The Congressional Democrats Who Knifed Biden In The Back

Here is a list of the congressional Democrats who betrayed President Biden:

House members calling on Biden to exit presidential race

1. Lloyd Doggett of Texas: He became the first Democratic lawmaker to call on Mr. Biden to drop out, saying on July 2 that he was "hopeful that [Mr. Biden] will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw." 
2. Raul Grijalva of Arizona: He told The New York Times on July 3 that what Mr. Biden "needs to do is shoulder the responsibility for keeping that seat — and part of that responsibility is to get out of this race."
3. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts: He told CBS Boston on July 7 that George Washington chose not to run for a third term, and Mr. Biden should follow that cue on another term. "I think that can be President Biden's legacy as well," Moulton said. "He defeated Donald Trump once and then he was willing to hand power over to a new generation of leaders. That's the kind of amazing legacy that a great president like Biden deserves."
4. Mike Quigley of Illinois: Quigley said on MSNBC on July 5, "Mr. President, your legacy is set. We owe you the greatest debt of gratitude. The only thing that you can do now to cement that for all time and prevent utter catastrophe is to step down and let someone else do this."
5. Angie Craig of Minnesota: Craig, who represents a key swing district, said in a statement on July 6, "This is not a decision I've come to lightly, but there is simply too much at stake to risk a second Donald Trump presidency. That's why I respectfully call on President Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee for a second term as President and allow for a new generation of leaders to step forward."
6. Adam Smith of Washington: Smith on July 8 called on Mr. Biden to end his candidacy "as soon as possible." He said in a statement that presidential candidates "must be able to clearly, articulately, and strongly make his or her case to the American people. It is clear that President Biden is no longer able to meet this burden." Smith told CBS News that if Biden announced he was ending his bid, "there would be a huge sigh of relief amongst just about every Democrat in the House." 
7. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey: In a statement posted to social media July 9 following a closed-door meeting among House Democrats, Sherrill praised Mr. Biden's presidency but said she was asking that he "declare that he won't run for reelection and will help lead us through a process toward a new nominee." Sherrill said the "stakes are too high — and the threat is too real — to stay silent."
8. Pat Ryan of New York: He said in a social media post on July 10 that he's "asking Joe Biden to step aside" in the upcoming election to "deliver on his promise to be a bridge to a new generation of leaders." The vulnerable House Democrat said, "Joe Biden is a patriot but is no longer the best candidate to defeat Trump."
9. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon: On July 10, Blumenauer wrote in a statement that he hoped Mr. Biden and first lady Jill Biden had "come to the conclusion that I and others have: President Biden should not be the Democratic presidential nominee." The 75-year-old congressman, who has served in the House since 1996, declared that "there is no question in my mind that we will all be better served if the president steps aside as the Democratic nominee and manages a transition under his terms. He has earned that right."
10. Hillary Scholten of Michigan: In a statement posted to social media on July 11, Scholten praised Mr. Biden's first-term accomplishments, but said that "for the good of our democracy, I believe it is time for him to step aside from the presidential race and allow a new leader to step up." The congresswoman said that if Mr. Biden decides to continue his campaign, she will vote for him but believes "it's time to pass the torch."
11. Brad Schneider of Illinois: On July 11, Schneider said in a statement that it's time for "Biden to heroically pass the torch to a new generation of leadership," which he said would give the president a chance to "seal his place in history as one of the greatest leaders our nation, and history, has ever known."
12. Ed Case of Hawaii: Case said in a July 11 statement that his decision to call on the president to withdraw "has nothing to do with his character and record," but Mr. Biden's "ability to continue in the most difficult job in the world for another four-year term." 
13. Greg Stanton of Arizona: The congressman said in a statement on social media, "For the sake of American democracy, and to continue to make progress on our shared priorities, I believe it is time for the president to step aside as our nominee."
14. Jim Himes of Connecticut: The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee called on the president to withdraw after his solo NATO news conference on July 11. "Joe Biden's record of public service is unrivaled," Himes said. "His accomplishments are immense. His legacy as a great president is secure. He must not risk that legacy." 
15. Scott Peters of California: In a statement issued after Mr. Biden's July 11 news conference, Peters said, "The stakes are high, and we are on a losing course. ... We must find a candidate from our deep bench of talent who can defeat Donald Trump."
16. Eric Sorensen of Illinois: In a post on social media following Mr. Biden's news conference to conclude the NATO summit on July 11, Sorensen wrote, "In 2020, Joe Biden ran for President with the purpose of putting country over party. Today, I am asking him to do that again. ... I am hopeful President Biden will step aside in his campaign for President."
17. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado: On July 12, Pettersen shared a statement on her social media account urging Mr. Biden to step aside from the presidential race. She said he "saved our country once, and I'm joining the growing number of people in my district and across the country to ask him to do it again. Please pass the torch to one of our many capable Democratic leaders so we have the best chance to defeat Donald Trump."
18. Mike Levin of California: Levin praised Mr. Biden's leadership and said he has respect for his decades in public services, but said in a statement that "the time has come for President Biden to pass the torch." The California Democrat went on to say that "it is time to move forward. With a new leader. Together."
19. Adam Schiff of California: Schiff, who is running for Senate this fall, said in a statement that the nation is "at a crossroads," and "[a] second Trump presidency will undermine the very foundation of our democracy, and I have serious concerns about whether the President can defeat Donald Trump in November." He added that he believes "it is time for him to pass the torch. And in doing so, secure his legacy of leadership by allowing us to defeat Donald Trump in the upcoming election."
20. Jim Costa of California: On July 18, Costa told CBS News that Mr. Biden should "pass the torch" and leave the 2024 race. 
21. Sean Casten of Illinois: In an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune, Casten joined the growing number of Democrats calling on Mr. Biden to withdraw as the Democratic nominee for president. He wrote, "It is with a heavy heart and much personal reflection that I am therefore calling on Joe Biden to pass the torch to a new generation."
22. Jared Huffman of California
23. Marc Veasey of Texas
24. Chuy Garcia of Illinois
25. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin: Huffman, Veasey, Garcia and Pocan issued a joint statement on July 19 warning that widespread concerns about Mr. Biden's age and fitness for office are jeopardizing his campaign and said the "most responsible and patriotic thing" he can do is step aside as Democrats' nominee for president.
26. Greg Landsman of Ohio: On July 19, Landsman released a statement calling for a change in the Democratic race. He said that after "hundreds" of discussions with constituents, he came to the conclusion that "it is time for President Biden to step aside and allow us to nominate a new leader who can reliably and consistently make the case against Donald Trump and make the case for the future of America."
27. Zoe Lofgren of California: Lofgren told Mr. Biden in a letter dated July 18 that his candidacy for president is on a path to lose not only the White House, but potentially down-ballot House and Senate races. "It is for these reasons that I urge you to step aside from our party's nomination to allow another Democratic candidate to compete against and beat Donald Trump in the November election," she wrote.
28. Betty McCollum of Minnesota: McCollum said in a July 19 statement that Mr. Biden should release his delegates and empower Harris to become the Democratic nominee. She said that if Harris becomes the Democratic nominee, she should select Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate.
    
