Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for September 2018

Jennifer Rubin is on a roll

leave a comment »

Written by LeisureGuy

30 September 2018 at 6:21 pm

Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill requiring California corporate boards to include women

leave a comment »

Good news. (In the same vein, I support laws requiring people to wear seatbelts in autos.) Sometimes the government must give a push. Automobile safety features that demonstrably save lives had to be legislated in, feature by feature. No automobile company would include a safety feature until and unless it was required by law. So the law definitely must nudge things along.

Patrick McGreevy reports in the LA Times:

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed a bill into law that makes California the first state to require corporate boards of directors to include women, saying that despite potentially “fatal” legal problems in the measure, it is time to force action.

“Given all the special privileges that corporations have enjoyed for so long, it’s high time corporate boards include the people who constitute more than half the ‘persons’ in America,” Brown wrote in a signing message.

The new law requires publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to include at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019 as part of an effort to close the gender gap in business.

By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members. Companies that fail to comply face fines of $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation.

Business groups have questioned the legality of a state imposing such requirements on corporations, many of which are incorporated in other states. But Brown was not persuaded by the opposition.

He copied his signing letter to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, which has advanced Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court to the full Senate despite testimony by a woman who said he groped her when they were in high school.

“There have been numerous objections to this bill, and serious legal concerns have been raised,” Brown said. “I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation. Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”

The new law may, in fact, be vulnerable to a court challenge, said Jessica Levinson, a clinical professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed a bill into law that makes California the first state to require corporate boards of directors to include women, saying that despite potentially “fatal” legal problems in the measure, it is time to force action.

“Given all the special privileges that corporations have enjoyed for so long, it’s high time corporate boards include the people who constitute more than half the ‘persons’ in America,” Brown wrote in a signing message.

The new law requires publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to include at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019 as part of an effort to close the gender gap in business.

By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members. Companies that fail to comply face fines of $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation.

Business groups have questioned the legality of a state imposing such requirements on corporations, many of which are incorporated in other states. But Brown was not persuaded by the opposition.

He copied his signing letter to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, which has advanced Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court to the full Senate despite testimony by a woman who said he groped her when they were in high school.

“There have been numerous objections to this bill, and serious legal concerns have been raised,” Brown said. “I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation. Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”

The new law may, in fact, be vulnerable to a court challenge, said Jessica Levinson, a clinical professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

30 September 2018 at 4:28 pm

How we know Kavanaugh is lying

leave a comment »

Nathan Robinson writes in Current Affairs:

On Thursday morning, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford detailed under oath her claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh attacked her and sexually violated her when he was 17. On Thursday afternoon, Kavanaugh went before the committee to defend himself from the charge, emotionally—sometimes angrily—claiming that he was an innocent man being persecuted by Democrats, that his hearings had become a “national disgrace” that had “destroyed my family and my good name.”

The two witnesses, Ford and Kavanaugh, were both steadfast in their stories. The hearing did not offer any obvious moments that would decimate either party’s claims. Some viewers may have left not knowing what to believe: Ford was clear and responsive. Kavanaugh was irate and at times teary, but emotional denials are what we might expect from an innocent person who was wrongly accused. Predictably, people broadly on the left found Ford’s testimony compelling, while people broadly on the right… well, here are the headlines from the National Review’s homepage today:

(This is a partial selection.)

The allegations against Kavanaugh so infuriated Lindsey Graham that during the hearings he lapsed into what I think can only objectively be described as a sputtering fit of rage. “I hope the American people can see through this sham.. This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap… If you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”

Some concluded that they didn’t know what to conclude. Noah Rothman of Commentary said that “Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s pain was real and searing” and “the line of questioning pursued by a criminal prosecutor hired by Senate Republicans failed to effectively undermine her credibility” but that Kavanaugh “argued forcefully that the condemnation of him and his family over a rumor with no contemporary corroborating evidence in its favor would be a monumental injustice, and he’s correct.” The hearing, Rothman said, resolved nothing about the facts.

Let’s leave aside the procedural questions about if and how an investigation should proceed. Given what we know now, after the hearings, what can we conclude for certain? Let’s just say we do not know whether to believe Ford or Kavanaugh, that we found both of their testimonies equally likely to be true. In a state of uncertainty, we’d be left with a tricky situation. The truth or falsity of the allegation against Kavanaugh is extremely important; if it’s true, not only did he attack a woman three decades ago, but he lied shamelessly about it under oath, forcing Ford through a humiliating public process that led to her receiving death threats. If what Ford says is true, then not only should Brett Kavanaugh not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but he should be impeached and removed from the federal judiciary entirely, disbarred, and prosecuted for perjury.

The stakes here are high: If Kavanaugh did it and is confirmed, then a sexual assailant and sociopathic liar will be given one of the most powerful offices in the country (wouldn’t be the first time). If he didn’t do it, then his indignation and disgust is justified. Republicans have argued that Ford’s allegation is completely unproven, uncorroborated, and totally inconsistent with known facts, and that presenting it to the country represents an abandonment of the “presumption of innocence” (which it is refreshing to hear them care about).

What is the best way, then, to figure out the truth? It’s absolutely the case that Christine Ford has no eyewitnesses to support her. She cannot remember exactly where the assault happened, or exactly when. She can’t remember all the people who were at the house, and the people she does say were there have said they have no memory of the event. She told nobody about it at the time. Looking at these facts, we can see how someone strongly committed to due process might think the allegation extremely weak. (Just for the moment, let’s leave aside the two other serious sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh.)

However, while these aspects of Ford’s allegation might lead us to demand more proof, they in no way make it inconceivable. In fact, they’re exactly what we might expect if the allegation were true. A girl attacked by two jocks at a party may not tell anybody, precisely because she knows there are no eyewitnesses, they’d back each other up, and even if there had been physical evidence they could never be convicted of anything. It’s not surprising that attendees other than Ford don’t remember this gathering; she says it was small and informal, and remembering who was at every small and informal gathering you were ever at in high school three decades ago is impossible.Ford (and the alleged perpetrators) is the only one it was a significant night for. So the lack of corroboration doesn’t itself make the allegation dubious, and if we demand eyewitnesses before believing victims, most of the time someone who did this would get away with it, because most of the time people are sexually violated in private. Of course there is a serious risk to the “believe all accusers” approach—it leads to wrongful convictions. But there is also a risk to a “never believe an uncorroborated charge” approach—it means that you can attack someone if you’re alone with them, and as long as you leave no marks, you’ll get away with it forever.

If we are taking an uncorroborated claim seriously, though, what does that mean for standards of proof? Much later in life, Ford told her therapist and husband, but at the end of the day we only have her word. If we were to base his guilt on her word alone, then wouldn’t people be able to make any kind of false allegation they liked?

Not quite. The existence of a “he said, she said” does not mean it’s impossible to figure out the truth. It means we have to examine what he said, and what she said, as closely as possible. If both parties speak with passion and clarity, but one of them says many inconsistent, evasive, irrational, and false things, while the other does not, then we actually have a very good indicator of which party is telling the truth. If a man claims to be innocent, but does things—like carefully manipulate words to avoid giving clear answers, or lie about the evidence—that you probably wouldn’t do if you were innocent, then testimony alone can substantially change our confidence in who to believe.

In this case, when we examine the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford honestly, impartially, and carefully, it is impossible to escape the following conclusions:

  1. Brett Kavanaugh is lying.
  2. There is no good reason to believe that Christine Blasey Ford is lying. This does not mean that she is definitely telling the truth, but that there is nothing in what Kavanaugh said that in any way discredits her account.

I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in a house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one.

Let’s begin with Kavanaugh’s denial.

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

And here is the gathering as Ford describes it:

After a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending. I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur-of-the-moment gathering… People were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house.

Kavanaugh says that he never attended any event like this. Like what, though? He never attended a small gathering in Bethesda where people were drinking beer? Kavanaugh submitted his own calendars from the summer of 1982 into evidence for the Senate. As he said himself, “the calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers.” He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false, because the type of gathering he says he did attend is exactly the kind she describes.

Coverage of Ford’s allegations has often implied that the “party” at which she alleges she was assaulted was a kind of large Bacchanalian house party. This is a crucial part of Kavanaugh’s “calendar” defense: If there had been a big party, lots of people would have been there, it would probably have been on his summer calendar under “PAR-TAY!” It would have been notable, and since nobody seems to remember it and he even wrote far less significant events on his calendar, Ford must be misremembering.

But Ford has been clear: She is not talking about a big event. She is talking about a few friends and acquaintances hanging around drinking some beer in a living room:

It was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

It’s impossible to believe Kavanaugh when he says he never attended any event “like the one Dr. Ford describes.” It was a very typical low-key high school event, and it would have been shocking if Kavanaugh never attended such a thing. Indeed, he admits it himself.

