Accuser of Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh agrees to testify to Senate committee

[RPCVguy]

Now there is a third woman... not Deborah Ramirez

Time to withdraw the nomination Time too for Kavanaugh to resign from the bench

Edited September 24, 2018 by RPCVguy
spelling typo

[Nyezhov]

7 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

I listed 6 issues, and yes that one is less unusual - I've had it over a string of nominees. Care to discuss any of the other 5?

 

Not really. By spouting Democrat talking points as fact, you have illustrated that you arent interested in a discussion.

 

Now if you said something like: I dont like the Brett dude because his judicial philosophy of originalism conflicts with my view of the role of Judges in society we would at least have something to discuss. That would be a honest criticism from a mature point of view. But some of the stuff you write is  just silly, as I already pointed out, supra.

 

But here, Ill play a little while I wait to see if its going to rain. You say:

 

"While a circuit court judge, he has shown a disregard for people and the environment, siding 100% of the time with corporations in cases before him. that tendency includes at times writing blistering dissents that were rebuked at the supreme court level."

 

Please cite the cases where that is true. In addition, please provide a list of where his decisions were upheld by the Supreme Court. In addition thereto, is it your contention that a Judge should look beyond the facts of the case before him to consider the personal circumstances of the litigants dehors the record before him? If so, isnt that a two edged sword?

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Now there is a third woman... not Deborah Ramirez

Time to withdraw the nomination Time too for Kavanaugh to resign from the bench

Should Ellison withdraw? Should Bill Clinton have resigned? Just curious.

[RPCVguy]

I don't like the Brett Dude because he lacks the character of a Judge. Nyezhov and others can look at my record of posts. I see the direction that money interests are taking the society is amplifying the rate of destruction of the environment.
He is consistently on the side of and will throw for decades the slant of the Supreme Court to the side of those money interests. I hold his judicial attitudes as dangerous and repugnant. BEFORE the charges by Dr Ford and others I listened to the hearings, and acknowledged that today, he is likely a typical family man, good neighbor guy. BUT I also saw him as trapped by his mental ability to parse the law as written. He will be used as a tool by lobbyists and racists to cut safety nets, restrict voting, deregulate industry constraints on pollution, and harm minorities. That is the constraint of a rigid interpretation of laws - it forfeits common sense. His gift is a danger to society, the reason the 1% atop the GOP want him, and the 99% must stop his appointment.

So at the outset I found him to be a man who abides by a strict interpretation of the WORDS of a law. and it is in those words - often crafted previously by legislators serving corporate lobbying efforts - that we the people are sure to be abandoned to the remains of corporate and wealthy interests.
Since then, I not only have learned more as to how he acts, but enough has been revealed to show that he is a manipulator of his persona - and has the background of a privileged elitist ideologue willing to lie so as to gain greater power via this appointment.  He is a willing co-enabler of the extraction for profit of the moneyed interests destroying the possibility of having a sustainable habitable planet. I oppose allowing that.
In the culture of America, it is now the behavior of years ago - that he has already denied -  that will serve as the tool to prevent the donor owned hacks of the GOP from installing this man on the court.

I will add that this situation would not be so dire except for the actions of Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley in withholding even a hearing for the year to fill the vacancy Judge Alito's death caused. That erroneous behavior - had it not happened, would have replaced the swing vote of this Justice Kennedy vacancy with the rather centrist Merrick Garland - and Alito would now be replaced by Brett Kavanaugh.

The introductory comments by Sen Sheldon Whitehouse for the nomination hearings did enumerate and was the source of my comment about the 100% of the time.

 

Bill Clinton was impeached for his lying under oath, and if Kavanaugh stays on the bench or is raised to the supreme court, he will likely be impeached. Better now to resign.

"During the hearings on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a few months after the Miranda news broke, Kavanaugh actively hid his own involvement, lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee by stating unequivocally that he not only knew nothing of the episode, but also never even received any stolen material.

 

"Even if Kavanaugh could claim that he didn’t have any hint at the time he received the emails that these documents were of suspect provenance—which I personally find implausible—there is no reasonable way for him to assert honestly that he had no idea what they were after the revelation of the theft. Any reasonable person would have realized they had been stolen, and certainly someone as smart as Kavanaugh would have too.

