Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

(OT) (WaPo) The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

24 views
Skip to first unread message

The Chad

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 4:37:37 PM9/28/18
to
https://tinyurl.com/kavanaugh-aba

By Avi Selk
September 28 at 2:38 PM
History repeated itself. At least it had a spell of deja vu when the
American Bar Association released an extraordinary statement at a crucial
moment that raised concerns about Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination
to a powerful judicial position — just as it had done 12 years earlier.

Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into
sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary
Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination. The warning was all the
more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican
defenders had cited the ABA’s previously glowing endorsement of the
nominee — “the gold standard,” as one leading Republican put it.

Flash back to the mid-2000s and another fight in the Senate over
Kavanaugh’s nomination to a federal court:

Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush’s
2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for
Bush’s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel’s investigation
into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes.

Republicans kept pushing to make Kavanaugh a judge on the powerful
appeals court, year after year. In his defense, they cited multiple
reviews by the ABA’s judicial review committee that found him “well
qualified” — the big attorney association’s highest possible endorsement,
meaning Kavanaugh had outstanding legal abilities and outstanding
judicial temperament.

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s
nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of
lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA
announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his
professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and
open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be
balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA
committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed
essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and
frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been
“sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers
considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the
courtroom.

The reviews weren’t all bad.

In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh’s “solid reputation for
integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability”
against “concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will
be unable to judge fairly in the future.” In a split vote, it downgraded
the rating of the nominee to simply “qualified” — meaning he met the
ABA’s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding
candidate.

A day after the ABA lowered its rating, the members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee called Kavanaugh to return and sit before them and
argued about how seriously the ABA’s concerns should be taken.

“They cannot be dismissed, as some of my colleagues suggest, as merely
intemperate rants by Democrats on the committee,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer
(D-N.Y.) argued. “Predictably, of course, some are already launching a
campaign to denigrate the ABA.”

Some did accuse the ABA of bias. Other Republicans dismissed the warnings
and noted the group still found Kavanaugh to be qualified overall.

“Based on your going through that experience, would you recommend that we
continue to consult the ABA when it comes to judges?” Sen. Lindsey O.
Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kavanaugh, who laughed and declined to answer.

Two days after the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to
recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination along party lines. The full Senate did
much the same later that month — and so Kavanaugh finally became a member
of the bench.

In his 12 years on the court, he apparently resolved the ABA’s concerns
about his temperament. Kavanaugh cited the bar association’s new
unanimous “well qualified” rating for his nomination to the Supreme Court
in his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday —
an angry, tearful defense against sexual allegations, in which he
suggested “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” had inspired his accusers.

“Here’s my understanding,” Graham told other senators afterward,
defending Kavanaugh as he had done more than a decade earlier. “If you
lived a good life, people would recognize it, like the American Bar
Association has — the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely
unquestioned. He is very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no
biases or prejudices. He’s entirely ethical, is a really decent person.
He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He’s the nicest person — the ABA.”

But that evening, as Republicans prepared to vote on the nomination, and
Democrats accused them of ignoring multiple women’s claims against
Kavanaugh, the ABA once again ran up a surprise red flag.

"Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would
not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will
also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people
to have in the Supreme Court,” ABA President Robert Carlson wrote in a
letter to key senators.

His group’s endorsement of Kavanaugh notwithstanding, Carlson urged the
Senate to pause the confirmation and have the FBI investigate the claims
against Kavanaugh before making a decision.

Twelve years earlier, the group’s warnings about Kavanaugh had at least
delayed his confirmation for the hours it took senators to debate them.

On Friday morning, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-
Iowa) dispensed with the new one in less than a minute.

“The ABA president’s opinion doesn’t alter the fact that Judge Kavanaugh
received a very well-qualified rating from the ABA standing committee,
and the standing committee did not join this letter,” Grassley said, as
Republicans prepared to vote.

Not everyone dismissed the warning. “The ABA said it made that request
because of its — quote — respect for the rule of law and due process
under law,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told the committee, and then
stopped mid sentence as background chatter washed over the room.

“I’ll just wait until the staff is done talking over there,” Klobuchar
said, rubbing her eyes.

This article has been updated.

%

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 4:40:33 PM9/28/18
to
On 2018-09-28 1:37 POn 2018-09-28 1:37 PM, The Chad wrote:

Skeeter

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 5:06:42 PM9/28/18
to
In article <pan$c91b6$7c7f5a8d$8c92e32$7607...@null.net>,
the...@mailinator.com says...
>
> https://tinyurl.com/kavanaugh-aba
>
> By Avi Selk
> September 28 at 2:38 PM
> History repeated itself. At least it had a spell of deja vu when the
> American Bar Association released an extraordinary statement at a crucial
> moment that raised concerns about Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh?s nomination
> to a powerful judicial position ? just as it had done 12 years earlier.
>
> Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into
> sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary
> Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination. The warning was all the
> more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican
> defenders had cited the ABA?s previously glowing endorsement of the
> nominee ? ?the gold standard,? as one leading Republican put it.
>
> Flash back to the mid-2000s and another fight in the Senate over
> Kavanaugh?s nomination to a federal court:
>
> Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush?s
> 2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
> Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for
> Bush?s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel?s investigation
> into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes.
>
> Republicans kept pushing to make Kavanaugh a judge on the powerful
> appeals court, year after year. In his defense, they cited multiple
> reviews by the ABA?s judicial review committee that found him ?well
> qualified? ? the big attorney association?s highest possible endorsement,
> meaning Kavanaugh had outstanding legal abilities and outstanding
> judicial temperament.
>
> But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh?s
> nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.
>
> The group?s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of
> lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA
> announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about ?his
> professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and
> open-mindedness.?
>
> ?One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee?s ability to be
> balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,? the ABA
> committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. ?Another interviewee echoed
> essentially the same thoughts: ?(He is) immovable and very stubborn and
> frustrating to deal with on some issues.??
>
> A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been
> ?sanctimonious? during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers
> considered him inexperienced, and one said he ?dissembled? in the
> courtroom.
>
> The reviews weren?t all bad.
>
> In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh?s ?solid reputation for
> integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability?
> against ?concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will
> be unable to judge fairly in the future.? In a split vote, it downgraded
> the rating of the nominee to simply ?qualified? ? meaning he met the
> ABA?s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding
> candidate.
>
> A day after the ABA lowered its rating, the members of the Senate
> Judiciary Committee called Kavanaugh to return and sit before them and
> argued about how seriously the ABA?s concerns should be taken.
>
> ?They cannot be dismissed, as some of my colleagues suggest, as merely
> intemperate rants by Democrats on the committee,? Sen. Charles E. Schumer
> (D-N.Y.) argued. ?Predictably, of course, some are already launching a
> campaign to denigrate the ABA.?
>
> Some did accuse the ABA of bias. Other Republicans dismissed the warnings
> and noted the group still found Kavanaugh to be qualified overall.
>
> ?Based on your going through that experience, would you recommend that we
> continue to consult the ABA when it comes to judges?? Sen. Lindsey O.
> Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kavanaugh, who laughed and declined to answer.
>
> Two days after the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to
> recommend Kavanaugh?s nomination along party lines. The full Senate did
> much the same later that month ? and so Kavanaugh finally became a member
> of the bench.
>
> In his 12 years on the court, he apparently resolved the ABA?s concerns
> about his temperament. Kavanaugh cited the bar association?s new
> unanimous ?well qualified? rating for his nomination to the Supreme Court
> in his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday ?
> an angry, tearful defense against sexual allegations, in which he
> suggested ?revenge on behalf of the Clintons? had inspired his accusers.
>
> ?Here?s my understanding,? Graham told other senators afterward,
> defending Kavanaugh as he had done more than a decade earlier. ?If you
> lived a good life, people would recognize it, like the American Bar
> Association has ? the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely
> unquestioned. He is very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no
> biases or prejudices. He?s entirely ethical, is a really decent person.
> He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He?s the nicest person ? the ABA.?
>
> But that evening, as Republicans prepared to vote on the nomination, and
> Democrats accused them of ignoring multiple women?s claims against
> Kavanaugh, the ABA once again ran up a surprise red flag.
>
> "Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would
> not only have a lasting impact on the Senate?s reputation, but it will
> also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people
> to have in the Supreme Court,? ABA President Robert Carlson wrote in a
> letter to key senators.
>
> His group?s endorsement of Kavanaugh notwithstanding, Carlson urged the
> Senate to pause the confirmation and have the FBI investigate the claims
> against Kavanaugh before making a decision.
>
> Twelve years earlier, the group?s warnings about Kavanaugh had at least
> delayed his confirmation for the hours it took senators to debate them.
>
> On Friday morning, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-
> Iowa) dispensed with the new one in less than a minute.
>
> ?The ABA president?s opinion doesn?t alter the fact that Judge Kavanaugh
> received a very well-qualified rating from the ABA standing committee,
> and the standing committee did not join this letter,? Grassley said, as
> Republicans prepared to vote.
>
> Not everyone dismissed the warning. ?The ABA said it made that request
> because of its ? quote ? respect for the rule of law and due process
> under law,? Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told the committee, and then
> stopped mid sentence as background chatter washed over the room.
>
> ?I?ll just wait until the staff is done talking over there,? Klobuchar
> said, rubbing her eyes.
>
> This article has been updated.

