(She earned a Ph.D. She uses, as msny stories state, her maiden nsme professionally.

How oddly quaint and innocent those times were in sharp contrast to the present, when lying under oath, being in possession of stolen correspondence, and allegations of sexual battery / attempted rape appear to be no serious impediment to a Republican who seeks a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

Kavanaugh's classmate [Judge] said of the woman's allegation, "I have no recollection of that."

The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.

Wa wa wa !!!!

For the record Chunky I have seen no one say any of the hysterical nonsense you said.

They are saying this is a credible allegation against a man about to be appointed FOR THE REST IF HIS LIFE to the most powerful court in the land.

This needs to be delayed.  I think the woman has a right to be heard if she wants.  If the republicans agree with you and don't do this the Senate is ours.

 A political body, the US Senate, whose composition does not require a legal background, is to advise and consent, in keeping with the concept to moderate the power of one branch of government by requiring the concurrence of the other.

 Neither the chair nor the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee are attorneys, criminal or other. Kavanaugh can be rejected for reasons such for those of nominees, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell, Bork and Abe Fortas.

Senator Feinstein is faulted for "sitting on" the information, yet she is criticized for making it known, albeit as late as she was able. Incongruence anyone?

Now, regarding Senator Feinstein's refusal to give her Republican colleagues Dr. Blasey Ford's letter in unredacted form, the portions that were redacted are clearly in reference to both the writer (name and location) and a witness to the alleged assault, which some have concluded is Mark Judge. (Apparently, Mr. Judge concurs online.)

While Dr. Blasey Ford has since identified herself as the author, the alleged witness has not done so -- at least, not formally. So, unless and until that person waives his or her own right to privacy, standard operative procedure is to redact the name before disseminating the document in public.

Further, given that everyone already pretty much knows who all these people are, the current GOP argument over not receiving an unredacted version is a red herring and a distraction from the letter's actual contents, as far as I'm concerned.

With regards to Dr. Blasey Ford's demand that Judge Kavanaugh's testimony precedes her own, this is part of the current negotiations over securing her presence next week. Sen. Grassley's initial indication was that both Mr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey Ford were to be seated side by side at the same table, which is clearly and understandably unacceptable, and likely unfair to Mr. Kavanaugh as well.

This is undoubtedly going to be a very uncomfortable experience for both individuals. Why make it excruciatingly painful, as well? As to who goes first, I have no particular preference, one way or the other. But suffice to say that the American people do deserve to hear from the both of them at this point.

Finally, given that current evidence which recently came to light during these proceedings very strongly suggests that Judge Kavanaugh gave false and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee at multiple points back in 2004 and 2006 in order to secure his present position as an appellate jurist on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, what makes you believe he won't also do it again in this particular instance?

(Or is lying to Congress while under oath now an acceptable standard for you and other conservatives regarding candidates for our federal judiciary, as long as you all get to "own the libs"?)

Surely, there are other honest conservative judges who aren't political operatives, and who haven't committed perjury when discussing their past activities. Forget this clown, and look for one of them instead.

As an admitted liberal, I have no right to expect that members of the judiciary reflect my own political beliefs and orientation, and it would be unfair of me to demand it. I don't have to agree with everything a nominee believes.

But that said, I do expect honesty and forthrightness from nominees in their testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate, and I do expect integrity, balance and due diligence in the performance of their official duties.

And sad to say, judging by what I've seen in the public record, we haven't gotten any of that from Brett Kavanaugh over the course of the past two decades. So again, as far as I'm concerned, I believes that he's forfeited his right to any further consideration.

And if Judge Kavanaugh had any personal sense of honor and decency left in him, he'd withdraw his name from nomination, rather than subject his fellow citizens any further to this monstrous right-wing mockery of a selection process.

However, the information is relevant to a background check; certainly, if there was an allegation of any serious crime, even 30 years ago, it would be fitting to examine the circumstances. The public should know.

Feinstein's late arriving information is being criticized as 11th hour desperation, but it may well be more effective at this point, standing apart from, but still a part of, the eclipsed record of Kavanaugh.

 Grassley gets an A+ for providing a list of 65 women who were then high school students at nearby schools (Brett went to an all boys school) within 48 hours. Going back 30 years to round up all these women did not seem that difficult for him.

 But, he gets an F- for his helping hand to Kavanaugh. They would have been better off just denying it, as Brett did. But,  having this list ready to go is curious, at best. And, creates doubt where none may have previously existed. Almost as if they knew about it, and saw it coming.

Debra Katz, the lawyer for a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, said Monday that her client would be willing to testify in public to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Brian Schatz: "[Kavanaugh] is not just a conservative jurist. He's not John Roberts. He's not even Neil Gorsuch. He's a Republican operative who is posting as a judge." (Pod Save America, Sept. 15, 2018)

Sen. Mazie Hirono: "Guess who is perpetrating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change." (Press conference, Washington. D.C., Sept. 19, 2018)

 For starters, separate hearings.  Of course, the harebrained and insulting idea of meeting at the same time, at the same table, Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, has to be jettisoned.

Not ideal, as with a newly completed FBI background check, but I think we can depend on Grassley and his merry band to step on their d**ks.  Grassley and Hatch have learned nothing since the Thomas hearings, although they will be coached to appear respectfully awful. Lindsey has already shown his misogynistic bona fides by saying he would like to hear from "the lady", who has no name. Flake will be wishy-washy, and it will be hard for the rest not to become testy....we have the votes, let's vote.

True, Kavanaugh will likely lie through his teeth, as is his custom, but the Democrats can ask about his binge drinking (for the record) in high school, college, law school, and what it is like today. And, what he meant by that "joke" about what happens in Georgetown Prep stays there--spoken when a federal judge, and, I think, he was a little too old for that frat boy humor, if that is what it was.

I think we can depend on the Democratic senators to do a good job in their questions, both in the case of the judge and the professor.

 At worst, it will be the cliched "he said, she said," but it will, assuming that Dr. Ford is as good as I believe she will be as a credible, sincere witness, obliterate the crazy, mixed up picture being painted of her and allow more doubts about the honesty of Kavanaugh and his fitness for the Supreme Court (or any court). The outome will not change the Republicans senators, but it may well impact many American citizens.

Given the level of viciousness directed at Kavanaugh's accuser, it's perfectly understandable if one of her public supporters may be a tad daunted.

Do you know what happened down at Baylor University, and why Ken Starr is all over the TV airwaves today instead of running that school as its president and chancellor?

Do you even care about anything other than protecting and defending white male authority and privilege, regardless of circumstances?

But you already knew that.