Russia/Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

At any rate, Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials,....

---

Well, I'm sorry, but...she went to Harvard. I mean, really! Well, at least it wasn't Yale.

KCLS has an available copy of the audiobook, so I have it in Overdrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Well, I'm sorry, but...she went to Harvard. I mean, really! Well, at least it wasn't Yale.

---

Clearly, you've found her Achilles' Heel. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm sure it seemed credible to everyone who wanted to believe it. It's too bad the accuser couldn't come up with a witness, a confidant she mentioned the event to or even a location where it occurred. True credibility does require a smidgen or two of evidence.
Oh, I wasn't so much offended as amused at the attempts to brand her as a religious fanatic intent on damaging women's freedom through mandated childbearing, complete with Handmaid's Tale cos-players hanging out on the steps of the Supreme Court.

---

Alan, I am sorry you were not convinced of Amy’s CB’s incompetence on the bench. You will remember that her “colleagues” gathered a petition among themselves to protest her appointment to the bench. Those colleagues were university librarians. Because they know everything and would of course be intimately familiar with her judicial record and professional practice.

/sarcasm

I saw at least one mainstream media report call these yo-yos her “colleagues. “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

but then I'm disheartened that religious affiliation is still a factor, and that somehow we haven't had even one non-believer on the bench in my memory.

---

Not sure we haven't had a non believer. Publicly saying one thing, is not the same as believing it, nor is believing in religion the same as believing in a deity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff

Not sure we haven't had a non believer. Publicly saying one thing, is not the same as believing it, nor is believing in religion the same as believing in a deity.

---

I would suspect that we’ve had a lot, or at least a few, non believers who claimed to be believers because it was politically expedient. And as we learned from the last president it’s not even necessary that they ever attended church or behaved in the way one would expect of a believer. All they need to do is put ‘true believers’ on the Supreme Court so that the rest of us will have their beliefs crammed down our throats with their decisions.

I believe the very first Senate confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee were held in 1916, when President Woodrow Wilson (Princeton) nominated Louis Brandeis (Harvard) to the Court. Apparently Brandeis had planned poorly and wasn't Christian.

Before that shocking nomination, I don't think they had hearings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

At any rate, Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials, and exhibited near-superhuman restraint in the face of insulting Republican efforts to dirty her up.

---

I'm disappointed that Republicans in recent years have started treating Democratic nominees in the same manner Democrats have treated Republican nominees for at least the last four decades. I'd like to see them do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm disappointed that Republicans in recent years have started treating Democratic nominees in the same manner Democrats have treated Republican nominees for at least the last four decades. I'd like to see them do better.

---

Which Republican appointment 40 years ago first triggered this opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Which Republican nominee 40 years ago first triggered this opinion?

---

The first one I noticed was about 35 years ago, Robert Bork, can't speak for prior nominees since we didn't have 24 hour a day news coverage and cameras in every hearing. I think Bork may have been the victim of the first Senate approved performance art exhibit, followed a few years later by Clarence Thomas's high tech lynching.