"But he lied.

"Under oath."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

 

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, RPCVguy said:

That is the constraint of a rigid interpretation of laws - it forfeits common sense

The law can be an ass but "common sense" is for legislators. But I give you more credit than most here, you want an activist Court that will legislate and have no bones in saying so. Thats a fair philosophical subject of debate and a reason to oppose him if your weltanshauung is that Judges should "bend" the law to meet political considerations. That can be dangerous...for everyone.

 

Elections have consequences though.

 

I wish you would have answered my questions, and I wish you wouldnt have ruined your post with the silly Democrat talking points, but hey, its all good.

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

It will be paved with gold after her book deal and the accolades that come from being a hero of the resistance.

 

Regardless, read this, I dont expect you to agree, but if it makes you think thats enough

https://spectator.org/resisting-a-lynch-mob/

      Whether a book deal is forthcoming is irrelevant, although money is often one of the arguments used when casting about for something, anything, to throw at an accuser.  In this case, we have a she said/he said and one of the parties is either lying or misremembering.  Certainly there have been cases of false accusations but the true cases far outnumber them.  I think Ms. Ford's case falls into the latter.  It seems a second woman has come forward with another accusation.  That often seems to be the case; these abusers don't seem to limit themselves to just one victim.

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, newnative said:

      Whether a book deal is forthcoming is irrelevant, although money is often one of the arguments used when casting about for something, anything, to throw at an accuser.  In this case, we have a she said/he said and one of the parties is either lying or misremembering.  Certainly there have been cases of false accusations but the true cases far outnumber them.  I think Ms. Ford's case falls into the latter.  It seems a second woman has come forward with another accusation.  That often seems to be the case; these abusers don't seem to limit themselves to just one victim.

Amazing how the accusers are all of a sudden just showing up 55555. Sort of like copycat school shooters.

 

There is something called overplaying ones hand, neh?

Edited September 24, 2018 by Nyezhov

[KMartinHandyman]

Now there is a third woman... not Deborah Ramirez

Time to withdraw the nomination Time too for Kavanaugh to resign from the bench

No Justice, No Peace!

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Not really. By spouting Democrat talking points as fact, you have illustrated that you arent interested in a discussion.

 

Now if you said something like: I dont like the Brett dude because his judicial philosophy of originalism conflicts with my view of the role of Judges in society we would at least have something to discuss. That would be a honest criticism from a mature point of view. But some of the stuff you write is  just silly, as I already pointed out, supra.

 

But here, Ill play a little while I wait to see if its going to rain. You say:

 

"While a circuit court judge, he has shown a disregard for people and the environment, siding 100% of the time with corporations in cases before him. that tendency includes at times writing blistering dissents that were rebuked at the supreme court level."

 

Please cite the cases where that is true. In addition, please provide a list of where his decisions were upheld by the Supreme Court. In addition thereto, is it your contention that a Judge should look beyond the facts of the case before him to consider the personal circumstances of the litigants dehors the record before him? If so, isnt that a two edged sword?

“Now if you said something like: I dont like the Brett dude because his judicial philosophy of originalism conflicts with my view of the role of Judges in society we would at least have something to discuss.”

 

You need to get over the idea that you are somehow in charge of the discussion. That job’s been taken by Dr Ford.

 

The issue now is, can Kavanaugh get out of this without doing time in the slammer.

 

I think not. ( But I’ll be delighted if you categorically state Kavanaugh will never be convicted).

[Thakkar]

9 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

Now there is a third woman... not Deborah Ramirez

 

Just 15 more and Kavanaugh will qualify to run for president on the GOP ticket!

Edited September 24, 2018 by Thakkar
Added *more* after “15”

[JCauto]

19 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Amazing how the accusers are all of a sudden just showing up 55555. Sort of like copycat school shooters.

 

There is something called overplaying ones hand, neh?

No, there's something called serial sexual abusers, guys who don't understand boundaries and feel privileged to take what they want from others. Thing about this, is they tend to do it over and over again. And when they become prominent, the victims finally have a chance to gain their revenge for being wronged way back when. So they do, despite the trouble it brings. And once one is willing, it makes it easier for the others to come out. Wouldn't be surprised if more do too.

