Re: Withdrawal of Support for Nomination of AD to UC

[Açafat del Val]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

What did you expect? That he would grovel before you to win back your favor, which would clearly be futile anyway?

If the coalition no longer finds the nominee to be suitable, then there is not much I can do. All I have to say is that you cannot throw out barbs and then be shocked and appalled when you get stung back.

Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the Government or the province of Florencia: I have always expected that a judicial nominee should comport themself in a manner befitting the office. A professional adult should not look like this when rejected for a job:

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It is well known that AD likes beer!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

What did you expect? That he would grovel before you to win back your favor, which would clearly be futile anyway?

If the coalition no longer finds the nominee to be suitable, then there is not much I can do. All I have to say is that you cannot throw out barbs and then be shocked and appalled when you get stung back.

Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the Government or the province of Florencia: I have always expected that a judicial nominee should comport themself in a manner befitting the office. A professional adult should not look like this when rejected for a job:

For those who don't closely follow American politics, the Avocat-Xheneral is here comparing my behavior to a nominee to the US Supreme Court who was credibly accused of rape.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

For those who don't closely follow American politics, the Avocat-Xheneral is here comparing my behavior to a nominee to the US Supreme Court who was credibly accused of rape.

HAHAHAHAHA someone on the FreeDems FB group just won a prize!

To be fair though, "Kegs" Kavanagh wasn't rejected, more's the pity.

[Açafat del Val]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

What did you expect? That he would grovel before you to win back your favor, which would clearly be futile anyway?

If the coalition no longer finds the nominee to be suitable, then there is not much I can do. All I have to say is that you cannot throw out barbs and then be shocked and appalled when you get stung back.

Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the Government or the province of Florencia: I have always expected that a judicial nominee should comport themself in a manner befitting the office. A professional adult should not look like this when rejected for a job:

For those who don't closely follow American politics, the Avocat-Xheneral is here comparing my behavior to a nominee to the US Supreme Court who was credibly accused of rape.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/strawman.htm

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Care should be applied before going down this "thread" much farther.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Various people have responded to me in various places, so this is a consolidated response.

It's true that during V's confirmation hearing he was asked at length about his record of [insert your preferred adverb here] attacking his opponents. In the same manner, AD was questioned at length about his record of irritating people. Both hearings were fair. However, in neither hearing was the nominee required to renounce their ability to make any political statement, and while I can see why AD's response to the A-X would be irritating, the A-X's reaction seemed disproportionately pompous...

...Especially because we all know that with the majority of the Government opposing his nomination there is no way AD will get the 2/3 of the Cosa needed to be confirmed. He would need at least four of the Government MCs to support him, plus a majority in the Senate, neither of which looks possible. I will sponsor his nomination to give it the ol' college try, but i don't have high expectations.

Therefore, if you would argue that AD's comment was unbecoming of a nominee, I would say it's a bit silly to even call him a nominee anymore. Therefore, it seemed spiteful for the A-X to grandstand about AD's poor behavior once it became clear that the A-X had already accomplished his goal of keeping AD off the bench (to be clear, this is directed at the A-X's response to AD's defense of himself rather than the A-X's initial post).

[Ian Plätschisch]

A professional adult should not look like this when rejected for a job:

Anytime AD tries to defend himself against the FreeDems, the same line comes out about how he is just trying to play everyone (that sentence is agnostic as to who is right, I am just pointing out that that is the case). Therefore I find it hard to imagine anything AD could have said that would not have drawn your ire, even though someone who was rejected in as strong of words as you rejected AD should surely be allowed to answer.

[Açafat del Val]

Respectfully, there is a lot of assumption going on there.

Speaking formally in my capacity as the Attorney-General: I did not make this decision alone, nor singlehandedly. I made the announcement on behalf of the entire Government, who decidedly collectively to withdraw our support. It is plainly incorrect to say that I had or ever had a goal of "keeping AD off the bench"; indeed, I voted for him during the committee process.

Now, speaking for myself only: I understand and appreciate why my response seemed pompous, but that mistakes my perspective. Undoubtedly, if someone wants to reduce this entire affair to personality politics and tribalism, then it would look like I am sitting on a haughty throne and sneering down from my high place. On the other hand, if someone expects a certain decorum from a judge of law, then my response makes sense. You'll note how eager AD was to mention the Guy Incognito court case, without the dignity of context, because it benefitted the perceptions that he wants to create (or tell himself): I wonder if we should want someone to sit on the bench who might so enjoy ridiculing others?

My point is this: A court of law is supposed to be a holy place, where justice and truth reign above all else. However, that state of being requires an implicit trust from the public that justice and truth will be found and respected. As soon as a defendant, complainant, attorney, etc. feels in their gut that the presiding judge has bias, has unruly mannerisms, has a disrespectful affect - as soon as they feel that justice won't be served - then the entire objective falls apart. Justice cannot be done without trust in the process. And if AD reacts to this announcement how he did, not to mention all the events preceding it, then how will he react when fellow citizens seek justice from him?

To be a judge is to reflect a certain attitude and represent certain values. That's what it means to be a lawyer. AD's behavior proves that he lacks both the attitude and the values, and that he might well erode the public's trust in our courts.