#joe garza lawyer | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

innershark7 · 4 years ago

Text

Looking into Biden’s Supreme Court short-list (12 top picks for possible appointments to the Supreme Court) because two very important rulings could be overturned with a republican majority.

Roe vs Wade (abortion rights)

Obergefell vs Hodges (gay marriage)

If you are gay or know someone who is gay, you should pay attention. If you own a uterus, you should pay attention.

When republicans, like Mike Davis (a Tr*mp Fanboi), are saying shit like “Any of these 12 individuals would be a radical choice for the Supreme Court by Joe Biden, likely to undermine our Constitution, legislate from the bench and threaten the 2nd Amendment and other fundamental rights.”, you know Biden’s choices are strong, educated, and diverse.

Below you’ll see I’ve attached links to a bio on each of Biden’s picks, under their name and official title.

Stacey Abrams – Former gubernatorial candidate and Fair Fight president

https://www.aclutx.org/en/biographies/rochelle-garza

Brigitte Amiri – ACLU lawyer (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://www.aclu.org/news/by/brigitte-amiri/?redirect=bio%2Fbrigitte-amiri

Xavier Becerra – Democratic Attorney General of California, former House member (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Becerra

James Forman, Jr. – Yale Law School professor (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://law.yale.edu/james-forman-jr

Rochelle Garza – ACLU of Texas staff attorney (specifically referred by People’s Parity Project)

https://www.aclutx.org/en/biographies/rochelle-garza

Deepak Gupta – Appellate lawyer, Gupta Wessler (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/deepak-gupta

Sherrilyn Ifill – NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund president (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrilyn_Ifill

Pam Karlan – Stanford Law School professor, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_S._Karlan

Leah Litman – University of Michigan Law School professor (specifically referred by People’s Parity Project)

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/leah-litman

Melissa Murray – NYU School of Law professor (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.biography&personid=40825

Judge Cornelia “Nina” Pillard – D.C. Circuit Judge (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Pillard

Zephyr Teachout – Fordham Law School professor (specifically referred by Demand Justice)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Teachout

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/article3project.org/news/article-iii-project-unveils-biden-supreme-court-shortlist%3Fformat%3Damp

2 notes · View notes

portraitclass2020 · 5 years ago

Text

Narrated Photo Essay: Luis Garza on the Young Activists of La Raza

https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/narrated-photo-essay-luis-garza-on-the-young-activists-of-la-raza

Artbound "La Raza" is a KCETLink production in association with the Autry Museum of the American West and UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.

In the 1960s and 70s, a group of young idealists-activists came together to work on a community newspaper called La Raza that became the voice for the Chicano Movement. With only the barest resources, but a generous amount of dedication, these young men and women changed their world and produced an archive of over 25,000 photographs. Hear their thoughts on the times and its relevance today, while perusing through some photographs not seen in public for decades in this series of narrated slideshows.

Click right or left to look through the images from the 1960s and 70s. Hit the play button on the bottom right corner to listen to the audio.

Luis Garza

My name is Luis Garza. My parents are of Mexican origin from Northern Mexico and South Texas. [We] came out to Los Angeles in 1965. The concept of familia is very important within our community as we know. It's an extended family. When I look at my fellow colleagues at La Raza, it was a mix of personalities, of talents, of ages, of gender, of personal experiences — some were parents, some were students, some were just in search, some were academics, some were professionals, aspiring lawyers, doctors. There was such a cross-section and mix of people who came through the office of La Raza who became active participants in the process of publishing and putting that work together at the magazine, at the newspaper, at that time. The amount of energy and talent, both professional and raw, was really eclectic. It was quite a mix. But everybody was dedicated. Everybody was dedicated to telling the story.

Hear more from the other photographers here.

More La Raza stories

Narrated Photo Essay: Maria Marquez Sanchez on the Two Sides of Her Activism

Narrated Photo Essay: Oscar Castillo on La Raza's Enduring Importance

Narrated Photo Essay: Moctesuma Esparza on the Inter-Relationship of the Movements During the 60s and 70s

Learn more about the group of young activists that became the voice for the movimiento on "Artbound" S9 E2: La Raza. Watch now.

