"I Know Brett Kavanaugh, But I Wouldn't Confirm Him"

[Halbhh]

Judges are also human beings. You have a group of people in Washington that acted awful and cruel to him and his family prior to the accusations. Then when those came out? Fanned the flames, and made two families go into hiding - and have round the clock security.

I know this would affect me as well. I think it would effect majority of people. They got to deal with the threats against their spouses and families, and things just got WAY out of hand! Did you see how many security people had to surround them when they walked into this last hearing? It was ridiculous. No one is suppose to have any reaction to that type of environment? I would be scared to death, and no doubt both families were. It would also make me angry at those that fanned the flames to make sure it was unbearable - and many people did just that.

If we can't as humans take that type of context and circumstance into account? It's because we don't want too. We had groups of people burning down cities, and tearing up campuses - and we all had to look into the reasons and possible context that might have driven them to do this. I'm just using those two as examples that people might remember. If we are able to look at the context and circumstance of other situations? We have the ability to do that here too. Sadly, it seems people are making choices instead.

To say his past experience isn't relevant because of his outrage over what he and Ford have been put through? That's asking to much. If it can be proven that he can show impartiality in his rulings - which they did go over some in his first hearing prior to the accusations - they are entirely relevant.

I think many need to stop and walk in the Judge's and Dr. Ford's shoes for a while. If they think they would come out looking like some superhero? Good for them, but anyone in their right mind would be shaken. That reality does need to come into the discussion as well.

America is being severely harmed by talk show hosts (on both sides) that characterize falsely the other side (e.g. 'right wing', 'liberal', etc.) as responsible for the most of the ills of America.

It even reminds some of Germany in the 1930s, but now it's being done from 2 sides, instead of only 1.

Hard to say if the nation will avoid a slow spiral to more violence, separation and/or civil war, but America does have some strong traditions and a fair amount of common sense in the population to combat this (often for-profit) propaganda from the 2 sides.

Your post is a good example of the American common sense that could help. But perhaps even more so our nation needs to become more Christian.

Christian speech doesn't attack a political side, neither 'liberals' nor 'right wingers'.

But even just the good common sense you were writing here is a good sign, and I hope it's typical of a majority of Americans.

 

[Albion]

Did he ever face attacks on his reputation and character as an Appellate Court justice? Did he ever have any reason why he might be biased against partisan groups at the time?

Well, did he?

 

[Veritas]

Judges are expected to be non-partisan. In that, they are held to a higher standard than politicians, who are, by nature, partisan. To make partisan accusations as a judge calls into question any future judgments that involve partisan issues - of which there are many currently on the docket or potentially upcoming.

But highly partisan hearings are perfectly ok?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Slams Senate Hearings As A 'Highly Partisan Show'

And ironically, Ginsburg herself is quite partisan.

In her remarks on the presumptive GOP nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have trumped her usual outspokenness

There is absolutely no way a justice can be 100% non-partisan. However, they can be expected to remain relatively unbiased by interpreting the US Constitution in light of the founders intent. This is of course, not what the liberals want. They view the Constitution as a "living" document that can be changed or ignored as necessary to advance a particular agenda. Historically, the legislative branch ebbs and flows between left and right. Therefore, the left has depended on the judicial branch to achieve its objectives. With Trump's appointments, SCOTUS will for the first time in decades reflect a more conservative slant. It's likely to continue as I believe Trump will probably have at least one more appointment in his presidency, especially if it extends to 2 terms. In 5 years Ginsburg (if still alive) will be 90. She already has a hard time paying attention and staying awake when court is in session.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well, did he?

I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest it. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he might carry a bias now. Which is why basing his confirmation only on his past record as you want to do would be a mistake.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But highly partisan hearings are perfectly ok?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Slams Senate Hearings As A 'Highly Partisan Show'

And ironically, Ginsburg herself is quite partisan.

In her remarks on the presumptive GOP nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have trumped her usual outspokenness

There is absolutely no way a justice can be 100% non-partisan. However, they can be expected to remain relatively unbiased by interpreting the US Constitution in light of the founders intent. This is of course, not what the liberals want. They view the Constitution as a "living" document that can be changed or ignored as necessary to advance a particular agenda. Historically, the legislative branch ebbs and flows between left and right. Therefore, the left has depended on the judicial branch to achieve its objectives. With Trump's appointments, SCOTUS will for the first time in decades reflect a more conservative slant. It's likely to continue as I believe Trump will probably have at least one more appointment in his presidency, especially if it extends to 2 terms. In 5 years Ginsburg (if still alive) will be 90. She already has a hard time paying attention and staying awake when court is in session.