You must be proud to endorse such a fine individual for what is supposed to be the pinnacle of American justice. Why is it so difficult for the Right to find a morally sound conservative jurist?

[RPCVguy]

Rachel Maddow Show Monday Sept 24th "Avenatti: Kavanaugh accuser client may pursue criminal case" follows a segment detailing having multiple witnesses and one victim of gang rape. His clients are demanding an FBI investigation instead of a rushed vote in the senate with only 2 people questioned before voting begins.
They are proceeding this way so as to short circuit the vote to install Brett Kavanaugh  on the supreme court. Avenatti in the interview did assert that his clients have the option to proceed under criminal laws in the state of Maryland - and he reminded viewers that he has consistently followed is assertions with the evidence needed.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

[pedro01]

looks like she's backing out.

 

Now she wants to go 2nd. 

 

So she wants the defence to defend before the accusations are made.

 

Or in other words - she doesn't want to testify, so she's making more & more demands till she gets the pushback.

[riclag]

“Democrats have signaled for months they’d put on whatever performance the far left special interests demanded and throw all the mud, all the mud they could manufacture,” McConnell said. “Even by the far left’s standards, this evil, evil smear campaign has hit a new low.”

Be prepared and don't be shocked especially the fake left predictable  crocodial smears of  tears ! I would have sympathy but this was all orchestrated many  months ago probably before July! Sick! What the  despicable deranged left is doing 

 https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-decries-kavanaugh-accusations-smear-campaign

Edited September 25, 2018 by riclag

[JCauto]

19 minutes ago, riclag said:

“Democrats have signaled for months they’d put on whatever performance the far left special interests demanded and throw all the mud, all the mud they could manufacture,” McConnell said. “Even by the far left’s standards, this evil, evil smear campaign has hit a new low.”

Be prepared and don't be shocked especially the fake left predictable  crocodial smears of  tears ! I would have sympathy but this was all orchestrated many  months ago probably before July! Sick! What the  despicable deranged left is doing 

 https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-decries-kavanaugh-accusations-smear-campaign

What's a crocodial? Is that a new kind of shoe-phone, like Maxwell Smart would use if they updated that TV series? When you can't spell basic English words, your other ones lose their effectiveness.

 

Allow me to paraphrase what McConnell's words really were. "We are shocked to observe that the Democrats have abandoned their weak-kneed tendency to allow us to manipulate the law and railroad this terrible Supreme Court choice through the Senate with as little scrutiny as possible. To behave exactly as we Republicans have for the previous 10 years by discarding all principles in favour of naked self-interest and using sneaky rules and sympathetic press to get what they want is appalling. We should at least get royalties for our intellectual property having developed these tricks."

 

 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

What's a crocodial? Is that a new kind of shoe-phone, like Maxwell Smart would use if they updated that TV series? When you can't spell basic English words, your other ones lose their effectiveness.

 

Allow me to paraphrase what McConnell's words really were. "We are shocked to observe that the Democrats have abandoned their weak-kneed tendency to allow us to manipulate the law and railroad this terrible Supreme Court choice through the Senate with as little scrutiny as possible. To behave exactly as we Republicans have for the previous 10 years by discarding all principles in favour of naked self-interest and using sneaky rules and sympathetic press to get what they want is appalling. We should at least get royalties for our intellectual property having developed these tricks."

 

 

Since when did the GOP call rape and throw themselves to the chamber floor screaming and flailing like sick pathetic intolerant parasites. Hopefully the Independents will see the pattern of violence of the left and their sick behavior in the next couple of weeks to encourage more to vote for the less  volatile  American party!

Edited September 25, 2018 by riclag

[JCauto]

10 minutes ago, riclag said:

Source up 

Are you really asking for a source for something that started "Allow me to paraphrase"? I guess English isn't your first language, so I'll explain. A "paraphrase" means "a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else". 

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Are you really asking for a source for something that started "Allow me to paraphrase"? I guess English isn't your first language, so I'll explain. A "paraphrase" means "a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else". 