Okay, so this was a weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar. But okay, maybe you think that he wasn’t trying to subtly reinforce the impression that Ford was alleging some kind of noteworthy event. Maybe you think he just meant “I never went to this kind of small gathering with the people Ford says.” Indeed, Kavanaugh says:

[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise.

Well it’s hard to misinterpret that. He was very precise. Who, then, is the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified? From her testimony: . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

30 September 2018 at 9:19 am

Hundreds of Migrant Children Quietly Moved to a Tent Camp on the Texas Border

leave a comment »

The Trump administration has decided it can do what it wants with migrant children so long as it conceals its actions. This is the American government today. Caitlin Dickerson reports in the NY Times:

In shelters from Kansas to New York, hundreds of migrant children have been roused in the middle of the night in recent weeks and loaded onto buses with backpacks and snacks for a cross-country journey to their new home: a barren tent city on a sprawling patch of desert in South Texas.

Until now, most undocumented children being held by federal immigration authorities had been housed in private foster homes or shelters, sleeping two or three to a room. They received formal schooling and regular visits with legal representatives assigned to their immigration cases.

But in the rows of sand-colored tents in Tornillo, Tex., children in groups of 20, separated by gender, sleep lined up in bunks. There is no school: The children are given workbooks that they have no obligation to complete. Access to legal services is limited.

These midnight voyages are playing out across the country, as the federal government struggles to find room for more than 13,000 detained migrant children — the largest population ever — whose numbers have increased more than fivefold since last year.

The average length of time that migrant children spend in custody has nearly doubled over the same period, from 34 days to 59, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees their care.

To deal with the surging shelter populations, which have hovered near 90 percent of capacity since May, a mass reshuffling is underway and shows no signs of slowing. Hundreds of children are being shipped from shelters to South Texas each week, totaling more than 1,600 so far.

The camp in Tornillo operates like a small, pop-up city, about 35 miles southeast of El Paso on the Mexico border, complete with portable toilets. Air-conditioned tents that vary in size are used for housing, recreation and medical care. Originally opened in June for 30 days with a capacity of 400, it expanded in September to be able to house 3,800, and is now expected to remain open at least through the end of the year.

“It is common to use influx shelters as done on military bases in the past, and the intent is to use these temporary facilities only as long as needed,” said Evelyn Stauffer, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department.

Ms. Stauffer said the need for the tent city reflected serious problems in the immigration system.

“The number of families and unaccompanied alien children apprehended are a symptom of the larger problem, namely a broken immigration system,” Ms Stauffer said. “Their ages and the hazardous journey they take make unaccompanied alien children vulnerable to human trafficking, exploitation and abuse. That is why H.H.S. joins the president in calling on Congress to reform this broken system.”

But the mass transfers are raising alarm among immigrant advocates, who were already concerned about the lengthy periods of time migrant children are spending in federal custody.

The roughly 100 shelters that have, until now, been the main location for housing detained migrant children are licensed and monitored by state child welfare authorities, who impose requirements on safety and education as well as staff hiring and training.

The tent city in Tornillo, on the other hand, is unregulated, except for guidelines created by the Department of Health and Human Services. For example, schooling is not required there, as it is in regular migrant children shelters.

Mark Greenberg, who oversaw the care of migrant children under President Barack Obama, helped to craft the emergency shelter guidelines. He said the agency tried “to the greatest extent possible” to ensure that conditions in facilities like the one at Tornillo would mirror those in regular shelters, “but there are some ways in which that’s difficult or impossible to do.”

Several shelter workers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being fired, described what they said has become standard practice for moving the children: In order to avoid escape attempts, the moves are carried out late at night because children will be less likely to try to run away. For the same reason, children are generally given little advance warning that they will be moved.

At one shelter in the Midwest whose occupants were among those recently transferred to Tornillo, about two dozen children were given just a few hours’ notice last week before they were loaded onto buses — any longer than that, according to one of the shelter workers, and the children may have panicked or tried to flee.

The children wore belts etched in pen with phone numbers for their emergency contacts. One young boy asked the shelter worker if he would be taken care of in Texas. The shelter worked replied that he would, and told him that by moving, he was making space for other children like him who were stuck at the border and needed a place to live.

Some staff members cried when they learned of the move, the shelter worker said, fearing what was in store for the children who had been in their care. Others tried to protest. But managers explained that tough choices had to be made to deal with the overflowing population.

