Judging the Mitchell Report

[Idolater]

You have assigned Kavanaugh's behavior to righteous indignation, but the very definition of the word is to be found in the teachings of Scripture. Our Lord's driving the money-lenders out of the temple was righteous indignation. Was he sinning? No, for the very phrase righteous indignation assumes a purity of life including rectitude (conformity to a right standard) and a righteous act or quality (holiness). Righteous indignation is the only form of anger than Scripture permits. All other forms are sin, sin, sin.

By the Biblical standard, there was very little in Kavanaugh's eruptive behavior that anyone should label as righteous indignation. In the information age, where any thought that pops into someone's noggin is committed to online words, things like reticence and trepidation, have been replaced by certainty and daring. Accordingly, the phrase, righteous indignation nowadays appears to mean unbridled anger at any slight, real or imagined. Sigh.

There's but a letter difference between anger and danger. Kavanaugh demonstrated it to be so.

It being one of the seven 'deadlies;' along with Sloth, Lust, Avarice, Envy, Pride, and Gluttony. Or now they're called 'capital sins.' These seven are part of an ancient catechetical tradition of the Church's teachings on morality.

If Judge Kavanaugh is a victim here, then his anger is understandable and even expected, if not excused outright, in my view. Furthermore, I don't think that it has any bearing on his ability to serve us well in the Supreme Court, given the nature of that job.

And if he is not a victim, then he is a wretch.

 

[Town Heretic]

All you said does not change the fact that Dr. Ford was the one who provided the 'alleged' whatever happened to her and her witnesses, and all her witnesses did not corroborate her claims, even her long life friend.

She provided names of people she recalled being there. They weren't given in order for them to support her claim, but only as a recollection. It would be odd to expect the two men in the room to agree with her account and there was no reason for the other two she remembered to recall a party decades gone, among who knows how many others, where they would have been unaware of the unfortunate incident that would have made it memorable.

That said and like you, I'd be furious with my "allies" were I Dr. Ford.

... if he is a victim, it is either due to mistaken identity made in good faith, or it is due to deliberate dishonesty; and either way, there is no reason to disqualify him for the job over this.

That we differ over. His own litmus for a judge was the thing he violated repeatedly and deliberately. His prepared remarks, the very opening of them violated his stated principles and the needless nature of his blatant partisanship makes it doubly troubling, given the politicians present, willing, and demonstrably able to make that case.

His regrettable behavior in this case can be justly I think chalked up to him being a victim of a terrible inquisition.

I'd say no. It's one thing to lose your composure when blindsided by a thing. That wasn't where his trouble could be found.

While the best among us could have handled it better than he has, I don't think that this trial is relevant to, or bears on, what his duty would be on the Supreme Court.

I wish I was as sure. If he could turn on his own expectations so certainly will he be as likely to carry a grudge and be the partisan voice he once reasoned against in lecturing others?

 

[Town Heretic]

In the wake of Kavanaugh's testimony a wave of negative response has been pouring into congress from lawyers and professors of law, including some who supported his nomination.

From the Washington Post article, Unfathomable... by Susan Svrluga, 10/4/18. LINK

"More than 2,400 law professors have signed on to a letter saying that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing last week — behavior that would be disqualifying for any court nominee...Afterward, law professors across the country began discussing, “with great distress, the unprecedented and unfathomable demeanor of Judge Kavanaugh,” said Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia Law School.

The letter, which was emailed to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) late Thursday afternoon, grew out of those conversations. “It was a spontaneous reaction to the hearing,” Harcourt said.

The groundswell was overwhelming, he said, with hundreds of lawyers from more than 190 law schools signing on within hours.

“As someone who knew and liked Brett Kavanaugh when we clerked together, I have tried very hard to stay out of this process and to give him the benefit of the doubt,” said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School. But Kavanaugh’s behavior at the hearing last week “was not what we should expect of a Supreme Court Justice. Telling obvious lies about his background, yelling at senators, refusing to answer questions, and blaming his troubles on others is not appropriate behavior.”

Signatories included Martha Minow — the former dean of Harvard Law School, where Kavanaugh taught a popular course — other law school deans and former deans, and some scholars who previously supported Kavanaugh.

 

[Idolater]

[If Kavanaugh] is not a victim, then he is a wretch.

If he could turn on his own expectations so certainly will he be as likely to carry a grudge and be the partisan voice he once reasoned against in lecturing others?

That's not my problem since I'm one-issue. He just has to follow his hand on the Second Amendment, and at worst he's a useful idiot to me.

But the thing is, as we consider the choice here, between whether he is a victim or not, and we realize that if he is not a victim, that he is therefore a scoundrel . . . it really impresses me, all the definite evidence that makes him look as if he's just that. He might even be a scoundrel And a victim; the way he's been handling things. :chuckle:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822

Spoiler

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

Thoughts?

I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822

Spoiler

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

Thoughts?

I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

AMR

He knew what the charges and examination would be about. He chose who to have with him that day. It was wrong to suggest their presence sponsored remarks that were prepared before hand, or to blame subsequent conduct unbecoming because they were present. And his prepared remarks were partisan, ill considered and angry from the outset.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

This from the man who told a Columbia Law audience that a judge must be "calm before the storm." The man who told them, "Don't be a jerk" and that it was important that a judge "avoid any semblance" of political partisanship.

The same man authored both the sage counsel and the subsequent partisan, emotional, disrespectful launch (and likened behavior to those opposed to him). So who do we believe will be the judge for life, without any controlling authority to answer to beyond his own judgement? And is the worry enough, the display before the nation and senate enough to feel uneasy with his selection?

Can we be comfortable with Kavanaugh's assurance? Should we and must we risk it given the authority and power of the office he would assume?

No, Kavanaugh's op-ed was telling. Even with every reason to understand his error and the arrogance that surfaced to his detriment, he missed the chance to reform the impression and offered a passing admission, a thin, general apology wrapped in specific excuse and inferential blame. Taken outside of his comfort zone, put into an inferior position and under stress he gave us a glimpse at the engine beneath his accomplishments and the steady effort to look a part he had in mind. And even though a a particular apology without caveat would have served him better, Kavanaugh could not separate his sense of hero from his narrative.

That fellow hasn't truly learned his lesson. That fellow will hold a grudge.
​

 

[Town Heretic]

That's not my problem since I'm one-issue.

I don't find that a reasonable position in relation to a court charged with protecting us on a wide range of Constitutional issues, but I don't mean to insult you by the remark.

He just has to follow his hand on the Second Amendment, and at worst he's a useful idiot to me.

I support the amendment, but I'd revisit and restrict everything short of the weapons most like those in existence when the right was framed, meaning single shot breech and bolt weapons.

But the thing is, as we consider the choice here, between whether he is a victim or not, and we realize that if he is not a victim, that he is therefore a scoundrel . . . it really impresses me, all the definite evidence that makes him look as if he's just that. He might even be a scoundrel And a victim; the way he's been handling things. :chuckle:

You know, I've been mulling that one myself. You can hold both positions without being unreasonable. I'm inclined to think he did it, that his outrage was focused on carrying a certain audience and the party that nominated him. A distraction from the credibility of her testimony. A way out. Give her a nod then make it about something else while people don't consider the testimony you aren't disputing except on the one point, while that testimony sits there, passed over, even with its insistent focus and unrelenting certainty that he was the boy with loose hands and a presumptive arrogance that led him into folly.

 

[nikolai_42]

He knew what the charges and examination would be about. He chose who to have with him that day. It was wrong to suggest their presence sponsored remarks that were prepared before hand, or to blame subsequent conduct unbecoming because they were present. And his prepared remarks were partisan, ill considered and angry from the outset.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

This from the man who told a Columbia Law audience that a judge must be "calm before the storm." The man who told them, "Don't be a jerk" and that it was important that a judge "avoid any semblance" of political partisanship.

The same man authored both the sage counsel and the subsequent partisan, emotional, disrespectful launch (and likened behavior to those opposed to him). So who do we believe will be the judge for life, without any controlling authority to answer to beyond his own judgement? And is the worry enough, the display before the nation and senate enough to feel uneasy with his selection?

