New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Sorry, I see this was posted. I'm not taking it back though. :p

WA Po: ‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation
More than 2,400 law professors have signed on to a letter saying that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing last week — behavior that would be disqualifying for any court nominee.
Some of these were people that had worked with Kavanaugh and were distressed at his testimony. ...

Afterward, law professors across the country began discussing, “with great distress, the unprecedented and unfathomable demeanor of Judge Kavanaugh,” said Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia Law School.

The letter, which was emailed to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) late Thursday afternoon, grew out of those conversations. “It was a spontaneous reaction to the hearing,” Harcourt said.

The groundswell was overwhelming, he said, with hundreds of lawyers from more than 190 law schools signing on within hours....

Signatories included Martha Minow — the former dean of Harvard Law School, where Kavanaugh taught a popular course — other law school deans and former deans, and some scholars who previously supported Kavanaugh....

“As someone who knew and liked Brett Kavanaugh when we clerked together, I have tried very hard to stay out of this process and to give him the benefit of the doubt,” said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School. But Kavanaugh’s behavior at the hearing last week “was not what we should expect of a Supreme Court Justice. Telling obvious lies about his background, yelling at senators, refusing to answer questions, and blaming his troubles on others is not appropriate behavior.”...

“We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh,” they wrote. “But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land. "‘

Another letter, signed by about 900 female law professors, asked the Senate to reject Kavanaugh’s appointment. As a law professor, “it is my responsibility to teach my students the highest standards of professionalism and decorum,” Karla McKanders, a professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School, said in an email. “Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony undermines the legal profession and would undermine the authority of the Supreme Court.”

The article noted several hundred professors also signed on after the deadline to get their names on the list.
 
Last edited:
It's not 3000 law professors vs. 3,000,000 people off the street, it's vs.16,800 law professors. Now that I looked it up, it is more significant than I thought, at roughly 20%.

It's not vs, it's out of. Or am I wrong?
 
It's not 3000 law professors vs. 3,000,000 people off the street, it's vs.16,800 law professors. Now that I looked it up, it is more significant than I thought, at roughly 20%.
And in only a couple of days since the hearing no less.
 
Originally Posted by The Big Dog
Did all those law professors see the FBI report that exonerated him?

Would that matter for them? How many think the FBI report properly covered what was required? How many of the non-signatories followed all the details of the case? I would think most, however that is an assumption.

The FBI report did not exonerate him either.
 
The letter of the law professors is statistically meaningless. As one who thinks Kavanaugh is a bad choice, I think it's not even worth mentioning.
What?

Retired SCOTUS justice, retired dean of Harvard Law School, these aren't practicing psychologists with associate degrees, they are named professors. They put their names out there.
 
Did all those law professors see the FBI report that exonerated him?
Oh my word, there you go again, or was it Zig who tried to say not remembering was the same as remembering and knowing it didn't happen. And after we explained that, the lie was repeated yet again.

Now here the lie isyet again.:rolleyes:
 
But those aren't actual numbers. The numbers are a lie. The numbers are not the reason the "3,000 architects and engineers" claim is to be disregarded.
Again, what is the number of credible architects and engineers required before their arguments become credible? 1200, 1700, over 2000?

And when you present those numbers as factual, it makes you look foolish and gullible.
Already addressed.


I'm not either one of those posters, so I'm not sure why you attributed their arguments to me.
Because in your response to
Because a lot of people saying something doesn’t make it right. Especially in light of the level of hatred/vitriol in the matter.
you said:
But the claim about the 3,000 architects and engineers is a lie.

You see why that’s an important distinction, right?

I may be mistaken, but I understood that to mean that some of, but not all of, the 3000 architects and engineers were credible or qualified. That seems to be the premise of your argument.


Numbers in of themselves? Of course they don't matter.
You should tell that to the posters who keep bringing up the number of law professors who don't think Kavanaugh is qualified.


But the opinion of actual experts on matters related to their field of expertise? Of course that matters.
Does that include the actual qualified experts at architects and engineers?

How about the dozens of verifiable and qualified pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, do those actual experts count?


Numbers don't make an argument legitimate.
Exactly, that's why I posted over 3000 members of architects and engineers want to open another World Trade Center investigation. That's why appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

Actual qualified experts offering actual expert opinions make an argument legitimate.
If I were to present you a list of credentialed and degreed biologists who deny evolution, with that count or are you the one deciding who is credible and who is not?
 
We have gone from sexual abuse, to drinking in high school to law professors say he was rude at the hearing.

Oh resistance, you do have us on.

Have they set the swearing in date yet?
 
Did all those law professors see the FBI report that exonerated him?

Really? You read the report? Since when did you become a member of the United States Senate?

And you do understand that there is a difference between corroboration and exoneration. I'd bet you a 100 to 1 that nowhere in that report does it say exonerated.
 
Really? You read the report? Since when did you become a member of the United States Senate?

And you do understand that there is a difference between corroboration and exoneration. I'd bet you a 100 to 1 that nowhere in that report does it say exonerated.

There is also a difference between "I don't remember" and "it did not happen". Some people have difficulty with that.
 
Again, what is the number of credible architects and engineers required before their arguments become credible? 1200, 1700, over 2000?

How many doctors need to give you a diagnosis before you believe it? 1,200, 1,700, over 2,000?

I may be mistaken, but I understood that to mean that some of, but not all of, the 3000 architects and engineers were credible or qualified. That seems to be the premise of your argument.

You are mistaken. If you understood the premise of my argument, I wouldn't have to keep explaining it in increasingly simpler terms.

You should tell that to the posters who keep bringing up the number of law professors who don't think Kavanaugh is qualified.

It's the "expert" part they're leaning on, not the number.

Does that include the actual qualified experts at architects and engineers?

There aren't any, so I guess not.

How about the dozens of verifiable and qualified pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, do those actual experts count?

I doubt they exist either, but I am curious to hear about your verification process.

Exactly, that's why I posted over 3000 members of architects and engineers want to open another World Trade Center investigation.

But that's actually not true. That's why I said you looked foolish and gullible for posting it. And you just did it again.

That's why appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

You clearly have no understanding of what that fallacy actually means or how to properly apply it.

If I were to present you a list of credentialed and degreed biologists who deny evolution, with that count or are you the one deciding who is credible and who is not?

How do you know they're not right? (Hint: Because a larger number of credentialed and degreed biologists told you so.)
 

Back
Top Bottom