“My mind may be mush, but I can get 2400 colleagues to agree with me anyway!”
In the New York Times: The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh
One of the most disillusioning aspects of the epic 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, the worst and most damaging of them all, has been the serial disgrace of one profession after another as they abused their public trust, ethics codes, core values, and expertise. Psychiatrists, physicians, lawyers, journalists, academics, educators, judges, elected officials, pundits, journalists, law enforcement officials and more: so many have sided with partisan mobs when the nature and mission of what makes them valuable society demand that the professionals remain neutral and objective. Law professors have been particularly fond of disgracing themselves since President Trump’s election, and almost all of them are Democrats, so seeing over 2400 of them sign a statement that can stand as a warning to all against taking pronouncements from this particular group of legal academics seriously is hardly a shock. It’s still discouraging.
What is unethical, as well as dumb, about this stunt, for stunt it is? Let us count the ways.
1. It is grandstanding and virtue signaling designed to mislead the public, and seed further division, if that’s possible. Every one of these professors can have their own individual opinion about the Kavanaugh nomination, but it is no better, or more influential, nor should it be, than yours or mine. They seek to increase their influence by amassing thousands of personal and biased opinions into a single loud one masquerading as a professional opinion, which it is not.
2. The number 2400 is inherently misleading. This isn’t close to a majority of the law professors in the country. It’s not close to a majority of the Democrats and progressives in the profession. Most of the public, however, doesn’t have continuing relationships at law schools, haven’t worked for them, haven’t graduated from one, or taught at one, like, say, me. The petition is designed to deceive. There are more than 20,000 law professors in US Law schools. Now we know at least 10% appear to be unfit to teach law.
3. The letter is completely irrelevant. Nobody in the Senate cares what a group of liberal law professors want. No Senator is going to read this opinion and say, “Oh, no! I guess I better vote against Kavanaugh: a boatload of professors I’ve never heard of think I should!”
I just noticed that Ann Althouse, a long-time law professor herself, nicely incinerates the statement’s logic and motives, so I’ll recap her points, which dovetail with mine:
4. “I don’t believe the law professors when they say they oppose Brett Kavanaugh because they have concerns about his “judicial temperament,” writes Ann. Of course not. How many of these professors wanted Kavanaugh confirmed before the late and unethical attack by Dr. Ford ? I’d guess few to none. My Facebook friends follow the same pattern which is also the transparent stance of Democrats. The Senators were going to vote against him anyway, indeed announced that intention. When “he’s going to overturn Roe v Wade!'”-fearmongering looked like it wouldn’t be enough to defeat him, they moved on to set-ups like the Great Handshake Snub, deliberately misquoting him, and my personal favorite, claiming that his former associate was making secret racist hand signals during the hearings. Be proud, Democrats!
Then they went full Salem Witch trial, with decades-old recovered memories, a new standard that declared that one accused without evidence was guilty until proven innocent, a sudden insistence that high school misconduct was more important than adult rectitude, and that juvenile drinking and preppie vulgarity was somehow relevant to a veteran judge’s ability to serve on the Supreme Court. Then, when that slime attack looked like it might fail, they moved on to this.
5. Meanwhile, the accusation itself could not be more contrived or dishonest. Ann quotes from the letter:
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.
Allow me to summarize her perfect analysis: “Bullshit!”
He was confronted with devastating allegations that were vague and uncorroborated. He knows his own life, yet he was supposed to be committed to “judicious inquiry” about it?! He was supposed to be “open”?! He was supposed to act as though he were absorbing the facts for the first time, like a judge deciding a case? Who wrote this letter? Why did so many law professors sign this text?
Oh, I can answer that one, Ann. So many signed it because at least that many law professors lack integrity, and have been convinced by the hard-left echo chambers of academia that the election of Donald Trump suspended the ethical obligations to be fair and honest.
6. From the letter:
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.