Can we be comfortable with Kavanaugh's assurance? Should we and must we risk it given the authority and power of the office he would assume?

No, Kavanaugh's op-ed was telling. Even with every reason to understand his error and the arrogance that surfaced to his detriment, he missed the chance to reform the impression and offered a passing admission, a thin, general apology wrapped in specific excuse and inferential blame. Taken outside of his comfort zone, put into an inferior position and under stress he gave us a glimpse at the engine beneath his accomplishments and the steady effort to look a part he had in mind. And even though a a particular apology without caveat would have served him better, Kavanaugh could not separate his sense of hero from his narrative.

That fellow hasn't truly learned his lesson. That fellow will hold a grudge.
​

This is a tough one. When judges have a conflict of interest or don't believe they can be impartial, they are supposed to recuse themselves, aren't they? But is it not possible to separate the personal from the judicial? Is objectivity something we are to expect from a justice when it's all about his own actions? Maybe the question does arise if he can properly separate personal situations impacted by case matter, but at what point is the ice water in the veins allowed to thaw just a little (okay...more than a little in Kavanaugh's case)? These aren't rhetorical questions.

And the next question I have would be if this disqualifies him from any service as a judge on any appellate court. Why only the Supreme Court? Because if that happens, then this man truly has been ruined and any previous service is now called into question. And if not, what would qualify him for a lower court but not SCOTUS? Constitutional issues, I would think, would be the easiest ones in which the judge could objectify the material at hand and separate himself emotionally from it.

Or am I looking at this wrong?

 

[lifeisgood]

Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822

Spoiler

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

Thoughts?

I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

AMR

If my father/husband/son was placed in Judge Kavanaugh's position, being non-corroborated injurious, allegation of something that maybe happened, maybe it did not happen, can't quite remember, in the last second of the game, I would expect the same reaction and if that reaction did not come to the surface, I would definitely start questioning them over the accusations. I expect any man who is wrongly accused with non-corroborated evidence to have the same reaction. Or are some here expecting a robot as a Justice?

Anybody seen Ruth Bader Ginsburgh in 2010 and 2015 sleeping hearing the State of the Nation address? She said she had imbibed too much wine (translation: Ginsburgh said she was drunk.) Last I checked she is still a Justice. I wonder if it was only when she was caught drunk or did she had the custom of imbibing a little too much over all her life. Rhetorical comment.

Some speak as if Justices were robots and never get angry over anything, they're so mellow, they just let everything roll over their backs, they never get drunk. Yeah, right.

Some speak as if they never get angry over anything, even here at TOL they're so mellow and they never disagree when someone make a libel statement against them. Yeah, right.

 

[Idolater]

Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET

Spoiler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822

Spoiler

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

Thoughts?

Spoiler

I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

AMR

It's the written rulings of the Supreme Court that become history, not what justices utter. Here, I think that Judge Kavanaugh showed that regardless of this debacle (an unbiased assessment, whether or not he is a victim), he can write. Many people, myself included and my guess is many who participate frequently in internet discussion boards and forums too, think by, in, through, etc., writing. This op-ed I think shows that perhaps it is so with Kavanaugh as well.

His job won't involve uttering. It only involves writing.

I don't find that a reasonable position in relation to a court charged with protecting us on a wide range of Constitutional issues, but I don't mean to insult you by the remark.

I appreciate you not intending insult. I've described a bit already itt that I see gun rights as a mountain, with every other issue being molehills of various heights. It is just my conclusion from studying history, and applying what is today unusual thinking to the horrible gun violence that we suffer from, combined with other real risks that humans face every day around the globe, not involving murderers trying to kill and rapists trying to rape us, these latter, being the primary reason for my valuation of gun rights. Murderers are real.

I support the amendment, but I'd revisit and restrict everything short of the weapons most like those in existence when the right was framed, meaning single shot breech and bolt weapons.

I support the amendment also. I agree with the Supreme Court that it "extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

You know, I've been mulling that one myself. You can hold both positions without being unreasonable. I'm inclined to think he did it, that his outrage was focused on carrying a certain audience and the party that nominated him. A distraction from the credibility of her testimony. A way out. Give her a nod then make it about something else while people don't consider the testimony you aren't disputing except on the one point, while that testimony sits there, passed over, even with its insistent focus and unrelenting certainty that he was the boy with loose hands and a presumptive arrogance that led him into folly.

