herself. Meanwhile Whitehouse, Hirono, Leahy, Booker, Harris and Gillibrand were souls of decorum. Speaking of Hirono shouldn't you just shut up?

who will not get my vote next month.

Of course not, there's an even crazier option available.

CWJ said...

Lyssa wrote (a long time ago) -

"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."

Some Althouse commenters have the wonderful ability to send the thread 90 degrees off center and still remain on topic. I loved this.

readering said...

Rick, if you are passing on instructions from the great Sen. Hirono, then I will.

CWJ said...

From the original post -

"I see over 1,000 names on this anti-Kavanaugh letter, many of them names of people I know."

Know or simply recognize? I suspect some of each. So if you do know many of them, why ask hypotheticals, and have your commentariat post their prejudices? You are in a priveledged position of actually knowing many of these people. Ask them, not us! That would be enlightening.

Trumpit said...

"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."

The FBI needs to investigate YOU, @Michael K. I suspected the K stands for Kavanaugh. Consider yourself lucky I wan't on the jury. I would have found you guilty for being alive while your victims aren't.

President Pee-Pee Tape said...

Oh no.

I would say it's a Dr. Butthurt Michael K. Kennedy thread, but that implies that he actually contributed something.

All he does is poison the threads with his nursemaid ways.

Mike said...

Asaaaaand the thread is done.

Michael K said...

Consider yourself lucky I wan't on the jury

I don't; think they allow psychotics on the jury

You and Ritmo can be your own jury.

Six String Aficionado said...

Anything that falls outside the ideological views of a Progressive must be heavily piled on with demonizations until their opposition crumbles under the massive weight. What they fail to see is that their own demonization tactics are also a boat anchor dragging Progressives into the abyss of complete moral bankruptcy.

Progressives are souls lost within the absurdity of their own illogical bubble that’s being sucked into a black hole of evil, and the evil they face is themself.

There are way too many people out there suffering from Schizophrenia-AT.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Schizophrenia-AT&defid=13016153

Six String Aficionado said...

Mike said... "Asaaaaand the thread is done."

Not completely.

Joe said...

The notion of a "judicial temperament" is a fiction, especially on an appellate court.

Granted, during civil or criminal trial proceedings, a judge should be even handed in the jury's presence. Outside that, who wants a judge who is a robot? If a lawyer, for example, misbehaves in court, I expect the judge to dress him or her down (outside presence of the jury.)

Ironically, Justice Thomas says little during hearings and is criticized for it! So these idiot professors need to make up their wee little minds.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Progressives are souls lost within the absurdity of their own illogical bubble that’s being sucked into a black hole of evil, and the evil they face is themself.

What utter nonsense.

Gotta shake one’s head...

Ken B said...

If BK loses it's because of that editorial today where he says he might have been “too emotional”. This gives people l8ke Flake the excuse they need to peddle the temperament bullshit. In American politics the worst error is to apologize. You can almost never recover from an apology.

President Pee-Pee Tape said...

Mike said... "Asaaaaand the thread is done."

Not completely.


Yes, completely.

Conservatards are poor losers and easy quitters.

That's why they outsource their ideals and activism to corporations.

President Pee-Pee Tape said...

“Progressives are souls lost within the absurdity of their own illogical bubble that’s being sucked into a black hole of evil, and the evil they face is themself.

Haha. Yep, conservatives are really rational. That's hilarious.

Everyone knows that rational, logical people revert to talk of black holes of evil in the same breath.

Unknown said...

"respects scholars?" Really?

Six String Aficionado said...

President Pee-Pee Tape wrote, "Conservatards are poor losers and easy quitters.

That's why they outsource their ideals and activism to corporations."


Parroting a bunch of worn out BS propaganda, that's all you've got? Seriously?

Do you troll as a profession or just as a hobby?

Six String Aficionado said...

I wrote, "Anything that falls outside the ideological views of a Progressive must be heavily piled on with demonizations until their opposition crumbles under the massive weight. What they fail to see is that their own demonization tactics are also a boat anchor dragging Progressives into the abyss of complete moral bankruptcy.

Progressives are souls lost within the absurdity of their own illogical bubble that’s being sucked into a black hole of evil, and the evil they face is themself."


Here's a couple typical Progressive sounding retorts*...

Inga...Allie Oop wrote, "What utter nonsense. Gotta shake one’s head..."

Not a word about why it's "utter nonsense" or why one's gotta "shake one's head"; I bet Inga can't tell me why these things I wrote are nonsense? I think I know why she's shaking her head, she doesn't understand what I wrote. Wake up Inga, this circus that the political left and social justice warriors fabricated from thin air around the Kavanaugh nomination is a perfect example of what I wrote.

