Open Letter to the United States Senate from Law Professors Around the Country

a reply to: FyreByrd

the Honorable 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. 

Here's the thing: the balance of powers between the three branches of government is necessarily adversarial at times, and in the Senate chambers, the judge is not held to the same rules of decorum and judicial temperance as in his courtroom.

In other words, it's not out of line for a member of the judicial branch to challenge and/or condemn egregious partisan conduct of the legislative branch.

Many people consider it necessary and proper. I don't think so. But the Senators voting on Kavanaugh's nomination will be considering how their constituents feel. (Except mine -- Flake -- cause he's not up for re-election!)

a reply to: FyreByrd

Liberal Professors Are the New Stupid , didn't you Get the Memo ? Nobody , I Mean Nobody , Gives a Rats Ahass About their Opinons on Any Public Matter . They All Live in a Bubble in Myrealityville USA . A Mind Truly is a Terrible Thing to Waste.........

a reply to: FyreByrd

If judgeships are designed to be non-partisan, as you say, then why is it that there are four justices currently sitting the SCOTUS whose rulings you can pretty much always rely on?

And I am talking about Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor? Why is it that when you see pieces discussing how a particular justice might rule, it's always written about someone like Roberts or Alito or Gorsuch or even Thomas ... but it's never written about the first ones I named, and they will always fall out on the progressive side of things, and if one of them doesn't, it's because the ruling is so obvious that the ruling is nearly unanimous, not tightly split.

That argues that as far as non-partisan, certain of our current SCOTUS justices certainly are pretty close to it if not partisan outright.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Funny. Here I thought they were gonna say we are nation of laws and due process, etc.

My mistake

/Sarc

The reason these liberal law professors are anti-Kavanaugh is because they know that if/when he’s seated on SCOTUS, their liberal juge buddies are all but done legislating from the bench.

So throw out decades of exemplary service on the bench and sterling recommendations from the ABA and Kagan because he got mad about being accused of being an assaulted and gang rapist?


Nope. Sorry. Not buying it.

Confirm now.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

I can't trust these lawyers until they have been vetted back into high school to insure that they never drank a beer.


I mean, that's the bar we're setting, amirite?


I mean, you can't have people of lower character judge a man of higher character.

Excellent point. For them to render judgement on such an important issue they MUST be investigated all the way back to high school.

The need to have their political affiliations looked into.

We need to know if they do drugs or drink too much.

We need to know if they've ever committed infidelity.

We need to know of they have large debt.

We need to know if they've ever used a racial slur or made a bigoted remark.

We need to know if any of them have had sexual relations with a student.

That's just for starters. After all, like I said to make a judgement like this they MUST be of sterling and unimpeachable character. Perfect humans in fact.

The stakes are just too high to let people of low character influence such an important decision right?

Right?
Right?

I'm sure all the leftists here would agree to all this right? After all these are the standards they've determined must be met.

AND, if any one of these people dont meet every criteria they MUST be forced out of their teaching positions/job. After all, we cannot allow people that cant meet that criteria to teach children can we?

Surely not.

If this is the best the Democrats have left, the 6th of next month is going to make 2016 look like a blue wave.

The cries of leftist anguish will be sweet music to my ears after what they have tried to do to an innocent man.

TheRedneck

LOL, They drag his name through the mud, they smear him in front of his family and then get indignant that he got testy...

In his place I would seriously consider doing violence after being run through the wringer like him.

So far as I'm concerned Kavanaugh has every right to tell certain people to go #themselves.
I'd prefer a judge that's human rather than someone willing to smile through slander, lies and character assassination.
That should piss anyone off.
If it doesn't then you might be guilty of something serious.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It's really starting to get desperate. I ready for this to be over

originally posted by: jrod
Kavanaugh never actually was a judge in a state or even county level couthouse. He was essentially an associate counse who got appointed by Bush jr to the US Court of Appeals.

This should bring out red flags. Unfortunately we jave sports team mentality and those who support Trump will never see a problem.

They're not alone. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to at least question Kavanaugh's appointment. How does he feel about the Patriot Act? Torture? Secret courts? Secret prisons? NSA spying? All this stuff we got from Bush, the guy that appointed him?

But the Democrats don't even ask these things. Let's be honest, the only thing disagreeable with Kavanaugh in the eyes of the Left and the media is that he was nominated by Trump. If anyone else had nominated him, he would have sailed through.

Republicans and Democrats fight among themselves for control of the Government. Strangely enough, when it comes to the Government vs. the People, both sides seem to always side with the Government. Could it be that neither side has the best interests of the American people at heart?

If I were President and I could nominate a Supreme, I would find a recently paroled jailhouse lawyer and I would shoehorn him or her on to the bench. Then there would be at least one person on the Court who has a record of trying to use the law to help people, and a personal interest in protecting the rights of the individual over the Government.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
its does mention the federalist papers

that is like the gospel around here

not anymore?

That depends, are they being used in context? *reads excerpt*

Nope. Just a bunch of ivory tower elites trying to stop the inevitable. Moving on.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: FyreByrd

Additionally, after the unfortunate and unsettling tirade he went on against the opposing party,
any degree of fairness towards them could never be expected or trusted.

Anything resembling 'impartial" has been lost.

If they had any intelligence they would have considered that before denying him due process. If you had any intelligence, you would know that this is their doing not his.

Amazing for them to write about questioning his "respect for the process".


That's the whole problem. He was being tried in a Kangaroo court, where his accuser's self-contradictory statements could not be cross-examined., where he wasn't afforded counsel but she was, where he was asked prejudicial questions about his personal habits (how does his gambling experience play into a rape charge???)

When all of her testimony, if true, did not about to an imprisonable offense, 30 years later in an unknown jurisdiction... and there doesn't seem to have been any penetration in her account, but the democrats can only call it "rape."

It is the judiciary committee who had no "respect fo the process."


What process there was, would be hard to respect, seeing as how it was secret from the accused...

a reply to: jrod

...and still he has more experience on the bench than Elena Kagen had when she was confirmed... try again, Chico.

LMAO.. We need to remember the signatories of this letter of "so called" LAW professors... who willingly disregard our nation's founding principles, to try and END INNOCENT until proven GUILTY...


Is this the last gasp of the globalists, do they think they have completed their brainwash of our children to the point that they feel that the conditioning is complete?

We live in amazing times...

One does have to wonder whether these "American" law Professor's opinion are of any validity as "Guardians of the Constitution". Considering those Religious zealot, "American Colonial" Revolutionists and Constitution writers, had No problem Usurping the then Rule of Law in the Colonies, which happened to be British Law!! under the constitution of The Crown of England, and in fact, were born of English blood, so in effect, were Terrorists in the eyes of the "Law". And seemed to have no compunction in killing their British Brothers and cousins, killing/murdering the native original population and driving them from their lands, and made slaves of black savages from the dark continent.

I wonder if what these people wrote, is actually worth a damn, and not just hollow words to serve....Themselves...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: FyreByrd

I hope these professors have this letter saved in a format where the name of the person they hate is easily changed. IMO, they will need to send it out at least 2 more times before 2024.

They didn't do anything to stop Gorsuch's confirmation.

Really they wrote the dame exact letter. Any Republican trying to be confirmed is always going to be fought.


lawprofessors.typepad.com...

What an utterly laughable joke. Thanks for sharing!