I agree with you on Ginsburg - to be quite honest, I'm surprised that Roberts hasn't censured her after some of her statements, and the worship of her by some on the left goes a bit too far sometimes. Were she nominated with her current record, I would be opposed to her confirmation as well.

Edit: I'm also not happy with the current partisan state of Congress, but it is what it is. That I don't like what they're doing has no bearing on the revelations that come out of the situation.

 

[AllButNone]

Edit: I'm also not happy with the current partisan state of Congress, but it is what it is. That I don't like what they're doing has no bearing on the revelations that come out of the situation.

To me a big problem with all of this is that prior to the Ford allegations, Kavanaugh was treated extremely unfairly by Democrats. The biggest downside of this is that after Kavanaugh's own partisan outburst, it makes it all too easy for his defenders to point and say, "but see, it's deserved outrage." And they have a point.

But at he same time, Kavanaugh's own words shouldn't be excused by blaming others. It was his choice to express himself the way he did. He's going to be on the supreme court for life. Shouldn't he be held to an exceptionally high standard, without making exceptions for his conduct?

I don't really understand why people think Kavanaugh needs to be the one. Republicans will have the presidency for two more years, and likely the senate too, and even if Democrats did have the senate they wouldn't have the political capital to resist another nominee for two years. There are better picks, ones without this baggage.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

To me a big problem with all of this is that prior to the Ford allegations, Kavanaugh was treated extremely unfairly by Democrats.

Certain Democrats to be sure - Booker's "evil" bit was way out of line, and I disagree with those who declared they'd never vote for a Trump nominee (though I do understand their reasoning, given the Republican handling of Garland) - but there were legitimate issues raised during his hearing as well. Namely his lack of candor with regards to his role in the Bush admin and the Manuel Miranda stolen documents thing. Also, I disagree with the Republican position of trying to push him through as fast as possible, to the point that a large portion of the documentation of his career was not made available in a timely manner (or at all) to be reviewed.

So I'd be careful broad-brushing the Democratic treatment of Kavanaugh as "extremely unfair."

 

[AllButNone]

So I'd be careful broad-brushing the Democratic treatment of Kavanaugh as "extremely unfair."

You're right, I shouldn't broad-brush any group, especially in a post about partisanship. It isn't all democrats. A handful of democrats even appeared to be in support his nomination. But there were definitely aspects of his hearing that were extremely unfair.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But there were definitely aspects of his hearing that were extremely unfair.

Just out of curiosity, what would you characterize as "extremely unfair"?

 

[NotreDame]

Duplicate post

 

[AllButNone]

Just out of curiosity, what would you characterize as "extremely unfair"?

This, or some of the things listed here, which individually might be overlooked but half-truths were a fairly consistent feature of discussions. The insinuations of perjury, being subject to a considerable degree of undeserved acrimony.

The problems aren't isolated to a single party, there was bad behaviour coming from individuals on both sides of the aisle. Democrats had some right to be angry with Republicans too. But... as this thread already discusses, how that anger is channeled matters.

 

[AllButNone]

Just out of curiosity, what would you characterize as "extremely unfair"?

Just thinking about this, let me ask you something in return. Before the Ford accusations came to light (which creates a different set of circumstances), did you feel Kavanaugh was being treated with dignity and respect?

 

[NotreDame]

.


Presumably, cases will come before the Supreme Court involving Democrats and liberal groups. Given his ranting against both, I would be skeptical of his ability to remain impartial in judgments involving them. Could he remain impartial? Perhaps. But the question will always be there.

His previous judgments and conduct aren't really relevant, because the reasons for his anger and accusations (and thus, possible impartiality) did not exist then.

Would you agree that impartiality is improper for a judge? I certainly think it is. Ergo, impartiality is a form of impropriety. Not all impropriety is impartiality, but all impartiality is impropriety

This doesn’t inform me that Kavanaugh is biased.

Presumably, cases will come before the Supreme Court involving Democrats and liberal groups. Given his ranting against both, I would be skeptical of his ability to remain impartial in judgments involving them. Could he remain impartial? Perhaps. But the question will always be there.

This shouldn’t be reduced to subjective, individual assessments that you personally or anyone else would have questions about Kavanaugh’s impartiality. This needs to be, as much as possible, rooted in the content of his remarks, and whether the content, taking context into consideration, satisfactorily shows bias. The same can be said for the appearance of bias.

Is mouthing off out of anger as a result of forever having his name tarnished by poorly corroborated to uncorroborated allegations of attempted rape, public indecency, and conspiracy to rape reflective that he will be incapable of being unbiased and fairly evaluating legal claims made by Democratic Senators?

