aside For 1st Time In Its History, Washington Post Warns Against Confirming SCOTUS Nominee Kavanaugh

The former republican Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens who initially had been pleased with President Donald Trump’s pick of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his US Supreme Court nominee, but he has changed his mind after observing his demeanor at the 9/27/18 US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. He is now recommending a -NO-vote by US senators based on the judge’s lack of temperament and his obvious partisanship which was on full display at that hearing.

In response to the above pronouncement, Judge Kavanaugh has penned a 10/4/18 Wall Street Journal opinion piece where he attempts to explain his outrageously injudicious performance on 9/27/18.

Image result for The most telling moment: Kavanaugh goes after Sen. Klobuchar

As per the 10/4/18 Washington Post report by Eli Rosenberg, “Judge Brett Kavanaugh has admitted to saying some things he should not have during a Senate hearing last week, a tacit acknowledgement of the questions being raised about his conduct and emotions as he seeks confirmation to the Supreme Court.”

“Kavanaugh made the remarks in a column for the Wall Street Journal, arguing that he would be an independent and nonpartisan judge. But he did not apologize for his behavior at the hearing, in which he interrupted senators, turned questions about drinking back on them and seeded his opening remarks with comments about “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” and left-wing groups.”

“His performance has come under increased scrutiny as his potential appointment to the Supreme Court hangs in a delicate balance.”

Link to entire article: Brett Kavanaugh op-ed: ‘I was very emotional,’ the judge writes

Image result for PHOTOS OF KAVANAUGH AT 9/27/18 HEARING

On October 4, 2018, the Editorial Board of the Washington Post penned the following opinion, “Vote ‘no’ on Kavanaugh”

AS SENATORS prepare to vote this week on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, they, and the rest of the country, must wonder: Which Brett M. Kavanaugh are they evaluating? Is it the steady, conservative jurist he was reputed to be before his confirmation saga? Or is it a partisan operative harboring suspicions and resentments about Democrats, with possible misdeeds in his past?”

Unfortunately — and unnecessarily; it didn’t have to be this way — 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.”

JULIA SWETNICK/ DEBBIE RAMIREZ/ DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD/ JUDGE KAVANAUGH

“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.”

“It certainly would have been preferable if Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation had surfaced sooner, and then been investigated more promptly. But what matters now is not partisan fault but finding the truth about her claim — or at least making as fair and thorough an effort to find it as possible. Mr. Trump and the Republicans have prevented such an effort. This week’s belated investigation, reluctantly agreed to by the majority, was unduly narrow. Unsurprisingly, Senate Republicans quickly and unconvincingly claimed that it was exculpatory. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came to his conclusion before even this cursory examination was complete.”

“We continue to believe that Ms. Ford is a credible witness with no motivation to lie. It is conceivable that she and Mr. Kavanaugh are both being truthful, in the sense that he has no memory of the event. It is also conceivable that Ms. Ford’s memory is at fault. We wish the FBI had been allowed to probe Mr. Kavanaugh’s credibility more fully. But our conclusion about Mr. Kavanaugh’s fitness does not rest on believing one side or the other.”

Image result for photos of kavanaugh collins murkowski flake
SENATOR FLAKE

“Such doubts feed into concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh’s independence from Mr. Trump and his deference to executive power, at a moment when fateful questions for the presidency may be winding their way to the court. Mr. Kavanaugh began his confirmation process by bowing obsequiously to Mr. Trump, claiming, absurdly, that “no president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Mr. Kavanaugh then declined to offer much reassurance about how he would handle cases involving Mr. Trump. Given his writings arguing that a president should be free of criminal investigations while in office, it would be best for the court’s reputation for Mr. Kavanaugh to recuse himself from any such case, lest it appear that Mr. Trump chose him in order to foil the Justice Department’s Russia probe. If not a commitment to recuse, he should have offered more of a sense that he would treat the issue with due delicacy.”