This one made my head explode. He described the inquisition against him as partisan? What could EVER make him think that? Or that it was orchestrated, just because the accusation was conveniently leaked after being held under wraps by Senator Feinstein for two months, just in time to postpone the vote and allow a search for more ancient hearsay and manufactured offenses? How dare he call an obviously coordinated strategy of personal destruction orchestrated? Here’s Althouse:
But the hearing really was partisan! Yes, the Senators were in a tough spot, since they were trying to figure out what happened, but Kavanaugh knows what he himself has done. Kavanaugh was supposed to be supportive of the predicament the Senators got themselves into and not defend himself vigorously?He was under a vicious attack, and he knew it was unfair and cruel — unless he was lying. If he was lying, then that‘s why he shouldn’t be on the Court. But this “judicial temperament” idea is designed to work even if he was telling the truth.
B-I-N-G-O!
7.”So we need to read this letter in light of the professors’ intent, ” says this former law professor:
Imagine an innocent Kavanaugh, under an outrageous attack and subjected to a horrendous ordeal. He expresses indignation and challenges his accusers. But he was supposed to remain calm and be deferential to the Senators, and because he didn’t — and for no other reason — he doesn’t belong on the Court. Who believes that?!
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….
Why would Kavanaugh need to “sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised” — he knows what happened in his own life — and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!
It’s obvious, Ann, isn’t it? They say it because they have no decency or integrity, because bias has made them stupid, and because the election of Donald Trump showed how shallow their professionalism really was.
Ethics Alarms 
At what point does violence begin en masse?
I don’t mean the one off psycho who tries to mow down Republican officials.
Or the mobs that try to barricade Republicans into enclosed spaces.
I mean, you CANNOT whip the laity into a frenzy, THEN convince the laity that they have the backing and support of the elites, THEN encourage mob action, THEN convince the laity that their preferred solution is existential and NOT hope that massive swathes of the laity don’t take matters into their own hands.
When people get hurt because of a quite traditional SCOTUS nomination…
the blood will be on the hands of the Leftist Media for stoking the flames and intentionally misinforming the people and on the hands of the Leftist Academy for abusing their authority in society in the way described in this post.
Enjoy the dog’s breakfast of a community you are giving us Lefties. My hands are clean of it even though I’ll have to sit at the table and eat.
My, you are Gloomy Gus today…
Have we seen anything like this in our Republic before?
Even the 1960s radicalism didn’t get like this.
When was the last time the Republic was like this before?
Bring ’em back, dead or alive!
Common Americans will defend themselves, even knowing that THEY will be castigated for doing so. We are expected to lay down and die, if confronted by progressives, all for the greater good.
Progressive mobs are in for a rude awakening. Cameras are everywhere, and the provocations can be recorded before they attack and are repulsed.
Have you seen the video of the pro-abortion guy kicking the anti-abortion girl to the ground?
The Roundhouse-Kick Story
His excuse is that he only meant to kick her camera.
Someone should inform him, that the law and ethics doesn’t care what crime he *meant* to commit, there’s no distinction between intended harm and unintended harm that come about as a result of another intentionally committed crime.
So, “I only meant to (commit the crime) of kicking her phone” is no defense for kicking her to the ground instead.
If he’s that bad at accurately kicking things than maybe he shouldn’t have pretended to be a ninja.
Yup. Prog looked high in the video.
He lost his job and is on the run now.
Good.
“At what point does violence begin en masse?”
Had you inquired when dangerously catatonic/apoplectic, pillow-biting, mouth-breathing, weenie-whiny, simpering-whimpering complete metaphysical, emotional, existential, psychological, philosophical, full-throated, freaking out, melting down, empty staring, speaking in tongues, totally collapsing free-fall would begin en masse, I’d say it began ~ 695 days ago.
I feel like I’ve aged 15 years in the mere 5 years since Corey Booker’s Spartacus moment when he got angry that Kavanaugh was against racial profiling.
