Skip to main content

Judge Kavanaugh Et Alia Are Not in "good Behaviour"

On Tuesday, 4 September 2018, members of the United States Senate shall begin to conduct a Supreme Court of the United States of America confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh.  Judge Kavanaugh comes from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  It is one of several appeals courts within the intermediate level of the American federal judiciary.  Beneath it are the United States District Courts, and above it is the highest court in the land—the Supreme Court of the United States of America.[1]

When the confirmation hearing ends, members of the United States Senate will decide (i.e., vote) on whether Judge Kavanaugh shall serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  This expository essay finds not only that Judge Kavanaugh is no longer in “good Behaviour” but also that his likely confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of America is unconstitutional.[2]

* * *

WHAT CONSTITUTES JUDICIAL “GOOD BEHAVIOUR”?

In the United States of America, some contend that an appointment to the American federal judiciary is a lifetime public employee position (courtesy of the American taxpayers).  Unfortunately, this erroneous assumption is due to an American custom, wherein members of the American citizenry, in each and every generation, neglect to read and to consider the source material from which that mistaken assertion stems:  the Constitution for the United States of America.  Here is what the first section of Article III states about the American federal judiciary:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.[3]

Judge Kavanaugh served as a member of one of the “inferior Courts” of the American federal judiciary.  Likewise, before his confirmation to serve as a current Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Neil McGill Gorsuch was a member of one of the “inferior Courts” of the American federal judiciary, when he most recently worked as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

These two men share other things in common.  They attended the same preparatory school, at the same time, before college.[4]  They served as law clerks, at the same time, for the former Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy.[5]  And perhaps most notable in their list of professional accomplishments, they received their nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States of America from a man who is now an unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony) for the illegal acts that he committed with at least one other man so as to affect the outcome of the Presidential Election of 2016:  Donald John Trump, the forty‑fifth President of the United States of America.[6]

* * *

To be fair, Justice Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh do not bear such an ignominious distinction alone.  All members of the American federal judiciary who received their nominations from Donald John Trump are tied to an unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony).[7]

Today, if Donald John Trump were not the President of the United States of America, then he would stand trial in a criminal proceeding in a federal district court.  In an American court of law, he might choose to respond to what his former personal attorney, Michael Dean Cohen, declared as true in an American court of law:  that Cohen worked “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office [i.e., Donald John Trump] . . . for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”[8]

It is possible that Justice Gorsuch, Judge Kavanaugh, and every other judge who serves on the American federal judiciary, as a result of a nomination from Donald John Trump, the unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony), are aware of this fact.  It is even probable that they know that members of the Department of Justice, an American federal agency whose public employees work on behalf of the American People, and not just the President of the United States of America, the unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony), rely on a memorandum published in 1973, wherein its authors from the Office of Legal Counsel once opined that a sitting President of the United States of America cannot be indicted or prosecuted in a criminal proceeding because it would somehow undercut the ability of the President of the United States of America to perform her or his respective Constitutional duties.[9]

Nevertheless, now is the time when the American citizenry (i.e., the employer) must decide whether Justices or judges who sit on the American federal judicial branch are in “good Behaviour” (i.e., fit to hold public office and add binding, legal decisions to the American case law corpus) when their present or future public employee positions derive from Donald John Trump, the unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony) for the forbidden feats that he performed with at least one other man to influence the Presidential Election of 2016.

* * *

This expository essay weighed many considerations.  It was essential to examine the totality of the circumstances so as to determine what constitutes “good Behaviour” for members of the American federal judiciary.  However, it soon became clear that Justices or judges who hold onto an American federal judicial (i.e., public employee) position, which came from a man who is an unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony) for the unlawful deeds that he perpetrated to sway the Presidential Election of 2016, and who now “receive for their Services, a Compensation” from the American People are not in “good Behaviour”.  The independence of the American judiciary—whether at the federal level or at the state level—is too important to the citizenry of this republic to let such an insult to the notions of jurisprudence persist because at the heart of the American legal system is nothing more than a journey to discover the truth.

In this case, Donald John Trump is an unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony) for his illicit activities before he became the President of the United States of America so that he could become the President of the United States of America.  As is the case with an illegal contract, which is deemed null and void, so is the case with the official acts of Donald John Trump as the President of the United States of America, including his nominations to the American federal judiciary:  They are unconstitutional (i.e., they are null and void) because Donald John Trump has a contractual relationship with the American People, on whose behalf he represents, through the Constitution for the United States of America.  But for his prohibited, felonious endeavors to secure an Electoral College victory, his presidency would be legitimate.

Any Justice or any judge from the American federal judiciary whose public employee position is bound to a nomination from Donald John Trump, the unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony), who just so happens to serve as the current President of the United States of America, sits on a federal judicial bench as an affront to the American legal system.  The reluctance of Justice Gorsuch to resign his post as well as the hesitancy by Judge Kavanaugh and others to decline any promotional opportunities in or any nomination to the American federal judiciary not only calls into question their motives but also leads the American citizenry (i.e., the employer) to reach the following conclusion:  In such an obvious criminal conspiracy to supplant the inalienable Constitutional rights of the American People (i.e., Constitutional law, which concerns the legal standing of human beings) with that of state law (i.e., corporate and pass‑through entity law, which is subservient to the Constitution for the United States of America—in other words:  the American People), just what role do these judicial actors play in this criminal conspiracy?[10]  For today, every individual not only who swore an oath of office to the Constitution for the United States of America (i.e., to the American People) but also who accepts the official acts of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America is in breach of that oath of office.[11]

* * *

WITHOUT TRUTH, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS MEANINGLESS

The American People (i.e., the employer) shall not permit such a corporate coup to endure within the American republic.  It is clear that some Republican politicians and that some Democratic politicians have affiliated themselves to those within this republic who would defend what already exists:  an unconstitutional oligarchy.  They are in breach of their oaths of office to the Constitution for the United States of America (i.e., to the American People).[12]  In time, they shall be removed from public office, either through the electoral process or through “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (i.e., through mass peaceful protests, the kind and the caliber of which have not yet been witnessed within this nation’s history).[13]

Those members of the United States Senate today whose legislative actions remain quiet, as they move with all due haste to appoint far too many individuals to the American federal judiciary through appointment confirmations whose nominations came from Donald John Trump, the unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony), which negates his presidency, demonstrate that they, too, have a role in this criminal conspiracy against the American People—in particular, against the American majority:  the American poor, the American middle class, and any conscientious wealthy American.

* * *

The reason for this recent illegitimate flurry of American federal judiciary packing is to retain power for those who are in the rich American minority (and possibly for some wealthy foreigners—the Emoluments Clause notwithstanding).  For decades, they have shown the following:  they care not in the slightest for the American poor or for the American middle class; they abuse the American poor and the American middle class; they lie to the American poor and to the American middle class; they offer fewer and more expensive choices to the American poor and to the American middle class through private, corporate monopolies in the sphere of commercial enterprise, which American politicians, Justices, and judges refuse to smash because either they agree with the notion of corporate monopolies or they are nothing more than compromised public officials (or both); they prey upon the irrational fears of the American poor and the American middle class; they ensure that the American poor stays poor and that the American middle class remains but a paycheck or two away from the swelling ranks of the American poor through enacted legislation, executive decrees, and judicial decisions; they remain the sources from which the majority of the violence and the avarice in the world today originates; and they are the usurpers and the destroyers of the planetary biosphere.

* * *

Nonetheless, with the Anthropocene no longer in doubt, in dark times, such as these, it helps to recall that “We the People” outnumber (in the hundreds of millions, to be precise) an American minority who is more than determined to make a permanent class of rulers, based on personal income and other private possessory interests, within the United States of America, where xenophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, misogyny, jingoism, homophobia, greed, chauvinism, and bloodshed serve to keep the American majority in a perpetual state of disarray.[14]

But those days are done.

