Former Yale Dean Goes Ballistic Over Kavanaugh’s Oscar Performance

-

Robert Post, the former dean of Yale Law School, could not stay silent. He had to express his distress over Brett Kavanaugh rising to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in an important essay. In it, the former dean pointed out that the new justice lacked judicial temperament for the job, and this is why he said so.

The former dean of and current professor at Yale has both a law degree and a Phd. in history from Yale and Harvard respectively. Post wrote, according to POLITICO Magazine, that “judicial temperament is more than skin-deep:”

‘I was in the end prompted to write this essay because on Thursday Kavanaugh published a remarkable editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which he apologized for his rash words and attempted to reclaim for himself the “independence and impartiality” so necessary for judges. But judicial temperament is not like a mask that can be put on or taken off at will. Judicial temperament is more than skin-deep. It is part of the DNA of person, as is well illustrated by Merrick Garland, who never once descended to the partisan rancor of Kavanaugh, despite the Senate’s refusal even to dignify his nomination with a hearing.’

Post continued that he felt “unbelief” over Kavanaugh’s speech after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the judge had sexually assaulted her:

‘Over the past decade, Kavanaugh has been a casual acquaintance. He seemed a gentle, quiet, reserved man, always solicitous of the dignity of his position as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It was therefore with something approaching unbelief that I heard his speech after Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony.’

The former dean said that Kavanaugh was filled with “partisan rage and male entitlement,” and his attack on the Democratic senators on the committee was “bitter:”

‘With calculation and skill, Kavanaugh stoked the fires of partisan rage and male entitlement. He had apparently concluded that the only way he could rally Republican support was by painting himself as the victim of a political hit job. He therefore offered a witches’ brew of vicious unfounded charges, alleging that Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee were pursuing a vendetta on behalf of the Clintons. If we expect judges to reach conclusions based solely on reliable evidence, Kavanaugh’s savage and bitter attack demonstrated exactly the opposite sensibility.’

The professor said he was “shell-shocked” at Kavanaugh’s performance:

‘I was shell-shocked. This was not the Brett Kavanaugh I thought I knew. Having come so close to confirmation, Kavanaugh apparently cared more about his promotion than about preserving the dignity of the Supreme Court to which he aspired to join. Even if he sought to defend his honor as a husband and father, his unbalanced rantings about political persecution were so utterly inconsistent with the dispassionate temperament we expect from judges that one had to conclude that he had chosen ambition over professionalism.’

Post wrote that each Republican who voted for Kavanaugh cared more about controlling than supporting the SCOTUS:

‘His performance is indelibly etched in the public mind. For as long as Kavanaugh sits on the court, he will remain a symbol of partisan anger, a haunting reminder that behind the smiling face of judicial benevolence lies the force of an urgent will to power. No one who felt the force of that anger could possibly believe that Kavanaugh might actually be a detached and impartial judge. Each and every Republican who votes for Kavanaugh, therefore, effectively announces that they care more about controlling the Supreme Court than they do about the legitimacy of the court itself. There will be hell to pay.’

The professor wrote “temperament is not a mask,” and Merrick Garland was a far better candidate than Kavanaugh:

‘…But judicial temperament is not like a mask that can be put on or taken off at will. Judicial temperament is more than skin-deep. It is part of the DNA of person, as is well illustrated by Merrick Garland, who never once descended to the partisan rancor of Kavanaugh, despite the Senate’s refusal even to dignify his nomination with a hearing.’

Post noted that the newest justice clearly should have withdrawn himself “from consideration:”

‘Judge Kavanaugh cannot have it both ways. He cannot gain confirmation by unleashing partisan fury while simultaneously claiming that he possesses a judicial and impartial temperament. If Kavanaugh really cared about the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, he would even now withdraw from consideration.’

This former dean wrote that Kavanaugh’s ascendance to “raw partisan power” will “undermine the court’s claim to legitimacy,” and this was “an American tragedy:”

‘But I see no evidence that he is about to withdraw. Kavanaugh will thus join the court as the black-robed embodiment of raw partisan power inconsistent with any ideal of an impartial judiciary. As the court moves to the right to accommodate Trump’s appointments, Kavanaugh will inevitably become the focus of distrust and mobilization. His very presence will undermine the court’s claim to legitimacy; it will damage the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. It will be an American tragedy.’

https://youtu.be/UQGrTMLYTCI

Featured image is a screenshot via YouTube.

%d bloggers like this: