Appeals Court dismisses all ethics complaints against Brett Kavanaugh
“Because Justice Kavanaugh is no longer a circuit, district, bankruptcy or magistrate judge, a circuit judicial council no longer has the
power or jurisdiction under the Act to review his conduct”
As part of the warfare against Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Democrats and their allies filed dozens of ethics complaints against Kavanaugh.
Those complaints were referred by Chief Justice Roberts to a judicial council of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 10th Circuit judicial council just released an Order dismissing the complaints on the grounds that the judicial code of conduct did not apply to Supreme Court Justice, and now that Kavanaugh was on the Supreme Court, the council could not act.
Here is an excerpt from the Order:
Complaints of judicial misconduct have been filed against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, formerly a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 1 The complaints were filed pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.
In response to a request from the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on October 10, 2018 transferred the complaints and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter from the D.C. Circuit to
the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council. See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, Rule 26 (Jud. Conf. of the U.S. 2015). We have consolidated the 83 complaints filed to date in the D.C. and Tenth Circuits. 2 Complainants’ allegations vary, but in addition to some miscellaneous assertions, they generally allege that Justice Kavanaugh made false statements during his nomination proceedings to the D.C. Circuit in 2004 and 2006 and to the Supreme Court in 2018; made inappropriate partisan statements that demonstrate bias and a lack of judicial temperament; and treated members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with disrespect.Following the transfer by the Chief Justice, the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council has retained the matter and assumed the initial role ordinarily assigned to the chief circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 352(a)-{b) and Rule 11…. For the reasons set forth below, the complaints must be dismissed because, due to his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh is no longer a judge covered by the Act.
* * *
Most of the complaints filed against Justice Kavanaugh include allegations that he made false statements under oath, both during his D.C. Circuit confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006, and during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 2018. The complaints generally allege that Justice Kavanaugh in his appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee (1) falsely testified about his involvement in various events or programs while he was Assistant White House Counsel and Secretary to the President during the George W. Bush administration; (2) falsely testified about his personal conduct, behavior, and recollection of events prior to his joining the federal judiciary; and (3) displayed partisan bias and a lack of appropriate judicial temperament. Some complaints allege he engaged in misconduct while he was a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals by favoring certain parties or interests.3 In sum, the complaints together allege that Justice Kavanaugh violated the Code of Conduct for United States
Judges….* * *
… In conclusion, Congress has not extended the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to Supreme Court justices.
Justice Kavanaugh served as a circuit judge on the D.C. Circuit from May 30, 2006 to October 5, 2018. He was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States on October 6, 2018. Because Justice Kavanaugh is no longer a circuit, district, bankruptcy or magistrate judge, a circuit judicial council no longer has the power or jurisdiction under the Act to review his conduct.6
The allegations contained in the complaints are serious, but the Judicial Council is obligated to adhere to the Act. Lacking statutory authority to do anything more, the complaints must be dismissed because an intervening event Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court-has made the complaints no longer appropriate for consideration under the Act. 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(l)(A)(i) (providing for dismissal of a complaint if the complaint is not in conformity with § 351 (a)). Because it lacks jurisdiction to do so, the Council makes no findings on the merits of the complaints.
Who thinks the howling mob will stop howling?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Plus the Dims are all a bunch of bitter liars.
Why isn’t Mrs. Magoo being investigated?
Why is that woman sitting behind BK flashing the WordPress Blog gang symbol?
Some folks are already complaining about BK being a puppet of the Uniparty. If its not one thing, its the other. bleh
It’s Zina Bash, who had been hysterically accused of flashing an “OK” sign during the Kavanaugh hearing, just because her hand, resting on her arm, happened to form that shape, as it can quite easily do. The loonier parts of the left have convinced themselves that this is a white supremacist gang sign, and some actual white supremacists have trolled them by adopting it as such. Anyway, a few days later Bash was back in the same seat, and this time deliberately flashed the sign, to troll all the people who’d gone off their rockers the first time.
Rodney Dangerfield Gets One of These ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YYnz2-bsJo
our friends over at /pol/ started the rumor that the “OK” symbol was a “white supremacist” signal…
as with most of their gag’s, it was remarkably successful.
If this were, say, Sotomayor, and you believed she’d been unethical, would you stop howling because of this decision? Of course we here are happy about this outcome because we never believed the allegations had any substance in the first place; but the “howling mob” does believe them, so why would you expect this to make them stop howling? The court did not exonerate Kavanaugh at all; it simply said it had no jurisdiction to consider the question. So anyone who thought he was guilty yesterday must still believe that today, since nothing has happened to change that opinion.
My question is what Roberts was thinking referring it to them; he must have had a different understanding of the law.
oh come on, you ask what was Roberts thinking? He knew EXACTLY what the outcome would be when he did it!!! I certainly knew (I wrote this was going to be the guaranteed outcome at the time) and I of course can’t hold a candle to him.