Now is the time to rise.  Now is the time to speak.  Now is the time to put pen to paper and to declare what is unconstitutional, as many an American ancestor did in every past generation.  Now is the time, once and for all, to end permanently this criminal conspiracy against the American majority.[15]


[1]             See, e.g.Branches of the U.S. GovernmentUSA.GOV (last updated Apr. 4, 2018), https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (offering a concise explanation of the three branches of the federal government of the United States of America); see also, e.g.Our Government:  The Judicial BranchWhite House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-judicial-branch/ (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (giving a summary of the judicial branch of the United States of America).

[2]             See U.S. Const. art. III (describing aspects of the American federal judiciary).

[3]             U.S. Const. art. III, § 1.

[4]             See, e.g., Sarah Mervosh, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Both Went to the Same Elite Prep SchoolN.Y. Times (July 10, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/kavanaugh-gorsuch-georgetown-prep.html (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (revealing how Kavanaugh and Gorsuch attended Georgetown Preparatory School).

[5]             See, e.g., Richard Wolf, Basketball, Popeyes, 2 Live Crew:  The Year Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh Clerked for Anthony KennedyUSA Today (Aug. 30, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/30/brett-kavanaugh-neil-gorsuch-learned-supreme-court-ropes-together/1050836002/ (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (describing vignettes from the lives of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as they clerked for Kennedy).

[6]             See, e.g., William K. Rashbaum et al., Michael Cohen Says He Arranged Payments to Women at Trump’s DirectionN.Y. Times (Aug. 21, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (describing how a personal attorney of Donald John Trump, Michael Dean Cohen, pled guilty to “a litany of crimes that revealed both his shadowy involvement in Mr. Trump’s circle and his own corrupt business dealings”); see also, e.g., Devlin Barrett et al., Michael Cohen Says He Worked to Silence Two Women ‘in Coordination’ with Trump to Influence 2016 Election,  Wash. Post (Aug. 21, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen-is-in-plea-discussions-with-federal-prosecutors-according-to-a-person-familiar-with-the-matter/2018/08/21/5fbd7f34-8510-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.751f65c870a3 (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (chronicling how Michael Dean Cohen pled guilty to eight crimes “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate [Donald John Trump] for federal office [the Office of the President of the United States of America]”).

[7]             See, e.g., Libby Watson, Why Are Democrats Poised to Let 7 Trump‑Nominated Judges Slide to Confirmation?Splinter (Aug. 28, 2018), https://splinternews.com/why-are-democrats-poised-to-let-7-trump-nominated-judge-1828666151 (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (reporting on a recent deal that U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D‑N.Y.) made with the U.S. Senate Republican Party majority “to confirm seven district court judges”); see also, e.g., John Gramlich, With Another Supreme Court Pick Trump Is Leaving His Mark on Higher Federal CourtsPew Res. Ctr. (July 16, 2018), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/16/with-another-supreme-court-pick-trump-is-leaving-his-mark-on-higher-federal-courts/ (last visited Aug. 30, 2018) (describing some numbers on the reactionaries who now serve on the American federal judiciary).

[8]             See Barrett et al., supra note 6 (describing the reason that Donald John Trump remains an unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime).

[9]             See, e.g.Dept. of Just.A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal ProsecutionOff. of Legal Couns. (updated July 9, 2014), https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution (last visited Aug. 31, 2018) (providing a reexamination of the legal opinion of the 1973 memorandum, whose headnotes declare that the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions”).  However, this expository essay wonders precisely where the amount of “Executive Time” that Donald John Trump spends on Twitter, in which he lies incessantly with his Tweets, nearly every single day, falls within the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum dated in 1973.  So, too, this expository essay questions where the exorbitant amount of time that Donald John Trump devotes to the activity of golf at the unreasonable and costly expense to the American taxpayers pertains to the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum dated in 1973.