I’m not so sure. I view this as his opportunity to express his anger in an entirely different forum, under different circumstances, than the forum of the Surpreme Court where the weight and responsibility of fairly evaluating a case, a case capable of receiving broad, public attention and scrutiny, would have Kavanaugh treat the case fairly, even if brought by Democratic Senators he personally derided.

His previous judgments and conduct aren't really relevant, because the reasons for his anger and accusations (and thus, possible impartiality) did not exist then

They are absolutely relevant. They establish years of professional, sound legal reasoning and argument. It’s a representation of who he is on the bench. That character of who he is on the bench, established over several years, shows a man of professionalism. It shows a man who takes his position as a judge, and the responsibilities, seriously. That is relevant evidence as to whether he would abandon his professional responsibility, that he’s practiced for years, to seek revenge against those Senate Democrats he addresses.

 

[Kentonio]

Judges are also human beings. You have a group of people in Washington that acted awful and cruel to him and his family prior to the accusations. Then when those came out? Fanned the flames, and made two families go into hiding - and have round the clock security.

I know this would affect me as well. I think it would effect majority of people. They got to deal with the threats against their spouses and families, and things just got WAY out of hand! Did you see how many security people had to surround them when they walked into this last hearing? It was ridiculous. No one is suppose to have any reaction to that type of environment? I would be scared to death, and no doubt both families were. It would also make me angry at those that fanned the flames to make sure it was unbearable - and many people did just that.

If we can't as humans take that type of context and circumstance into account? It's because we don't want too. We had groups of people burning down cities, and tearing up campuses - and we all had to look into the reasons and possible context that might have driven them to do this. I'm just using those two as examples that people might remember. If we are able to look at the context and circumstance of other situations? We have the ability to do that here too. Sadly, it seems people are making choices instead.

To say his past experience isn't relevant because of his outrage over what he and Ford have been put through? That's asking to much. If it can be proven that he can show impartiality in his rulings - which they did go over some in his first hearing prior to the accusations - they are entirely relevant.

I think many need to stop and walk in the Judge's and Dr. Ford's shoes for a while. If they think they would come out looking like some superhero? Good for them, but anyone in their right mind would be shaken. That reality does need to come into the discussion as well.

Think about his potential job for a moment. This is a position where he could end up ruling on the very fabric of American society. His rulings could potentially topple presidents, determine whether the union remains whole and determine whether millions of people have their rights protected. He could be asked to make those decisions in times of utmost chaos and turmoil, and the entire nation would depend on him and his SCOTUS colleagues to deliver their rulings with calm consideration and fairness. If he can't keep his cool when he's under pressure, then he doesn't belong on that court. It's a court that demands extraordinary people.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Just thinking about this, let me ask you something in return. Before the Ford accusations came to light (which creates a different set of circumstances), did you feel Kavanaugh was being treated with dignity and respect?

On the whole, that was my impression, but I wasn't following closely and I didn't watch the hearings, so I was mainly going off of secondhand reports/news stories. Admittedly, I'm in a left-leaning bubble in that respect, so my perspective could be a bit skewed.

Looking at the links you posted, I agree that the "abortion inducing drugs" stuff was ridiculous (and remember thinking that when I heard about it). On the judicial nominations stuff, I feel like his answers, both in the current hearings and in the past, were less than canderous. While he was careful to stay technically correct in most of his statements, he also appeared to be trying to be as vague as possible while staying in the realm of "technically correct." That's not the attitude I would expect from a judge, so I largely agree with the aggressive approach that was taken on those questions.

The third thing that I remember him being attacked over was whether or not he knew about the files stolen by Manuel Miranda. On that subject, I felt his denials strained credibility, so again, I agree with the aggressive line of questioning on it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This shouldn’t be reduced to subjective, individual assessments that you personally or anyone else would have questions about Kavanaugh’s impartiality. This needs to be, as much as possible, rooted in the content of his remarks, and whether the content, taking context into consideration, satisfactorily shows bias. The same can be said for the appearance of bias.

Is mouthing off out of anger as a result of forever having his name tarnished by poorly corroborated to uncorroborated allegations of attempted rape, public indecency, and conspiracy to rape reflective that he will be incapable of being unbiased and fairly evaluating legal claims made by Democratic Senators?

I’m not so sure. I view this as his opportunity to express his anger in an entirely different forum, under different circumstances, than the forum of the Surpreme Court where the weight and responsibility of fairly evaluating a case, a case capable of receiving broad, public attention and scrutiny, would have Kavanaugh treat the case fairly, even if brought by Democratic Senators he personally derided.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then.

