Below is a report that DML News gives a 4 OUT OF 4 STARS trustworthiness rating. We base this rating on the following criteria:

  • Provides named sources
  • Reported by more than one notable outlet
  • Does not insert opinion or leading words
  • Includes supporting video, direct statements, or photos

Click here to read more about our rating system.

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News offers the following information published by MYPALMBEACHPOST.COM:

BOCA RATON – Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said that high court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court.

Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Boca Raton, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested that he lacks the temperament for the job.

The article goes on to state the following:

Stevens, a lifelong Republican who is known for falling on the liberal side of several judicial rulings, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

“At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said. “I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

The Palm Beach Post also reported:

Stevens, who retired in 2010 after 35 years on the bench, stands as one of the longest-serving justices in history. Nominated by President Gerald Ford, Stevens was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

To weigh in on this information provided by MYPALMBEACHPOST.COM, engage in our LIVE CHAT below. Scroll down.

1 COMMENT

  1. Sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree with the Justice. This is not the same Senate and Congress that he dealt with and it is certainly not a time that he lived in while serving as a judge and as a Supreme Court Justice. Back then and even up to a decade ago maybe even longer politicians had at least a semblance of decorum and were not as blatant and outspoken of their hatred and disdain for those that didn’t lock step with them. Now we have politicians who believe that it is okay to attack a person verbally, celebrate the fact that they are dragging his name and that of his family thru the mud, we have politicians that go on national television and say that they hate the President and will do what ever it takes to stop him from doing what he told the people he’d do. We live in a new age of if you disagree with the people that yell the loudest then you are fair game, if you stand up for yourself you are now going to be their trophy if they can take you down.

    He was pushed too far by those ill tempered shrews on the committee, all of them not just the women, and he had every right to speak the way he did. He was angry, exasperated, they disrespected him and spoke to him as if he were a criminal lying on the witness stand. How exactly was he supposed to act?

Comments are closed.