29. Morgan McGarvey of Kentucky: McGarvey shared a statement to social media on July 19 stating, "there is no joy in the recognition [Mr. Biden] should not be our nominee in November."
    
30. Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico: Vasquez said in a July 19 statement, "I believe too many of our fundamental freedoms and the wellbeing of our nation are at risk under a Trump presidency and President Biden should step aside to give Democrats the best opportunity to win this November." 
    
31. Mark Takano of California: Takano said in a July 20 statement, "It has become clear to me that the demands of a modern campaign are now best met by the Vice President, who can seamlessly transition into the role of our party's standard bearer," the statement read. "Joe, I love and respect you. But the stakes are too high to fail. It's time to pass the torch to Kamala."
    
32. Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota: Phillips had challenged Mr. Biden for the Democratic nomination, but dropped out after he failed to win any contests and endorsed Mr. Biden. On "Face the Nation" on July 21, Phillips said "it is time to step aside and turn this over to a new generation," although Phillips said his endorsement "stays until he makes that decision." 

Senators calling on Biden to exit presidential race

1. Peter Welch of Vermont: In an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post on July 10, Welch became the first senator to publicly call on Mr. Biden to drop out. "For the good of the country, I'm calling on President Biden to withdraw from the race," he wrote. Welch argued that "the national conversation is focused on President Biden's age and capacity. Only he can change it."
2. Jon Tester of Montana: One of the most vulnerable Democrats running for reelection in 2024, Tester told the Daily Montanan on July 18 that he thought Mr. Biden should step aside for 2024. "Montanans have put their trust in me to do what is right, and it is a responsibility I take seriously. I have worked with President Biden when it has made Montana stronger, and I've never been afraid to stand up to him when he is wrong," Tester said in a statement. "And while I appreciate his commitment to public service and our country, I believe President Biden should not seek re-election to another term." 
3. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico: In a statement on July 19, Heinrich, who is up for reelection, praised Mr. Biden's leadership, but said "this moment in our nation's history calls for a focus that is bigger than any one person" in calling for him to drop out: "While the decision to withdraw from the campaign is President Biden's alone, I believe it is in the best interests of our country for him to step aside. By passing the torch, he would secure his legacy as one of our nation's greatest leaders and allow us to unite behind a candidate who can best defeat Donald Trump and safeguard the future of our democracy."
   
4. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio: In a statement July 19, Brown — who is expected to face a tough reelection fight in November — said that "I think the President should end his campaign."

Opposition To The War Is Slowly Growing In Russia

The following editorial is from the editorial board of The Washington Post:

Near the end of the Feb. 24 announcement of a “special military operation” in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin of Russia appealed to the public to “take a consolidated, patriotic position.” Instead, many Russians have expressed skepticism and opposition to a war they neither wanted nor were consulted about. When television editor Marina Ovsyannikova unfurled a sign declaring “No war” on a live state news broadcast, the sentiment was already spreading widely.

A huge slice of Russia’s population is passive, for now, realizing there are risks to speaking out. But a surprising number are doing so. So far, 14,980 have been detained for demonstrating against the war, according to OVD-Info, a nongovernmental organization that tracks protests and arrests. In Moscow, a woman standing before the city’s majestic cathedral holding a sign that said “The Sixth Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill” was reportedly hustled away by police. Protests have erupted in more than 100 cities.

Thousands of Russian scientists, journalists and scholars have also signed protest letters. One open letter from scientists and science journalists has nearly 8,000 signatures. “War with Ukraine is a step to nowhere,” they declared. Russia has “doomed itself to international isolation. It has devolved into a pariah country,” they added, meaning that scientists will no longer be able to cooperate with colleagues abroad. At St. Petersburg University, 2,657 students and staff signed an open letter against the war. A “‘special military operation’ is a war,” they said. “Carrying out a ‘special military operation’ is an act of aggression. War is an absolute evil.”

At the same time, tens of thousands of Russian professionals — technology specialists, journalists, scholars and others — have fled the country in recent weeks, a debilitating brain drain.

Mr. Putin’s security services are working overtime to suppress the protests. Many of those arrested have reported beatings and harsh treatment in jail. The government has censored the press and closed social media. It is not clear whether public opposition to the war will influence Mr. Putin, but in a bitter speech Wednesday, he vowed that “self-purification of the society” would rid Russia of “traitors.” But Russians are not meekly accepting his war or being silenced. They have flocked to virtual private networks to get around Internet censors.

Opposition leader Alexei Navalny, unjustly imprisoned last year, was put on trial again Tuesday at Correctional Colony No. 2 in the town of Pokrov in Russia’s Vladimir region. In oral arguments and closing statements, he delivered defiant statements. The result of the war, he said, “will be a breakdown, the collapse of our country.” He said Mr. Putin and his cronies are “just a group of sick, crazy old men. They don’t have sympathy for anyone or anything. And our country is the very last thing they care about. Their only motherland is their Swiss bank accounts. And whatever they say about patriotism is a myth — as well as an enormous threat to us all. It’s actually clear what we need to do. It’s every person’s duty right now to oppose the war.”

Open Letter From Russian Scientists And Science Writers

The following oped letter in opposition to the invasion of Ukraine, published at eureporter.co, is from Russian scientists and Science writers: 

“We, Russian scientists and scientific journalists, declare a strong protest against the hostilities launched by the armed forces of our country on the territory of Ukraine. This fatal step leads to huge human losses and undermines the foundations of the established system of international security. The responsibility for unleashing a new war in Europe lies entirely with Russia.

“There is no rational justification for this war. Attempts to use the situation in Donbass as a pretext for launching a military operation do not inspire any confidence. It is clear that Ukraine does not pose a threat to the security of our country. The war against her is unfair and frankly senseless.

“Ukraine has been and remains a country close to us. Many of us have relatives, friends and scientific colleagues living in Ukraine. Our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought together against Nazism. Unleashing a war for the sake of the geopolitical ambitions of the leadership of the Russian Federation, driven by dubious historiosophical fantasies, is a cynical betrayal of their memory.

“We respect Ukrainian statehood, which rests on really working democratic institutions. We treat the European choice of our neighbors with understanding. We are convinced that all problems in relations between our countries can be resolved peacefully.

“Having unleashed the war, Russia doomed itself to international isolation, to the position of a pariah country. This means that we, scientists, will no longer be able to do our job normally: after all, conducting scientific research is unthinkable without full cooperation with colleagues from other countries. The isolation of Russia from the world means further cultural and technological degradation of our country in the complete absence of positive prospects. War with Ukraine is a step to nowhere.

“It is bitter for us to realize that our country, which made a decisive contribution to the victory over Nazism, has now become the instigator of a new war on the European continent. We demand an immediate halt to all military operations directed against Ukraine. We demand respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. We demand peace for our countries. Let's do science, not war!”

10 Pathetic GOP Excuses For Opposing Jan. 6th Investigation

 

The congressional Republicans have done their best to stop an investigation of the causes of the January 6th attack on the Capitol Building. They don't want that investigation because they know it will make Trump look bad, and probably some of the GOP members of Congress. But they can't admit that, so they have fumbled around trying to come up with excuses for their opposition. So far, they have come up with 10 different excuses. But most Americans are still not convinced. They want the investigation to happen in spite of the pathetic excuses Republicans have come up with.

J.M. Rieger gives us the 10 GOP excuses in The Washington Post:

1. The scope is too narrow.

McCarthy on April 25: “You had an insurrection at the Capitol. You’ve had political violence for the last year in this building. … If you’re now going to put a commission together, why wouldn’t you look at all the problems to solve?”

2. The investigation would take too long.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on June 8: “Had we chosen to establish a commission, we’d be haggling over appointments for the next few weeks. If you look at the history of these independent commissions, they take forever to make recommendations.”

3. It is too soon to establish a commission.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on May 23: “I think it’s too early to create a commission. … Commissions often don’t work at all.”

4. The investigation would slow down other investigations.

Blunt on May 17: “I doubt there's much value in it, and I'm absolutely sure it will slow down doing what we need to do right now on the Capitol security issues.”

5. There is no need to investigate past events.

McConnell on May 25: “I think, at the heart of this recommendation by the Democrats, is that they would like to continue to debate things that occurred in the past. They’d like to continue to litigate the former president into the future.”

6. There are already enough investigations.

McCarthy on May 18: “You already have four investigations. I think that’s enough.”

7. There are no new facts to uncover.

McConnell on May 19: “There is, has been and there will continue to be no shortage — no shortage — of robust investigations by two separate branches of the federal government. … It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could actually lay on top of existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress.”

8. The results of an additional investigation would be foreordained.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) on July 21: “If [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)] was truly interested in an independent commission, she would allow Republicans to appoint the people to that commission that they want to appoint. … I think what it suggests is that this is a very partisan political matter for her, with perhaps foreordained conclusions, and not something that truly represents an independent fact-finding mission.”

9. The Justice Department should handle the investigation.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) on May 30: “In essence, I view this not as an overview of policy, like the 9/11 Commission did. It’s a criminal investigation, a criminal case. In my judgment, that properly falls within the venue — the purview of the Department of Justice.”

10. The investigation is meant to benefit Democrats politically.

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) on May 21: “This is clearly just a partisan attempt to open up an area where they think it will be helpful to the Democrats in the next cycle of the elections.”

Thank The GOP "Never Trumpers" For Helping Oust Trump

 

Progressive and moderate Democrats got together to oust Trump from the White House, and they were joined by many Independents. But there was another group that also helped -- the conservative Republican "Never Trumpers".

This was not easy for those conservative Republicans to vote against (and campaign against) their party and their ideology. Many of them have probably ruined any chance they had at becoming party leaders. But they did what they did because they love this country, and they knew that Trump was a dangerous and divisive force that was hurting the country.

I have disagreed with these conservative Republicans many times in the past, and I'm sure I'll disagree with them many times in the future. But they are not my enemy, and I appreciate their help in the 2020 election.

We might have been able to oust Trump without their help, but it would have been much closer. They helped give Biden a huge win and a mandate.

Here is part of E.J. Dionne's take on these conservative "Never Trumper's" in The Washington Post:

Let’s begin by just saying it: The country owes the Never Trump conservatives a debt.

Yes, many progressives have been uneasy with these unusual allies. They insist that Trump was not some alien imposition on conservatism but rather the product of long-standing trends in Republican politics. Trafficking in racial division and racism, nativism, extremism, conspiracy theories and voter suppression did not start with Trump.

Progressives are entirely right about this. But the Never Trumpers deserve our respect precisely because so many of them stood against these tendencies and, in more cases than not, undertook a deeper critique of their own side. . . .

For those of us arrayed from the center to the left, the awfulness of Trump is so obvious that we can underestimate how hard it is to walk away from the people who were your comrades for so long. In journals progressives don’t pay much attention to, television networks we don’t watch and Twitter feeds we don’t follow, the Never Trumpers were denounced as renegades and traitors — and also saddled with far uglier, unprintable monikers.

True, these rebels-with-a-good-cause were a minority in their camp, but they were far from alone. Exit polls are imperfect, but the Edison survey suggests that perhaps 8 million of President-elect Joe Biden’s more than 81 million votes came from self-described conservatives, and 3 million from Republicans (which doesn’t include those who left the party because of Trump).

But what happens now? Some of the anti-Trump conservatives never lost their old faith and were simply repelled by Trump’s odiousness. For them, there is no temptation to join the other side. They are unlikely to give much support to Biden and will go off in search of a more conventional Republican to champion in 2024.

For a significant part of the anti-Trump Right, however, the moral corruption of the conservative movement over the past four years is a source of genuine anguish and has prompted a crisis of belief.

As it should have. Conservatism has its attractive sides. But it is often a creed that devotes itself simply to the preservation of the power, wealth and privilege of existing elites. . . .

Of course, I’d like the anti-Trump conservatives to admit the error of their ways and fully join my side of politics. But failing that, I still appreciate what they did. And I hope at least they can now champion a brand of conservatism that is about more than making the rich richer and the powerful more powerful.

Trumpism Is "An Empty Faith Led By A Bogus Prophet"

The Republican Party of today is just a shameful husk of what it used to be. They have abandoned their cherished conservative beliefs and values to follow a con man who has no beliefs or values (beyond doing what is best for himself). They now follow a man willing to trash the Constitution.

Fortunately, that is not true of every Republican -- just most of them. And those who don't follow Trumpism know there party is going down a path that will destroy it. Four of these Republicans with a conscience are Steve Schmidt, George Conway, John Weaver, and Rick Wilson.

They have started the Lincoln Project -- dedicated to defeating Trumpism in the next election. They are not Democrats (and don't wish to be), but are trying to save the Republican Party. I hope they are successful. Our country needs more than one political party. I am a die-hard Democrat, but even my beloved Democrats need a loyal opposition.

