Bottega Veneta Veneta Bottega Red Leather Floral Sandals ca9ab9

Bottega Veneta Veneta Bottega Red Leather Floral Sandals ca9ab9

Bottega Veneta Veneta Bottega Red Leather Floral Sandals ca9ab9

adidas Light Beige Tubular Invader Strap Sneakers Sneakers,

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh defended himself in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He says you can trust him to be impartial. Did he undo the damage he did during his hearing last week?

Just a reminder: the purpose of this blog is to reveal what’s really going on with written communications. I’m not here to argue Kavanaugh’s credentials or how senators decide how to vote. The question I’ll address is more specific: did his op-ed do what it was intended to do?

Manolo Blahnik Pink Ankle Strap Sandals,Tory Burch Black Mini Miller Jelly Thong with Gold Logo Sandals,Hermès White Leather & H Logo Flat Sandals,Diane von Furstenberg Leopard New Box Dvf Wooden Summer Calf Hair Wedges Sandals,Stuart Weitzman Adobe Vecchio Nappa Nsbandy Sandals,Stuart Weitzman Pewter Noir Nudust Sandals,Burberry Cream Reason Flat Ivory 37/ Sandals,Tory Burch White Silver Ivory Patent Leather M Sandals,Stuart Weitzman Khaki "Alex" Wedges Sandals,Burberry Brown Novacheck Block Heel Sandals,Valentino Pink Rockstud Flip Flop Sandals,Christian Louboutin Black Guernica 100 Calf/Cuoio Heel Sandals,Dolce&Gabbana Dolce & Gabbana Brocade Jewelled Wedges Bianca Sandals,Vince Camuto Black Suede with Leather Trim Slip Sneakers By Sneakers,Tory Burch Ref Red Slide Sandalsadidas Navy Nmd R1 Men's Sneakers,Saint Laurent Blue Tribute New Denim 75mm Platform SandalsSt. John Black Satin Brown Open Toe 7) 209732 Sandals,Dior Black Patent Ankle Strap Sandals,Jimmy Choo Silver And Gold Slingback Sandals,Tory Burch Blue Darby Navy White Polka Dot Logo Flip Sandals,Stuart Weitzman Beige 'nudistsong' Nude Sandals,Prada Pink Rossa Flip Flops Sandals,Tory Burch Blue Nile Flat Thong-tumbled Leather/Color Nile/Size Sandals,Tory Burch Gold Brown Gunmetal Leather Gladiator Sandals,Manolo Blahnik Silver Slip On Heels Open Toe 4" Heel 39.5 Sandals,Donald J. Pliner Brown / Beige Sneakers,adidas Black and Grey Tubular Rita Ora Limited Edition Sneakers,Casadei Red Suede Studded Hearts Sandals,Giuseppe Zanotti Gold/Silver Cristal Rock Sandals,

Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated, the Democratic Senate leader said he would “oppose me with everything he’s got.” A Democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those that supported me were “complicit and evil.” Another Democratic senator on this committee said, “Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare.” A former head of the Democratic National Committee said, “Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.”

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, 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.


Bottega Veneta red leather sandals with contrast stitching, floral cut-out embellishment at tops, buckle closure at ankle strap and stacked heels.
This item is previously New and contains some signs of wear. Good previously New condition consistent with light gentle use.
Scuffing on soles and minor insole wear.

Size: 35.5

Shoe Size = 35.5
Brand = Bottega Veneta
Color = Red
Condition = Good
Item Number = 6814-263

This is the hole Kavanaugh is attempting to dig himself out of.

The ROAM analysis of Judge Kavanaugh’s op-ed

Giuseppe Zanotti Black New Studded Fringe Wedge Slip On Suede Leather Sandals,Taryn Rose Black Italia Patent SandalsTory Burch Bleach Spark Gold Miller Fringe Flat Thong Flip Flop Sandals,Miu Miu Nero Vitello Natura Sandals,Valentino Light Ivory New Leather Rockstud Rolling Espadrilles Sandals,Saint Laurent Black Jane Patent Ankle Strap SandalsJimmy Choo White/Gold White/Gold Thistle Patent Leather Sandals,Miu Miu Black Velvet Snake Wedge SandalsRebecca Minkoff Grey Summer Knee High Fringe Gladiator Putty 7.5u Sandals,Birkenstock White "Arizona" Two-strap Comfort Sandals,Prada White Leather & Medallion Sz: M Flat SandalsTory Burch Black/Natural Snake Embossed Leather Miller 2 SandalsFendi Black Patent Leather Logo Buckle Classic Monogram Slide Wedge SandalsTory Burch Gold Leather Ankle Wrap Platform with Braided Jute Heel Sandals,Saint Laurent Black Satin Tribute Sandals,Joie Multi Color Flats Gladiator Black Golden Leather 36.6 Brazil Sandals,Birkenstock Brown Women's and Men's Unisex M 7 Sandals,Diane von Furstenberg Gold Daroka Sandals,Givenchy Light Blue / White/ Black Bottom Leather Slide Sandals,Paul Green Blush Metallic Nubuck Cayanne Sandals,Casta?er Beige Canvas Natural Jute Open Toe and Block Heel 37 Sandals,Sophia Webster Multicolor Leather Alyssa Feather Embellished Ankle Strap Wedge Sandals,Betsey Johnson Silver Blue By Jenna SandalsTory Burch Gold Emmy Thong Flat Metallic Leather Sandals,Tory Burch Royal Tan/ Gold Thora Thong Leather Sandals,Christian Louboutin Silver Athena Python T-strap Flat Sandals,Gianvito Rossi Claret/Burgundy Open Toe Band and Ankle Strap Sandals,Jack Rogers White Luccia Leather Wedge Sandals,Christian Louboutin Brown Galeria Ornament SandalsGianvito Rossi Navy Blue Portofino Suede Strappy Heels Sandals,

  • Readers. Who is the op-ed aimed at? Two groups. First, the broader judicial and legal community, who will be arguing cases in front of Kavanaugh and discussing his opinions. And second, the four senators who remain undecided and may decide the fate of his nomination.
  • Objective. What change is the op-ed trying to create? The title of the op-ed is “I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge.” So there’s no mystery here: Kavanaugh seeks to dispel the impression he created that he is a biased hothead, and replace it with the idea that he is an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court.
  • Action. Kavanaugh wants the senators to vote for him and the legal community to respect him.
  • iMpression. Much more than most pieces of writing, this one must leave a good impression. If the oral testimony was wild, the op-ed must be rational, well-argued, and free from bias.

Did the op-ed do its job?

Let’s take a look at some excerpts from the op-ed:

I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

Yes, I was emotional last Thursday. I hope everyone can understand I was there as a son, husband and dad.

. . . [A] good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge. . . .

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. . . .

I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. . . .

I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

So, did the op-ed do its job?

Judge Kavanaugh does not in this description apologize for anything he said. He did not apologize in the op-ed for his response to Senator Klobuchar, or for his citation of the Clintons and left-wing opposition groups.

As close as he gets is “I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.” There are no specifics. His reasoning behind this statement is that he was there as a son, a husband, and a dad. (Wasn’t he there as a Supreme Court nominee?)

The rest of the op-ed is clear, reasoned, and sober. It basically says, “judge me by my record.” This is fair. But it does not undo the impression left by Kavanaugh’s testimony in the Senate.

Basically, if you feel you did something wrong and were criticized, you have two possible options. You can say “I did this specific thing, and I’m sorry.” Or you can say “I was right. I don’t need to apologize.”

Kavanaugh attempted a third option: “I made mistakes, but I won’t be specific about them, and I had an excuse because I felt threatened and was acting as a father.” This never works. It is not an effective strategy for a corporate executive or, for that matter, for any adult, let alone a nominee for Supreme Court Justice.

You may or may not believe it is fair to condemn Kavanaugh for a woman’s accusations about what he did in high school 36 years ago.

But it is certainly fair to judge him for what he said, and how he said it, in the Senate last week.

Judge Kavanaugh’s op-ed says, basically “I am fair and impartial when I am a judge, but I am combative and emotional when I am criticized, and I react as an angry father, not as a judge.”

If you believe that a judge should be evaluated only on what does on the bench, and not on his other behavior, then you’ll be fine with this.

But if you believe a judge should be evaluated on what he says and how he acts during confirmation hearings, the op-ed fails. It does not undo any of the impressions that Kavanaugh left. It’s a waste of time, and will change nothing.

Bottega Veneta Veneta Bottega Red Leather Floral Sandals ca9ab9

Giuseppe Zanotti Red Coline 100 Bourlesque Sandals,

I publish a blog post this interesting every single weekday. Sign up. It's worth it, really.

5 responses to “Does the Brett Kavanaugh op-ed make its case?

  1. You hit it on the head.

    He wins on the logic battle, which is often thought of as the most important part of being a lawyer/judge. (For most professions, we think of an actual skill as the most important aspect. Both are important, but neither is the most important.)

    His conduct at the circus the other day betray a lack of Emotional Intelligence, which is the most important. Emotional: good, actually natural and necessary (he should have led with the anger in both the oral testimony and the commentary, period). Combative: bad and dumb.

    While the commentary is measured, it misses the emotion and does not address the onlyquestion that was out there: “What, Senator, will it take from me to change your vote?” Maybe, he is gambling that he needs none of them to change or realizes none are likely to. Maybe that explains why he did not apologize.

    Interestingly, I am not readily recalling another case where we have someone whose actions we admire and words we do not. (Maybe, “communication” is a better word than “words.”)

  2. Readers. Who he aiming the op-ed at? I would expand your analysis. This goes beyond his nomination. You mentioned the 2,000 law professors who are saying he shouldn’t even remain a judge, let alone a member of the Supreme Court — his entire career is at stake. His reputation is at stake. Many people of all stripes will no longer believe the story he tells about himself, so his relationships in society (and possibly his understanding of his own identity) are at stake.

    “I hope everyone can understand I was there as a son, husband and dad.” That is such a curious statement. Do you know anyone who goes into a job interview as a son, husband, and dad? That’s why I say this op ed is also for them.

    Has this accusation made him feel like a teen again? If he was, indeed, going there as a role model, and defending himself as a good son, he didn’t act like it. He acted like a teen. He owes his own family much more of an apology.

    His entire opening paragraph was a list of people who are credible and upstanding — the company he now keeps. He desperately needs to appear credible. But as you stated, it would have been much more compelling if the article had begun with a heartfelt apology addressing specifics.

    I know that by “team player” he means he’s a fit for the culture of the Supreme Court, but I don’t think of the Supreme Court as a team. That would defeat its purpose. The use of the word “team” makes me shudder when I think of its potential meaning.

    The entire process has been very upsetting. This op ed does absolutely nothing to change that. I don’t think it convinces anyone of anything — it’s just more whining.

  3. Sorry, I yelled at you during my job interview. It’s because I am Dad.

    Sorry, I couldn’t have commited that crime because I went to Yale and studied during high school.

    For a lawyer, he has weak logic.

  4. If you didn’t hear Senator Collins talk yesterday, you should. You probably wouldn’t have written this blog post other than for click bait.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.