And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.
But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.
It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.
The real problem is neither side is interested in facts and reality. But the republicans in this case are the ones who control whether we get to the facts and reality, so this is on them. There is NO reason a vote needs to happen so soon. There is no reason not to investigate longer and take their time. Other than political reasons if course.
I suppose Feinstein deserves some of the blame here keeping it so long. But that doesn’t matter. We still have a chance for the right thing to be done.
Let's unbalance the checks and balances as much as we can.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.
And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.
Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.
I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.
Lol, why waste the bullet on a Kiss album? Just throw it in the trash
Bullets are cheaper than the caloric expenditure necessary to throw a Kiss album in the trash (gotta keep those guns firing I reckon!).
The caloric expenditure would obviously be more to shoot it and then throw the pieces away individually...unless you just leave them laying on the ground...which would be fine as well since it is a KISS album.
Anything after Love Gun can be thrown on the ground and I wouldn't lose any sleep. I really like earlier Kiss.
I bet Kav is a KISS fan...just saying, lol. I really have no qualms with KISS and like some of their songs as well, but I do find their theatricals a bit over the top for my liking.
Wow.
You had to hit below the belt, eh? I'm going to work now, but rest assured I'll be thinking of a wicked insult for you. It's going to be extra special.
And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.
But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.
It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.
As an example, the way the news reports:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
The way an objective report should be:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited. Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
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.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
One word: Professors.
Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.
Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!
Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!
Since you're so smart, where did I say that? Too funny.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
That's all fine and dandy, but put aside this whole claim of assault and examine the lies told by BK about everything else he did back in the day. Poking holes in her account of the sexual assault doesn't change any of that stupid shit he lied about, but if he was honest about those things it paints a completely different picture of who he was at that time and gives her story that much more validity, which he knows. He's an arrogant jackass. I can only imagine that people who still want him confirmed are only doing so because they agree with his viewpoints that may push the court to overturn certain cases. I don't care what beliefs he or any other justice have, but if they have no integrity and can't be trusted to fairly hear cases, they don't belong on the bench, period.
And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.
But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.
It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.
As an example, the way the news reports:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
The way an objective report should be:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited. Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.
How could they even decide "the FBI get a week FROM NOW!!" instead of "We will have the FBI come back with an idea of the time they need to cover this"
Why didn't journalists ask about that?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
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.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
One word: Professors.
Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.
Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!
Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!
Since you're so smart, where did I say that? Too funny.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.
And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.
But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.
It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.
As an example, the way the news reports:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
The way an objective report should be:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited. Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.
How could they even decide "the FBI get a week FROM NOW!!" instead of "We will have the FBI come back with an idea of the time they need to cover this"
Why didn't journalists ask about that?
That's a great point. Who here would like an outside party to determine how long a law enforcement agency should investigate your loved one being assaulted? Then consider the outside party has a vested interest in making sure there is a limited timeframe so they can vote one of the suspects in to a position of authority. Yeah, that makes sense.
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
She may or may not be lying, but she isn't up for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh may or may not be lying about whether he tried to assault her, but he perjured himself in his defense last week, almost certainly multiple times over. You can argue about the meaning of Devil's Triangle, and Boof, but you can't argue about him having no prior connections to Yale before applying. His grandfather went there, which makes Kavanaugh Legacy... this is indisputable.
Regardless of how you feel about the accusations, as a federal judge he should be impeached for lying under oath. Not only is this NOT happening, the GOP is still almost certainly going to give him a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
It can't be stressed enough, the GOP is going to put a man on the Supreme Court who just perjured himself last week because it suits their agenda.
Are democrats underhanded themselves? They sure are, but that doesn't justify what the GOP is doing right now.
To say this shit has gone of the rails would be an understatement.
And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.
But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.
It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.
As an example, the way the news reports:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
The way an objective report should be:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited. Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.
How could they even decide "the FBI get a week FROM NOW!!" instead of "We will have the FBI come back with an idea of the time they need to cover this"
Why didn't journalists ask about that?
No idea. Good questions. What does that have to do with my point about how the news frames their non-opinion reports? Do you think in my example the former is better than the latter in reporting facts?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Here’s a list of people the FBI did NOT interview. Okay with this, Flake and Collins?