[10]            See, e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 340–41 (2010) (asserting that the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause protects anonymous corporate and social welfare campaign contributions).  Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, states that by “taking the right to speak from some [corporations or social welfare organizations] and giving it to others [the American People], the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class [i.e., corporations or social welfare organizations] of the right to use speech [i.e., money] to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice [i.e., in an election]”).  See also, e.g., Robert Reinhold, Man in the News; Restrained Pragmatist Anthony M. KennedyN.Y. Times (Nov. 12, 1987), https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/12/us/man-in-the-news-restrained-pragmatist-anthony-m-kennedy.html (last visited Sep. 1, 2018) (providing a brief biography on former Justice Kennedy before his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America).  Of particular note is the following passage:

Judge Kennedy was born into Republican politics on July 23, 1936.  His mother, Gladys, was a prominent civic booster, and his father, Anthony J. Kennedy, was a politically connected lawyer and lobbyist in Sacramento [California] who was associated with Artie Samish, a powerful lobbyist and fixer who ultimately went to jail for tax evasion.  At the age of 10 the youth took a year off from school to serve as a page in the [California] State Senate.

Id.  See also, e.g., William Overend & Leo C. Wolinsky, Experts Think Kennedy May Be New Swing Vote:  Judge Has No Record of Controversy, Is Called ‘Almost Prissy’L.A. Times (Nov. 12, 1987) http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-12/news/mn-20440_1_judge-kennedy (last visited Sep. 1, 2018) (offering another succinct biography on former Justice Kennedy before his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America).  Of specific interest is the following extract:

“He is a very cautious person, almost prissy,” said one liberal Democratic judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter.  “His opinions are very cautiously written.  He’s not in any way abrasive.  He’s a good strong, solid conservative, but he doesn’t go out of his way to pick a fight.  He doesn’t go anywhere he doesn’t have to go in writing an opinion.”

Id.  This man, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who was known as a “good strong, solid conservative”; this man who served as a tutor for Justice Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh when they were his Supreme Court law clerks at the same time; this man who wrote the majority opinion for Citizens United, in which he made the transfer of money that slips on the sly between human hands (i.e., a bribe) equivalent to the inalienable Constitutional right to the “freedom of speech” under the First Amendment for those actual human beings who do use the power of speech (through vocal cords, through sign language, or through the written word) so that actual human beings (either domestic or foreign—the Emoluments Clause notwithstanding) who hide behind corporate veils or similar American state law constructs for some pass‑through entities could dole out huge, hidden sums of money (i.e., bribes) to American politicians (and possibly Justices or judges)—but indirectly, of course, never directly, for that would be “illegal”—in the form of “anonymous” financial aid contributions (i.e., bribes) to political campaigns, in order for that money (i.e., those bribes) within those political campaigns to reach that ever so rarefied air found only within the legislative, executive, and judicial streams of American governance, to get laws which favor the actual human beings who gave that money (i.e., those bribes) so as to complete the business transaction (i.e.quid pro quo).  “He doesn’t go anywhere he doesn’t have to go in writing an opinion.”  Indeed!  Mr. Kennedy was an acolyte of the American reactionary movement within the United States of America, a reactionary movement which seeks (even now) to supplant the Constitutional rights of human beings with state law notions of private enterprise (i.e., corporate and pass‑through entity law), so that real human beings (i.e., men and women) who crouch behind American business association state law concepts can put a wall (or veil) between themselves and not only the American People but also foreign nationals around the world who, rightfully so, seek recompense from those who harmed them within the corporate and pass‑through entity transactional human hemisphere of commerce.  Mr. Kennedy’s “legal” opinion in Citizens United follows the unconstitutional work of Lewis Franklin Powell Jr., another former Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America who, on 23 August 1971, before his eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court, wrote his infamous “Powell Memo”.  See, e.g.The Lewis Powell Memo:  A Corporate Blueprint to Dominate DemocracyGreenpeace, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/ (last visited Sep. 1, 2018) (offering a glimpse into the mindset of those within the United States of America who have spent over five decades working behind the scenes in all three levels of American government, in tandem with those in the private commercial sphere, to stage a corporate coup within the United States of America, thus knowingly subverting the inalienable Constitutional rights of the American People).  In the end, this expository essay is left to deliberate upon the following question:  If you were willingly threatening the Constitution for the United States of America (i.e., the American People) with a corporate coup, then would you announce your intentions immediately and openly, as a group of individuals, or would you instead allow your unconstitutional thoughts about who should clutch the civic governmental reins of power within the American republic bubble up over the course of several decades through convoluted “legal” opinions in the form of case law, keeping pace with your “esteemed” American colleagues in the legislative branch and the executive branch?

