1,700 Law Professors (and still counting) request Senate to not confirm Kavanaugh...
Oct 4, 2018 14:54:44 #
Twardlow
Loc: Arkansas
Opinion
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,700+ Law Professors (and Counting)
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. 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. 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. 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.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.
You
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,700+ Law Professors (and Counting)
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. 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. 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. 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.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.
You
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Oct 4, 2018 16:10:22 #
I posted this twice this morning.
The Trump supporters weren't impressed.
The Trump supporters weren't impressed.
Oct 4, 2018 16:43:05 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
Kmgw9v wrote:
I posted this twice this morning.
The Trump supporters weren't impressed.
The Trump supporters weren't impressed.
I'm guessing that since Trump, Psychologists have been re thinking lots of things, but I really don't know.
Oct 4, 2018 17:03:01 #
It sounds like the GOP have pressed the button for the self destruction sequence 
Oct 4, 2018 17:08:49 #
Twardlow wrote:
Opinion br br b The Senate Should Not Confirm Ka... (show quote)
For the life of me, what is so hard, for so many, to understand about this statement ...
..."We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.
You
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:"
Oct 5, 2018 08:20:51 #
Oct 5, 2018 08:31:27 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
Where are the signatures?
The document was not physically distributed for signature. All names attached are fully supportive of the content and full explicit meaning of the four corners of the letter.
Employ a serious argument, or refrain.
Oct 5, 2018 08:41:58 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
Ahhh yes... I am betting we could find any number of people who deplore the injustice demonstrated by the prevalent socialist & radical leftists in the democratic party to sign a likewise and equally "credentialed" scrap of toilet paper.
Note the attached screen capture of a bulk email sent by "Women's March" within minutes of the nominee being named.... illustrates what this opposition was really all about... didn't matter who Trump nominated, they would have found something- real or not, to assassinate whoever it was. They don't care who they harm... nobody who pretends this isn't ALL politics is a liar or stupid- probably both.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/10/womens-march-gaffe-kavanaugh-statement-derided-and-mocked/773650002/
Note that later, they miss-spelled Kavanaugh's name with a "C" -
Note the attached screen capture of a bulk email sent by "Women's March" within minutes of the nominee being named.... illustrates what this opposition was really all about... didn't matter who Trump nominated, they would have found something- real or not, to assassinate whoever it was. They don't care who they harm... nobody who pretends this isn't ALL politics is a liar or stupid- probably both.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/10/womens-march-gaffe-kavanaugh-statement-derided-and-mocked/773650002/
Note that later, they miss-spelled Kavanaugh's name with a "C" -
Oct 5, 2018 08:47:24 #
RichieC wrote:
Ahhh yes... I am betting we could find any number ... (show quote)
The letter was real, endorsed by real law professors with real, verifiable educational credentials and positions.
It is your right and certainly fine not to agree with the professors, not to agree with the content of the letter, and try to discredit it; but your comparison is not valid.
Against, serious argument or refrain
Oct 5, 2018 08:59:16 #
So, we are to believe this just because it is written on a piece of paper with no back up supporting evidence? How about if Kavanaugh's supporters did the same with his supporters listed on a piece of paper with no supporting evidence, would you believe them?
Kmgw9v wrote:
The document was not physically distributed for signature. All names attached are fully supportive of the content and full explicit meaning of the four corners of the letter.
Employ a serious argument, or refrain.
Employ a serious argument, or refrain.
Oct 5, 2018 09:29:40 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
So, we are to believe this just because it is written on a piece of paper with no back up supporting evidence? How about if Kavanaugh's supporters did the same with his supporters listed on a piece of paper with no supporting evidence, would you believe them?
At the risk of sounding condescending, let me explain.
We read different ideas, thoughts, opinions, position statements, editorials, evidence, musings, to help formulate our own opinions about things. Sometimes we are so struck with the clarity of a piece it alone might influence our opinion; but no one with a degree of intellectual integrity believes something only "because it us written on a piece of paper"--or even posted by an misguided idiot in an Internet forum.
So, the answer to your question in a word is "No".
Oct 5, 2018 09:35:01 #
Thank you, you've just confirmed what I have long suspected.... That you toe the party line regardless of any alternative narrative.
Kmgw9v wrote:
At the risk of sounding condescending, let me expl... (show quote)
Oct 5, 2018 09:39:43 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
Thank you, you've just confirmed what I have long suspected.... That you toe the party line regardless of any alternative narrative.
?????
Oct 8, 2018 15:45:57 #
Twardlow wrote:
Opinion br br b The Senate Should Not Confirm Ka... (show quote)
With a bit of logic - law professors do not have any influence on who is seated in the Supreme Court - senate has full control over who does get seated. So if law professors don't have any legal influence why was this posted. Nothing but smoke and mirrors with no logic to it. I guess it has a name - bullshit!
Oct 8, 2018 15:51:25 #
Kraken wrote:
It sounds like the GOP have pressed the button for the self destruction sequence
Self-destruct? With Kav in, the SC is tilted in right wing (GOP) ideology. Wait till Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 80 dies or retires soon. Crying now - the wall of tears will flow from the left then!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.