He lied about his involvement in the confirmation process of certain Bush nominees
He lied about his involvement in government wiretapping programs
He lied repeatedly about the statements made by other individuals who were present at the party where Dr Ford was assaulted.
He lied about when he learned about the second set of allegations made against him.
He lied about provable facts, such as the drinking age in Maryland at the time.
The Senate Judiciary Republicans refused to make public all of Kavanaugh's record, as they had done with previous SCOTUS nominees. instead, they kept information away from the public and rushed the process. The appearance was that they were hiding unsavory or unethical information about Kavanaugh.
Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush’s 2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for Bush’s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel’s investigation into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes...
in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.
The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”
“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”
A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.
In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh’s “solid reputation for integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability” against “concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will be unable to judge fairly in the future.” In a split vote, it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply “qualified” — meaning he met the ABA’s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.
ABA (American Bar Association) sent letter calling for an FBI investigation into Kavanaugh
Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination. The warning was all the more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican defenders had cited the ABA’s previously glowing endorsement of the nominee — “the gold standard,” as one leading Republican put it.
“New information of a material nature regarding temperament” during the hearing prompted the reopening, the ABA said Friday.
The ABA committee that reviews federal judges awards ratings based on three criteria: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.
The national lawyers organization told the Senate Judiciary Committee that its team of internal reviewers “does not expect to complete a process and revote” before the anticipated final confirmation vote Saturday. The process became rancorous after Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when both were teens.
Brett Kavanaugh showed a crazy, completely nutsy side during one of his hearings. As well, he made unhinged, partisan statements based on conspiracy.
Almost a week later Kavanaugh penned an op-ed for himself in the Wall Street Journal (looks like someone told him to do it) When he was ranting, he said some things that proved he would not be a fair judge.
Brett Kavanaugh and Dr Ford. If there was a question about who was telling the truth, why did the FBI not directly question Kavanaugh and Dr Ford? Why in the hearing did the woman stop after asking him about the calendar instance of July 1st, 1982?
There were a lot of witnesses who not only wanted to come forward but attempted to do so, and were turned away by the FBI.
What was in the calendar? Surprisingly, there was a party event that reference skis (brewskis) that was on a Thursday night that had many of the same people that were described in Dr Ford's testimony. The FBI didn't investigate the veracity of this.
What was in his yearbook? A lot of references that indicated that his classmates talking about Kavanaugh being a drunk were not off base.
The *investigation* was supposed to last a week but didn't, probably because so much potential evidence was not even considered.
President Trump, the creep currently in charge of our country, mocked Dr Ford at one of his campaign meetings after previously saying she was a fine woman. He later said he did it to "level the playing field", proving that this creep will say anything nasty to try to win. So much for fairness or being any kind of example to admire.
Who's against him?
Former SCOTUS justice John Paul Stevens (see video below)
More than 2400 law professors (see below)
3 of his drinking buddies from Yale (see below)
The letter with 65 people on it. Appears the Republicans already knew about this and were prepared with stagecraft like girls showing up
Ministers -National Council of Churches (see below)
Jesuit Magazine calls for him to withdraw (see below)
List of far-right judicial decisions that are out of the mainstream. Brett Kavanaugh appears to have been a hit man for Republicans, and this was a way to make him a *made man*.
In their new editorial, America’s editors said they were still committed to finding a justice with Kavanaugh’s textualist approach to jurisprudence that is suspicious of the kind of judicial innovation that led to the Roe decision. But they said Kavanaugh was not the only candidate available.
“For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson,” the editors wrote.
The president of Georgetown Prep, the Rev. James R. Van Dyke, has said the controversy over Ford’s accusations has compelled the school to “evaluate our school culture” and redouble efforts to help students develop a healthy understanding of masculinity.
“And it is a time to talk with them honestly and even bluntly about what respect for others, especially respect for women and other marginalized people means in very practical terms_in actions and in words,” Van Dyke wrote to the school community Sept. 20.
The National Council of Churches (NCC) calls for the withdrawal of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. We believe he has disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately.
We note several reasons. During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation. We are deeply disturbed by the multiple allegations of sexual assault and call for a full and unhindered investigation of these accusations.
In addition, his testimony before the Judiciary Committee included several misstatements and some outright falsehoods. All citizens must be expected to speak truthfully when under oath, however, this is especially true for anyone who seeks a seat on the Supreme Court.
Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial and political record is troubling with regard to issues of voting rights, racial and gender justice, health care, the rights of people with disabilities, and environmental protections. This leads us to believe that he cannot be an impartial justice in cases that are sure to come before him at the Court.
Therefore the National Council of Churches calls for the withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court immediately.
too many questions remain about his history for senators to responsibly vote “yes.” At the same time, enough has been learned about his partisan instincts that we believe senators must vote “no.”
We do not say so lightly. We have not opposed a Supreme Court nominee, liberal or conservative, since Robert H. Bork in 1987. We believe presidents are entitled to significant deference if they nominate well-qualified people within the broad mainstream of judicial thought. When President Trump named Mr. Kavanaugh, he seemed to be such a person: an accomplished judge whom any conservative president might have picked. But given Republicans’ refusal to properly vet Mr. Kavanaugh, and given what we have learned about him during the process, we now believe it would be a serious blow to the court and the nation if he were confirmed.