Here is much of what Schmidt, Conway, Weaver, and Wilson wrote in the New York Times:

Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics. As Americans, we must stem the damage he and his followers are doing to the rule of law, the Constitution and the American character.

That’s why we are announcing the Lincoln Project, an effort to highlight our country’s story and values, and its people’s sacrifices and obligations. This effort transcends partisanship and is dedicated to nothing less than preservation of the principles that so many have fought for, on battlefields far from home and within their own communities.

This effort asks all Americans of all places, creeds and ways of life to join in the seminal task of our generation: restoring to this nation leadership and governance that respects the rule of law, recognizes the dignity of all people and defends the Constitution and American values at home and abroad.

Over these next 11 months, our efforts will be dedicated to defeating President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line. We do not undertake this task lightly, nor from ideological preference. We have been, and remain, broadly conservative (or classically liberal) in our politics and outlooks. Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort.

The 2020 general election, by every indication, will be about persuasion, with turnout expected to be at record highs. Our efforts are aimed at persuading enough disaffected conservatives, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in swing states and districts to help ensure a victory in the Electoral College, and congressional majorities that don’t enable or abet Mr. Trump’s violations of the Constitution, even if that means Democratic control of the Senate and an expanded Democratic majority in the House.

The American presidency transcends the individuals who occupy the Oval Office. Their personality becomes part of our national character. Their actions become our actions, for which we all share responsibility. Their willingness to act in accordance with the law and our tradition dictate how current and future leaders will act. Their commitment to order, civility and decency are reflected in American society.

Mr. Trump fails to meet the bar for this commitment. He has neither the moral compass nor the temperament to serve. His vision is limited to what immediately faces him — the problems and risks he chronically brings upon himself and for which others, from countless contractors and companies to the American people, ultimately bear the heaviest burden.

But this president’s actions are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans. They have done no less than abdicate their Article I responsibilities.

Indeed, national Republicans have done far worse than simply march along to Mr. Trump’s beat. Their defense of him is imbued with an ugliness, a meanness and a willingness to attack and slander those who have shed blood for our country, who have dedicated their lives and careers to its defense and its security, and whose job is to preserve the nation’s status as a beacon of hope.

Congressional Republicans have embraced and copied Mr. Trump’s cruelty and defended and even adopted his corruption. Mr. Trump and his enablers have abandoned conservatism and longstanding Republican principles and replaced it with Trumpism, an empty faith led by a bogus prophet. In a recent survey, a majority of Republican voters reported that they consider Mr. Trump a better president than Lincoln.

Mr. Trump and his fellow travelers daily undermine the proposition we as a people have a responsibility and an obligation to continually bend the arc of history toward justice. They mock our belief in America as something more meaningful than lines on a map.

Our peril far outstrips any past differences: It has arrived at our collective doorstep, and we believe there is no other choice. We sincerely hope, but are not optimistic, that some of those Republicans charged with sitting as jurors in a likely Senate impeachment trial will do likewise.

American men and women stand ready around the globe to defend us and our way of life. We must do right by them and ensure that the country for which they daily don their uniform deserves their protection and their sacrifice. . . .

We look to Lincoln as our guide and inspiration. He understood the necessity of not just saving the Union, but also of knitting the nation back together spiritually as well as politically. But those wounds can be bound up only once the threat has been defeated. So, too, will our country have to knit itself back together after the scourge of Trumpism has been overcome.

Thousands Of Law Professors Say NO To Kavanaugh

(Image of Brett Kavanaugh testifying before Senate committee is from ABC News.)

It looks like Senate Republicans are prepared to ram through the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the United States Supreme Court, in spite of growing opposition from the American public. And it's not just the general public that opposes Kavanaugh's confirmation. Over 1,700 law professors from around the nation have signed a letter which asks that Kavanaugh NOT be confirmed.

Here is their letter (and you can go here to see those who signed it along with the school they are affiliated with):

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. 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.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.