Blog Archives

The American Bar Association has concerns about Justice Kavanaugh 12 years before he became a Supreme Court Justice

12/31/2019

Chicago(EJ) The ABA’s judicial investigator had 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 Kavanaugh’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a 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.

Now that Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court what is your opinion?

Several years ago the exalted former Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia admitted in at hearing on a well known patent case “ that he did not understand the Petitioner’s briefs.”
Justice Scalia also holds the dubious distinction of allowing over 210 death roll inmates to die, by merely denying their Motions for stays of execution.
On one occasion shortly before Scalia died in February of 2016, he denied the stay of two death roll inmates who claimed that their method of execution was too” cruel and inhumane”. Scalia wrote, that since the inmates “did not recommend what they would consider a humane method of execution, I deny the stay.” That evening they were executed.
Professor Harold Goldenshalf stated, “the United States Supreme Court is the only place that an unqualified person can get a life time job.

Since the Gore v. Blush Case in 2000, many believe that the U.S. Supreme Court is nothing more than a "show" court, a "political court".

How anyone can believe that they can rely on the U.S. Supreme court to hear their case, when the court receives over 10,000 appeals a year and only hears about 40, 1/10 of 1/10 of a percent of the cases a year.?

For any court to be a viable place for it citizens to seek justice, that court should be able to hear at least 50 to 70% of the cases submitted to it. not "1/10 of 1/10 of a percent of the cases a year".

If you disagree let us know?

0 Comments

Click to set custom HTML

EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY (EJP)

supports moral and ethical causes. Strongly advocates Equal Justice for all.
The purpose of the Equal Justice Party is to exalt the law, by holding to the fundamental right of “Equal Justice” for all. It keeps “watch” on unethical attorneys, judges, judicial misconduct issues, unfit government officials, unfit professionals, professors, doctors. EJP studies, evolving intellectual property and constitutional law. It assures all people with the “good news” that in American “right” will prevail, especially for those who “never” give-up “fighting” to obtain “justice”. The Equal Justice Party advocates adherence to the Law, relies on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as its authority.

Disclaimer This website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the Equal Justice Party (EJP) website is intended to provide general information about the Equal Justice Party and an opportunity for interested persons to contact EJP. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation. EJP is not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of EJP services. While EJP endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, EJP makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. (c) 2018 EJP All Rights Reserved. , the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 2286 (1972); see also Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 319, 100 S. Ct. 2326 (1980)

RSS Feed