One element of the GOP vetting failure has been all but forgotten in the drama over alleged sexual assaults, but it remains for us a serious shortcoming. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to ask for all the potentially relevant documents from his time serving in the George W. Bush White House. The reason was not principled but political: Though they had kept a Supreme Court seat vacant for most of 2016, they wanted to ram through Mr. Kavanaugh before this year’s midterm elections. Those documents, which could have been processed without crippling delay, might end up supporting his case, or they might not; we have no idea. But any responsible senator should insist on seeing them before casting a vote.
The despicable attack launched by Sen. Orrin Hatch and the Senate Judiciary Committee — more precisely, the Republicans on that committee — on one of the women who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault is a textbook example of why more victims do not come forward.
Worse, it betrays a positively medieval attitude toward all women as sex objects who cannot be believed or taken seriously.
We were college classmates and drinking buddies with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. In the past week, all threeof usdecidedseparately to respond to questions from the media regarding Brett’s honesty, or lack thereof. In each of our cases, it was his public statements during a Fox News TV interview and his sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that prompted us to speak out.
We each asserted that Brett lied to the Senate by stating, under oath, that he never drank to the point of forgetting what he was doing. We said, unequivocally, that each of us, on numerous occasions, had seen Brett stumbling drunk to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did when drunk.
..None of this is what we wanted, but we felt it our civic duty to speak the truth and say that Brett lied under oath while seeking to become a Supreme Court justice. That is our one and only message, but it is a significant one. For we each believe that telling the truth, no matter how difficult, is a moral obligation for our nation’s leaders. No one should be able to lie their way onto the Supreme Court. Honesty is the glue that holds together a society of laws. Lies are the solvent that dissolves those bonds.
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4.
Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. 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. 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. 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.
As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.
We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.
The court needed a new member, and a confirmation process, that would help to restore its reputation as a politically impartial body. There was admittedly little prospect of that: Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate were always likely to choose a reliable conservative. But Kavanaugh’s confirmation goes far beyond that. The country watched as the nominee, albeit under intense pressure, expressed ferocious partisan hostility to his political enemies. As retired Justice John Paul Stevens put itThursday, Kavanaugh “demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities.”
Maybe, as passions cool, Kavanaugh will again be able to conduct himself with judicial propriety — and serve in the manner of the judge who attracted the praise of many peers, regardless of political affiliation, before the confirmation process began. But reasonable people will doubt whether this is possible. And if Democratic, liberal and feminist groups demand his recusal on cases destined to affect them, who could blame them?
Compounding the problem, as much as half of the country will regard this appointment as illegitimate. The charges against Kavanaugh weren’t convincingly denied or thoroughly investigated. Witnesses who sought to cooperate were turned away by the FBI or simply ignored. Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford weren’t interviewed at all — granting Kavanaugh’s wish to avoid further FBI scrutiny while refusing Ford’s to have her claims tested...
Not for the first time, the Republican Senate has failed to discharge its own duties under the Constitution. Republican Jeff Flake and Democrat Chris Coons tried, in good faith by every indication, to steer the Senate away from tribal warfare over Kavanaugh. They fell short.
She offered wishful thoughts that “centrist” Kavanaugh won’t outlaw abortion, won’t champion executive power and “will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court.” Unlikely. Kavanaugh campaigned for confirmation via right-wing outlets: a Fox News interview and a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He testified about Democrats’ “smears” and “political hit” seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” He threatened that “what goes around comes around.”
Collins offered no complaint about that, nor about Trump’s mockery of Ford at a political rally, nor Trump’s tweet saying the assault couldn’t have been “as bad as she says” because she didn’t call the police, nor his belittling Al Franken for resigning under misconduct allegations “like a wet rag.” (Collins called for Democrat Franken to resign without an investigation.)
Collins made no mention of McConnell ignoring the Merrick Garland nomination for nearly a year, deploying the “nuclear option” to deny minority influence over Supreme Court confirmations and saying he would “plow right through” despite the Ford allegations, which he called “a good smear” with a “complete lack of evidence.”
She praised Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who on his way to her speech had said Republican women don’t want to serve on his committee because “it’s a lot of work” (aides pushed him to recant), and who earlier was joined by Trump in alleging that George Soros paid the sexual assault survivors who protested.
Much of the anger was directed at Collins who swung behind Kavanaugh in the end, unlike her peer, senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, who was the lone Republican “No” during the procedural vote on Friday that paved the way for a smooth final senate vote on Saturday afternoon. The political wing of the women’s health organization Planned Parenthood, which has been a firm ally of Collins in the past and even presented her with an award, put out a devastating statement in which it said: “Senator Collins has made it clear that she can no longer call herself a women’s rights champion. She has sided with those who disbelieved, disrespected, and even mocked survivors.”
Brett Kavanaugh likely sealed his fate when he staged that unseemly partisan rant last week that was so unbecoming of a judge. Pardon our cynicism, but the histrionics no doubt played well enough to his Senate supporters, President Trump and his base that he is probably on his way to a seat on the highest court in the land.
And that would do irreparable damage to this republic.
Kavanaugh’s nomination is now headed for a Senate vote. We urge those senators, wavering between doing right and doing the politically expedient, to vote No and reject this obviously biased judge for the Supreme Court. Though he tried to walk back his hostile words of a week ago in an Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday, he could not erase them. Their sentiment would be equally chilling coming from an embattled nominee of a Democratic president.
Kavanaugh joking about his time at Georgetown Prep "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown prep"
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting
Been awhile. Send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )
I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks. I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )
I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood.
Is Jacene still involved? I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )