Almost certainly. Or there were none and they switched on only registered users which kept the trumpers away. As it is jsp wayback won't have a record. I'll try an image search.
No they were from 2014 and before. Some nice ones too. But there were some BRUTAL ones. They must have crashed the page.
Yes, because the women we all wish to get to third base with, were known for their academic prowess and teaching acumen.
I was wrong about this. Apparently it can go to the floor of the Senate without the Committee's vote.
I believe the rules allow for the full senate to call an action up on to the floor of the senate even if it is stuck/not completed in committee but requires a certain level of vote in the senate to do that which I cannot look up right now. Similarly, if a committee votes against referring an action to the full senate, the senate can still bring it to the floor with a vote. Can get convoluted too. The senate can tinker with it and make changes and take final action or can refer it back to the committee for hearings or recommendations based on the senate changes. Fortunately, judicial nominations do not involve congress so no conference committee with their version is required as with other actions. Yeh, you can't fit it all on a bumper sticker. Kavanaugh has no choice but to defend himself now and it is going to be bloody all the way around for everyone. Nothing like lack of choice to help a person focus their mind. The accuser's lawyer looks like her chromosome count might be dubious as is true with many lefties. That will make things even rougher. They all hate men but some of them look like men by choice. whatever. It's complicated. Yup. I said some things here that will keep me from ever serving on the Supreme Court. Not to worry. I will be okay.
Robert Bork was rejected by the Judiciary Committee but insisted the vote go to the floor. He lost there too. Ironically, it was to fill the seat later secured by Kennedy. WIKI: Confirmation vote On October 6, Bork's nomination was rejected in the committee by a 9–5 vote.[18] Since a committee rejection made a rejection by the full (Democratic) Senate extremely likely, Bork was widely expected to concede defeat and withdraw his name from a floor consideration.[15] However, three days later, Bork announced his belief that: There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.[19] Faced with certain defeat, Bork's political support fell silent; Bork would even express disappointment with Reagan's tepid continued endorsement. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Democratic Senators David Boren (OK) and Ernest Hollings (SC) voted in favor, with Republican Senators John Chafee (RI), Bob Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), Robert Stafford (VT), John Warner (VA) and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (CT) all voting nay. The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination
And to this day the term "Borked" is part of the American dictionary... "to discredit a candidate for some position by savaging his or her career and beliefs," from name of U.S. jurist Robert H. Bork (1927-2012), whose Supreme Court nomination in 1987 was rejected after an intense counter-campaign." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/borked
12 Reasons to Question the Veracity of Kavanaugh's Accuser [Updated] https://news.grabien.com/story-8-reasons-question-veracity-kavanaughs-accuser
The reviews from her students (between 2010 and 2014) are savage. https://news.grabien.com/story-somethings-wrong-her-christine-fords-students-savage-her-rev "Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced," one student wrote. "Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has caught this. Also avoid fullerton's MSW program as long as she is there."" "Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her," he/she wrote in a 2014 review. The student reported receiving an A in her class despite his or her displeasure with the professor. "She’s made comments both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad side. I fear to think of the poor clients that had to deal with her while she got her MSW and her LCSW. Absolutely the worst teacher I ever had." "Overall, she scores 2.3 out of 5 (a failing grade)" --- one of the lowest scores on the site. Sounds like the woman is a complete nut case.