The Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit last week dismissed 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Now, a ‘retired attorney’ named Larry Behrendt has ‘come forward’ to the Washington Post with his ‘story’ on why he was one of the 83 that filed a complaint against supreme justice Brett Kavanaugh.
It seems ‘retired attorney’ Behrendt got a little triggered over the statement made by Kavanaugh when he said he was the victim of a vast, secret, left-wing cabal, masterminded by senators such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”
The ‘retired attorney’ said he “was shocked to hear a Supreme Court nominee carry on like a crazed conspiracy theorist.”
Behrendt told the Washington Post the following:
“I’m a retired attorney who is on no one’s short list to serve on the Supreme Court. But I listened on Sept. 27 while Kavanaugh peppered two hours of Senate testimony with attacks against people and groups he associated with Democrats. Kavanaugh alleged (without factual basis) that he was the victim of a vast, secret, left-wing cabal, masterminded by senators such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” I was shocked to hear a Supreme Court nominee carry on like a crazed conspiracy theorist.
He then added his reasoning for filing the complaint:
Turns out, there’s a rule against federal judges behaving like this. Congress passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act in 1980, and the rules under that act state that it’s misconduct for a federal judge to make “inappropriately partisan statements.” I may be retired, but I think I know an inappropriately partisan statement when I hear one.
However, The 10th Circuit Judicial Council dismissed the 83 complaints on Dec. 18, explaining its decision as follows:
(1) The 1980 act applies to circuit judges but not Supreme Court justices,
(2) Kavanaugh was a D.C. Circuit Court judge during his confirmation hearings and when the ‘retired attorney’ filed his complaint.
(3) he’s a Supreme Court justice now.
As Behrendt’ even points out in the
But, he still can’t grasp why his complaint was dismissed adding:
“This reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like saying we can prosecute a safecracker only if the safe proved to be empty.”
Behrendt fails to comprehend between what he thinks should happen and what the law actually states.
At the very top of the
Report by Jane Mitchell for MilneNews.com
Donations help keep websites like MilneNews online and grow. Any donation is appreciated:
Thank you for your support.