Sergio Cobalt Rossi Cobalt Sergio Blue Tresor Formal Shoes 929bd5

Sergio Cobalt Rossi Cobalt Sergio Blue Tresor Formal Shoes 929bd5

Sergio Cobalt Rossi Cobalt Sergio Blue Tresor Formal Shoes 929bd5

Continued">
Tory Burch Tan Olive & Green Platforms,

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?

Jimmy Choo Black Kid Leather Formal Shoes,Karen Millen Pink Wooden Accents Silver Buckle 221fj1135854 Bottom Is 221fj113 5051047655598 54 Platforms,Lanvin Orange and Tan 2012 Ete Wrap Wedges,Jou Jou Red Leather Sandals Nwot Wedges,Tory Burch Black Nora Style: 887712800476 Wedges,Salvatore Ferragamo Almond Susi Heels Color Formal Shoes,Alegria by PG Lite Black/Gray Patent Leather Maryjanes 36 - 5.5/6 Wedges,Prada Black Venice Rosio Peep Toe Pumps PlatformsLilly Pulitzer Gold Metallic Swingin On A Star Strappy Sandals Formal Shoes,Donald J. Pliner Tan Frida Wedges,Rock & Republic Fuchsia Wedge Platforms,Enzo Angiolini Silver/Gold Eaakkie Formal Shoes,Saint Laurent Black Gold Lucy 105 Cu Pump Platforms,Pelle Moda Gold Fresca Slingback Formal Shoes,B Brian Atwood Multicolor Metallic Hologram Leather Fontanne Platform PumpsSergio Rossi Brown High Heel Formal Shoes,Christian Louboutin Rose Gold Cork Wedges,Tory Burch Navy Bima Espadrille WedgesLuciano Padovan Metallic and Black Disco Peeptoe Pumps Platforms,Tory Burch Silver Caroline 2 WedgesOscar de la Renta White WedgesFree People Tan and Brown Na Platforms,Ann Taylor Black Suede Kamela WedgesSaint Laurent Espresso Ba 276640 Platforms,Christian Louboutin Black Highness Leather Red Peep Toe PlatformsMatt Bernson Brown Leather Knot Wedges,Stuart Weitzman Nude Box Included Formal ShoesChristian Louboutin Silver 000 Formal Shoes,Cole Haan Pink Mariela Air PlatformsAlexander McQueen Black Suede Pumps Platforms

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.

Description


These are brand new never New authentic Sergio Rossi tresor booties in size 38
Sold out everywhere
Extremely hard to find color
Color Dusk-cobalt gorgeous color. The pictures don't do justice to the sparkle of these shoes.
Crystal-embellished suede upper, laser-cut geometric design, peep toe
Interior lining, cushioned insole, side zip closure, self-covered stiletto heel
Accompanied by dust bag and original box with pamphlet
4 1/4" heel
Leather upper/lining/sole
Made in Italy
Ladies these booties are soooooo sexy that any outfit will look superb.
They retail for $1890 plus tax

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

The ROAM analysis of Judge Kavanaugh’s op-ed

Twelfth St. by Cynthia Vincent Navy Juno Espadrilles Wedges,Michelle Jonas Black Shiny Platform WedgesBetsey Johnson Champagne Miri Evening Sandals Formal Shoes,Diba Black/Dark Beige Shadow 162717 Formal ShoesChristian Louboutin Grey Base Butterfly Pattern Platforms,Miu Miu Rose Pink Suede Rounded Toe Classic Stiletto Heel 36 Platforms,Sam Edelman Black and White Polka Dot Novato Platforms,Anne Klein Tan Suede Daphnis Wedges,Valentino Rockstud Bronze Gold Espadrille Open Toe Sandals 40 Wedges,Prada Black Linea Rossa Slide Wedges,Salvatore Ferragamo Brown Men's Maurice Bit Loafer 11.d Mens Formal Shoes,Saint Laurent Camo Camouflage Sabl Platforms,Christian Louboutin Gold Glitter Peep Toe Heels Platforms,Enzo Angiolini Silver/Gold Bracy 3 Platforms,New York & Company Pink Sunny Wedges,Chloé Black Patent Leather with Buckle Detail Wedges,Balenciaga White Studded Gladiator Sandals Wedges,Diane von Furstenberg Brown Leather Opal WedgesGiuseppe Zanotti Silver Harmony Formal Shoes,Christian Louboutin Watersnake Patchwork Blue Platforms,Jimmy Choo Gold Lame Glitter and Mirror Leather Pumps Platforms,Jeffrey Campbell Black Foxy Spike PlatformsTory Burch Tan Leticia 65mm Open Toe Brown Leather Wedges,Sam Edelman Camel / Nude Bonnie Wedges,Jimmy Choo Brown Leopard Textile Rope Wedges,Donald J. Pliner Burgandy Men's Beaded Formal Shoes,Roberto Cavalli Black Just Todacr80504 Formal Shoes,Giuseppe Zanotti Nude E26059 Pump Vcipria PlatformsMarc Jacobs Leopard Pre Fall Mj 2013 Platforms,Prada Fumo Gray Calzature Donna Platforms

  • 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.

Sergio Cobalt Rossi Cobalt Sergio Blue Tresor Formal Shoes 929bd5

Salvatore Ferragamo Black Vara Bow Heeled Ankle Strap Sandal Platforms,

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.