650+ Law Profs Call No Vote on Kavanaugh Due to Temperament

650+ Law Profs Call No Vote on Kavanaugh Due to Temperament

650+ Law Profs Call No Vote on Kavanaugh Due to Temperament

Six hundred and fifty law professors seems like a lot of law professors. It’s not. There are over 20,000 law professors in the United States teaching at our 200 law schools. It is true that the legal profession of 400,000 lawyers is mostly left leaning, there are some carve outs in the profession – like business lawyers – that lean right. So while 650 professors should not be taken to represent the whole of the profession, they probably do represent a majority of the opinion on this issue.

These law professors have written an open letter to the Senate wherein they focus on judicial temperament. They were quite dismayed at Judge Kavanaugh’s responses during the additional hearing prompted by Diane Feinstein’s untimely presentation of an allegation of sexual assault made by Dr. Christine Ford. They cited the rules of judicial conduct:

[A] judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.”

Who is more dedicated to a result than a process these days? It would have to be the Left. Their ends justify their means, whether it is silencing campus speakers by shouting them down, or by making the scene so dangerous a talk cannot be held. They dox dissenters without remorse. They create violent art and talk about castration for white men. They chase quiet restaurant goers aways from their meals. They use fear with impunity to get their way. They stack up character assassinations in place of evidence in order to force people from public office. Then, they use the justifiable anger they get in response as just one more reason to bring someone down.

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.

They fault Kavanaugh for describing the hearing as partisan – but wasn’t it? It is the Democrats that have tried to drive this train off the rails, at every turn. This circus has been orchestrated by the Democrats – from deciding when to drop the bomb, to how the hearing should be conducted, to the demand for more investigations. It is only because of the Democrats’ failure to follow process that we are in the eleventh hour mess.

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.

This is a very devious point, of course disguised as rational discourse. Let’s take a person and subject him to an unfair process, see how he reacts, and if he reacts in the fashion how he would be expected to react, then he disqualifies himself. Perfect plan! They are now even making the case that if he is confirmed, the process by which he got there has forever soured him into being a bad judge! Win-win!

No. This has been a lose-lose. There is no going back for Kavanaugh, for Ford, or for the justice system. Every one of these players now needs rehabilitation. Kavanaugh will forever be tainted with this allegation that is impossible to prove or deny. Ford, if her fragile persona was real, is now likely more traumatized. If she is a representation of all women, at best she has contributed to the stereotype of the weak female, and at worst, the claims of assault victims are in danger of being further marginalized by the way her story has been used for political purposes. And lawyers…lawyers, of all people, have played a major part in generating a public conversation that actually considers setting aside the fundamental concept of fairness in all our proceedings.

Back in July, Kavanaugh actually had support of at least one liberal law professor! Wonder if he still feels the same today.

As Alan Dershowitz wrote recently, the forum of the proceeding is not so important as is loyalty to the concept of fairness that runs through our everyday interactions with each other. Actual damage has been done to the idea of due process – it has now been questioned, and that is a dangerous idea.

I’m not sure if most of these law professors mean well or are entirely partisan, but by failing to give proper attention to the process, and instead focusing on Kavanaugh’s reaction to it, they wrote the wrong kind of letter.

Featured photo: Arizona Capital Times

Written by

10 Comments
  • CaptDMO says:

    Oh my!
    Apparently, 650 law “professors” are in need of remedial teaching moment re certification.
    I wonder why law professors might believe they have standing, or special expertise, in the matter of
    a Senate’s advise and (democratic?) consent, concerning a Presidential nomination for the Supreme Court ?

  • Wfjag says:

    Either these law professors haven’t tried many cases -in federal or state court – or they are lying about the experience. Judges raining Hell Fire down on the heads of counsel is a common experience.

  • scott says:

    “Actual damage has been done to the idea of due process – it has now been questioned, and that is a dangerous idea.”
    This is a feature, NOT a bug! The left is actively working to destroy everything that makes America what it is. You have to destroy the old to bring in the new..

    • GWB says:

      Yes, because their goal is an autocracy. Which requires throwing out the old gov’t (the people) and bringing in a new one (them).

  • Bob says:

    To paraphrase Mr. Buckley, I would rather be guided by the first 650 people in the Indianapolis phone book than 650 law school professors.

  • GWB says:

    “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.”
    Hmmm, I don’t see anything in Kavanaugh’s response to the slander in that hearing that doesn’t meet that criteria.

    a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry
    Really? Where was there a judicious inquiry?

    Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan
    That would be because he was being even-handed and unbiased. And also restrained.

    referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,”
    A lot like this letter, no?

    in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned
    Note that word “reasonably”. This is where your argument fails.

    This has been a lose-lose.
    Amen to that.

    lawyers, of all people, have played a major part
    Yep. And undercut their already shaky standing in such a way as to make this letter appear terribly self-serving.

    I’m not sure if most of these law professors mean well or are entirely partisan
    Oh, I’m absolutely certain which of those it is. Beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.

  • GWB says:

    I wonder if this is a case of “drag a $100 bill political opportunity through a trailer park law school staff lounge……”?

  • SFC D says:

    “[A] judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.””

    That pretty much disqualifies Ginsburg.

  • Jim says:

    [A] judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.”

    Fair enough, but when a man is being personally attacked and his character besmirched by unproven statements, gossip and innuendo he has a right to be angry at the process being used by those desperate enough to step well outside the rules and conventions of the legal system and also polite society. However it’s my observation that the SJWs [terrorists – would be better] of the left always play dirty because they rarely have little solid ground on which to base any reasoned argument. Theirs is the hate-filled politics of personality who seek to destroy and never compromise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram