The law professors speak

Recently, more than 1,700 law professors nationwide signed a letter urging the Senate to reject Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry.  Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners.  Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as "a calculated and orchestrated political hit,"… Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

While these legal scholars are free to form their own opinions, this letter was nothing more than a desperate and politicized attempt to keep a well qualified jurist off the nation's highest court.  While their efforts fortunately failed, they should raise some red flags about what is being taught in law schools across the country. 

There was never a question about Kavanaugh's ability to be fair or impartial.  Kavanaugh fervently defended his innocence and welcomed whatever additional steps the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended.  In addition, Kavanaugh was rightfully angered due to the uncorroborated allegations and the vicious smear campaign launched against himself and his family by Senate Democrats.

Sadly, the letter written by these professors appears to be an indictment of Judge Kavanaugh based on politics and nothing more.  There was nothing wrong with Kavanaugh's temperament.  He was acting as a father, a husband, and a man who was defending his name and his reputation.  Many of these same professors would have likely reacted in a similar manner had they endured what Kavanaugh went through. 

Ironically, the professors who signed this letter could have signed a similar letter when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went on her partisan rant about President Trump, stating: "I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president."  "For the country, it could be four years.  For the court, it could be – I don't even want to contemplate that."  Why weren't these same professors and legal scholars calling for Ginsburg's recusal?  Did her obvious bias against the president not rise to the requisite level of unfairness, or were they simply willing to overlook it because of Ginsburg's political leanings?  

Lawyers should find this type of conduct appalling.  Hopefully, these professors and legal scholars are not pushing their liberal ideologies and agendas in our nation's law schools in an effort to mold our future jurists and judges.  It is not their job to do so, just as it is not their job to intentionally inject themselves in a confirmation process for strictly political and partisan purposes.

Mr. Hakim's articles have been published in The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.  

If you experience technical problems, please write to