And then there's this nice little "intellectual" retort*...

President Pee-Pee Tape wrote, "Haha. Yep, conservatives are really rational. That's hilarious. Everyone knows that rational, logical people revert to talk of black holes of evil in the same breath."

1. That's a strawman fallacy, I didn't say anything about Conservatives.

2. That's an intentional deflection from what I wrote.

3. That's an ad hominem.

4. That's typical Progressive attack the messenger BS.

5. That's trolling.

Conclusion: I get why Progressives don't like what I wrote, sometimes the truth hurts, but why not actually refute* what I wrote instead of parroting your pointless attacks? If you can't intelligently refute what was written, then keep your blithering idiotic "mouths" shut to at least try and preserve the faux intellectual facade that the political left has been projecting for years. Personally I think it's about time that our loud-mouthed Progressives and social justice warrior friends dabbling in modern politics relearn how to effectively use their brains in an intelligent manner so they don't come off as being Hollow Shell Airheads to their opposition.

*Retort: say something in answer to a remark or accusation, typically in a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive manner.

*Refute: prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

Hollow Shell Airheads: The metaphor describing the empty vessel of a stupid person. Derived from the following definitions; Hollow: An empty space inside of something. Shell: In impersonal attitude or manner which conceals the presence or absence of something contained within. Airhead: A mindless or stupid person.

MikeR said...

How many of these thousand lawprofs are conservative? Is there one?

Six String Aficionado said...

MikeR wrote, "How many of these thousand lawprofs are conservative? Is there one?"

It's actually irrelevant. These kinds of things cross political lines in similar ways as anti-Trump'ers cross the political lines.

Six String Aficionado said...

P.S. MikeR, I've heard from lawyers that lawyers are predominantly left leaning in a very big way.

Unknown said...

Geez. Amazing how many ignorant Americans there are. Most Americans are clueless about what the Supreme Court really does and what these Justices, appointed for life, can do in terms of impacting the very direction of this country for generations. This is not a job interview for a regular employment position. This is to be a Judge on the Highest Court in the United States...the greatest and most significant court in the world! If this guy had any integrity (mind you, he was only a judge for just 12 years and his entire career was political), he would have WITHDRAWN and said "I am withdrawing as it is in the interest of the United States." He was petty and selfish. Every day in America people walk into court accused of horrible things! The opposing Counsel say horrible things about them! But even alleged murderers are not expected to act with such disrespect in court! This man is a disgrace. As an aside, I graduated from high school the same year he did. I KNOW THE TERMS HE USED IN HIS YEARBOOK and he is FLAT OUT LYING about what they meant! Just like his friends, including his roommate in college, stated he was flat out lying when he testified.

Amazing! We have a man on the Supreme Court with minimal court experience, a temperament not suited for traffic court, and a man who should be in jail for perjury. I hope they prosecute him for perjury. Him as a Justice tells every American it is ok to lie under oath. This is a National Disgrace and perhaps the beginning of the end of the once great America.

Unknown said...

Geez. Amazing how many ignorant Americans there are. Most Americans are clueless about what the Supreme Court really does and what these Justices, appointed for life, can do in terms of impacting the very direction of this country for generations. This is not a job interview for a regular employment position. This is to be a Judge on the Highest Court in the United States...the greatest and most significant court in the world! If this guy had any integrity (mind you, he was only a judge for just 12 years and his entire career was political), he would have WITHDRAWN and said "I am withdrawing as it is in the interest of the United States." He was petty and selfish. Every day in America people walk into court accused of horrible things! The opposing Counsel say horrible things about them! But even alleged murderers are not expected to act with such disrespect in court! This man is a disgrace. As an aside, I graduated from high school the same year he did. I KNOW THE TERMS HE USED IN HIS YEARBOOK and he is FLAT OUT LYING about what they meant! Just like his friends, including his roommate in college, stated he was flat out lying when he testified.

Amazing! We have a man on the Supreme Court with minimal court experience, a temperament not suited for traffic court, and a man who should be in jail for perjury. I hope they prosecute him for perjury. Him as a Justice tells every American it is ok to lie under oath. This is a National Disgrace and perhaps the beginning of the end of the once great America.

Six String Aficionado said...

Unknown above is the perfect example of a brainwashed leftist that swallows absolutely any leftist propaganda presented, a Partisan parrot.

chickenlittle said...

Unknown wrote: “Amazing! We have a man on the Supreme Court with minimal court experience, a temperament not suited for traffic court, and a man who should be in jail for perjury.”

I can tell that you’re not serious. Please try again.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 342 of 342   Newer› Newest»