Campaign Action
The legal establishment, from law schools to the American Bar Association, is making it crystal clear that they do not want to be seen associating with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. For many lawyers, this is potentially damaging to their own professional futures—will any of these individuals be able to argue before a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on it?
Harvard University Law School has has parted ways with Brett Kavanaugh, after hundreds of the school's graduates organized a letter demanding it. Kavanaugh informed the school he will not be teaching in the January term. These graduates signed their names in public opposition to him.
More than 500 law professors have signed on to a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressing their view that in his testimony responding to Christine Blasey Ford's allegations, he "displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land."
Remarkably, three of Kavanaugh's former clerks—all of whom could have their futures assured with their association to Supreme Court Justice—have rescinded their support for Kavanaugh. "We write to clarify that, like many Americans, we have been deeply troubled by those allegations and the events surrounding them and were encouraged by the initiation of a formal FBI investigation," they wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee, signing their names.
Perhaps most damning, the ABA is making sure the public knows that they downgraded their rating of Kavanaugh back in 2006, when he was preparing for his second confirmation hearing for a seat on a federal appeals court. They were "prompted by new concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh's demeanor and veracity," in downgrading him them from "qualified" instead of "well qualified." Now, after ABA president Robert M. Carlson called for a "thorough FBI investigation" of Kavanaugh now, it seems like the ABA is pointing a big red arrow at the problems they had with him then, releasing quotes from the review committee about their "concern involving his potential for judicial temperament."
It's time to shut Mitch McConnell and the Republicans down. Please help with $3 to our Senate candidates.
According to the Times, the reviews were bad: "One judge called Mr. Kavanaugh simultaneously unprepared and sanctimonious. A lawyer said he had dissembled in his handling of a case. A third interviewee questioned Mr. Kavanaugh's 'ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship.'" One of the people interviewed in 2006 for his review said that he was "immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues."
In a transcript the Times was given of a conference call between ABA representatives and committee staff, an interview of Kavanaugh conducted by Marna S. Tucker and John Payton is described. Tucker asked Kavanaugh about the stolen documents from Republican Senate staff he received when he was in the Bush White House concerning judicial nominees. "He did not express any concern that the process had been compromised or that there was the need for a White House investigation," Tucker told committee staff. "We were concerned about his lack of interest in that particular matter, considering we felt that the process for which he was responsible had been tainted."
It's a testament to how unwilling to buck the system the ABA was back in 2006 that they only downgraded Kavanaugh to "qualified," rather than rating him "unqualified" for the position. They cleared him this time around, too. It's a testament to how bad Kavanaugh is now that they are allowing all this discussion to be aired now.