Yes, Do me a favor,while your at it don't insult me for my lack of grammar skills. You caught my meaning

Since when did the GOP call rape and throw themselves to the chamber floor screaming and flailing like sick pathetic intolerant parasites. Hopefully the Independents will see the pattern of violence of the left and their sick behavior in the next couple of weeks to encourage more to vote for the less  volatile party of change

Edited September 25, 2018 by riclag

[JCauto]

15 minutes ago, riclag said:

Yes, Do me a favor,while your at it don't insult me for my lack of grammar skills. You caught my meaning

Since when did the GOP call rape and throw themselves to the chamber floor screaming and flailing like sick pathetic intolerant parasites. Hopefully the Independents will see the pattern of violence of the left and their sick behavior in the next couple of weeks to encourage more to vote for the less  volatile party of change

I didn't insult you, I presumed that English wasn't your first language since you didn't understand the meaning of "paraphrase", a common word. That's vocabulary, not grammar. Grammar would be my pointing out that "your at it" ought to be "you're at it". But yes, I caught your meaning and hence why I responded underneath. Just trying to be helpful to others, it's our way as liberals to try to improve society and help individuals who aren't as fortunate as we are. Now to your point...

So when did the GOP behave hypocritically with respect to sexual assault? Well, there was the way they demanded that the Democrats return all donations to the Party from Harvey Weinstein, a major donor of theirs accused of sexual assault. The Democrats then did so because they actually think that sexual assault by powerful men is wrong. Yet shortly afterwards, Steve Wynn, a major donor of theirs, was accused of sexual assault. The Republican National Committee, who took the lead in demanding the Democrats return Weinstein's money, then of course did NOT return Wynn's money. Does that seem hypocritical to you?

Then there was Al Franken, accused of minor improprieties and hounded out of the Senate by the Republicans for those transgressions. You will note that this happened because the Democrats agreed that it was not right for someone in Congress to be tainted by these accusations, even though they were far below the level of what Kavanaugh is accused of. And Kavanaugh's going for an even higher office that is responsible for interpretation of the laws of the land, which should be held to even higher scrutiny. Or was that "O'Kavanaugh"?

 

Then there was the way they refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland even though the President had been elected and there was over a year before the end of his term, with the Senate insisting that it should only take place after the people had a chance to express their views at the ballot box. Yet here they are railroading this Supreme Court selection through while trying to avoid providing sufficient documents about his views and actions and knowing that he's already lied under oath and desperately trying to do so prior to the Mid-terms. Note that Garland was a moderate centrist, whereas this guy is a radical right-winger who has already indicated he doesn't believe in limits on Presidential power and is being appointed by a President under active investigation by the Justice Department. 

 

Then there's the President, who has been accused by 19 women of sexual assault or rape, and who has been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is famous. Then there's his latest major WH appointment Bill Shine, the FOX News exec who had to be fired because of his history of sexual assault which even the misogynists at Faux News couldn't abide. There is the fact that the Republicans control the Congress and have pretty much eliminated women from any positions of power or on committees - the optics of the 11 Old White Men grilling the woman who was assaulted should pretty much end the Republican control of Congress at the mid-terms regardless of whether this odious human manages to weasel his way on the highest court in the land. 

See any patterns here?

[riclag]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

I didn't insult you, I presumed that English wasn't your first language since you didn't understand the meaning of "paraphrase", a common word. That's vocabulary, not grammar. Grammar would be my pointing out that "your at it" ought to be "you're at it". But yes, I caught your meaning and hence why I responded underneath. Just trying to be helpful to others, it's our way as liberals to try to improve society and help individuals who aren't as fortunate as we are. Now to your point...

So when did the GOP behave hypocritically with respect to sexual assault? Well, there was the way they demanded that the Democrats return all donations to the Party from Harvey Weinstein, a major donor of theirs accused of sexual assault. The Democrats then did so because they actually think that sexual assault by powerful men is wrong. Yet shortly afterwards, Steve Wynn, a major donor of theirs, was accused of sexual assault. The Republican National Committee, who took the lead in demanding the Democrats return Weinstein's money, then of course did NOT return Wynn's money. Does that seem hypocritical to you?

Then there was Al Franken, accused of minor improprieties and hounded out of the Senate by the Republicans for those transgressions. You will note that this happened because the Democrats agreed that it was not right for someone in Congress to be tainted by these accusations, even though they were far below the level of what Kavanaugh is accused of. And Kavanaugh's going for an even higher office that is responsible for interpretation of the laws of the land, which should be held to even higher scrutiny. Or was that "O'Kavanaugh"?

 

Then there was the way they refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland even though the President had been elected and there was over a year before the end of his term, with the Senate insisting that it should only take place after the people had a chance to express their views at the ballot box. Yet here they are railroading this Supreme Court selection through while trying to avoid providing sufficient documents about his views and actions and knowing that he's already lied under oath and desperately trying to do so prior to the Mid-terms. Note that Garland was a moderate centrist, whereas this guy is a radical right-winger who has already indicated he doesn't believe in limits on Presidential power and is being appointed by a President under active investigation by the Justice Department. 

 

Then there's the President, who has been accused by 19 women of sexual assault or rape, and who has been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is famous. Then there's his latest major WH appointment Bill Shine, the FOX News exec who had to be fired because of his history of sexual assault which even the misogynists at Faux News couldn't abide. There is the fact that the Republicans control the Congress and have pretty much eliminated women from any positions of power or on committees - the optics of the 11 Old White Men grilling the woman who was assaulted should pretty much end the Republican control of Congress at the mid-terms regardless of whether this odious human manages to weasel his way on the highest court in the land. 

See any patterns here?

 Yes I see the pattern of the intolerant  left.You blew it out of the water when you mentioned 11 old white men. Are you against old ,men and most importantly white.... . Skin color has nothing to do with this radical left attack on JK. Their volatile  resistance mantra is well documented ( we will stop at nothing,specifically JK).It's been a pattern of the volatile left,to force their will and ideas in   university's ,colleges and in   challenging  the Constitution with radical changes.

 She(ford) will get no sympathy from me ,after seeing the activist pretending to be a  lawyer Katz on videos saying resist, while in my opinion using women's rights as a facade.It will be disappointing if he doesn't get confirmed,but there will be another time and place for what's meant to be !

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by riclag

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 Yes I see the pattern of the intolerant  left.You blew it out of the water when you mentioned 11 old white men. Are you against old ,men and most importantly white.... . Skin color has nothing to do with this radical left attack on JK. Their volatile  resistance mantra is well documented ( we will stop at nothing,specifically JK).It's been a pattern of the volatile left,to force their will and ideas in   university's ,colleges and in   challenging  the Constitution with radical changes.

 She(ford) will get no sympathy from me ,after seeing the activist pretending to be a  lawyer Katz on videos saying resist, while in my opinion using women's rights as a facade.It will be disappointing if he doesn't get confirmed,but there will be another time and place for what's meant to be !

 

Not against them (I'm actually one of them) but have you looked at the demographics of the United States lately? Why is it that a country where the old white males (let's say > 55) comprise approximately 10.25% of the population do they comprise 72.73% of the Republican Judiciary Committee members? Is Justice something only for old white guys? How about if we drop the age to 45 so we include all the "older" white guys? That's 100% of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. Let's compare them to Democrats - 6 out of 11 are Old White Guys or 54.55% Still too high, but at least somewhat representative as it includes 4 women and 2 black people (one is a Black Female). Wouldn't you agree that the results of a democratic election ought to reflect to some extent the demographic representation of the population?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

 

Now as to the rest of your points...erm...I don't see any actual facts. You keep mentioning the "volatile left" which is a new one to me. Who is that? Why are they volatile? Do atmospheric or chemical conditions cause them to change to Right-Wingers? When was the last great Leftist Constitutional Radical Change? Would you be referring to the last amendment (#27) which "delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives." That was in 1992 and doesn't seem to be particularly exciting in terms of its radical-ness. Perhaps you're referring to the 26th Amendment that allowed people over the age of 18 to vote? Another Radical Leftist Amendment! Wow, the Radical Leftists passed that one during Nixon's Presidency in 1971. Who knew Tricky Dicky was a Commie? Maybe he was just too tricky. 

I'm sure that you approached the case of Ms. Ford with open objectivity, and were greatly disappointed in the credulity of her case due to the activist pretending to be a lawyer Katz. Let me look into that...again, what a bombshell! This pretend lawyer has undertaken an awful lot of steps to maintain the pretense, including founding her own respected firm (Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLC) and being regularly named one of the top lawyers in Washington DC. The lengths these pretenders will go to! And no doubt it's all just a facade, why would that person be interested in women's rights, just because she's a woman? 

Finally, you tantalize with your knowledge of "what's meant to be". How can you let your readers know that you have such precious information and then refuse to share it? Inquiring minds need to know!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 3:43 PM, welovesundaysatspace said:

So tell us what really happened during that night. 

Comes down to she said he said. Who to believe is the question. 

Of course she may have some actual evidence, like a dress with his ( dna tested ) semen on it, or an eye witness that corroborates her version, but I doubt it.

Some people need to be careful what they wish for, as if, in the future, a Dem majority wish to nominate a candidate they like, GOP women may be making accusations of their own to pay back the Dems.

 

If any lessons can be learned from this fiasco, it should be that before any accusations can be made in public in such a situation, a police report or definitive proof of the event should be available, or the accusation is ignored.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

Is Justice something only for old white guys? How about if we drop the age to 45 so we include all the "older" white guys? That's 100% of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee.

 

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

Wouldn't you agree that the results of a democratic election ought to reflect to some extent the demographic representation of the population?

IMO the makeup of the SCOTUS reflects the reality that till recently, law was something men did and in the US probably mainly white guys. To get to the stage of being considered for SCOTUS requires a lot of experience, which probably isn't available in many female lawyers at present. Give it a few years for that to become reality.

 

For very good reasons, SCOTUS isn't elected by a popular vote, and may even be in the constitution to be done as it is. That would require a constitutional amendment to change. 

[JCauto]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Comes down to she said he said. Who to believe is the question. 

Of course she may have some actual evidence, like a dress with his ( dna tested ) semen on it, or an eye witness that corroborates her version, but I doubt it.

Some people need to be careful what they wish for, as if, in the future, a Dem majority wish to nominate a candidate they like, GOP women may be making accusations of their own to pay back the Dems.

 

If any lessons can be learned from this fiasco, it should be that before any accusations can be made in public in such a situation, a police report or definitive proof of the event should be available, or the accusation is ignored.

 

Disagree. There's a very strong disincentive to deciding to bring these accusations forward and the ones who do inevitably have their lives turned upside down and not for the better. Should a Dem Jurist be accused similarly, they should immediately have the claim investigated by the FBI and if it's determined to be credible the person should be disqualified immediately. People willing to do this once will do it again and again, so an initial accusation will inevitably unearth others who will come out when it's finally exposed. I don't think this sort of behaviour is common even among frat boys; the vast majority of people know the lines that must not be crossed even in High School. So I don't think there is a shortage of non-sexual predator judges on either side of the aisle. 

[JCauto]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

IMO the makeup of the SCOTUS reflects the reality that till recently, law was something men did and in the US probably mainly white guys. To get to the stage of being considered for SCOTUS requires a lot of experience, which probably isn't available in many female lawyers at present. Give it a few years for that to become reality.

 

For very good reasons, SCOTUS isn't elected by a popular vote, and may even be in the constitution to be done as it is. That would require a constitutional amendment to change. 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your point with respect to non-White guys on SCOTUS is taken, although if we look at an average appointed age of 50-55 for Justices, you'd be talking about 1995 or so from when you'd think you'd have some viable candidates. Understood that changes on SCOTUS take longer.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 2:54 PM, JCauto said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your point with respect to non-White guys on SCOTUS is taken, although if we look at an average appointed age of 50-55 for Justices, you'd be talking about 1995 or so from when you'd think you'd have some viable candidates. Understood that changes on SCOTUS take longer.

Fair enough, but apparently membership of committees is based on length of time in congress etc, which is why complete losers get to be on committees. Some members of congress shouldn't be allowed to be on a local town council, let alone powerful congressional committees, but that's democracy in action.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 10:54 AM, scorecard said:

 

A fine man - that's a big statement. Are you in a position to make such a categorical statement?

 

 

Like the current Trump supporters and Trump himself, he states things which aren't backed up by anything at all and will shout fake news at anything which doesn't fit in their mindset.