WAPO: Kacsmaryk removed his name from a paper used in his nomination process

[lindysalsagal]

The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate
The judge who delivered a high-stakes abortion pills ruling last week removed his name from a law review article during his judicial nomination process, emails show
By Caroline Kitchener, Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow
April 15, 2023 at 11:11 a.m. EDT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/15/matthew-kacsmaryk-law-review/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F39ba21f%2F643ad41c53816d1ce0a31099%2F5adfa960ade4e26417b9dae7%2F9%2F70%2F643ad41c53816d1ce0a31099&wp_cu=d42a5b4c3b49446d4866add980799170%7CC0DBB7B17F642B3DE0430100007F44AE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=691

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

The article, titled “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” was published in September 2017 by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a right-leaning journal that Kacsmaryk had led as a law student at the University of Texas. But Kacsmaryk’s role in the article was not disclosed, nor did he list the article on the paperwork he submitted to the Senate in advance of confirmation hearings in which Kacsmaryk’s past statements on LGBT issues became a point of contention.

This is the Texas judge who just tried (and so far, failed) to remove mifepristone from approval list.

[Baitball Blogger]

1. Lying crooks all of them.

The latest Santos of the Republican Party.

[MyOwnPeace]

2. And don't 'ya just love the names of their 'groups'...........

'First Liberty Institute'
'American Family Association'
'Americans for Prosperity'
'Citizens United'
'Family Research Council'
'Freedom Watch'
'Freedom Works'
'Heritage Foundation'

Really - LOOK at those names!!!!

EVERYTHING they 'claim' in their title - they want to TAKE AWAY FROM YOU - or give SOMEONE ELSE the right to make decisions for YOU!

"FREEDOMS" - for some (the 'right' people)
"FAMILY" - according to what they believe a 'family' should be. (show me your marriage license - if you're 'straight')
"CITIZEN" - according to what 'they' count as being a citizen. (prove you were born 'here')

I could go on - but MY GAWD, how obvious and screaming-out-loud does it have to be - THESE PEOPLE HATE WHAT THE USA SHOULD BE!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate

Kacsmaryk in effect lied to the Senate and concealed a material fact to be confirmed.

I was on law review and I have never heard of someone taking their names off a law review article. Two of my children were also on law journals and they never heard of this.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/15/matthew-kacsmaryk-law-review/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing "reasons I may discuss at a later date," Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article's sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state's two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

A law review article is exactly the kind of material the Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to gather in the judicial confirmation process, several people said, because it provides a sense of the judge's personal opinions.