Anti-hunting USD Law Prof & Anti-gun Law Prof Joining forces to protest Kavanaugh

Pat Powers

Remember the USD Law Professor who wants a worldwide ban on trophy hunting and called it a shadowy subculture?   Well, she’s back trumpeting her extreme form of liberalism.

And it’s not just her. Another example of USD Law School’s lefty liberals, Sean Kammer, who doesn’t think owning guns is safe, and spews forth tweets such as this…

..is also back. And they’re joining forces to sully the University of South Dakota’s name by signing on to a letter which claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is somehow unfit for the bench because he fought back against those who have sought to turn “advice and consent” into a circus of character assassination based on someone’s questionable memories for what might have happened in high school 40 years ago.

It reads in part:

We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But 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,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

…

Signed…

MYANNA DELLINGER
Associate Professor of Law,
University of South Dakota School of Law

SEAN M. KAMMER
Professor of Law,
University of South Dakota

Read that here.

Heavens… instead of being open to the organized and exceedingly partisan character assassination against him, these USD professors find him disqualified for the Supreme Court because he was, at times, “discourteous to senators?”

Really?   Can someone point out to me when USD started teaching “853 LAW – Senatorial Courtesy?” And is that a required course, or an elective just for those who wish to go on to the Supreme Court?

The letter that these lefty professors signed on to was as laughable as it is nakedly partisan.

Your tax dollars at work.

48 thoughts on “Anti-hunting USD Law Prof & Anti-gun Law Prof Joining forces to protest Kavanaugh”

  1. The letter calls that senate hearing a “judicial inquiry “. Somebody needs to send these “professors” back to school and work. Only if you’ve NEVER seen a judicial inquiry, would you confus that clown show with a real judicial proceeding

  2. Lee,

    Let me get this right.

    A bunch of law professors call a Senate Confirmation Hearing a “judicial inquiry” which would mean there would be due process and a minimum standard of evidence supporting the accusation.

    Democratic Senators say it is not a “judicial hearing” but a job interview where Kavanaugh is not entitled to ANY due process protections.

    The anti-Kavanaugh people sure can’t seem to find a story and stick with it. I guess they throw up all mud and hope it sticks.

    I hope it sticks too. On the intellectually dishonest people throwing the mud.

    On a sidenote, the USD Law School has some very serious issues to resolve/solve in order to survive. If the management of the law school hasn’t made it clear to the staff survival depends on 100% of the team rowing in the same direction AND everything they do has to further the cause of keeping the Law School open or they risk the entire institution, they need to do it now and use these idiots as examples either via a disciplinary action or dismissal.

    And, law professors who refer to a Senate Confirmation Hearing as a “judicial inquiry” might have demonstrated how ignorant they are and better doing something else like yelling at members of Congress in restaurants.

    1. You seem to be implying the SD Law School has some inherent problems. Is their enrollment down? Is funding not keeping up with expenses? I acknowledge I am not the most plugged in person in the world, but is this an issue that needs to be addressed?

  3. These two will cry tears of joy & dance all night if we elect Billie Sutton.

  4. Didn’t see Kammer’s name on the list the first time around. I certainly wasn’t shocked to see Dellinger’s name, especially after knowing where she studied and her history here. Does she teach students corroborating evidence is not required? USD better get on answering questions presented.

    I for one would be upset if I or a family member was falsely accused of a crime that wasn’t committed.

  7. Tax dollars at work—my god…I looked up what we are paying USD law professors…WTF!!

    They make more than most attorneys

    Prof. Sean Kammer $202,810.41
    Assoc Prof Myanna Dellinger $191, 680.23

    1. This is a law school; of course you are going to have holier-than-thou, arrogant jerks who think they are soooooo much smarter than the rest of the populace. It was the same when I went to the law school at USD 20 years ago; there were a few professors who were humble and didn’t think they were they were smartest people in the world, but most of them did. I got my degree from there and never looked back. I throw away everything I get from USD asking for money. Thank goodness if it would go to support twits like these two nuts.

    2. Goodness….the most conservative law professors are getting paid even more!
      Patrick Garry = $262,003.65
      Tom Simmons = $211,403.55

      1. Given that they’re conservative, they are obviously smarter and probably contribute more to the mission. The probably deserve more.

  8. These two “professors” claiming to instruct future attorneys? What a joke! Kavanagh is accused and strongly defends his honor, and this is supposed to mean he lacks judicial temperament? Two obviously partisan people whose only goal is to make sure Kavanagh doesn’t get on the court. I’m sure they didn’t mind a bit when the anti-Constitutionalists, Sotomayor and Kagan, got on. Of course not, because these two apparently don’t care about the Constitution. What courses do these two “teach”? I hope for the sake of those paying good money for their classes that it isn’t Con law. Fire these two people now! If you give money to USD, stop now; you are wasting your money to promote hatred of America and the implementation of Socialism.

