The notion of “innocent until proven guilty” and due process rights took a hit during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and the (rather shocking) reaction from law professors, students and others just might be a factor in the midterm elections polling turnaround for the GOP.
That doesn’t seem to matter much at the University of Idaho, where some law professors “offered remarks” about the post-Kavanaugh confirmation environment … and they’re pretty much in line with those of their peers.
As reported by The Argonaut, law professor Elizabeth Brandt said she saw “stark similarities” between the Clarence Thomas hearings and those of Kavanaugh, and offered a statement which should make one think twice about enrolling in her classes:
“It felt the same. It felt like the burden was on her,” Brandt said (emphasis added). “We were going to not believe her because women have an incentive to lie and she’s just making this up.”
Professor Maureen Laflin brought up the other dopey progressive narrative, that of Kavanaugh’s post-gang rape allegation temperament, noting that Clarence Thomas defended himself without losing his cool.
“(Kavanaugh) could have made his points without coming out in such an attack format and disrespectful of people who were asking him questions,” she said. It’s fairly obvious Laflin never glimpsed the scene in “42” where Branch Rickey has to convince Jackie Robinson why it’s so important that he not lose his temper.
Referencing Kavanaugh’s outbursts in the hearing, several UI law professors argued the appearance of impartiality in the judiciary diminishes public trust.
“We knew that we would get a conservative justice,” Laflin said. “But the process so attacked the independence of the judiciary and a sense of the rule of law … They have tenure, lifetime tenure in order to preserve their ability to make those decisions and to apply the rule of law.”
David Pimentel, UI associate professor of law, who also signed the [2400 law professor-strong anti-Kavanaugh] letter, said his experience reforming judiciaries in countries such as Bosnia, Sudan, Romania and Nepal influenced his decisions to sign the letter.
“(Kavanaugh) was asked to respond to serious allegations of serious misconduct, and he lashed out in a very intemperate way, with highly partisan statements impugning the motives, the integrity, and the intelligence of those who would question him about these things,” Pimentel wrote in an email to The Argonaut. …
Assistant Professor of Law Sam Newton said he signed the letter because of the law’s requirement for judges to remain impartial and to avoid conflicts of interests.
“I believe his behavior also violated his ethical obligations as a sitting judge,” Newton said. “We should expect our judges to not only avoid partisanship, but to treat others with respect, dignity and decency, none of which I saw in his second confirmation hearing.”
Just imagine if Judge Kavanaugh was even more stoic than Clarence Thomas in his Christine Ford testimony follow-up. Does anyone else (like me) think Pimentel, Newton, et. al. would be slamming Kavanaugh for an “inhuman” lack of empathy and emotion?
Lastly, it’s doubtful Newton and Co. criticized Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her critical comments about a then-possible Donald Trump presidency. I certainly didn’t find any. In fact, Professor Laflin finds Justice Ginsburg an “inspiration.”
MORE: Harvard Law prof ‘has lost his mind’ over Kavanaugh
MORE: Kavanaugh ‘is a threat’ to Yale students and alumni
IMAGE: Kues/Shutterstock.com
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.