It was a way for Roberts to kick the issue off of his plate and into the garbage can, without looking like he was killing it himself. And now he can grin and say “huh, who knew that was going to happen?” Everyone, that’s who.
Only a fool believes that the progressive fascists really believe that BK committed these crimes. Intelligent people know that they were willing to do anything to stop his appointment.
I think you have vastly underestimated the numbers of fools and progressive fascists. Sure, the smart ones are putting on a fake mask of outrage just to gain points, but probably half of the screeching multitude *believe* this unmitigated crap. They know in their heart of hearts that Judge K. is an unrepentant (fill in wild allegations here), that Hillary was hounded into defeat by Russian spies manipulating our election boxes, and that the Obama administration was blameless because there were no scandals during it at all.
It should scare the heck out of us.
Exactly. More than half. I live with these people, I speak to them every day, and they are good, decent, even smart people, but the number of things they believe that just ain’t so is astounding.
It’s not just on the left either. Plenty of people right here believe the most astonishing falsehoods. Just a few instances:
* That Warren built her career on the lie that she was an Indian. (This is literally impossible, because when she first invented that lie she was already a tenured professor at Penn, which was her last job before Harvard).
* That one or both of the 0bamas lost their law licenses.
* That Valerie Jarrett is Iranian, Moslem, or both.
* That George Soros was a Nazi collaborator.
* That Hillary Clinton was fired from the Watergate Committee.
These are all just as baseless and verifiably false as any of the things the Kavanaugh-haters believe.
As for Soros, start a 6:57 ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Vjp89vmYQ
.. you decide
I think the difference is that you’ve seen the private anonymous side of some of the right here. I’d be willing to bet you see mostly the public side of those lefties you “speak with every day”, not the private anonymous side. Their public side is as bad as the right’s private side…just imagine what their private side is like (or go to Mother Jones for a muse if you can’t picture it).
I’ve seen the video, several times, and the claims about it are outright lies by people who rely on you not to watch it. Explaining why he did not feel guilty on seeing other people being robbed he explicitly says “Of course I was not doing it”. Which is of course true. He didn’t do anything. He was there, he saw it, he was glad that it wasn’t happening to him, but there was nothing to feel guilty about. In other words, he (at least claims to have) successfully avoided survivor’s guilt, which is a psychological illness; if true, good for him.
Roberts, and unfortunately Kavanaugh, are wanna be loved judges
Trump could have, and should have, done better
If you can’t protect unborn children, what’s that say about your conservative, constitutional creed?
A judge has no right to protect this or that sector of the population. His duty is to follow what he honestly believes to be the law, no matter whom it helps or hurts. If Kavanaugh truly believes what he said about stare decisis, then we should expect him to follow his mentor Kennedy and vote against us on this issue.
Sometimes it a judge’s duty to follow the law.
Sometimes it’s the judges duty to find the law unconstitutional.
And there are times when the judge really should inform the jury that in a particular case, the law is an ass. But then, juries should all be informed of the actual power they have to nullify a law if, in their opinion, it’s improperly applied.
Sometimes it’s your duty to protect the innocent , he had constitutional grounds to vote the other way, he chose not to…end.of.story…
Some people don’t recognize protection when they see it.
Roe v. Wade requires that, for an abortion to be done, the consent of the one person most affected, the mother, must be obtained. Yes, this means a pregnant woman who wants an abortion can get one. However, it denies the government the power to compel abortions wholesale.
It may not be perfect, but it beats the living hell out of granting a Chinese level of power to our government.
I agree with what you said, but the issue of “Who is going to pay for the abortion” still remains. I don’t have the numbers, but it’s my sense that most abortions are paid for by taxpayers. Should devout Catholics…say… be forced to pay for abortions?
Pro-Choice/selective-child is two choices too late, which denies human evolution. That said, it’s a wicked solution to an albeit hard problem.
Pro-Choice/selective-child reflects normalization and a general psychopathy in the population. Whereas one-child reflects normalization and a minority psychopathy in the left-wing regime. That said, Pro-Choice/selective-child is the beginning, not end, of the selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent mischief justified by passage of the Twilight (a.k.a. “penumbra”) Amendment
Is the mother the “one person most affected”?
Where is the Equal Protection for the unborn?
Unlike slavery, and one-child, Pro-Choice/selective-child reflects a natural rite, and normalization in the general, integrated population. The wicked solution progressed through normalization, and its reform will only progress through the same process. Think prohibition, but a “burden” to social progress, Democratic interests, and GDP growth, is a far greater wall to tear down.
Because all of these ethics complaints were made in bad faith, it is only fitting that the complainants should be left choking on their own impotent rage. That the complaints were dismissed on a technicality just makes it a more bitter pill for them to swallow.
Well…..There “IS”, some Justice after all? Incarcerate Diane Feinstein, & her grossly biased Senate Judiciary Committee!….{ & throw away the key!}
so he’s guilty, but untouchable, right?
😎