  9. It’s probably just me, but I think Judge Kavanaugh could have easily avoided the whole mess by just owning up to the fact that he, like a lot of us, drank a fair few beers back in the day – apologize for anything he may have drunkenly done, and show us all that he grew up and left his childish ways behind – rather than double-down on the BS that he was a tea-totalling virgin until his wedding night. That right there is the question of character in my mind. Take responsibility, show you’ve learned, and stand on your adult character. Lying about drinking a few (thousand) beers 40 years ago is plenty enough for me to question his overall judgement.

    I don’t agree with his politics or most of his judicial opinions, but I’d find no reason not to confirm him had he simply taken personal responsibility and shown integrity through the whole process rather than spazzing out like a drunken teenager in front of a national audience.

    1. He could not have avoided the whole mess because of the Democrats worship of the god of abortion. They want another anti-Constitutionalist in the vein of Sotomayor or Kagan on the court, not someone who actually looks to the Constitution to rule on cases.

      The Democrats have no honor or standing in this matter, and Judge Kavanagh should be on the bench, despite your oh-so-wise analysis of the situation.

      2. If we thought our country was divided before this wait till Kavanagh is approved. The FBI was politically limited as far as their investigation. Another case of Party over people and country. The division in our country could get far worse.

    2. I didn’t watch the entire thing, but I saw him admitting to drinking lots of beers and remaining a virgin for a good many years after the incident. Nobody said until his wedding night. Many of us were virgins for a good while after sophomore year in high-school and are not claiming that as a huge character asset. (Hint–it may have been lack of opportunity, not lack of trying)

      1. Kavanaugh did admit to drinking.

        Ike is educated through Twitter and memes, that might help explain the ignorance.

  10. Judicial temperament matters. Judges are supposed to present the epitome of decorum and civility, as well as professional courtesy, at all times. Yes, professionalism is taught in law school. Professional ethics is also taught, and tested, and required just to become an attorney, not to mention a judge. Regardless of politics, Judge Kavanaugh’s emotional, combative display is wholly inappropriate for any attorney whether in a court room or before a government panel. Clarence Thomas was accused of far worse and still maintained his decorum during his hearings. Things aren’t always “politics”. I think these hearing are all just theatrics and a “going through the motions” and that Kavanaugh’s confirmation is fait accompli. However, his demeanor should be disqualifying. It is far more concerning than any thing else surrounding the matter.
    P.S. Just because only two professors from USD signed, doesn’t mean many more wouldn’t have if given the opportunity, or disagree with the letter.

    1. Right. It’s about temperament, not politics. That’s why 45/47 dem senators voted against mild-mannered Neil Gorsuch, who never once raised his voice. That’s why 46 dem senators, including Biden, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and John Kerry, voted against Clarence Thomas, despite the fact that (as you wrote) he “maintained his decorum” in the face of hateful allegations. That’s why 40+ dem senators stated their intent to vote against Kavanaugh BEFORE the hearings began.

      Nominate any conservative & at least 45 dems will vote no — judicial temperament be damned. You don’t want Kavanaugh? Fine. Show me the equanimous conservative Kamala Harris will approve.

      Any 6 Dem senators can keep Brett Kavanaugh off the court. Just hold a press conference, name a specific conservative judge from Trump’s published list, and pledge unqualified support. Offer compromise, and you’ll get a deal. Offer war and you’ll get it.

      1. Unfortunately, it’s been about politics for far too long. The “Biden Rule” gets flipped on its head and becomes McConnell’s justification for denying Merrick Garland an opportunity for a confirmation vote. In this instance, what we saw last week from the judge was theatrics intended to please POTUS, and obviously it was mission accomplished. The problem is that POTUS has absolutely no appreciation for the rule of law, and the kind of behavior exhibited by the judge would have put him in contempt in nearly every court in the nation.

        Interesting how the judge’s responses were increasingly contemptuous as the questions got more difficult. He would have been better served by admitting his entitled, prep school years weren’t all that idyllic (as mentioned above by “Ike”). The problem with confessing to being a party animal is that you sometimes forget to behave appropriately and may even forget the entire evening of drinking. Of course, then Dr. Ford’s story is more validated (despite the awful POTUS mocking remarks in Mississippi).

        1. We can agree the process is too political, going back at least as far as Judge Robert Bork in 87. Just don’t give me the “temperament” line, as senate dems were against Kavanaugh from the jump. BTW, Merrick Garland would have made a decent USSC judge, as Doug Ginsburg would have. A good case can be made that Harriet Miers was too political, but of the 7 USSC nominees rejected (or “Borked”) since 1900, 5 were nominated by Republican presidents versus just 2 nominated by Democratic presidents.

