Hundreds arrested in multi-day protests of U.S. Supreme Court nominee

[rooster59]

Hundreds arrested in multi-day protests of U.S. Supreme Court nominee

By Amanda Becker

 

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the third day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 6, 2018. REUTERS/Alex Wroblewski

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing in the Senate this week was frequently disrupted as protesters were removed from the hearing room by police, with more than 200 people arrested.

 

In an unusually intense episode of civil disobedience on Capitol Hill, the four-day Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was targeted for "creative resistance" by liberal activist groups, said Linda Sarsour, Women's March board member.

 

"This is a travesty of justice! Adjourn the hearing!" Sarsour, 38, yelled on Tuesday morning as she was the first to be taken out of the hearing room by police officers.

 

Minutes later, three more women - the activists were nearly all women - were removed as they shouted "Vote no on Kavanaugh!" and "My daughter has the right to choose!"

 

Fears that Kavanaugh, if confirmed to the court by the Senate, could open the door to scaling back abortion access, were a key focus at the hearing.

 

Sarsour told Reuters that her group's members accounted for 209 of the 212 arrests made Tuesday through Thursday, including nearly all of the 177 arrests within the hearing room. The majority of those arrested were charged with disorderly conduct, paid a $35 fine and released.

 

Women's March grew from a January 2017 demonstration that drew more than 500,000 people to Washington to oppose the Donald Trump's inauguration to the U.S. presidency.

 

Sarsour said the arrests during the hearing showed the "level of dissent" over Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh, a conservative judge, for a lifetime Supreme Court seat.

 

The activists were trained in nonviolent civil disobedience and got legal support. "We are not engaging in some sort of charade; we believe this is a matter of life and death," Sarsour said.

 

Women's March organised the protests with the Center for Popular Democracy, a left-learning nonprofit, and We Demand Justice, a group formed to oppose Trump's judicial nominations.

 

Congress holds hundreds of hearings every year that are typically staid proceedings. Sometimes though, they attract noisy demonstrations.

 

At the Kavanaugh sessions, the disruptions began several minutes after Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley gavelled the hearing open on Tuesday.

 

Each day, members of the public arrived by 7 a.m. to queue up for hearing tickets. They then waited in line for 20 to 30 minutes within the hearing room. One after another, activists stood to protest Kavanaugh's positions on healthcare, abortion, gun rights or the proceeding itself, interrupting lines of questioning and irritating some Republican committee members.

 

"I don't know that the committee should have to put up with the type of insolence," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican committee member, said on Tuesday morning.

 

"I think we ought to have this loudmouth removed," he added as another activist interrupted the hearing.

 

Carla Beddard, 34, was one of 15 women who silently walked the halls outside Kavanaugh's hearing dressed in the red cloaks and white bonnets worn by persecuted women in "The Handmaid's Tale," a dystopian novel and television series.

 

Beddard, a graduate student, said that she was drawn to protest Kavanaugh's nomination due to his stance on Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

 

"The fact we could be adding a justice to the court that has indicated he's not too sure terrified me," Beddard said.

 

Kavanaugh testified this week that Roe v. Wade is Supreme Court precedent but declined to say whether he believed the case was correctly decided.

 

On Wednesday, Beddard and two other "handmaids" removed their costumes to go into the hearing room. She stood up and raised her hands, where she had written "We Dissent." She was one of 73 arrested that day.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-08

[Grouse]

Good for them!

 

Civil disobedience is a great way to get the message across 

[Nyezhov]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Good for them!

 

Civil disobedience is a great way to get the message across 

The message that they are a bunch of sillies...............

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

The message that they are a bunch of sillies...............

There’s nothing silly about fighting tyrrany and corruption of the Supreme Court.

[Chomper Higgot]

Oops!

 

Kavanaugh the perjurer:

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newly-released-emails-show-brett-kavanaugh-may-have-perjured-himself-at-least-four-times

 

#BeBest

[TVGerry]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oops!

 

Kavanaugh the perjurer:

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newly-released-emails-show-brett-kavanaugh-may-have-perjured-himself-at-least-four-times

 

#BeBest

He definitely has the qualification to be a Trump man then!

[Boon Mee]

Silly people attempting to derail one of the most qualified jurists in America. 

All for naught! ? 

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Silly people attempting to derail one of the most qualified jurists in America. 

All for naught! ? 

 

How would you begin to know whether he's "one of the most qualified jurists in America"?

[Credo]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How would you begin to know whether he's "one of the most qualified jurists in America"?