According to an article I read:
It seems wise to me to begin to visualize *where this is going* and what the future will hold. I admit that when I attempt this, my imagination gets foggy. Is it because nothing quite like this has happened before? I suppose. I try to look upon it as the historical *answer* to May 1968, that is, the beginning of a reversal of that excessive liberalism. But May 1968 was in its way a culmination of a long chain of events and, of course, ideological battles not to mention the religious element.
How are these struggles in the present to be seen within a larger historical context? It is actually part of the problematic of the present that even making an assessment — coming to a decision — is a fraught endeavor. I say this is so especially among those who are generally *conservative* in orientation. The center-conservatives resist the more ‘extremist’ conservative wing. How will this be resolved?
Such should not happen. That would be tantamount to exactly the sort of cultural compromise that resulted in the Left and Progressives coming to dominate the debate and the struggle. It is the leftist and the progressive view-structure that really does dominate all of our perception. They ‘marched through the institutions’ and they also marched, ideologically, through our minds. In order to define a counter-propositional position to *all that* will involve a radical set of counter-definitions. And these are not forthcoming. Because it is too radical what is required (that is my view).
The Left and the Progressives do though have a form of ‘patriotism’, but it is to a nebulous Vision or Ideal. Their patriotic values revolve around what I call a new definition of America, and this is a post-Sixties ideological position in essence. This ideology, and its idealism, has so infused culture that it is now significantly a *belief* in a civic-religiosity.
My view is that the core and the base of the radical leftist and radical progressive movement and social thrust is exactly as they say it is: an effort to end ‘whiteness’. It is ‘genocidal’ at least in a symbolical sense. This is what they say, not what I have said. They very clearly define their object, and they demonstrate how it will be carried out and what its ends will be. The present movement is a continuation of a movement began as a result of the 2 world wars in Europe in my view. It is a continuation of that massive, *suicidal* war. A profound civil war really (or essentially). The shattering effect results in a slow but continual breaking apart of social cohesion. It is as if the only *righteous* response to the shame and confusion resulting from that European civil war is . . . self-annihilation. Losing faith and belief in one’s right to live and prosper (and defend oneself). It begins through losing a coherent self-definition.
Identity thus is not something to shy away from, it is something to be recovered and strengthened.
Maybe… this is why the left is so opposed to guns….
Point of order: the left loves guns… in the hands of their stormtroopers. The public defending themselves is another matter.
Historical fact
If Kavanaugh had responded judiciously, the mob would have said he was bloodless and calculating and obviously guilty. Just like his appearance on Fox was panned for being too angelic. Fuck these assholes. You say tomato, I say tomahto. They are impossible and are just playing Lucy van Pelt pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown every fall. Pathetic.
They’re setting up a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation, which is totally to be expected. The ends of handing Trump a defeat (Kavanaugh is just a vehicle to that) is the only thing that matters, with the possible bonus of winning back the Senate and being able to deny him an appointment at all.
Any means toward the above ends are acceptable, including Kafkaesque lose-lose traps, raising false strawmen and beating them into subatomic particles, outright dissimulation and hypocrisy, ignoring facts in favor of spectacular unproven and unprovable accusations, etc. I am convinced that they aren’t done yet, and that “in for a penny, in for a pound” is their guiding principle.
I’m hopeful, actually. Just a nudge more and it might turn the election around.
Collins will announce her position this afternoon. What do you bet she votes to advance him, then votes against him on a final confirmation vote?
Susan Collins who was about to get swarmed by protesting college students for free credits – https://apnews.com/c2e3c89c9db441a7b2408758c271773b
The ends some people go to in that party just dumbfound me. Though given the actions of said party members since Nov. 2016, nothing should surprise me anymore.
Very depressed that David Luban, a distinguished legal ethicist, is on the list. I’ve met Luban and used his textbook. How embarrassing.
Jack:
Don’t you think a nearly unbridgeable chasm is being or has been created here?
MW and I are probably equally gloomy on this as our republic is intentionally torn apart.
He/we are likely right; there is little place to go for the grievance politics mob other than to direct, non-verbal, confrontation. Ask Cornyn, Flake, Cruz, et.al. about that.