Cheating libs, the only way they can win.

me

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 5:45:32 PM9/28/18
to
You've got nothing you racist piece of shit

robert stickler

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 6:53:28 PM9/28/18
to
Fake news

Skeeter

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 7:35:36 PM9/28/18
to
In article <7b236523-eb23-494a...@googlegroups.com>,
moosehe...@gmail.com says...
Now I'm a racist? You can show an example of this accusation? I bet you
can't, like all libs, name calling when you have nothing.

The Chad

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 8:38:00 PM9/28/18
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:53:26 -0700, robert stickler wrote:

> Fake news

WaPo is too difficult for a retard like you to read.

me

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 8:39:14 PM9/28/18
to
you called freezer a n*gger. Fuck off you racist piece of shit

robert stickler

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 9:39:50 PM9/28/18
to
Lol chad thinks wkrp in Cincinnati is real

Skeeter

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 9:54:08 PM9/28/18
to
In article <f054319c-0a3f-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
moosehe...@gmail.com says...
> > Now I'm a racist? You can show an example of this accusation? I bet you
> > can't, like all libs, name calling when you have nothing.
>
> you called freezer a n*gger. Fuck off you racist piece of shit
>

No I didn't, I saw the post and it was not me who said that, the proof
is on you, find the MID and save face, because like the lefty losers,
you're about to crash.

Skeeter

unread,
Sep 28, 2018, 9:54:39 PM9/28/18
to
In article <pan$a3bc$5c1bbb$7c0390bf$4872...@null.net>,
the...@mailinator.com says...
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:53:26 -0700, robert stickler wrote:
>
> > Fake news
>
> WaPo is too difficult for a retard like you to read.

I look away from biased lies.

me

unread,
Sep 29, 2018, 12:46:32 AM9/29/18
to
fuck you, liar

Skeeter

unread,
Sep 29, 2018, 1:11:32 AM9/29/18
to
In article <dc9738b7-1e21-407c...@googlegroups.com>,
moosehe...@gmail.com says...
so no proof then...ok libby liar.

Jason Todd!!!

unread,
Sep 29, 2018, 4:17:10 AM9/29/18
to
Which is easy, because you're always staring at Trump's ass.

Jason

Skeeter

unread,
Sep 29, 2018, 12:51:11 PM9/29/18
to
In article <77f9961a-e497-4730...@googlegroups.com>,
janklo...@yahoo.com says...
Such a grown up response, Did CNN tell you to say that?

]v[etaphoid

unread,
Sep 30, 2018, 5:12:58 AM9/30/18
to
The Chad submitted this idea :
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:53:26 -0700, robert stickler wrote:
>
>> Fake news
>
> WaPo is too difficult for a retard like you to read.

Too difficult to read?

It was too difficult for you to even type properly, you stupid cunt...

You could not make it up!!!

The Chad

unread,
Sep 30, 2018, 8:27:54 PM9/30/18
to
A common abbreviation for the legitimate daily newspaper in DC is "WaPo".

Shit your hole, impotent idiot.

]v[etaphoid

unread,
Sep 30, 2018, 9:33:12 PM9/30/18
to
on 1/10/2018, The Chad supposed :
Only for fuckers too lazy to talk or write in complete words!

Small wonder you could never complete even one of the many degrees you
claim to have started, Counsellor ChoBo...
0 new messages