From David Franklin, a law professor and appellate practitioner:
As a lawyer who practices before the Supreme Court, I feel compelled to speak out.I heard other people on Twitter saying similar things even as Judge Kavanaugh was speaking, but Franklin puts it very succinctly and has the perspective of an attorney who argues before the Supreme Court.
I’m a Democrat who initially supported Kavanaugh’s nomination because conservative Presidents are entitled to nominate well-respected conservative jurists.
After his performance yesterday, I must oppose him. Kavanaugh’s partisan diatribe was absolutely inconsistent with the temperament we as a nation must expect of our judges.
Regardless of who is right about events of 36 years ago, and regardless of how aggrieved Kavanaugh feels – even if he is rightly aggrieved – vowing retribution against a political party is disqualifying.
Remember, Kavanaugh is a sitting judge. Canon of Judicial Ethics 5(A), (C): “A judge should not … make speeches for a political organization [or] engage in any other political activity.”
If this behavior is rewarded with a seat on our highest court, public faith in the integrity of the judiciary will be eroded and another crucial rule-of-law norm will be in peril.
As someone who cares deeply about our courts, I am worried for our country today.
In case you don't know, the diatribe he's referring to is quoted and summarized in this article from The Hill.
1 comment:
It would be fitting if his effort to save his nomination will be his undoing. His diatribe is disqualifying. His angry and intimidating questions are disqualifying. I would esp. like to see his calendar be his undoing: July 1 at Timmy’s house is something for investigators to look at.
Post a Comment