Even in my local election(s), If I wanted more information than a name and the print bytes they want to propose ..
"A family man serving for 45 years"
or something, you almost have to have gone to school with the person or know someone that knows the judge.
So when all of this nomination process escalated into the circus it became, I was angry at the democrats for being so disruptive and immature.
THEN they pulled out Dr Ford .... followed by others and finally,
precedent broken.
A sitting judge has been as exposed as pulling back the shower curtain.
My first thought throughout all this is anger towards the ones intentionally destroying a good man and his family.
THAT then prompted me to think that wise Republican politicians should even now, be crafting legislation to prevent this behavior in the future. after all, the Supreme Court may sit in on the State of The Union address, but they NEVER show appreciation nor displeasure in what they hear.
On further axamination of my own thinking, I've decided that, hard as this may be, we may be witnessing a precedent established for future judge candidates in EVERY categary ...... local county, city and state judgeships may now be more exposed for the common voter who WANTS to elect (or retain) good people.
As it stands now, as far as I know, unless I comb the internet for decisions any particular judge has handed down, which may now be no longer trusted because of the alleged censorship of internet entities.
Join in the “MELT THEIR PHONE LINES!!” Campaign.
CALL!!
numbers to call.. Ask them to vote to confirm before October 1.
Susan Collins 202-224-2523
Lisa Murkowski 202-224-6665
Heidi Heitkamp 202-224-2043
Joe Manchin 202-224-3954
Joe Donnelly 202-224-4814
Chuck Grassley 202-224-3744.
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
If anyone doubted the Brown SHirt Media is the enemy the events of the last week should have put an end to that. Our highest priority should be to smash the Brown Shirt Media into a billion pieces that are individually punished and then burned to the ground. Everything will fall into place afterwards.
Can you even begin to imagine how you would go about explaining to two little girls how they need to be careful because hundreds of people have threatened to rape and murder them?
I have to disagree with you knarf. I understand where you are coming from, but there is absolutely nothing redeeming in this process that I can see.
Guilty until proven innocent does not benefit the republic.
The whole world has seen the demonrats exposed with this and it’s not a pretty sight. They have overplayed their hand and have essentially proven everything Trump has said about fake news and the stinky swamp.
Senators,Our system of jurisprudence has always been based on the tenet of the presumption of innocence. The accuser must meet the burden of proving the accusation is true.
As a Justice on the Supreme Court, would you have had me rule that the burden was on Dredd Scott to show why he should be an American citizen, or should that burden have been on Sandford to demonstrate why Mr. Scott should not be a citizen?
Should the burden have been on Oliver Brown to show that the separate school his daughter was forced to attend was not equal to closer white-attended schools, or should that burden have been placed on the Topeka Board of Eductation to prove that "separate but equal" schooling was necessary?
Should I rule that the burden was on Ernesto Miranda to know his full legal rights when he was arrested, or should Arizona police have to inform Mr. Miranda of his right to an attorney when they arrested him?
Should Norma McCorvey have to justify to the state why she needed an abortion? Should Fred Korematsu have to prove his loyalty to the United States? Should women have to demonstrate their competency to sit on juries? Should the Cantwell family have to prove that their public expression of religion was not a breach of the peace and a public disturbance?
In our system, the accused has a right to know the specific charges and factual evidence against him or her. It is a mockery of our judicial system to suggeest that a sitting federal appellate judge, or anyone else for that matter, has to prove his innocence against vague, unspecified, and suddenly recalled allegations, when the very essence of being a judge is to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the accuser. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not on those who are their targets.
Thank you.
-PJ
So long as Millenials remain totally deluded by propaganda, eagerly consuming every lie fed to them via social media, I remain pessimistic.