Posted on 10/30/2019 11:00:32 AM PDT by jazusamo
One of President Trump's nominees for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals broke down in tears during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, as he disputed suggestions that he would not be fair to members of the LGBTQ community.
Lawrence VanDyke was the subject of a scathing letter from the American Bar Association, sent to committee leadership Tuesday night, which alleged that people they interviewed expressed this concern, and that VanDyke himself "would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community."
But conservatives have adamantly defended the nominee. And when asked about this at Wednesday's hearing, VanDyke strongly disputed the ABA's account.
"I did not say that," VanDyke told Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., tears welling up in his eyes.
"No, I did not say that. I do not believe that. It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God. They should all be treated with dignity and respect, senator," he added, sobbing.
VanDyke also said that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations during his ABA interview. He said when he was confronted with the concerns about his views, he began to answer but was told they were running out of time.
That interview was conducted by Marcia Davenport, the lead evaluator. Hawley noted that Davenport once contributed to the campaign of a judicial candidate who was running against VanDyke.
"I find that absolutely unbelievable," Hawley said, stating it "probably explains the totally ad hominem nature of this disgraceful letter."
The paragraph preceding the questioning of his attitude toward LGBTQ litigants included a list of other complaints against VanDyke, attributed to "the assessments of interviewees," without detailing who or how many.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Do you know many constitutional judges like that? We are looking for moral & originalist judges who will not legislate from the bench, not special ops leaders.
Thank you. People need to get real about what matters and what makes a man.
Being helpless in the face of evil, watching unjust trashing of a reputation you have built for your entire adult life, being exposed to the raw unreasoning hatred of people who are supposed to be the arbiters, I’d say that would strike deeply and get past normal defenses.
“Do you know many constitutional judges like that? We are looking for moral & originalist judges who will not legislate from the bench, not special ops leaders.”
I’ve posted a number of times on judicial topics that nominees (whether for the SC or lower courts) should be strict constructionist, original intent lawyers. My point in the post you responded to is that the nominee should also be willing to withstand any attack to remain true to those principles. Principle is absolutely required, but the candidate must also be willing to withstand attacks from the left without flinching or wavering.
If this candidate can do that, that’s great. Can he?
I have no information to suggest he isn’t. That is totally different than what is happening to him now. Past cases suggest he hews true to his principles.
Let’s turn your question on it’s head. He showed that he was stricken by being unfairly denounced by an authoritative group in his field. He did not suck up or disavow his positions.
Plenty of time to slander, no time for answers, figures...
I want a judicial pick who gets ANGRY when mud is thrown at him, not burst into tears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.