He is either a victim, or he is not; and if he is not a victim, then he is a scoundrel. But he might be a scoundrel anyway. It is both true that he is either a victim or not, and that he is either a scoundrel or not, but if he is not a victim, he is definitely a scoundrel.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Some speak as if Justices were robots and never get angry over anything, they're so mellow, they just let everything roll over their backs, they never get drunk. Yeah, right.

Some speak as if they never get angry over anything, even here at TOL they're so mellow and they never disagree when someone make a libel statement against them. Yeah, right.

No one assumes the person on the bench is devoid of passions. We do have a right to assume that they are capable of setting their passions, no matter how odious and even obvious the crime committed by the defendant in the dock. This is necessary for the principles of legal proceedings wherein matters of law are decided upon objections by the state and the defendant, leaving no doubt to all that one side is not favored over the other.

Once the verdict is rendered, the sentence to be pronounced, a judge is well within his rights to exhibit his disdain and even disgust on behalf of the people. Yet even at that moment, he is expected to do his duty per whatever constraints exist, including showing mercy where warranted. So, no, your idea that jurists are to be robots is hyperbolic rhetoric.

Justice is simply giving to each his due. Persons are due various things in judicial proceedings. One thing, an important thing, is impartiality by the person on the bench. Not feigned impartiality, façades, or chimeras. Genuine impartiality.

From what I have witnessed of Kavanaugh, I have real reservations that he can muster genuine impartiality going forward. And given his testimony now on record, should he not be confirmed, he will find himself being asked to recuse himself from not a few future proceedings that will likely come before him. Likewise, if he is confirmed, every rendered verdict by SCOTUS having his name attached will no doubt be caviled about loudly as rank partisanship for years to come.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It's the written rulings of the Supreme Court that become history, not what justices utter. Here, I think that Judge Kavanaugh showed that regardless of this debacle (an unbiased assessment, whether or not he is a victim), he can write. Many people, myself included and my guess is many who participate frequently in internet discussion boards and forums too, think by, in, through, etc., writing. This op-ed I think shows that perhaps it is so with Kavanaugh as well.

His job won't involve uttering. It only involves writing.

Actually, what we write is the result of what we think. The written form displays our thought processes, reasonings, and willings. Words spring from the fountain of our minds.

Those that are careless, flippant, eristic, infelicitous, etc., in print are quite likely to be the same in person. Sure, folks can adopt some charade in discussion forums to tickle whatever motives and fancies as a form of entertainment or desire to be seen. But I am not speaking of these juvenile behaviors. Rather, the written form taken up in sincerity and seriousness.

To the person that takes the written form seriously, as I do, Kavanaugh's op-ed speaks volumes about the mind of the man. I do not like what I see therein.

AMR

 

[Idolater]

Actually, what we write is the result of what we think. The written form displays our thought processes, reasonings, and willings. Words spring from the fountain of our minds.

And, many people actually advance their thoughts while writing. It's not just an image of what's already gone on, it's the going on itself, in process.

Those that are careless, flippant, eristic, infelicitous, etc., in print are quite likely to be the same in person.

Agreed. I also know that people can be irl, in person, 'careless, flippant, eristic, infelicitous, etc.,' but very careful and polished in print.

Sure, folks can adopt some charade in discussion forums to tickle whatever motives and fancies as a form of entertainment or desire to be seen. But I am not speaking of these juvenile behaviors. Rather, the written form taken up in sincerity and seriousness.

To the person that takes the written form seriously, as I do, Kavanaugh's op-ed speaks volumes about the mind of the man. I do not like what I see therein.

I like that he promises to continue to be faithful to what the Constitution actually says, which will force those who want to amend it, to try to do so, rather than make laws which contravene it.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is a tough one. When judges have a conflict of interest or don't believe they can be impartial, they are supposed to recuse themselves, aren't they? But is it not possible to separate the personal from the judicial? Is objectivity something we are to expect from a justice when it's all about his own actions? Maybe the question does arise if he can properly separate personal situations impacted by case matter, but at what point is the ice water in the veins allowed to thaw just a little (okay...more than a little in Kavanaugh's case)? These aren't rhetorical questions.