      2. Any 6 Dem senators can keep Brett Kavanaugh off the court. Just hold a press conference, name a specific conservative judge from Trump’s published list, and pledge unqualified support.

        Good idea. We’ll nominate that guy/gal next time. Somebody else will retire or die in the next six years.

        1. Or we could just ask Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin to huddle up & pick a judge they like from Trump’s list. Basically any judicial conservative with those three votes = approved. Yes, I’m aware Manchin is up for re-election but, provided he votes for Kavanaugh, he’ll win.

    2. Judicial temperament matters. Judges are supposed to present the epitome of decorum and civility, as well as professional courtesy, at all times.

      Isn’t Ginsburg on video ranting and cussing at the president? Haven’t we seen judges (I forget who) snoozing at the SoTU addresses, and pimping for Obama at other SoTU addresses? Is this decorum thing a new requirement?

      1. Ginsburg is also on video forgetting the 14th Amendment. To answer a question, she needed a copy of the Constitution during an event for the National Women’s Party.

        Shouldn’t our Supreme Court Justices know the Constitution from front to back? It is what their rulings are based on, right? Wouldn’t it be epic if Trump is given the opportunity to nominate another justice?

    3. Alan Dershowitz refused to sign the letter and he’s one of the most liberal lawyers out there. Really, though, what’s 650 out of all the lawyers in the U.S.? These professors represent the fringe, 60% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed.

      If you have a child attending one of their classes, then you should be concerned. Though that’s the least of parents worries, what weighs more heavily on them is sending their children to college when studies show 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted on campus.

        1. “If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed,” The Hill reported from the CAPS/Harris poll. “GOP voters were ready for a vote now, and overwhelmingly back the confirmation without further delay.”

          Doesn’t seem the FBI found any corroboration. However, we did find out, according to the WSJ, that a witness was pressured by Ford’s friends to change their stories. Uh-oh! I think the FBI will soon be investigating Ford for possibly committing perjury.

    4. Justice Thomas accused of worse? He was never accused of sexually assaulting someone, taking a private part out and waving in someone’s face, etc. And if you look at Justice Thomas’ forceful defense of himself (and for good reason) his declaration of it being a “high tech lynching” was a display of righteous indignation. Justice Thomas had every right to defend himself forcefully, and so did Judge Kavanaugh.

    5. Yote Vote, a question for you. How would you react if you were falsely accused of sexual abuse?

      1. If Durbin, Coons, or Blumenthal called ME a rapist, it’d be a close call. Could break his jaw before the Secret Service got me cuffed? Dunno. I’m not as quick today as once I was, but I’m still fairly spry.

  12. It didn’t make any difference who was nominated. The Dems are on record they would oppose anyone that Trump nominated, before Kavanaugh was even chosen. The same circus would have occurred in any case, for whatever reason the Dems could think of. Many people were not happy with Obama’s picks either, but they were given fair hearings and voted in even though Republicans knew that they leaned liberal. In this case with a judge who is conservative leaning all of a sudden anything goes to keep him off the court. It’s a sad thing but the Dems have been exposed for what they are and hopefully will reap their just rewards in the upcoming elections.

    1. They will. Watch Heitkamp’s campaign. She made it clear she’ll be voting no and now polls show she’s dropped 10pts. Similar thing happening to the Democrat in Missouri.

        1. Probably, Dems unite around their hatred for Trump and we repeatedly see it directed toward his supporters. Just yesterday a Women’s March leader lashed out on “white wives and their white husbands” calling on Dems to not allow them to be “comfortable” at the dinner table or out in public.

          Heitkamp is certainly not taking into consideration the way her constituents would vote. How many points did President Trump win by in ND, I think it was even more than SD?

  13. Dugger,

    1). I know I am using the wrong word but they are on the “accreditation watch list.”

    2). The number of graduates able to pass the SD bar has significantly declined. Whether that means the profs can’t teach or the caliber of students accepted I don’t if that has been determined.

    3). The best SD students who are going into law are going elsewhere at a record level.

    And, I seem to remember enrollment is way down but this I am not sure.

    1. Affirmative action may also have something to do with students unable to pass tests?

      Enrollment is declining at most public universities and is increasing in Tech schools. USF enrollment went up. Mont Marty had a 16% increase, but that was due to enrollment by foreign students.

      The article with little info is on the KSOO site.

  14. The partisan fighting has prevented the Senate from doing its job. We should be talking about his questionable handling of the Vince Foster investigation and also question him about Jesuits giving more authority to the Pope than to the Constitution of the United States.

    1. Hey Steve, I know this is off topic but a question for you. Did you abandon Sibby-On-Line?

    2. Steve your blog turned into Sibby-Crazy Larry online. What happened to your sidekick Crazy Larry? Did he kill your blog?

Comments are closed.