The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

As the groundswell of opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to grow, many of the vocal critics of his nomination are law professors.

In fact, in an open letter published in The New York Times and set to be delivered to the Senate on Thursday, over 650 law professors — and counting — are urging the Senate to reject his confirmation, on the grounds that, regardless of his guilt or innocence in multiple allegations of sexual assault, his response to the Senate inquiry was so inappropriate and unbecoming a judge as to be disqualifying.

“The question at issue was of course painful for anyone,” reads the letter. “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,” the letter notes, “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,” the professors conclude. “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.”

Among the signatories of the letter include professors at Yale Law School, Kavanaugh’s own alma mater, and the site of one of the assault allegations; Harvard Law School, where Kavanaugh has taught classes and where student protest has resulted in his course being withdrawn; and from state universities in Maine and Arizona, states that are home to Republican senators who are reportedly still making up their minds.

These professors are not alone. As Kavanaugh’s nomination has grown more toxic, some of his former law clerks have told the Judiciary Committee they support a full investigation of the claims against him, and even a woman used in dark-money television ads supporting Kavanaugh, Louisa Garry, asked to be removed from a letter supporting him.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows U.S. adults oppose confirming Kavanaugh by a margin of 41 to 33.

Matthew Chapman is a video game designer, science fiction author, and political reporter from Austin, TX. Follow him on Twitter @fawfulfan.

 

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

For nearly 50 years, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling has protected a woman's right to an abortion. It also protected many politicians' careers. Lawmakers who opposed abortion knew that as long as abortion remained available, pro-choice voters wouldn't care much about their positions on the matter.

That would be especially true of suburban mothers. Once reliable Republican voters, they have moved toward Democrats in recent elections. If the GOP wants them back, forcing their impregnated high schoolers to bear children will not help. If Roe is overturned, more than 20 states are likely to make abortion virtually illegal, as Texas has done.

Keep reading... Show less

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over a Mississippi law banning abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. The law roundly defies the court's decisions affirming a right to abortion, but the state portrays the ban as the mildest of correctives.

All Mississippi wants the justices to do, insisted state solicitor general Scott Stewart, is defer to "the people." The law, he said, came about because "many, many people vocally really just wanted to have the matter returned to them so that they could decide it — decide it locally, deal with it the way they thought best, and at least have a fighting chance to have their view prevail."

Keep reading... Show less
x
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}