And the next question I have would be if this disqualifies him from any service as a judge on any appellate court. Why only the Supreme Court? Because if that happens, then this man truly has been ruined and any previous service is now called into question. And if not, what would qualify him for a lower court but not SCOTUS? Constitutional issues, I would think, would be the easiest ones in which the judge could objectify the material at hand and separate himself emotionally from it.

Or am I looking at this wrong?

I think we have to recognize that the S. Ct. is a different animal. On a federal bench you're mostly known to the lawyers. We have SNL skits and films about Justices to the high court. So you're much more likely to see an investment in the personal. I'd be more worried about it there than elsewhere. And, to work in a bit of Idol's remarks, people might be surprised how much public interaction and jousting goes on with lawyers from the bench there in addition to writing opinions, where they might be surprised to find clerks doing much of that under direction of the Justices.

 

[Town Heretic]

Looks like a banner day for democrats going into the midterms. A strong argument against unfettered power by any one party.


And now Kavanaugh has the chance to make another public statement of sorts. Let's see what he does with the chance.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Looks like a banner day for democrats going into the midterms. A strong argument against unfettered power by any one party.

Obama was so fond of saying, "Elections have consequences."

In what way do you think it will be a "banner day" for Democrats on November 6?

 

[glorydaz]

Obama was so fond of saying, "Elections have consequences."

In what way do you think it will be a "banner day" for Democrats on November 6?

Town is into wishful thinking. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

Regular Americans were disgusted by the entire spectacle coming from the Loser Dems. Their attempt to trash a good man will come back to bite them in the mid-terms. Add to that the screaming maniacs that are swarming across our land, we can be sure a huge red wave is coming.

Thank you Dems. You have put a big nail in your own coffin. :banana:

 

[Town Heretic]

Town is into wishful thinking.

I'd like to see the power divided in the country. I don't believe it's healthy for one party to have this much, especially when they represent a minority of the actual electorate. At least when the democrats get it I can count on them largely frittering it away with infighting. My hope is that this sort of thing will fuel a return of the House to the left. Time will tell.

Their attempt to trash a good man will come back to bite them in the mid-terms.

I don't know if he's a good man or a bad man, but I'm pretty sure the guy I heard doesn't belong on the Court. He violated just about every principle of judicial conduct he instructed law students in.

Add to that the screaming maniacs that are swarming across our land, we can be sure a huge red wave is coming. Thank you Dems. You have put a big nail in your own coffin.

That's what the democrats thought when Obama went into office.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'd hope that he is more mindful and closer in demonstrated character from the bench than he appeared under examination, failing his litmus for a judge's demeanor sufficiently that he lost my support. A support he had before he began to offer testimony.

I don't accept the father/son/husband defense. It was Kavanaugh who decided his family would be in attendance and then used them as an excuse. It was Kavanaugh who lectured law students on necessity of the appearance of implacable nonpartisanship before using prepared opening remarks to launch an angry conspiracy theory. It was Kavanaugh who chose to respond insubordinately to senators sitting in judgment on his merit. It was kavanaugh who chose to drink and then mislead on the point in a way no one who had ever been a beer loving college freshman would have found credible. It was Kavanaugh whose conduct was such that even in his contempt he felt obliged to apologize for it, both at the hearing and later in an op-ed.

I'm not in any of this suggesting that Kavanaugh is an evil man. He may very well strive to be the best of men, as he sees it, driven by conscience and perhaps that distant past toward a higher standard. He may from this point forward be ranked as an able Justice, mindful of the women who will be observing his demeanor, desirous to demonstrate his commitment to their wellbeing and the oath he took shortly after assuming his office. Or, it may be that what we witnessed in response to challenge will be the cornerstone of Kavanaugh's future, if largely under the skin -- imperial, belligerent, partisan, and carrying a grudge like the cross of Calvary.

Only time will tell and hope is free...so let us hope together then for something more.