Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[ConstantLearner]

I am saying that he has spent many years on the bench expecting attorneys to show him respect and maintain decorum no matter how angry they are at the situation. If he doesn’t have that level of self-control–and honestly, I don’t remember a nominee ever showing less self-control than he did–then he many not be the right person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Exactly! Supreme Court justices need to have a certain temperament. Kavanaugh doesn’t have it.

 

[HarryStotle]

Nevertheless, I believe Dr. Ford. primarily because she mentioned the incident to a therapist years before Trump was a presidential candidate, …

Except that Kavanaugh was well publicized as a serious potential candidate for Supreme Court when Romney was running for president. A CNN article from 2012 has him second on the list.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

The interesting thing is that 2012 corresponds to the time when Ford FIRST floated Kavanaugh’s name as her supposed assaulter.

Kavanaugh had a major role in Ken Starr’s investigations of the death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill Clinton, and the allegations of Monica Lewinsky that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of Clinton’s law license.

The Clintons and the Dems do not exactly have a favourable view of Kavanaugh, so he has been in their crosshairs for some time, including the drafting of the Starr Report, which urged Clinton’s impeachment.

To think this is only about Trump would be a grave error.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Lawyers are not their clients. Again you are drawing a comparison that is grossly unfair. No one is expected by any Western Legal system to be impartial in their own personal self-defense. That’s a martyr you’re requiring, not a judge. Perhaps the reason you have not witnessed that reaction is that no one has been treated this way in this process.

Hillary Clinton was treated far worse and didn’t lose her temper, and no, I’m not a fan and didn’t vote for her.

 

[Rubee]

Oh, come on! Judges are expected to be dignified and exhibit self-control. I can tell you it’s not that hard, from experience. I’m not a judge, but I testified for seven HOURS in a civil case in which I was the plaintiff. The defense attorney tried to attack me on every front, but I never even FELT rattled. It’s not that hard to keep your cool and your dignity and treat an adversary with respect UNLESS you are prone to belligerent outbursts in the first place.

This is a false standard made up just this week. Judges are not made of different stuff from normal folks. He did not overeact, he reacted with indignation suitable to the horrible way he was being treated.

About your experience as a plaintiff, get back to me when you are displayed in front of the world as a rapist, not cross-examined by a lawyer in your local court.

 

[Rubee]

Hilary Clinton is a politician, it comes with the territory. Judges dont sign up for that nonsense.

 

[PetraG]

Lawyers are not their clients. Again you are drawing a comparison that is grossly unfair. No one is expected by any Western Legal system to be impartial in their own personal self-defense. That’s a martyr you’re requiring, not a judge. Perhaps the reason you have not witnessed that reaction is that no one has been treated this way in this process.

A martyr? Oh, please. Yes, someone was being a martyr. It is not a good look. Thinking he had carte blanche to practically yell at a committee of the Senate as if it were 1970 and they were a bunch of wayward students was a gross miscalculation, at best. If that was really the best he could do and not just a miscalculation, then he really isn’t suitable for the role he’s been nominated to fill.

He is understandably upset, but his outburst was not necessary, let alone prudent. If a woman in his position had acted like that, the word “hysterical” and “emotionally unsuitable” certainly would have come up by now.

This is a false standard made up just this week. Judges are not made of different stuff from normal folks. He did not overeact, he reacted with indignation suitable to the horrible way he was being treated.

Juries are made up of “normal folks.” Judges have always been expected to hold themselves to a far higher standard of decorum, but particularly when addressing a seated committee of the United States Senate.

Again: If he could not restrain himself with the reminder of WHERE he was and WHO he was addressing, he is not suitable for the high and dignified position he’s been nominated to take.

 

[ConstantLearner]

This is a false standard made up just this week. Judges are not made of different stuff from normal folks. He did not overeact, he reacted with indignation suitable to the horrible way he was being treated.

Of course it’s not! Read below. It talks of those qualities all through it. And it was written in 2003. Hardly “made up this week.”

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1462&context=ylpr

Kavanaugh overreacted very badly. And he wasn’t treated badly.

 

[Rubee]

No, I’m saying YOU are asking for a martyr with that unfair standard that people not be indignant at the destruction of their own reputation, which is downright insane. He was just indignant, did not curse at anyone, did not fight, did not hurl insults, so there was no overreaction, just indignation. By demanding that a judge should be able to take direct personal attacks and not react like a human being you are demanding that a judge should be some kind of martyr, which is ridiculous. He was just defending himself.

 

[Augustinian]

Kavanaugh overreacted very badly. And he wasn’t treated badly.

Being accused of hosting drug and alcohol fueled Rape Train Parties isn’t being treated badly?