[11]            See, e.g.U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 (giving the Presidential Oath of Office, which states:  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”).  See also, e.g., Oaths of Justices and Judges, 28 U.S.C. § 453 (2012) (stating the oath of office for Justices and judges).  The oath of office reads as follows:
“I, ______ XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich [What:  No middle class?], and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ______ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

Id.  The final sentence within this particular oath of office—“So help me God.”—is a Constitutional violation under the First Amendment, which demarcates a bold line between not only a separation of Church from State but also a Congressional prohibition to undermine it.  See also, e.g., Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012) (defining the federal criminal elements for a conspiracy).  The charge of a federal criminal conspiracy reads as follows:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States [i.e., the American People], or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

Id.

[12]            See, e.g.U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3 (describing the oath of office for members of the United States Congress as well as others).  The text reads as follows:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Id.  See also, e.g., Oath of Speaker, Members, and Delegates, 2 U.S.C. § 25 (2012) (explaining some oath of office procedural matters in the House of Representatives); Oath of Office, 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (2012) (providing a template for the oath of office for an “individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath”—replete with another First Amendment violation between Church and State). The oath reads as follows:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

Id.  See also, e.g., U.S. Senate, Oath of Office, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm (last visited Aug. 31, 2018) (giving the oath of office for members of the Senate, replete with yet another First Amendment violation between Church and State).

[13]            U.S. Const. amend I.

[14]            U.S. Const. pmbl.  For those who need a reminder as to how the Constitution for the United States of America begins, here is the preamble, in its entirety:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Id.

[15]            See, e.g., Seung Min Kim, Trump to Withhold 100,000 Pages of Kavanaugh’s White House RecordsWash. Post (Sep. 1, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-withhold-100000-pages-of-kavanaughs-white-house-records/2018/09/01/217cf9e0-adf9-11e8-8f4b-aee063e14538_story.html?utm_term=.f2e95a1085e5 (last visited Sep. 1, 2018) (reporting how Donald John Trump, the unindicted co‑conspirator to a federal crime (i.e., a felony), the illegitimate President of the United States of America, now claims executive privilege, thus withholding thousands upon thousands of official American governmental documents related to Judge Kavanaugh’s past work with a former President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush).  Just what precisely are these reactionaries hiding from their employer (i.e., the American People)?

Copyright © 2018 Travis Ray Garner
All rights reserved.

Popular posts from this blog

Dear President Obama (9 November 2016)

Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Dear President Obama:
Today, you said the following:
Everybody is sad when their side loses an election, but the day after we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team.We’re not Democrats first, we’re not Republicans first, we’re Americans first.We’re patriots first.

But you know what, Mr. President?That’s not necessarily true.After all, I’m not sad.
Why?
Because in 2000 I left the Democratic Party.I watched back then in dismay and disgust how the Democratic Party and the Republican Party establishments attacked the greatest American lawyer to graduate from Harvard University to date (from your alma mater, as a matter of fact):Ralph Nader—a man who has done far more to protect and advocate on behalf of all Americans than anyone else that comes to mind.
And today, I no longer know for what the Democratic Party stands.
Perhaps a few examples will illustrate my point.
First, you ignored the single-payer, public option to the Affordable Care Act, allowing th…