My Last Post: Au Revoir, Perhaps Not Adieu


It amazes me that I have kept this blog for over seven years now. My first post, on Blogspot as M.A.M.A. Curmudgeon, went live in November 2011. In November 2012, I moved the blog to WordPress, under the headline “Sara Rickover, Behind the Corporate Veil.” I posted weekly for many years, and moved to twice a month in September 2017. In total, I’ve written 334 posts (including this one).

Despite the titles, this blog has always been about more than being an outspoken curmudgeon or about providing corporate insights. It has been my way to speak about leadership, management, politics, legal issues, and other business and public topics of interest to me.

I still have things to say on these topics. But I am winding down my career as a mediator and human resources consultant. Maintaining a regular social media presence on these topics is no longer as important to me, and I can no longer justify spending the time on regular posts.

So this is my last scheduled post on this blog. I will still probably be active on Facebook as Sara Rickover, Author, and on Twitter as @SaraRickover. So follow me on these sites if you’re interested in seeing the articles I curate and in what I have to say.

And who knows? I may write—in fact, I’m hoping to write—a sequel to my novel Playing the Game, so follow me on my Amazon Central page also.

My thanks to all readers who have followed this blog and commented on posts. You have made this seven-year-long effort worthwhile.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Playing the Game, Writing

Safetyism Won’t Fly in the Workplace


I must be getting older, because my first reaction when I read about “safetyism” was that no one ever bothered to make me feel safe when I was in college. In fact, I expected my professors and campus organizations and speakers to push me in ways that would cause me to think differently than when I started college as a seventeen-year-old freshman—and I expected that I would be uncomfortable with some of the ideas I heard. I could control some of my discomfort by choosing certain courses and programs and events over others, but I didn’t expect to have total control. Sometimes I stayed away from campus events because I didn’t want to hear what was being said. Other times I went to events, even when I didn’t think I’d agree with the speaker—I went because I wanted to learn something.

But apparently, many college students these days do not view college the same way I did.

Coddling of the American Mind coverIn The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt discuss the growing trend on campuses to make the environment ‘safe’ from threatening ideas. After growing up with helicopter parents and participating only in supervised activities, today’s students are not prepared to cope when confronted with ideas and conduct unlike what they have experienced in the past.

I haven’t read The Coddling of the American Mind, and so this post summarizes the book based on several reviews I have read. My purpose in citing this book is primarily to comment on what it means for the workforce of the future.

The first section of this book explains what the authors believe are three “great untruths” that children are being taught: That pain and discomfort make them weaker; that they should trust their feelings completely; and that the world is composed of a dichotomy of good people and evil people. The book then discusses the authors’ perspective on the historical, social, psychological, and political causes for these untruths. Finally, the authors attempt to offer solutions, such as intellectual humility (no one has all the answers), courage to think independently (pursuing truth wherever it leads), and emotional resilience (handling adversity by controlling your emotions and reactions).

So why is the notion of “safetyism” a relevant topic for a blog focused on corporate and employment issues? Because the college students of today will be employees within just a few years. How will young people who believe that discomfort makes them weaker, who rely on their emotions, and who see the world as a battle between good and evil survive in a corporate environment? I see serious problems when these new adults enter the workplace.

  • If young people cannot deal with emotional pain, how will they react to having their errors pointed out to them? Will they expect to have their every action praised and applauded, whether it was productive or not? How will they respond to bosses who push them to work harder or smarter? What will they do during frank performance discussions? How will they handle merit pay decisions when they don’t come out on top?
  • If they rely primarily on their own emotions, how will they react to the personality quirks and behavioral foibles of other employees with whom they must work? How will they deal with bosses who rant or make cutting remarks on occasion? How will they cope with budget cuts and other decisions that differ from their preferred courses of action? Like families, workplaces operate best when there is some give and take between the members—not every snappish comment is worth reacting to, and not every decision is all about you.
  • If they see a dichotomy between good and evil, how will they deal with people who think differently than they do? How will they compromise or find the best ideas after sifting through a number of possibilities? How will they interact with coworkers from different backgrounds and cultures than their own? How will they learn that the truth is often in the middle, and that people on both sides of a controversy can have developed their opinions rationally?

Keeping children and teens emotionally safe and protected from controversy does not turn them into adults able to speak for themselves. This emotional coddling does not prepare young people to live independently, nor to contribute openly and resiliently in the changing business environment we find ourselves in today.

Trigger warnings, micro-aggressions, safe spaces, and avoidance of unpopular viewpoints do not foster strong thinkers. Tolerance of this coddling in the interest of making students feel “safe” is no way to raise the next generation of leaders. We should hope that college campuses where these aspects of “safetyism” are rampant change their approaches to higher education quickly. Because corporations cannot afford to continue the coddling. At some point, young people will have to become adults, which might come as a rude awakening.

What do you think about the culture of “safetyism”?

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Management, Workplace

Favorite Firing: Discharged for Writing a Religious Book


cute-164323_640As I’ve written before, protecting religious freedom deserves special recognition in American society. (See here and here.) The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” Thus, religious freedom was the first right protected by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s protection of religion was extended to all levels of government in the Fourteenth Amendment.

I’ve been following the case of the former Atlanta Fire Chief who was fired after he published a book about his religious beliefs. See Cochran v. City of Atlanta and Mayor Kasim Reed, Case No, 1:15-CV-0477-LMM (N.D. Ga. December 20, 2017).

THE FACTS: Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran of Atlanta wrote a book entitled Who Told You That You Were Naked? Most of the book explained his thoughts on helping men become better husbands and fathers. But a few pages discussed his fundamentalist Christian beliefs related to homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. His opinions were certainly politically incorrect and even repugnant to much of American society today. As the District Court later stated, the book contained

“passages identifying those who engage in homosexual and extramarital sex as ‘naked’—or ‘wicked,’ ‘un-Godly’ sinners—whose deaths will be
celebrated.”

Chief Cochran self-published his book and gave copies to a few of his subordinates in the Atlanta Fire Department. One employee took the book to a union official, who took it to the city’s Human Resources Department. Human Resources launched an investigation to determine if Chief Cochran’s views as expressed in the book affected his departmental leadership.

Pending the investigation, Chief Cochran was suspended for 30 days without pay and told that he would need to attend sensitivity training. He says he was told he could not conduct media interviews during his suspension, but the city said he was told not to comment publicly at all. As outlined in the District Court’s opinion, Chief Cochran and members of the Georgia Baptist Convention and others launched a public campaign to get the Chief reinstated.

After his suspension and the city’s investigation, Chief Cochran was fired in January 2015.

There was no indication that Chief Cochran had any performance difficulties in his role as Fire Chief, nor was there any evidence that Chief Cochran had treated any employee or any member of the public with any disrespect or discrimination. However, the city feared that an employee might later allege discrimination and use Cochran’s book as evidence against the city.

After his discharge, Chief Cochran filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Atlanta and its mayor, alleging violation of his First Amendment free speech rights, retaliation in violation of his freedom of association right, unlawful prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment, violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.

THE MORAL: Although Chief Cochran’s religious book was at the center of the controversy, the parties disagreed on how they stated its role in his discharge. As the District Court put it:

“Plaintiff contends that he was fired because of his religious speech—which is grounded in conservative Christian principles—in violation of the Constitution, while Defendants contend that he was fired because he did not comply with the City’s pre-clearance rules for outside employment [including publication of the book] and for facilitating a massive public relations campaign against the Mayor and the City. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s speech made the City potentially vulnerable to employment discrimination claims and substantial disruption.”

The case came before the District Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted each motion in part.

The District Court went through a lengthy analysis balancing the parties’ interests as required by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Quoting Pickering, the District Court described the standard:

“‘To prevail under this analysis, an employee must show that: (1) the speech involved a matter of public concern; (2) the employee’s free speech interests outweighed the employer’s interest in effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities; and (3) the speech played a substantial part in the adverse employment action.’ Id. If the employee establishes the first three elements, the burden then shifts to the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence it would have reached the same decision absent the protected speech.”

Using this standard, the District Court found in the city’s favor and against Chief Cochran on several of his claims. The claims on which the city prevailed were Chief Cochran’s First Amendment free speech rights, freedom of association rights, and his claim of viewpoint discrimination. Because Chief Cochran was a supervisor, dissemination of his book in the workplace made it “not unreasonable for the city to fear” his views might cause “public erosion of trust in the fire department.”

The Court found

“In balancing all of the Pickering factors, Plaintiff’s speech caused such an actual and possible disruption that it does not warrant First Amendment
protection in the workplace . . . ”

And because Chief Cochran was an at will employee, the Court also found that his claim that he had been denied due process was not viable— he was subject to dismissal with or without cause.

To be frank, I think the District Court erred in giving so much credence to the disruption in the workplace, much of which was caused by the investigation itself. Also, the Court cited the social media campaign by plaintiff’s allies as evidence of disruption, but the plaintiff should not be held at fault because his situation was controversial in the city of Atlanta.

Although the District Court ruled in part for the city, the opinion also favored Chief Cochran in part, granting summary judgment for Chief Cochran on his prior restraint claim. The Court found that the city’s pre-clearance rules were an unlawful prior restraint and imposed “unbridled discretion” on city employees. Therefore, the Court held that the city’s decision to fire Chief Cochran for disseminating his book without approval “does not pass constitutional muster.” The city had not provided objective standards, and therefore the city could not require its employees to obtain permission before expressing their religious views.

As a result of winning on the prior restraint and unbridled discretion claims, Chief Cochran was eligible to receive his back pay and attorneys’ fees. In October 2018, several months after the District Court’s ruling, the City of Atlanta and Chief Cochran settled the case. In the settlement, Chief Cochran received $1.2 million.

This would have been a cleaner case had the Court recognized Chief Cochran’s religious expression rights more completely, but in the end, this was an expensive lesson for the city. And a good outcome for government employees who choose to express their religious beliefs, no matter how unpopular those beliefs might be.

Public employers should be careful when they restrict the speech and religious expressions of employees. Government employees should not face the chilling effect of possible discharge for expressing their religious opinions—whether in books, on social media, or in person. They should be free to state beliefs on their own time without fear of losing their jobs.

Under the Pickering framework, public employees, particularly those in supervisory positions, need to take care not to interfere with effective and efficient fulfillment of their agency’s responsibilities. But they should feel free to state their beliefs without fear of retribution.

What do you think about the protection of religious expression in the workplace?

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

California Will Require Women Members on Corporate Boards: A Good Idea or Not?


conference-857926_640

One of the most popular posts on this blog discussed the advantages of privately held companies having a corporate board with outside directors. I argued that outside directors can provide broader and deeper knowledge relevant to the business than company management can. If shareholders select directors with expertise the business needs, and if those directors develop ongoing knowledge of the business, the company will benefit.

My post dealt with private companies, but boards of directors can serve the same function in public companies of all sizes also. When board members bring expertise and when they develop ongoing company knowledge, they can contribute greatly to the company’s success.

Obviously, then, it is important for shareholders to choose wisely when electing board members. In the usual course of affairs, management (generally the CEO) proposes board candidates. But boards of larger and more sophisticated companies often have board selection committees that propose the candidates. However the candidates are selected, and shareholders then approve or disapprove the choices.

conference-2110768_640My premise is that who is on the board makes a difference.

So what happens when jurisdictions adopt diversity requirements for directors? California has just become the first state in the U.S. to require large companies to have female directors, Will that requirement help or hurt California-based companies?

California Senate Bill 826, which Governor Brown signed into law last month, mandates female directors on company boards. The stated purpose of the law is to advance gender diversity. SB 826 requires all publicly traded companies with headquarters in California to have at least one woman on their boards by the end of 2019. And by 2021, firms with at least five board members will be required to have two or three women on the board, depending on the total size of the board. If companies do not comply, they face fines of between $100,000 and $300,000.

About 94 publicly traded companies headquartered in California currently have no female directors and would be affected by SB 826, assuming they do not change their board membership by the end of 2019.

But will this law lead to improved corporate governance and financial performance?

It is tempting to say that companies should be able to locate sufficient women with the credentials to provide the expertise required. And most of the time that will probably be true.

It is also tempting to say that women provide a different perspective than men on management. And in the wake of the #MeToo movement, that is true in certain circumstances and about certain issues.

But I am cynical enough to believe that corporate management is usually not sufficiently broad-minded to look far enough for women capable of serving in board roles. I believe competent women exist, but some competent women will have backgrounds different than their male counterparts, and they might be passed over for consideration. And so, it is possible that the same women will be tapped repeatedly for board roles.

Moreover, female candidates selected after passage of SB 826 face the stigma of being “affirmative action candidates.” Their opinions may not be given the same credence that male board members’ opinions receive. The problem with any legal mandate is that it stigmatizes the very people it purports to help.

On a more practical note, Wharton research shows that adding female directors to a board does nothing for company success. The gender composition of the board does not matter, for better or for worse, when it comes to improving financial performance.

The California statute will face legal challenges. Legal scholars, even those who believe the law is “well-intentioned,” have called the mandate unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the makeup of a corporate board is governed by the state where the corporation is is chartered, not where it is headquartered, which is what the California statute purports to cover.

The Wall Street Journal reports that 35% of new directors in Russell 3000 companies (one broad cross-section of public companies in the U.S.) have no female directors at present. So if laws like California’s SB 826 are passed in other states, the composition of many corporate boards will change. Perhaps it would be wise to wait to see what happens in California before more states jump on the board diversity bandwagon.

And will California’s mandates stop with gender diversity? What is to keep the liberal California legislature from mandating racial diversity? What about sexual orientation? Religion? Age?

In the meantime, public corporations in California will have to choose whether to comply or whether to fight the law. Privately held corporations in California remain free to decide for themselves the composition of their board, and even whether to have outside board members at all.

What do you think about requiring a diverse board composition?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Leadership, Management

Managing Personal Crises and Work


clinic-1807543_640

I had another topic planned for today’s post, but then life got in the way. A relative had a health crisis I had to deal with. This crisis made me decide to write about the ongoing struggle for balance between work and other aspects of life, a struggle that never ends, no matter what stage of our career we’re in.

This past week was certainly not the first time that personal issues have interfered with my professional plans. I raised two children while working full-time in a demanding professional job. When one of our children was ill, my husband and I often argued about who needed to to to work more and whose work responsibilities could be put on hold for a day . . . or two. Most of the time we were able to split the burden fairly equally, but it didn’t always work out that way.

Both my husband and I were fortunate because we had some control over our calendars . . . most days. But we each had some courtroom appointments and other meetings that could not be rescheduled.

We were also fortunate that, while we might get raised eyebrows from coworkers when we couldn’t be at work for family reasons, we were respected enough and we had others in our workplaces dealing with similar issues. Therefore, our careers were not seriously at risk. I think we both might have earned more over the years if we had not been viewed as professionals who did sometimes have to juggle family responsibilities, but we weren’t going to get fired over an absence or two.

For the past ten years I have been self-employed, working as a mediator and Human Resources consultant. Now I have even more control over my calendar, but I am also more dependent on the number of hours I work for income.

bulletin-board-3233653_640I was fortunate this week. I could instantly juggle my schedule to deal with the current health emergency. It meant I skipped one meeting and wrote this blog post off the top of my head instead of a post requiring some research. Some weeks I have obligations I would have difficulty rescheduling, but this week I could do it. So I did. Without any hesitation.

At this point in my life, I relish flexibility more than a higher income. And I know I am fortunate to have the resources to make that choice.

I encounter many younger professionals who haven’t yet had to make serious choices between work and other responsibilities. I also know many senior professionals who look askance at the decisions I’ve made to reduce my scheduled commitments—and therefore my professional status. There are days when my diminished income and role in the business world bother me, but most of the time I am happy with the trade-offs I’ve made.

What choices have you had to make over the years? What choices have others around you made? How do you feel about both your own choices and those of your coworkers?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Management, Philosophy, Work/Life

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: Anything in Your Past Can and Will Be Held Against You (Even Without Corroboration You Did It)


skeletons-3639984_640

My last post on the Senate confirmation hearings regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice went live on September 10, 2018. Two days later, on September 12, an anonymous claim surfaced that he had sexually assaulted a teenage girl when he was in high school. Over the last two weeks, we’ve learned his accuser is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of Palo Alto University.

Dr. Ford alleges a single instance of sexual assault more than 30 years ago when Judge Kavanaugh was still a minor and both of them were in high school. Many of the details surrounding her claim remain hazy, including the date (and even the year), the location, how many people were present, and who they were.

I do not mean to imply that the allegation does not involve a claim of serious misconduct. It does. But Dr. Ford’s delays in making this allegation, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s further delays in publicizing it even to other Senate Judicial Committee members, and the fact that Dr. Ford and her attorney have spent many days negotiating her appearance before the Senate Judicial Committee, all make it seem that the drama was primarily raised for political reasons.

As of this morning, September 24, 2018, when this post is published, it appears that Dr. Ford will testify about her assault charge on Thursday, September 27, before the Senate Judicial Committee. So as I write this, we don’t know the end of this story.

Dr. Ford appears to be a respected member of her professional community, just as Judge Kavanaugh is of his. When two opposing witnesses are both credible, and when the facts are so fuzzy, it is very difficult to ever determine the truth, even if they both testify under oath. Investigating any situation that occurred more than 30 years ago is challenging under the best of circumstances. Refuting—proving the negative of—a vague allegation about something that happened so long ago is almost impossible. (Perhaps this is why Senator Feinstein didn’t publicize the claim earlier.)

Based on what has been made public thus far, all that Judge Kavanaugh can say is what he has already said—he never behaved like that. He can’t claim he wasn’t at a particular place because the place hasn’t been identified. He can’t obtain denials from other witnesses, because the witnesses haven’t been clearly identified, though two males and one female who may or may not be people the accuser has mentioned have denied any knowledge of Judge Kavanaugh behaving in this fashion.

One of the most distressing aspects of this case for me is the grievous harm that can be done to a person’s lifetime reputation with so little evidence. In today’s 24/7 news cycle, social media publicizes every allegation almost instantaneously, and often presents these allegations as the truth. Things we did—or are alleged to have done—long in the past, in times and places we don’t even remember, can haunt us in ways these incidents never did before. We essentially cannot outlive anything we’ve ever said or done. Even if we deny we ever said or did it.

In some situations, when many witnesses allege someone engaged in similar wrongful behavior, as in many of the recent #MeToo claims against public figures, we can comfortably conclude that the misconduct probably happened in at least some of the times and places claimed. But where there is only a single wrongful act alleged, and when that act supposedly occurred over 30 years ago, it is hard to accept that the incident should have an impact on a person’s future, unless there is some further corroboration.

“I believe the woman” seems to be the accepted response to all claims of sexual harassment and assault these days. Though most allegations of sexual misconduct have some basis in fact, I have personally investigated at least two cases in which women did not tell the truth. I am therefore reluctant to automatically believe the claimant, unless there is more than just her word.

In one case I handled, a female employee claimed that a high-level male employee had harassed her repeatedly. When I first learned of the complaint, I leaped to the conclusion it was probably true and started thinking about how the company should handle the man’s exit from the company. But within thirty minutes after I started interviewing the complainant, she alleged that at least six or eight other men had harassed her, all in vague ways (“he looked at me weird,” “he smiled at me in the stairwell”). It became clear after very little questioning  that she was paranoid and mentally unstable. She might have believed she’d been harassed, but she was not credible to a rational person.

In another situation, another female employee claimed that her male supervisor had harassed her in a retail store where there were multiple people present. None of the other eleven employees in the store had seen anything untoward. Moreover, her allegation was made on the Monday after the Clarence Thomas hearings, giving me a strong suspicion she’d made a false claim because of what she’d heard over the weekend. It turned out the accuser wanted more work hours than her supervisor had given her, and thought her complaint would give her leverage.

In addition to my personal experience, there are other, more public situations of wrongful accusations of sexual misconduct. One notable example was the false claims against the Duke lacrosse players. Those young men saw their promising careers go up in flames, because a lying complainant was supported by an unethical prosecutor.

I am not saying Dr. Ford’s claim is false. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. It is entirely possible her memory is as she has described and he has forgotten whatever happened between them. In that case, neither of them would be lying. The testimony this next week—if it takes place—might prove convincingly what happened, if anything. Although if we only have her memory and not his, I doubt it.

What I am saying is that before an allegation about a single 30-year-old act stops the career of a man who has no other such blemish on his record, we should require more than one person’s say-so. We should require other witnesses, or contemporaneous documents, or corroborating physical evidence, or something else that makes us comfortable ignoring his thirty years of exemplary behavior.

Because if we allow a single, ancient, unverified and unverifiable claim against an otherwise upright citizen to besmirch his reputation, then none of us is safe. Our fathers and husbands and sons are not safe from allegations of long-ago harassment. Any of us might be slammed by a claim that we made a sexist or racist or homophobic comment in the past. Whether we did it or not. Whether we’ve changed and matured or not. Whether what we believed at the time was what most of society believed or not.

Just ask Brendon Eich.

Is that the type of world you want to live in? I don’t.

LATE-BREAKING: As of Sunday evening, September 23, 2018, a second allegation has surfaced of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh, this time in his college days. In addition, Judge Kavanaugh has his old calendars which might cover time of the alleged high-school incident. Obviously, this story continues to develop.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics

An Open Letter to Senators Regarding Supreme Court Nomination Hearings


OldSenateChamber_bannerimageDear Senators:

I have followed a lot of Supreme Court hearings over the last forty years. They are getting worse, and they make every one of you on the Senate Judicial Committee look bad, as well as the rest of you who make unsubstantiated comments about the judicial nominees. Those of you supporting the candidate sound smarmy, and those of you objecting to the nominee seem unhinged.

The downturn in civility displayed in Senate nomination hearings began with Judge Robert Bork in 1987. Judge Bork was a well-respected jurist and professor, albeit definitely a conservative. Plenty of legal scholars had disagreed with Judge Bork’s interpretations of the Constitution before he was nominated, but for the first time a judicial nominee was savaged within minutes after his nomination was announced.

The Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 became a full-on “he said, she said” debate over allegations of sexual harassment, of the type that can rarely be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction, and certainly not in the circus atmosphere that prevailed during those hearings. The allegations against Justice Thomas were not resolved, and no one really expected them to be resolved—the intent was to smear the nominee’s character.

Neil Gorsuch got off reasonably easily during his confirmation hearings in 2017. But when Senate Democrats attempted to filibuster the vote by the full Senate, Republicans completed what the Democrats had begun for lower court nominations and abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments. So there is no point in worrying about a super-majority. When one party controls the Senate and the Presidency, that party’s nominees are likely to be confirmed.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been run through the wringer this past week. Both conservatives and liberals have attested to his qualifications for the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, he has been called, among other things, a racist and a white supremacist.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was raked over the coals for speeches in which she had commented that she hoped “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion” than a white male. While the Republicans’ reactions to Justice Sotomayor’s comments were an overreaction to her prideful statement about her heritage, her statements more clearly revealed bias than the current allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of being a racist for writing a memo on racial profiling that said the government should not engage in racial profiling. He has been accused of having white supremacist beliefs because one of his former clerks—a Mexican-American of partially Jewish descent—made a (probably involuntary) gesture that looked like a white supremacist symbol.

The Senate Judicial Committee is scheduled to vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on September 13, and there will later be debate on the full floor of the Senate soon. I fully anticipate that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are not over yet. Our nation will have to tolerate more of this indecent character assassination by Senators.

Both parties need to dial it down during these judicial hearings. Way down.

There is no point in Senators trying to show that any judicial nominee is evil incarnate. It is highly unlikely that Satan would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court, even by a President of the opposite party as you.

The Constitution gives Senators the power to “advise and consent” to judicial appointments. The Constitution doesn’t say you need a reason to withhold your consent.

So just vote against the individual. It is your right as a Senator. As Colin Kaepernick now advocates, just do it.

Don’t needlessly slander the character of the nominee to make your base happy. It belittles you more than the candidate.

Sincerely,

A concerned and irritated citizen with moderate knowledge of the nomination process

* * * * *

Readers, what about our current judicial nomination process irritates you?

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Politics