If you listened to our President’s remarks last night where he pointed out the deficiencies in Ford’s testimony- no time, no place, not even a year, and the way he’s been attacked by the Democrats on the committee, I don’t know what you would consider bad treatment.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

But who would believe him after his angry, partisan outburst last Thursday?

Judge Kavanaugh’s outburst was against the attacks on his reputation, his life and his career, not “partisanship”.

Even Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona said yesterday that Kavanaugh’s angry display was “sharp and partisan” and that “we can’t have that on the court."

And this from Kavanaugh does sound very partisan and conspiratorial to me with its references to “left-wing opposition groups” and the Clintons:

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.

Who cares about the Clintons any more except for a lot of conservatives who still seem fixated on them? Most Democrats who are opposed to Kavanaugh are not thinking about the Clintons. They’re thinking about the fact that Kavanaugh is going to tilt the court to the right for a generation.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Being accused of hosting drug and alcohol fueled Rape Train Parties isn’t being treated badly?

Well, no, not that bad. He should have said, quite calmly, “No, I have never done such a thing or even thought of it,” if indeed that’s the truth, and I believe him on that. That is the demeanor a Supreme Court justice needs.

 

[Rubee]

You’ve got to be kidding. So I’m supposed to read an entire article, you can’t summarize the arguments you are relying on in that article?

No one can be impartial where his own person is concerned. To pretend otherwise is to be wilfully ignorant of human nature. I’ll expect that of saints, not judges. For judges, I’ll expect impartiality when seating in cases that don’t involve themselves or their families directly. That’s basic fairness.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Who cares about the Clintons any more except for a lot of conservatives who still seem fixated on them? Most Democrats who are opposed to Kavanaugh are not thinking about the Clintons. They’re thinking about the fact that Kavanaugh is going to tilt the court to the right for a generation.

I stopped thinking about the Clintons as soon as the election was over. They are not relevant in today’s politics.

 

[ConstantLearner]

No one can be impartial where his own person is concerned.

Of course they can! I can. I know others who can. Not everyone can, and Kavanaugh seems to be one who cannot, but many people can.

 

[Rubee]

Well, no, not that bad. He should have said, quite calmly, “No, I have never done such a thing or even thought of it,” if indeed that’s the truth, and I believe him on that. That is the demeanor a Supreme Court justice needs.

I will take this coaching maybe from Monica Lewinsky. You have never been humiliated before the entire world and have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to how people should respond, that’s the truth. Again, he did not curse, insult or physically attack anyone.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I will take this coaching from you maybe from Monica Lewinsky. You have never been humiliated before the entire world and have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to how people should respond, that’s the truth. Again, he did not curse, insult or physically attack anyone.

Oh, yes I have. You don’t know me. I know EXACTLY of what I speak or I wouldn’t say it.

 

[PetraG]

No, I’m saying YOU are asking for a martyr with that unfair standard that people not be indignant at the destruction of their own reputation for, downright insane. He was just indignant, did not curse at anyone, did not fight, did not hurl insults, so there was no overreaction, just indignation. By demanding that a judge should be able to take direct personal attacks and not react like a human being you are demanding that a judge should be some kind of martyr, which is ridiculous. He was just defending himself.

No one suggested he pretend he was not indignant, but this was not a court hearing. It was a job interview. He went into a job interview acting as if he was being obstructed from taking a position he is entitled to have. No, he is not entitled to be appointed the United States Supreme Court. He is duty-bound at all times to show respect to the United States Senate while testifying to them in their own chambers. You act as if he’s the first angry person to testify to Congress. No, he isn’t.

If he cannot express indignation in a more respectful manner, he has not given good evidence on his own behalf. He talked on top of Senators who had been given a limited time frame in which to question him! This lack of order is coming from a judge who has presided over a court? An attorney who did that in a courtroom over which he was presiding would be found in contempt!!

Again, he did not curse, insult or physically attack anyone.

THAT is your standard for a nominee to the United States Supreme Court testifying before the US Senate?
Are you kidding?

 

[ConstantLearner]

Excellent post, @PetraG. I feel the same. You said it better.

 

[ConstantLearner]

THAT is your standard for a nominee to the United States Supreme Court testifying before the US Senate?

Well, he did get into a bar fight. Threw a glass of ice water in a man’s face. Seems he has a very short fuse.

 

[Rubee]

No one suggested he pretend he was not indignant, but this was not a court hearing. It was a job interview. He went into a job interview acting as if he was being obstructed from taking a position he is entitled to have.

No, he went into a public hearing acting like a man whose entire reputation had been shattered by salacious accusations.

THAT is your standard for a nominee to the United States Supreme Court testifying before the US Senate?
Are you kidding?

I am very serious. And THAT is my standard for a decent human being facing a barage of unprovable accusations of horrible crimes in front of the whole world. Your standard apparently is Jesus Christ. I hope you can get him.