They are absolutely relevant. They establish years of professional, sound legal reasoning and argument. It’s a representation of who he is on the bench. That character of who he is on the bench, established over several years, shows a man of professionalism. It shows a man who takes his position as a judge, and the responsibilities, seriously. That is relevant evidence as to whether he would abandon his professional responsibility, that he’s practiced for years, to seek revenge against those Senate Democrats he addresses.

Only if he's had the motive and opportunity to do something similar before, but refrained. Events can change a man. As an analogy, let's pretend that a judge has been a consummate professional for 30 years, until his daughter is murdered by a gang member. Would you trust that judge to fairly adjudicate a murder case involving a member of that same gang? Because I wouldn't.

 

[AllButNone]

On the whole, that was my impression, but I wasn't following closely and I didn't watch the hearings, so I was mainly going off of secondhand reports/news stories. Admittedly, I'm in a left-leaning bubble in that respect, so my perspective could be a bit skewed.

I haven't seen all of hearings, myself. My perspective could be skewed as well. But I do feel like the Harris-Kavanaugh exchange concerning Kasowitz Benson Torres was representative of a lot of unfair moments that I've seen. Harris pressed him when it looked like he was trying to answer appropriately. Screaming protestors interrupted, targeting him, and he didn't get so much as an apology. Harris then accused Kavanaugh of dishonesty. She ended the discussion without stating what she knew, she just left the conspiratorial implication dangling. To me it was pretty awful.

Then at least part of the media characterized it like this, where Kavanaugh gets accused of deflection. That's his reputation under assault. To have this go on for several days? I don't know. I didn't like it.

The Manuel Miranda incident, I also can't help but feel Kavanaugh was wronged. (This is probably the wrong thread to discuss it, but if you'd like, pm me and we can take the conversation there.)

(Center-left person myself.)

 

[HannahT]

Think about his potential job for a moment. This is a position where he could end up ruling on the very fabric of American society. His rulings could potentially topple presidents, determine whether the union remains whole and determine whether millions of people have their rights protected. He could be asked to make those decisions in times of utmost chaos and turmoil, and the entire nation would depend on him and his SCOTUS colleagues to deliver their rulings with calm consideration and fairness. If he can't keep his cool when he's under pressure, then he doesn't belong on that court. It's a court that demands extraordinary people.

If you think what his family - and Ford's family has been put through is just regular pressure? I don't know what tell you.

They even have had comments from SCOTUS from both sides presently sitting commenting about this outrageous treatment both families have had to endure.

Their treatment is not fair, and it is not JUST towards either party in this circumstance. It was cruel and these politicians didn't give a fig about either of them. They didn't care about Ford or Kavanaugh.

Do you think they would give a fig about us when we confront them, or will they do what we have seen they are capable of when they sic their gang of monsters on us? Is that what we want this country to be? When I don't like what you say or if you feel differently politically it's perfectly acceptable to send out - and encourage - the band of bullies? Think about what you are saying really hard.

The individuals that did this to him? They also are in the position that affects the very fabric of society, and their laws, regulations, etc affect every last one of us. Their are our LEADERS in the SENATE! They didn't do this with professionalism - or care of consideration of anyone but themselves. They also have the power to do this the next person - being a judge or average joe citizen - to rain this kind of campaign against us if we dare to disagree.

I used to respect some of these politicians, and I have to say I am questioning their ethics and character at this point. It's sad that we don't expect extraordinary people in our other parts of government as well. We certainly shouldn't be feeling the need to endorse or encourage this type of behavior. People seem to forget we could be next if they feel they have this power - and the right to use it. You take people down on the merits - not the campaign of intimidation.

 

[USincognito]

Yeah? How so?

 

[wing2000]

The individuals that did this to him? They also are in the position that affects the very fabric of society, and their laws, regulations, etc affect every last one of us. Their are our LEADERS in the SENATE! They didn't do this with professionalism - or care of consideration of anyone but themselves. They also have the power to do this the next person - being a judge or average joe citizen - to rain this kind of campaign against us if we dare to disagree.

I used to respect some of these politicians, and I have to say I am questioning their ethics and character at this point. It's sad that we don't expect extraordinary people in our other parts of government as well. We certainly shouldn't be feeling the need to endorse or encourage this type of behavior. People seem to forget we could be next if they feel they have this power - and the right to use it. You take people down on the merits - not the campaign of intimidation.

We don't know who leaked the existence of Ford's letter and may never know.