“Finally, Mr. Kavanaugh raised questions about his candor that, while each on its own is not disqualifying, are worrying in the context of his demand that Ms. Ford and his other accusers be dismissed and disbelieved. These include his role in the nomination of controversial judge Charles Pickering while working for Mr. Bush, his knowledge of the origin of materials stolenfrom Democratic Senate staff between 2001 and 2003, and his lawyerly obfuscations about his high school and college years.”

Image result for PHOTOS OF KAVANAUGH AT 9/27/18 HEARING

“And what of Mr. Kavanaugh’s political philosophy? Here we freely admit that Mr. Kavanaugh would not have been our choice. A president concerned for the court’s standing would have nominated someone of more moderate views for the seat vacated by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s erstwhile swing vote — particularly given the Senate’s inexcusable refusal to consider Judge Merrick Garland when President Barack Obama nominated that eminently qualified jurist.”

“But we would not have opposed Mr. Kavanaugh on that basis, just as we did not think GOP senators should have voted against Sonia Sotomayor because they did not like her views. Rather, the reason not to vote for Mr. Kavanaugh is that senators have not been given sufficient information to consider him — and that he has given them ample evidence to believe he is unsuited for the job. The country deserves better.”

7 comments

    • Dear Gary J.,

      Please don’t rub it in that I was wrong about the FBI being able to do an adequate investigation into the early history of Judge Kavanaugh. Of course the FBI agents are more than capable but they were severely constrained by the White House into who they could talk to and to what they could investigate. The FBI probe was not a criminal inquiry but was treated as a routine background check where the FBI is obligated to follow the direction of the client, which in this case was the president.

      This is painful enough.

      Hugs, Gronda

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dear Gronda, in no way am I doing that by my frivolous and ironic comment. I am simply maintaining my optimism with perhaps a sense of humour. I would never denigrate your absolute integrity and perseverance to provide accurate and timely posts. Please do not worry, it is all coming to a conclusion that ultimately is in the hands of persons like you and the American people. Please forgive me if I have offended, this would be something I would not do ever, especially to you. Sorry if you think otherwise. I should just shut up and walk amongst the Pines…
        with respect and HUGS mate.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. Gronda, I emailed you and others this letter which I posted on nine senators’ websites. If your readers like it, please free to adapt and use. Keith

    Retired conservative Justice John Paul Stevens and 1,700 law professors have recommended voting no on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. They are reacting to his beligerant and attacking defense which was beneath what we want in a SCOTUS Justice. I agreed in real time as I felt Chairman Grassley should have admonished him for his attacks and not answering the questions.

    But, at the heart of all this, I still believe Dr. Ford and I find Kavanaugh uncredible. I am also disappointed that neither were interviewed by the FBI, nor has Kavanaugh taken a lie detector test as she did and passed. I am also disappointed at the time limit and White House limitations on the investigation. While a second accuser was interviewed, the FBI was instructed not to talk to the third witness about allegations of gang rape. With a President who has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by twenty women and has admitted to such, even bragged on such, in three interviews, I find his opinions on these matters not very sincere.

    Please vote no on this candidate and move on to one of the other short listed candidates. He would not do the highest court a service by being a member in my view.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dear Keith,

      Thanks for sharing your letter/ email with us. We have written, emailed, called, tweeted. And all these GOP lawmakers can do is complain about us pesky peoples demanding their attention.

      As I see it, many of these senators have known Judge Kavanaugh personally to where they have come to be admirers of him. They can’t accept that their friend could have sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.

      Like you, I found Dr. Ford’s allegations, credible and I do not suffer from the bias of Judge Kavanaugh being my friend. I’m convinced that the senators who backed him will come to regret their decision.

      I’m reminded of the House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert who was beloved until it was discovered that he was a serial child molester.

      Hugs, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Dear Keith,

    I only wish. When I protest, I have to pay my own way. But this has me wondering if the Republican Party has to pay their Tea Party protesters and that is why they keep projecting this tactic onto democrats?

    Hugs, Gronda

    Like

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.