A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s has now told the New Yorker he remembers hearing at the time about the incident Deborah Ramirez has recounted. Ramirez, who has been interviewed, had claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a dorm party at Yale. The suitemate, Kenneth G. Appold, now says he is “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told the culprit was Kavanaugh. He does say he never discussed this with Ramirez, but he claims an eyewitness described the episode to him at the time. Appold has tried to share this story with the FBI, but there’s no indication the FBI is willing to hear from him.
A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep now strongly challenges one of Kavanaugh’s assertions under oath. The person told the New Yorker that he heard Kavanaugh talk repeatedly about Renate Dolphin as someone “that everyone passed around for sex” (the witness’ words), and even heard Kavanaugh singing a rhyme that included the words “you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE-NATE.” Kavanaugh (and many others) described themselves in their yearbook as a “Renate Alumnius,” but Kavanaugh has denied under oath that this was a sexual reference, claiming, ludicrously, that it was intended to show “affection.”
This classmate is not named by the New Yorker. But he put his name on a statement to the FBI and Judiciary Committee that makes this claim, and he is prepared to talk to the FBI. There is no indication this happened.
James Roche, one of Kavanaugh’s roommates at Yale, has written a piece for Slate that claims Kavanaugh lied under oath about his use of slang and his drinking. Roche claims that Kavanaugh “regularly” blacked out. Roche has offered to talk to the FBI, but there’s no indication this happened.
Roche also pointedly added of Kavanaugh: “He said that ‘boofing’ was farting and the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ was a drinking game. ‘Boofing’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.” Roche concluded that Kavanaugh “has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.”
NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people who could potentially corroborate the allegations against Kavanaugh or testify to his behavior at the time. This includes many people who knew either Ford or Ramirez at the time, and people who actually approached the FBI offering information.
The Post reports that Ramirez’s lawyers provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, but “as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.”
Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have been interviewed by the FBI. As the Brookings Institution’s Susan Hennessey points out: “It is inconceivable they could close a real investigation without re-interviewing Kavanaugh.”
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
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.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
One word: Professors.
Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.
Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!
Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!
Since you're so smart, where did I say that? Too funny.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I like these types of response. So, am I dog and my house is on fire? On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!! Can the libs do that?
And who cares what the UN does? Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
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.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
One word: Professors.
Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.
Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!
Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!
Since you're so smart, where did I say that? Too funny.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I like these types of response. So, am I dog and my house is on fire? On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!! Can the libs do that?
And who cares what the UN does? Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?
Honestly, the first part of your response made me chuckle.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
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.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
One word: Professors.
Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.
Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!
Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!
Since you're so smart, where did I say that? Too funny.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I like these types of response. So, am I dog and my house is on fire? On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!! Can the libs do that?
And who cares what the UN does? Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?
Look at it for a little bit longer, I'm sure in time you can get it. People may think I'm wasting my time thinking a Trump supporter could figure it out, but I'm a glass half full kinda guy.
‘one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water’ - The guy you voted for
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018
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.
Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.
One word: Professors.
Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.
Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!
Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!
Since you're so smart, where did I say that? Too funny.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I like these types of response. So, am I dog and my house is on fire? On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!! Can the libs do that?
And who cares what the UN does? Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?
The organization was established on after World War II with the aim of preventing another such conflict?
That UN?
You're right, the analogy isn't accurate. If you were this dog, you're more likely to be in the corner licking your balls while the house burns down around you.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Yeah what was it a week ago when tRump said that the FBI didn't want to mess with this? What a fucking piece of shit.
No matter. FBI is not a trial. They don't prosecute or even make a recommendation. The report will read "he said, she said". Congress with proceed with approval stating "the FBI has not determined Mr Kavanaugh to be guilty of any crimes (because that's not they're fucking job here)".
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
https://apple.news/A_ytSzh3AQtqsHKLf-jK6BA Yep they will confirm him tomorrow and this sends a clear sign to all women this president & senate don’t care at all if you get violated or sexually assaulted they just gave you a big middle finger to swallow with your lunch !