The system for sheltering migrant children came under strain this summer, when the already large numbers were boosted by more than 2,500 young border crossers who were separated from their parents under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy. But those children were only a fraction of the total number who are currently detained.

Most of the detained children crossed the border alone, without their parents. Some crossed illegally; others are seeking asylum.

Children who are deemed “unaccompanied minors,” either because they were separated from their parents or crossed the border alone, are held in federal custody until they can be matched with sponsors, usually relatives or family friends, who agree to house them while their immigration cases play out in the courts. ..

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

30 September 2018 at 7:08 am

What a Good Boy

leave a comment »

Rebecca Traister writes in The Cut:

Today’s hearing, with the even-voiced woman describing an assault in careful, precise terms, occasionally apologizing to her interrogators as they grilled her, and the soft-faced man, alternately weeping and yelling — is an American crucible. To watch the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Christine Blasey Ford was stomach-turning, then enraging, then sad. Because it put the stark inequities that permeate our politics and power structures on unapologetic display.

The stunning, disturbingly educational spectacle started in the days that preceded the actual hearing. On Wednesday, Utah senator Orrin Hatch said of the multiple allegations of assault being made against Brett Kavanaugh, “I don’t think it’s fair to Brett Kavanaugh, I don’t think it’s fair to our system, I don’t think it’s fair to the process” — concluding with this assessment: “I don’t think we should put up with it, to be honest with you.”

Hatch was being very honest with us, using language that was remarkably reminiscent of something he’d said as Kavanaugh’s first hearing commenced, in response to a female protester who had stood up to shout about the life-and-death consequences, should the Supreme Court one day repeal healthcare reform. Asking to have “this loudmouth” removed, Hatch added, “We shouldn’t have to put up with this kind of stuff.”

Hatch’s locutions, along with those of his Republican colleagues on the judiciary committee and in the White House, made explicitly clear the dynamic that we saw today: that the right wing in this country — the Republican party that has lined up behind Donald Trump and is now trying to push through his evidently unfit Supreme Court pick — does not believe that it should have to “put up” with the assertion of the full humanity of women.

To these Republicans, women don’t deserve to be treated as full civic participants, with rights and voices of their own. As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it, the goal for his party was to “plow through” the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh — and by extension, the women making them — and confirm the guy already.

Of course, the policies to which Trump’s party has clung — the restriction of abortion rights and attempts to limit access to birth control; the refusal to raise the minimum wage or support equal pay protections; the disinclination, even, to get behind the Violence Against Women Act, not to mention the fealty to a multiply accused and self-confessed sexual predator — have betrayed where Republicans stand on women’s full equality. But at least until recently, the party had engaged in wan, low-bar attempts to dress up their antipathy in a female-friendly package: Mama Grizzlies and Nikki Haley and pit bull hockey-moms.

That façade has been exploded, I hope forever, by the events of the past weeks and days. Hatch, Chuck Grassley, and Lindsey Graham couldn’t hide their annoyance and impatience at having to listen to all these “misses,” as Grassley apparently likes to call women, who’d come forward with stories of assault and trauma. At the same time, women have been used as props (the girls basketball team, for one, which Kavanaugh raised yet again today, bemoaning that he may “never be able to coach again”) to advertise the judicial nominee’s friendliness to women, no matter his determination to curtail their ability to determine whether and when to have children. And then there was the hiring of Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor, or, as McConnell referred to her, “a female assistant,” whose job was to “assist” the all-white, all male members of the Republican judiciary committee in hiding their disdain for women from a rapt nation watching on their TVs, their computers, their cell phones.

It’s a good thing they hired Mitchell — whom Grassley referred to simply as “Rachel” in a couple of instances — because Grassley, when left to his own devices, did an awful job of extending even common decency toward Ford. Grassley failed to introduce Ford in his opening remarks, after giving a long and admiring list of Kavanaugh’s credentials, then interrupted his fellow senator Dianne Feinstein when she called him on his omission. After Ford finished reading her deeply moving opening statement, Grassley didn’t even take a beat before starting to talk. He didn’t thank her for her story or her willingness to share it. When she said she wanted caffeine, he suggested maybe a Coke. For God’s sake, get that woman a hot cup of coffee!

Worse, Grassley kicked off the hearing by comparing Ford’s suffering to that of Brett Kavanaugh — a classic maneuver in the defense of white patriarchy. You know the one. It’s the canard that to be called a racist is worse than being the subject of racist discrimination or violence; the same goes for being called a sexist and being the subject of sexual discrimination or violence. In other words, for Grassley, to be accused of violent sexual assault is as bad as experiencing it.