You have, no doubt, noted the calls for, sometimes ill defined and others clearly defined, direct action have been coming with greater frequency and from more sources.
It is difficult to come to a different conclusion from MW.
You mean there wasn’t one already? Has the Obama administration been pushed so far into the memory hole by Trump’s bombastic madness that nobody even recalls the IRS scandal, Eric Holder being held in contempt and ignoring it, “Fast and Furious,” the Iran deal, Uranium One, I-could-go-on-till-doomsday?
Did we somehow miss what happened to the Left in those years, forget the 2016 election, and even the news that the DNC lawyers met with the FBI about Trump during the election? Has the Trump black hole sucked in everything else?
We have been here a long time. Kavanaugh’s elevation, should it occur, will undoubtedly trigger violence. The only question is, will it be THE event, or will that be something else? We are likely to find out real soon…
Jack call’s Hillary’s condemnation of half of America as “deplorable” as the moment the Left crossed the Rubicon.
I feel it happened during Obama’s years. Never before had a President spoken in openly divisive terms about half of the nation, never before had a President spoken about America in anything other than “we” and unifying language. The best unifying language Obama could conjure was “get on board a completely radical wagon or get despised” set of terms.
I consider that the crossing of the Rubicon for the Left…and that the Left put its toe in the water to test the temperature in the last term of Bush II.
I wouldn’t disagree with that, either. I frequently point out that Obama deliberately divided the nation down racial, gender, ethnic, sexual preference, religious an partisan lines to intensify his base and the party’s, which was built on racial identification. Oddly, people who were on the “right” side of this divide always say that it didn’t happen. I also believe this, more than any other factor (and there are many) make Obama one of the most disastrous Predidents in our history.
I ALSO believe, leaping to the “judicial temperament” argument, that Mitt Romney would be President right now, and Trump would be hosting The NEW Apprentice, if Romney had defended himself against the Reid/Obama/ news media personal attacks and lies like Kavanaugh did.
How much of our modern divisiveness could be psychologically linked to 9/11 and the American political reactions following that?
Expansion of the surveillance state, which led to discontent, a discontent which was used to exacerbate political disagreement.
Inability to resolve two wars as quickly as Americans prefer, which led to discontent, a discontent which was used to exacerbate political disagreement.
A general inability to understand our place in the world, given that, prior to 9/11 victory in the Cold War was still a fresh memory, Islamic terrorism was still small scale. The conversations leading to discontent, which was used to exacerbate political disagreement.
Was 9/11 and it’s aftermath traumatic enough to expose weak spots for nefarious actors to exploit politically?
That’s an interesting point, Jack. Very interesting, and I think, possibly right. I’m not really sanguine about it, but it’s plausible.
Romney also made an inexcusably tribalistic and insensitive “47%” remark (if memory serves) that did a lot of damage to his candidacy, regardless of its accuracy. I’m not quite sure a robust defense of the smears by Reid et. al. would’ve been enough, but maybe so.
The remark was at a private function, and 100% accurate. About 50% of the country is virtually on the dole, and thus beholden to an intrusive government. I can’t call an accurate statement tribal.
Robert Bork MIGHT have made it onto the SCOTUS if he’d spoken up a bit more forcefully in his own defense in 1987, but I doubt it, the math was against him. Romney might have beaten Obama in 2012 if he’d stood up for himself a bit more, but he’d have had a real hard time getting around the 47% line. I have to agree here that Kavanaugh was probably toast no matter what he did, the media would spin it against him. The math is really tight now. Heidi Heitkamp has announced she’s going to vote no, she knows she’s toast next month and wants to keep her liberal bona fides for whatever high-paying job is next. Susan Collins will announce this afternoon, and I think that’s going to be the ball game. She indicated she was satisfied with the FBI report, but she’s been leaned on HARD by the left and already broke with the administration on Betsy DeVos. That said, she isn’t up for reelection for another 2 years, which is a lifetime in politics, and she’s held her seat for over 20 years.