God, that's easy.   Because Trump picked him and he only picks the best people.

 

Next question.....

[Tug]

SadleybI think he will get in a major set back for women and another judge in trumps pocket

[The Theory]

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Fears that Kavanaugh, if confirmed to the court by the Senate, could open the door to scaling back abortion access, were a key focus at the hearing.

Sarsour told Reuters that her group's members accounted for 209 of the 212 arrests made Tuesday through Thursday, including nearly all of the 177 arrests within the hearing room. The majority of those arrested were charged with disorderly conduct, paid a $35 fine and released.

Abortion is women’s right. It does not belong to any group or religion to decide for.

Don’t do abortion if you think is not right, but you have no right to decide for others. 

This is 21st century not 14 th.

Edited September 8, 2018 by The Theory

[BobBKK]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

How would you begin to know whether he's "one of the most qualified jurists in America"?

Record, data, recommendations, history things like that. He will be confirmed so suck it up.

[BobBKK]

48 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Abortion is women’s right. It does not belong to any group or religion to decide for.

Don’t do abortion if you think is not right, but you have no right to decide for others. 

This is 21st century not 14 th.

 Totally agree. Don't like abortion?  don't have one!  I loathe those fundamentalists telling woman what to do with their bodies.  Roe v. Wade though is almost untouchable so no worries there.

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Record, data, recommendations, history things like that. He will be confirmed so suck it up.

As Trump has alienated all the women, the Hispanics, the African Americans, Gays, artists and intellectuals, I guess it will be white, male, redneck Christians that are doing all the sucking. Urgh.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Record, data, recommendations, history things like that. He will be confirmed so suck it up.

 

That's nice, but I find it hard to believe the poster in question actually went through all these details before giving his pronouncement. Obviously, there are disagreements as to his qualities among those who did. He might very well be confirmed, but that doesn't necessarily make him into a great supreme court pick. Nor does it reflect much on the question raised. What you're on about is simply a matter of majority.

[BobBKK]

Just now, Morch said:

 

That's nice, but I find it hard to believe the poster in question actually went through all these details before giving his pronouncement. Obviously, there are disagreements as to his qualities among those who did. He might very well be confirmed, but that doesn't necessarily make him into a great supreme court pick. Nor does it reflect much on the question raised. What you're on about is simply a matter of majority.

 

He has the top rating from his profession. I don't like all his positions but I don't think he's unqualified. I have been impressed at his hearings and think he'll make a fine SCOTUS but I liked Garland too. Personally I'd like politics OUT of all judicial appointments.

Edited September 8, 2018 by BobBKK

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

He has the top rating from his profession. I don't like all his positions but I don't think he's unqualified. I have been impressed at his hearings and think he'll make a fine SCOTUS but I liked Garland too. Personally I'd like politics OUT of all judicial appointments.

 

As said, there is no unanimous take as to his qualifications or suitability, or else there would be less issues involved in his confirmation. You wish to pretend otherwise, go ahead. And the same point made with regard to the previous poster applies - that you guys like him because Trump picked him, or because you agree with the candidate views are not, by themselves, much of a standard with regards to his qualities. Personally, I don't believe your last line.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

He has the top rating from his profession. I don't like all his positions but I don't think he's unqualified. I have been impressed at his hearings and think he'll make a fine SCOTUS but I liked Garland too. Personally I'd like politics OUT of all judicial appointments.

Kananagh is anti-labor anti consumer, and anti environmental laws. And he's been very evasive about Roe. v. Wade. Pretty odd candidate to be approved of by a self styled Sanders supporter.

[BobBKK]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As said, there is no unanimous take as to his qualifications or suitability, or else there would be less issues involved in his confirmation. You wish to pretend otherwise, go ahead. And the same point made with regard to the previous poster applies - that you guys like him because Trump picked him, or because you agree with the candidate views are not, by themselves, much of a standard with regards to his qualities. Personally, I don't believe your last line.

Not at all that's a reason not to like him normally but you don't like him for the opposite reason. I take an a-political view and liked Obama's nomination (as I stated and you ignored) too.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Not at all that's a reason not to like him normally but you don't like him for the opposite reason. I take an a-political view and liked Obama's nomination (as I stated and you ignored) too.

You take an apolitical of a potential appointment that's going to have a hugely damaging effects on workers, consumers, and the environment? So you supported Sanders but you don't really care about outcomes and reality. Bizarre.

[Slip]

Isn't this the guy who lied under oath to congress?

[BobBKK]

43 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Kananagh is anti-labor anti consumer, and anti environmental laws. And he's been very evasive about Roe. v. Wade. Pretty odd candidate to be approved of by a self styled Sanders supporter.

I don't think he is what you paint him to be. As I said I don't agree to all his positions but I have a Libran sense of equity. I also stated that I don't like ANY politicisation  of nominations. I loathe conservatives but I equally loathe pc liberals. As stated, you may recall, I am pro-choice, pro-environment and pro marijuana. I am a past management committee member in the British Labour Party and in no way could I be described as a Trump supporter. But that does not mean that everything he does is wrong. I feel Obama wasted 8 years when he could have pardoned thousands more in jail for marijuana charges - a huge disgrace!

Edited September 8, 2018 by BobBKK

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I don't think he is what you paint him to be. As I said I don't agree to all his positions but I have a Libran sense of equity. I also stated that I don't like ANY politicisation  of nominations. I loathe conservatives but I equally loathe pc liberals. As stated, you may recall, I am pro-choice, pro-environment and pro marijuana. I am a past management committee member in the British Labour Party and in no way could I be described as a Trump supporter. But that does not mean that everything he does is wrong. I feel Obama wasted 8 years when he could have pardoned thousands more in jail for marijuana charges - a huge disgrace!

Odd because I've never read anything of yours critical of any of Trump's policies. Ever. Just of his personality.

[BobBKK]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Odd because I've never read anything of yours critical of any of Trump's policies. Ever. Just of his personality.

 

That is absolutely not true. Go read what I thought of his bombing of Syria?  of his views on pro-life and Pence's nonsense on marijuana. I have never shied from calling him a megalomaniac but because I take a balanced non-Luciferian view you ignore all that and paint me into the Trump corner. It is madness to think anyone is completely wrong, all of the time. I loved Obama and had very high hopes for his Presidency but he was too weak and achieved little but the 'nice guy' badge. Sanders was the only revolutionary who could have changed things at the swamp but the Dems conspired to keep him out and I find that unforgivable.  

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Not at all that's a reason not to like him normally but you don't like him for the opposite reason. I take an a-political view and liked Obama's nomination (as I stated and you ignored) too.

 

How do you mean "normally"? And I didn't even make any strong comments on the guy - just questioned the adulation. And no, you claim an "a-political" view, but fail at convincing this is sincere or well-thought out. Case in point would be supporting this guy, regardless of his actual positions - which are at odds with some of your supposed self-described views.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Morch

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's nice, but I find it hard to believe the poster in question actually went through all these details before giving his pronouncement. Obviously, there are disagreements as to his qualities among those who did. He might very well be confirmed, but that doesn't necessarily make him into a great supreme court pick. Nor does it reflect much on the question raised. What you're on about is simply a matter of majority.

Sorry Dude but in the legal profession he is a rock star. He is one of the most repected Judges in a very powerful circuit, and his opinions are generally upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

He is far more qualified, by way of experience, then Kagan or Sotomayor was.

 

Folks can attack him politically, thats fine, but there is no argument as to his qualifications and legal acumen.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Sorry Dude but in the legal profession he is a rock star. He is one of the most repected Judges in a very powerful circuit, and his opinions are generally upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

He is far more qualified, by way of experience, then Kagan or Sotomayor was.

 

Folks can attack him politically, thats fine, but there is no argument as to his qualifications and legal acumen.

 

If you say so, it must be true. Just another political witch hunt, then? Obviously, there are arguments against him being a suitable candidate for the post, but enjoy your alternate reality anyway.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Morch

[Nyezhov]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you say so, it must be true. Just another political witch hunt, then? Obviously, there are arguments against him being a suitable candidate for the post, but enjoy your alternate reality anyway.

Well, perhaps you should Google him. The arguments against him are political,  but hey, thats not how we do it in the USA.

 

Witch hunt? Naw, just silly posturing.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Nyezhov

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well, perhaps you should Google him. The arguments against him are political,  but hey, thats not how we do it in the USA.

 

Perhaps you should read related topic on here, links provided and opposing commentary without auto-labeling it as political or pretending other valid arguments were not raised.

[Nyezhov]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Perhaps you should read related topic on here, links provided and opposing commentary without auto-labeling it as political or pretending other valid arguments were not raised.

I took the time to sit up all night (well I did fall asleep to some of the droning) to watch the hearings. Having seen a whole bunch of Judges confirmed in various adminstrations, and having argued some of the issues raised myself in years past, I stand by my assertion. Lets agree to disagree, have a beer.