Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so complicated for you people?

What makes it all the more disgusting was that a decent man was *treated* as a criminal by Democratic senators and ordinary liberals (like you) alike. It was a horrific display of partisanship and one that the nation won’t forget. Good for Susan Collins for having a conscience and not jumping on the witch-hunt bandwagon.

Anonymous wrote:You see a decent man because you want to. I see a misogynist (the accusations and the yearbook), former political operative, who is owned by someone (who paid off his debt and why?).

I don't like spoiled entitled bros who can't answer simple questions. I acknowledge my bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so complicated for you people?

What makes it all the more disgusting was that a decent man was *treated* as a criminal by Democratic senators and ordinary liberals (like you) alike. It was a horrific display of partisanship and one that the nation won’t forget. Good for Susan Collins for having a conscience and not jumping on the witch-hunt bandwagon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so complicated for you people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.

And oh so dignifed. How far we have fallen from what is dignified.

PP here. I don't expect people to respond "with dignity" when accused of rape, near rape, and almost murder without more evidence. I doubt I would either, and I'm viewed as a pretty mature, calm person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

Pfft. She’s not extreme enough for you MAGAts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.

And oh so dignifed. How far we have fallen from what is dignified.

PP here. I don't expect people to respond "with dignity" when accused of rape, near rape, and almost murder without more evidence. I doubt I would either, and I'm viewed as a pretty mature, calm person.

Justice Stevens thought his responses and behavior at the hearings were enough to disqualify him.

I'll take Justice Stevens wisdom and knowledge about such things over yours any day. And I also would guess you'd never in a million years be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so your response to such inquiry is immaterial.

Justice Stevens had NO CLUE what he had been up against. He had no clue at the threats he and his family had received. He had no clue about the organized effort to defeat his nomination by leftist groups and Democrats. He just had no clue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.

And oh so dignifed. How far we have fallen from what is dignified.

PP here. I don't expect people to respond "with dignity" when accused of rape, near rape, and almost murder without more evidence. I doubt I would either, and I'm viewed as a pretty mature, calm person.

Justice Stevens thought his responses and behavior at the hearings were enough to disqualify him.

I'll take Justice Stevens wisdom and knowledge about such things over yours any day. And I also would guess you'd never in a million years be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so your response to such inquiry is immaterial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.

And oh so dignifed. How far we have fallen from what is dignified.

PP here. I don't expect people to respond "with dignity" when accused of rape, near rape, and almost murder without more evidence. I doubt I would either, and I'm viewed as a pretty mature, calm person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.

The hearings also held an air of "stagecraft" that Hemingway suspected was also a factor in the lead-up to that meeting. Blasey-Ford, for example, wore a blue suit that Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, reportedly praised as an allusion to Anita Hill's outfit during Justice Clarence Thomas' hearings.

While making that comment to Harris, she also complimented how Blasey-Ford's attorney requested a "Coke" for his client -- for her, an apparent reference to a crude allegation that Hill lodged at Thomas.

Hirono, the authors said, also included a query about indigenous people in the unprecedentedly long list of questions the committee gave Kavanaugh, a move they suspected the Hawaii senator made in an attempt to persuade another swing vote -- Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- after already pledging, like other Democrats, to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.

And oh so dignifed. How far we have fallen from what is dignified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stood on principle when she voted for Kavanaugh.

Read Justice on Trial.

What principle? SMH

The principle that one is always innocent until proven guilty - remember that one?

I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.
-DP

+1

That’s in the criminal justice system. Not necessarily for job interviews. Why is this so compliforcated for you people?

It's not complicated for me. It's the way I think we should approach any situation involving a person--whether rumors, interviews, school-related infractions of rules, possible crimes, etc. Won't be the same as a court of law, but give the benefit of the doubt. And definitely with a situation where the accuser can't provide key facts.

But the person's behavior during the job interview is immaterial to you, it seems. Somehow.

It's been repeated countless times, and the court of public opinion is clearly divided re his behavior. I'm one of the ones who thinks his response was justified. You and I will not be in agreement.