Lisa Murkowski just voted no on cloture, so she’s probably going to vote no on confirmation, but Flake, Collins, and Joe Manchin all voted yes, so it moves forward. Will any of these three change their minds? Susan Collins can still vote no, but then either Flake or Manchin has to vote no too.
If the insurrectionists win this after all they’ve done to destroy our Republic, things will NEVER be pretty again except in the times that those who believe in the Republic (so far not a single leftist) cave in.
Shumer just said to the nation that he and his colleagues would be nonpartisan and objective about another nominee if Kavanaugh is withdrawn.
What transparent duplicity.
No shame. No decency.
Obama could be seen as the first manifestation of a new and rising demographic coming into political power. If this is so it reveals what the future holds. The battle (if you will) has now come out into the open. The hatred of Trump is, at least in one significant sense, a manifestation of the contempt of the ‘original demographic’. I don’t see a way around this. It appears to me solidly true.
If the ‘original demographic’ does nothing — can do nothing — because it is terrified to push back against this thrust, and if it cannot define in real and clear terms what is going on and where this tends, things will continue just as they have.
But time will eventually decide all of this. get despised” set of terms.”
Obama could be seen as the first manifestation of a new and rising demographic coming into political power. If this is so it reveals what the future holds. The battle has now come out into the open. The hatred of Trump is, at least in one significant sense, a continuation of the contempt of the ‘original demographic’. I don’t see a way around this. It appears to me solidly true.
If the ‘original demographic’ does nothing — can do nothing — because it is terrified to push back against this thrust, and if it cannot define in real and clear terms what is going on and where this tends, things will continue just as they have.
But time will eventually decide all of this.
Glenn:
It was definitely there long before, but the Left’s desperation and irrationality are now at such a high pitch and volume, it seems even if a bridge could be built to cross this quickly widening and deepening chasm, they would burn it in ignorant, self-righteous indignation.
I can’t really argue with that. So I won’t. 🙂
Jack, it is either join the mob or be destroyed by the monster you helped create.
Same thing ‘moderate’ muslims face.
Three of my favorite law professors from my alma mater (Christopher Seaman, Joshua Fairfield, and John D. King) also have the unfortunate distinction of being on the list. I’m very disappointed in them. I am considering writing them a letter to that effect, but I’m not sure that would be the most ethical course.
On the other hand, two of my more liberal, and two of my other favorite professors, (Brian Murchison and Joan Shaughnessy) declined to sign this list, which suggests some liberals are actually thinking about this critically. That’s the good news, I suppose.
Surprisingly Kathleen Boozang, liberal feminist dean at my alma mater, who we used to call “Professor Boobs-hang” behind her back, isn’t on the list.
That seems a little juvenile. You realize you’re on an ethics blog, right?
Umm, you realize he was in college at the time, right? That’s what “…used to call…” in this context means.
I imagine almost everyone used to call at least one teacher, professor, or similar person in authority an unflattering name among classmates. Let’s not try to replicate the Kavanaugh debacle in here, even mildly. Moralizing about long past events is never a good look.
He was in law school. Plus, the comment clearly shows he’s authenticating the nickname now.
No, Steve wants to be sure I knew which prof he was referring to. The name is descriptive.
/snark
“Lighten up, Frances!”
Heh. “Authenticating.” Thanks for making me laugh a little, I needed it this morning.
And, relentlessly stealing from Slick below:
You, sir, have just disqualified yourself from ever serving on the Supreme Court or any other public office. And I don’t care if you were a 16-year-old student when you uttered that despicable comment. Shame!
One could reasonably argue that he should be disqualified from the Supreme Court because of the comment just made. (Of course, that would be different if the comment were made in high school, or even in college. I don’t give a pass in law school, that’s when you are grown up and should be being professional in my humble opinion). Respect for women SHOULD be a requirement for being on the Supreme Court. There’s just no PROOF Judge Kavanaugh lacks said respect.