Grassley also failed to acknowledge that part of the ill-treatment directed at Ford was his and his colleagues’ doing, in their dismissal, disbelief, and howlingly angry derision of her. Republicans have suggested that she is lying, part of a “con job,” a “smear campaign.” The president of the United States has said in a press conference that he assumes that Kavanaugh’s accusers were paid off in exchange for stories. Hatch, who shows a near Olympian level of athleticism when it comes to the denigration of women — including Anita Hill, whom he was also around to degrade and disrespect — declared that he didn’t hold the women coming forward with stories in “high esteem.” . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

29 September 2018 at 3:47 pm

How operation ceasefire transformed urban policing

leave a comment »

John Seabrook writes in the New Yorker:

Operation Ceasefire, an audacious approach to reducing gang-related violence that was developed by David Kennedy, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was still largely unproven in 2008 and 2009, when I spent time with Kennedy in Cincinnati, watching as the city’s police department implemented his ideas. Kennedy had had some success in Boston while he was developing the program, at the Harvard School of Government, but Ceasefire sprang from a very different philosophical approach to gun violence from the one behind zero-tolerance policing, in which police target high-crime areas and make arrests for infractions like jaywalking and loitering, and which was enshrined in many big-city police departments at the time.

Kennedy, who looks more like a dude you’d see astride a Harley in full leathers with “Hogtown” stenciled on the back than like a policy wonk, was making the argument that the vast majority of the homicides in cities were gang-related, driven by beefs and score-settling, and that the perpetrators were not sociopaths but rational actors who were looking for a way out of the cycle of violence and revenge they found themselves trapped in. It sounded like pointy-headed liberal academic claptrap. I admit I was a little skeptical myself.

What I saw in Cincinnati not only changed my mind but rocked my world. Ceasefire called for police to gather together the people responsible for gang-related shootings and do something simple—meet with them, along with clergy, victims, and other community members, and tell them to stop. The staged meeting at which the victims and perpetrators confronted one another in the presence of Cincinnati police officers was one of the most extraordinary events I have ever reported on.

The success Kennedy and his colleagues had in Cincinnati has been repeated multiple times. Cities all over the country are using the program now, including the N.Y.P.D. in Kennedy’s (and my) home base, Brooklyn. As a result,  . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

29 September 2018 at 2:48 pm

“Rarely Do We Have a Judge Spell Out Their Bias Before a Televised Audience”

leave a comment »

Pema Levy writes in Mother Jones:

Fiercely defending himself against allegations of sexual misconduct Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh went so far as to claim he was the victim of a left-wing revenge plot. His remarks under oath could cause problems for him if he’s confirmed: Their partisan tone will raise questions about whether he should recuse himself from the myriad cases involving Democrats or progressive groups that will inevitably come before him. But there’s no mechanism for forcing a Supreme Court judge to recuse himself, so although it’s likely some cases will be perceived as tainted, there will be no obvious remedy.

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election,” Kavanaugh said Thursday. “Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

If he’s confirmed, Kavanaugh’s outburst against Democrats will likely embolden some people before the court—as well as third parties who offer friend-of-the-court briefs—to demand his recusal. “I think the bias he exhibited was so overt,” says Melanie Sloan, a senior adviser to the watchdog group American Oversight and a former Democratic staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “There are a lot of times people think there is a bias in a judge, but rarely do we have a judge spell out their bias before a televised audience in the millions so there’s a transcript of it.” Sloan points out, for example, Kavanaugh will be in a position to rule on challenges to Trump administration regulations from environmental organizations that came out against his nomination, which he presumably lists among the “left-wing opposition groups” he railed against.

But because Kavanaugh is unlikely to recuse himself, any party that asks him to do so risks angering him and hurting its chances before the court. It’s a “tails you win, heads I lose” situation, Sloan says.

But should Kavanaugh fail to be confirmed and remain in his current job as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the situation changes slightly. On the circuit court, Kavanaugh would be bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to recuse himself if a reasonable person would doubt his ability to be impartial on a certain case, according to Matthew Menendez, an expert on judicial impartiality and independence at the Brennan Center for Justice. Unlike at the Supreme Court level, if a judge opts not to recuse himself, the parties can appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. Still, the Supreme Court justices, who are often friends with other judges, may be reluctant to force one of their fellow judges off a case.

Whichever court Kavanaugh is on, . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

29 September 2018 at 2:45 pm

%d bloggers like this: