Feinstein’s argument would hold water10 - or even 5 years ago. Today the Dems would never approve, or ‘blue slip’ anyone to the right of Nicky Maduro for the 9th circuit. The ninth is where progs go to judge shop.
As to precedent (moleUK’s argument) there is no evidence the Dems would respect ANY tradition that didn’t directly benefit their power going forward. The Dems are no longer interested in procedures that don’t increase their power. Look at the Kavanaugh circus, look at their current attempts to get the unredacted Mueller report- so that leaks can ‘happen’ and ruin more lives in their quest for control.
What I saw in her was a person with no sense of true self. The self she portrays is borrowed for the moment in time she believes that self will work for the moment. Witness the “little girl” voice she used when she was nervous which was incredibly inappropriate.
I do believe she has been molested, just not by Kavanaugh.
She was a much a victim of the democrats as she was by whomever turned her brain into putty. And I don’t mean that in a disparaging way.
She was used like a 2.00 Juarez whore and was too dumb to know it.
She’s pretty well guaranteed fame and fortune as a result but she also has to live with the knowledge of what she did and will one day have to pay for it.
The dems have abused playing nicely in the sandbox too many times.
They want all of the toys, will bully and then gloat over possession of them. Well, someone just sat down in the sandbox, took their toys kicked their ass out and told them when they can play fair they can come back in.
She was coached in this means of appearing frightened. Had the alledged activities occurred a week prior to the hearings, maybe some of her inflections would have been considered authentic…but 35 years between events and testimony will erode the true feelings. Hence they have to be manufactured.
Her “voice of pity” was definitely coached…even though with her education, she likely only required reminding that it should be used.
I don’t think she’s dumb,TWR. I think she is … just blank inside. Not like a psychopath blank but blank as in no compass to reality?.. It is hard explain.
I think on some level she “knows”. Which is why she dragged her feet so much.
I also think she knows she will one day pay for it.
You’re right asaratis. But it is difficult to not draw the conclusion of how Feinstein’s current complaints are a direct result of her unconscionable behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Well, I was pointing to Ford’s timid-nervous-girl behavior, not to Feinstein’s accommodating questions. Diane did have reason to promote the pity of the poor little girl before the committee.
Diane is getting back what she sowed. So has Harris. Their behavior was deplorable.
Karma for Spartacus has yet to reveal itself. It will.
She lost her privilege for any “nod” for the 9th circuit. Rightly so.
Ford was a tool. Just like any other. Use it until you can wring it dry. The party will leave you in the dust with the pieces of your life to pick up long after your name has either been forgotten or vilified.
Their objections to Collins were over issues of “his temperament and rigidity,” the senators said in a statement.
“We were told that Mr. Collins has a history of taking strong litigation positions for no reason other than attempting to overturn precedent and push legal boundaries. This should be a concern to all senators,” they said.
Collins was counsel for a conservative think tank, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, when it argued in an amicus brief in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations have religious liberty rights. The Supreme Court agreed in 2014 that the crafts chain had a religious right to refuse to provide certain kinds of birth control coverage as part of its employee benefits despite a federal mandate to do so under Obamacare.
Feinstein and Harris said their objection to Bress is that “he lives in Washington, D.C., not California, is quite young and has no judicial experience.”
Bress was named to fill the 9th Circuit spot Trump had originally tagged for Patrick J. Bumatay, then the assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California. After California’s senators raised concerns about Bumatay’s lack of experience, Trump instead nominated him for a position on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Neither senator has raised concerns about his nomination to the lower court, nor about the four other California district court nominations Trump made Wednesday.
Lee, the senators complained that he did not turn over “controversial writings” to the review committees when he was being examined. Journalists and Senate staff later uncovered them.
“The writings themselves outlined extreme views on a number of important issues like affirmative action and voting rights,” the senators said.
In 2007, Lee co-authored an article for a Federalist Society publication Engage in which he argued that states should not restore voting rights to felons who have served their time, stating that “society deems felons to be less trustworthy and responsible than non-felon citizens, and those who cannot follow the law should not participate in the passing of laws that govern law-abiding citizens.”
Wonder why they don’t like him. Could it be thy hate when any liberal agenda item is toasted by the courts?
Without a strong internal compass, you are dead on.
I don’t think she will ever realize how she is being used until hindsight kicks her in the ass. Fortunately, people like Kavanaugh can withstand. The dems never counted on someone who could defend themselves as well as he was able to.
What they don’t like is anyone who views The Constitution in a literal, constructionist view.
In reality The Constitution is by intent inflexible not a “Living Breathing Document”. To them the constructionists are “extremists” and unreasonable partisan activists when in reality it is the constructionists who actually honor it.