That’s the said problem with the “Me Too” movement. In the beginning, it really wasn’t a terrible idea. We should certainly make some adjustments for women. We shouldn’t call them nicknames based on their appearance, for instance. We should admonish men when they treat women in a professional setting significantly different than they treat men. We should talk to our sons about consent, and the things that may undermine their ability to know whether they have consent. All of those are good ideas.
Unfortunately, the “Me Too” movement went off the deep end and decided to try to do away with due process and common sense. The women smelled power and so did their supporters.
That’s the problem with humans. We can’t take a good idea and run with it only for so long as it is a good idea. Instead, the idea always goes past the point where it’s helping people and to the point where the ideologues are trying to control private lives. I think that’s why democracy is so successful, in part. The terrible ideas, and the loudest voices, tend to cancel each other out. The reasonable voter is thereafter able to vote for those ideas that aren’t quite so oppressive. I retain some hope that the quiet folks, aren’t very impressed with the Democrats and the “Me Too” folks in this fiasco. (Although the professors who I respected who signed this document undermine that hope to some degree).
Well, I think that’s absurd. Even as a young adult, we make errors in judgment. Would you say using the N-word 25 years ago while a law student should disqualify a person from legal employment? A judgeship? The Supreme Court? Where do we draw the line at social and employment ostracism for ancient sins? Would calling an elderly woman professor and old battleaxe also be disqualifying?
You see where your argument goes? It goes against the core of a fundamental principle of ethics, that of forgiveness. If a person makes an error in judgment that isn’t a felony, there should be no long-term damage to his reputation or employability, especially if we’re talking about speech. We have to move on from errors made in antiquity, and judge people on a more reasonable period.
What would that be? I don’t know, but I propose from age 30 on, and with a look-back window of maybe 10 years. I don’t buy “adulthood” at 22 or 23, because I know I wasn’t one other than a technicality. I finally grew up in the Navy, but even there, I still misbehaved. Most people don’t fully mature until their 30’s or even later.
This idea that non-criminal mistakes while made in college should follow you forever is both untenable and ethically perverse.
Wait: you are really saying that joining other sophomores in making an obvious and predictable crude joke about a professor’s name at the time disqualifies someone from being a SCOTUS justice? Really? Are we going to call Professor Boozang a “survivor” now? Making up gross names and nicknames of professor was a popular pastime when I was in school too, including law school. Wanna guess what some people called Professor Schotland behind his back? Such jokes disqualify students for future jobs? Good to know!
Or is Steve-O’s completely factual account of his college or law school verbal indiscretions now a SCOTUS disqualification?
Really?
Sorry, I can see the confusion here.
When I said “reasonable”, I meant more reasonable than the reasons being bandied around by the anti-Kavanaugh folks. That wasn’t clear from my comment, and, unsurprisingly, no one was able to read my mind.
To expand, obviously if it was just a one-off comment, or juvenile nonsense, it does not preclude him from anything, but it could be emblematic of an overall disdain for women, and an overall disdain for women should preclude one from being on the Supreme Court at a minimum, I would think.
And I would think that assuming an “overall disdain” for women would be VERY difficult to justify from a single, very easily explainable comment on a blog.
“…I don’t care if you were a 16-year-old student when you uttered that despicable comment. Shame!”
BITE M… er, STEVE! Yeah, BITE STEVE!
/sn
Not to my taste, actually. And, look, this might be hard to swallow, but doesn’t a reiteration of that vulgar comment place Steve squarely in that category of deplorables identified by Ms Clinton, a deplorable who also is irredeemable? /s
Actually, I do believe in redemption, and I don’t fully trust memory, which helps explain why I have difficulty with new allegations of misbehavior from decades ago (and also with my wife’s selective memory).
Schumer stated the mission — do everything we can to prevent confirmation — so the actions that followed should not be too surprising. It will not be easy for Democrats to redeem themselves from that.
This goes into the category of “Too much information.”
Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament is apparent in his performance as a judge for decades NOT in his temperament in trying to protect himself from false accusations meant to literally destroy his life!
Every attack on Kavanaugh has been unsubstantiated and unprovable lies, it’s been carefully choreographed to set up Kavanaugh in one lose-lose prove a negative situation after another. Looking at this circus from the outside it appears that there is genuine collusion to absolutely destroy Kavanaugh professionally and personally there’s clear defamation to my eyes. In addition I think the political left is intentionally undermining SCOTUS with intentional sedition to intentionally subvert SCOTUS, they want to destroy the capabilities of SCOTUS to perform their duties in the eyes of the public. This is a branch of the United States Government and the political left is actively trying to undermine it! I think a special counsel should be appointed by the Justice Department to to dive into what the political left has done.
Scorched earth tactics. If progressives cannot use the court, they would deny it to their enemies.
Look someone on the Left who actually referred to the structural components Constitutionally in place that have to do with SCOTUS confirmations:
Regarding,
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.
Well Jack,what can I say. Isn’t it you sir who raised the bar by using the ,Thomas More — A man for all seasons video clip? Not only on this blog but — I surmise — also in your ethical training material?
Those law professors are right! If Judge Brett Kavanaugh can’t be as a man for all seasons he disqualifies for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.
</s >
Huh? I can’t tell if this is serious or tongue in cheek. If it’s serious, you may have had a stroke.
In fact, at the end of his trial, More gives a speech of outrage very much like Kavanaugh’s, and for similar reasons; both were framed for purely political reasons.
“I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive then in good faith, I long not to live. Nevertheless……it is not for the supremacy that you have sought my blood…
…but because I would not bend to the marriage!”
And no, I’ve never used THAT clip, here or anywhere.
the tag is a dead giveaway, Jack. It indicates sarcasm.
Is that what is supposed to mean?
Here I’ve always thought it was the closing tag for strike-through text?
What tag?
means something? A tag that isn’t widely used or understood is no more communication here than Swalhili.See what happened when I used it?
I think I tried strike-through tag and the underline tags here and the wouldn’t work. I’ll try them again…
Strike-throughUnderline
Underline still doesn’t work.
The underline tag is disabled because links to other places are also underlined. Cuts down on confusion.
dragin_dragon wrote, “The underline tag is disabled because links to other places are also underlined. Cuts down on confusion.”
Thanks for the info, I didn’t know that.
I think this depends on generation and exposure to “internet culture” – in many circles, ending a note/post/comment with /s is commonly used to indicate sarcasm. Much like the annoying “jk” (for just kidding).
But everyone knows that Serif is easier to read. The Sans Serif people should be vilified.
The comment is tongue in cheek.
The video clip of Thomas More I meant to refer to is the one in your post “And The ACLU Takes A First Class Seat On The Brett Kavanaugh Ethics Train Wreck. Of Course It Has. (The ABA Stayed In Coach)”
This clip shows More with a high level of ‘ judicial temperament’.
I did not know of a video clip with the outburst of Thomas More as described by you. I will (re-) watch the whole movie.
The tag is, as Glen suggested, intended to indicate the comment was not that serious (sarcasm, snark).
Similar tags have been used by other commentators on this post:
slickwilly (October 5, 2018 at 9:45 am)
slickwilly (October 5, 2018 at 9:48 am)
Here’s Johnny (October 5, 2018 at 10:51 am )
I try to use the entire word these days to avoid confusing Tim… (Just kidding, Tim!)
Like this: /snark
And Moore was beheaded because he refused to do as he was told. Kavanaugh fought the power elite as did Moore and the only difference is the outcome.
Thus we can say Kavanaugh exemplified the principles set forth by Thomas Moore.
2400 + Professors?
They weren’t comfortable using 97 %©™®, or were there concerns about copyright infringement?
Jack wrote:
“3. The letter is completely irrelevant. Nobody in the Senate cares what a group of liberal law professors want. No Senator is going to read this opinion and say, ‘Oh, no! I guess I better vote against Kavanaugh: a boatload of professors I’ve never heard of think I should!’”
Thanks, Jack. That made me smile. That made my day. Over and out.