I don’t think it was in the best interest of Feinstein’s strategy to get this allegation as drawn out as long as it has. A quick dismissal in the court of public opinion would have been the best outcome. And it kind of looked like that was going to happen.
I dont see any republicans flipping. It may be interesting to see how some democrats in traditional GOP strongholds now end up voting. The longer that emotion is removed from the equation hurts the chance of Kavanaugh not getting confirmed.
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I don't understand how repubs wouldn't flip based on Kavanaugh lying....he fucking lit up that hearing
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”?
Credibility is what they are saying. If she was afraid of flying then why was she.
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”?
Credibility is what they are saying. If she was afraid of flying then why was she.
How's Kavanaugh's credibility after lying last week? Shouldn't perjury immediately disqualify him from the Supreme court?
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”?
Credibility is what they are saying. If she was afraid of flying then why was she.
How's Kavanaugh's credibility after lying last week? Shouldn't perjury immediately disqualify him from the Supreme court?
Are you asking me or asking what the republicans think?
Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.
No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.
I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?
I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.
How is she not? Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.
Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”?
Credibility is what they are saying. If she was afraid of flying then why was she.
Honestly, people are complaining about that, and you are accepting of that argument? Because that a pretty crappy thing to do to someone.
Almost half of people are afraid of flying to one degree or another, and yet most people do fly, if they have to. Most people muscle through it, with Ativan or alcohol or just willpower.
I had a bad bike accident on an icy road more than 20 years ago, I am still terrified of cycling on the ice, but I do. I cycle year round and when it’s icy, or I even think it’s icy, I am anxious my whole ride. I hyperventilate as I ride over bridges and arrive at work all tense, but I still do it. It hasn’t gotten any better, either.
So, am I lying about being afraid of cycling on icy roads?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
Gamble vs. United States.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-gamble-court-case/
Let's unbalance the checks and balances as much as we can.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
The way an objective report should be:
Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.
Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited. Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.
The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else. Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.
Why didn't journalists ask about that?
You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.
She may or may not be lying, but she isn't up for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh may or may not be lying about whether he tried to assault her, but he perjured himself in his defense last week, almost certainly multiple times over. You can argue about the meaning of Devil's Triangle, and Boof, but you can't argue about him having no prior connections to Yale before applying. His grandfather went there, which makes Kavanaugh Legacy... this is indisputable.
Regardless of how you feel about the accusations, as a federal judge he should be impeached for lying under oath. Not only is this NOT happening, the GOP is still almost certainly going to give him a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
It can't be stressed enough, the GOP is going to put a man on the Supreme Court who just perjured himself last week because it suits their agenda.
Are democrats underhanded themselves? They sure are, but that doesn't justify what the GOP is doing right now.
To say this shit has gone of the rails would be an understatement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/04/heres-a-list-of-people-the-fbi-did-not-interview-okay-with-this-flake-and-collins/?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.55a63a8370a8
And who cares what the UN does? Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?
‘one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water’ - The guy you voted for
The organization was established on after World War II with the aim of preventing another such conflict?
That UN?
You're right, the analogy isn't accurate. If you were this dog, you're more likely to be in the corner licking your balls while the house burns down around you.
Yep they will confirm him tomorrow and this sends a clear sign to all women this president & senate don’t care at all if you get violated or sexually assaulted they just gave you a big middle finger to swallow with your lunch !
I dont see any republicans flipping. It may be interesting to see how some democrats in traditional GOP strongholds now end up voting. The longer that emotion is removed from the equation hurts the chance of Kavanaugh not getting confirmed.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
How's Kavanaugh's credibility after lying last week? Shouldn't perjury immediately disqualify him from the Supreme court?
Almost half of people are afraid of flying to one degree or another, and yet most people do fly, if they have to. Most people muscle through it, with Ativan or alcohol or just willpower.
I had a bad bike accident on an icy road more than 20 years ago, I am still terrified of cycling on the ice, but I do. I cycle year round and when it’s icy, or I even think it’s icy, I am anxious my whole ride. I hyperventilate as I ride over bridges and arrive at work all tense, but I still do it. It hasn’t gotten any better, either.
So, am I lying about being afraid of cycling on icy roads?