Originally Posted By: Tom C
....He is an incredibly intelligent man with the professional qualifications that would make a good SCJ. I did not believe him because of his emotional plea which was certaining heart felt. I believe his emotional response was because of his fear of what if would do to his family and professional life and because of a strong desire to be on the SC. Those are strong motivating factors....

Shouldn't this type of analysis, particularly in regard to motivation, have been done in committee and never seen the light of day as part of official Senate confirmation business? Why don't you hold that gal out in kali responsible for not asking the Judge when she had a one on one opportunity, and then turned it over to the committee for follow up? You make it seem like it's a normal obligation for a nominee to defend himself as if he were a convicted criminal pleading for a lighter sentence.

I think it means a lot to apologize and make things right. I wasn't there, and wouldn't know any of the particulars for your situation, but I do know that your claimed switch to voting dem coincides with an alarming degradation of that concept. Even with a new found decorum, wouldn't be smart for someone, who's on the other side of the aisle, to know what they're up against when it comes to consequences of an election?

In retrospect, Garland was treated with kid gloves compared to what we're being force fed as normal, eh?