Judicial temperament

[Bob78164]

It's the woman who testified persuasively that he attempted to rape her. And I wouldn't call her testimony grotesque. I'd call it her bravely deciding to perform her civic duty.

And let's not forget, this wasn't Kavanaugh's spur-of-the-moment response to questioning. It was his opening statement. He had days to reflect upon it and prepare it. Framing this as a partisan attack was a considered decision on Kavanaugh's part -- even Clarence Thomas never went that far. --Bob

The situation of Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearing was not directly comparable to the current attacks on Kavanaugh. For one thing, Thomas was accused by a single accuser of sexual harassment, not sexual assault (nor "violent forcible rape," to use the words of Bob###.) As I recall, the major part of the complaint by Anita Hill was that Thomas had used distasteful language with a sexual association in what he characterized as joking. (I've never claimed to know what went on in either Hill's or Thomas' head at the time, but I too cringed the first time I saw "pubic hair" and "Coke can" linked together in print. I also was old enough to recognize that some people with
multiple accomplishments and great dignity were sometimes capable of making off-color, adolescent, and unfunny remarks.

At any rate, Hill's accusations were not followed by a cavalcade of other women who might have said, "Wait until you hear the awful things he said to me!", and his nomination was confirmed.

I believe that women, particularly staunch feminists, learned much from that episode in history, and we are witnessing the results of those lessons. I have more to say on that, but it will have to wait until I have more time.

There was a second woman at the time. She gave a statement to Senate staffers, but America didn't get to hear her testify. --Bob

[Estonut]

If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

The issue isn't just his anger. It's the purely partisan nature of his anger. How can he be expected to rule impartially on, say, a gerrymandering case after that outburst?

Has there ever been any hint of impartiality during his, what, 36 years on the bench?

His appearance on Thursday was NOT as a jurist. He was trying to defend himself against allegations he maintains are false. The allegations are so flimsy that she provided no details for anyone to be able to investigate and refute. She changed her story on who were witnesses, yet none of the changing list has confirmed her allegations. She used her therapist's notes to smear Kavanaugh, yet now refuses to provide them to the committee.

If anything, he has shown he is human, which is not necessarily a bad trait for judge (or lawyer).

[silverscreenselect]

At any rate, Hill's accusations were not followed by a cavalcade of other women who might have said, "Wait until you hear the awful things he said to me!", and his nomination was confirmed.

Three differences between the Clarence Thomas situation and now. First, women were even more reluctant then to come forward as now, and the reception Anita Hill got probably discouraged other complainants (plus, as Bob indicated, there was another complainant that did not get a chance to testify). Second, in the pre MeToo era, claims like this were less likely to be taken seriously because "important" men like Thomas, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey didn't do things like Hill accused. And, third, this was the pre-Internet era, which made the entire process of coming forth far more formal and cumbersome than it is today.

[silverscreenselect]

His appearance on Thursday was NOT as a jurist. He was trying to defend himself against allegations he maintains are false.

Wrong. Kavanaugh is a judge on the second highest federal court in the nation and the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Conduct for United States Judges apply to him at all times, not just when he is on the bench. Among those are:

A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

Judges are held to a higher standard and rightly so. And Federal Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court Justices should be held to the highest standards of all, not a Donald Trump-Wrestlemania standard.

[jarnon]

Has there ever been any hint of impartiality during his, what, 36 years on the bench?

Kavanaugh has been a judge for twelve years. But you're right about one thing: he's never shown a hint of impartiality.

[Estonut]

Has there ever been any hint of impartiality during his, what, 36 years on the bench?

Kavanaugh has been a judge for twelve years. But you're right about one thing: he's never shown a hint of impartiality.

Thanks, jarnon. Brain-farted on the number.

[jarnon]

Has there ever been any hint of impartiality during his, what, 36 years on the bench?

Kavanaugh has been a judge for twelve years. But you're right about one thing: he's never shown a hint of impartiality.

Thanks, jarnon. Brain-farted on the number.

Are you OK, Esto? You're usually sharp enough at 4 a.m. to catch all our blunders (I don't know how you do it), but this time you missed my point. Maybe you really have been replaced by a bot.

[Estonut]

Kavanaugh has been a judge for twelve years. But you're right about one thing: he's never shown a hint of impartiality.

Thanks, jarnon. Brain-farted on the number.

Are you OK, Esto? You're usually sharp enough at 4 a.m. to catch all our blunders (I don't know how you do it), but this time you missed my point. Maybe you really have been replaced by a bot.

I didn't miss your point. I was thanking you for the impartiality comment, not the number. It seemed clear when I wrote it, but not now, upon re-reading it.

[BackInTex]

I'm glad he is human. I do not want any Vulcans on the court.

[Beebs52]

Speaking of speaking under oath

https://pjmedia.com/blog/liveblogevent/ ... ry-241882/

[silverscreenselect]

Speaking of speaking under oath

https://pjmedia.com/blog/liveblogevent/ ... ry-241882/

By all means, if Dr. Ford's ex-boyfriend wants to repeat his allegations to the FBI, before whom lying is a crime, as opposed to Fox News, I've got no problems with that, so that they can be fully vetted and checked out. The people who have problems are the ones trying to limit the inquiry without even talking to Dr. Ford, or any of the additional witnesses she and Ramirez have suggested.

And certainly, you can trust the journalistic standards of PJ Media.

[Beebs52]

Nice lady.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/lett ... am-keyser/

sarcafont obviously

[jarnon]

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.

[Beebs52]

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.

Jinx!

[Bob78164]

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.

I'd give that a little more credit if he'd been speaking off the cuff. He wasn't. It was prepared testimony. That doesn't mean he wasn't emotional. But it does mean he had more than enough time to control that emotion. He failed.

I don't think he regrets for one minute that he said those things, and I don't believe for one minute that the partisan bias that was on clear display last Thursday will disappear from his decisions. I just think he's worried that he'll lose the moderate Republicans if he doesn't show contrition. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I don't think he regrets for one minute that he said those things, and I don't believe for one minute that the partisan bias that was on clear display last Thursday will disappear from his decisions. I just think he's worried that he'll lose the moderate Republicans if he doesn't show contrition. --Bob

Rehearsed attempt at damage control.