Top Image: Gloria Chavez and Joe Raza walk from the courthouse which held the trail for the 21 St. Basil defendants | Luis Garza, La Raza photograph collection. Courtesy of UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center

Anthony

1 note · View note

dfwnews · 3 years ago

Text

Garza, Jaworski lead Democrats in race for Texas Attorney General, poll shows runoff likely

AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The race to win the Democratic nomination for Texas attorney general likely will not be settled on March 1. A Your Local Election Headquarters/The Hill/Emerson College Polling poll taken this week shows former ACLU lawyer Rochelle Garza leading the Democratic field with 30% support. Former Galveston Mayor Joe Jaworski is running second in the poll with 22% support. Civil rights…

View On WordPress

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

When Justice Breyer rules (on retirement), White House might know first Breyer, 82, has declined to speak publicly on any retirement intentions. But if he decides to step down this spring or next, history suggests he will slip early word to President Joe Biden and the public will not know until weeks later. That was the protocol for Breyer’s predecessor, Justice Harry Blackmun, in 1994, when he privately told President Bill Clinton months before his retirement announcement on April 6. More recently, Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010 quietly passed his intention to retire to President Barack Obama. Obama’s administration then reached out behind the scenes to possible candidates. White House counsel Bob Bauer called now-Justice Elena Kagan on March 5, 2010, according to details she later provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only when Stevens formally announced on April 9 did the public learn he was leaving. The pattern is not confined to Democratic presidents. In March 1981, two months after Republican Ronald Reagan became president, Justice Potter Stewart invited then-Attorney General William French Smith to his Washington home and told him in confidence that he would be stepping down that June. The conversation triggered a stealthy search for the first female justice, as Reagan had promised as a candidate. Reagan settled in July 1981 on Sandra Day O’Connor, then an Arizona state court judge. Breyer did not respond to questions about his retirement plans or any White House contact. He has appeared healthy and energized in his many extracurricular Zoom appearances with academic and legal groups. He speaks from the Cambridge, Massachusetts, home he shares with his wife, a daughter and three grandchildren, rather than from his usual chambers lined with a private collection of antique books. Breyer enjoys many off-bench pursuits, including architectural study, and some people close to him believe his understanding of nomination politics, along with those varied interests, would prompt him to retire this year or next. A White House spokesman declined to comment Wednesday on whether any Supreme Court justices have signaled their intentions to retire. Opportunity to make a mark A Supreme Court vacancy presents any president with a tantalizing choice and an enormous chance to make a mark on American law. But the selection and confirmation of a justice can also be time-consuming, politically fraught and a distraction from other executive branch business. Ideally, a new White House would prepare for the opportunity but not be overwhelmed by it, as Cabinet officers are confirmed, legislative priorities launched and nominations for lifetime lower-court seats begin. Once a high court vacancy becomes public, the pressure from would-be nominees and their supporters intensifies. Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign to name the first African American woman to the bench, so supporters of individual Black jurists have already been making their cases in public and private. The New York Times reported that Rep. James Clyburn recently urged Vice President Kamala Harris to consider South Carolina-based US District Judge Michelle Childs for the high court. Clyburn, a long-serving African American Democrat from South Carolina, endorsed Biden at a crucial stage of the presidential campaign and is widely credited with helping him win the Democratic nomination. Other African American judges who enjoy significant support in legal circles and among liberal advocates include US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, based in Washington and a former law clerk to Breyer, and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, a former law clerk to Stevens and lawyer in the US solicitor general’s office, where she argued regularly before the nine justices. When Biden first made the pledge during a February 2020 debate in Charleston, South Carolina, he said, “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation.” RELATED: John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act Veterans of SCOTUS nomination process This President is a veteran of selection politicking, as is his chief of staff, Ron Klain. Biden, a senator for more than three decades, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, including during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. (The Senate voted down Bork and confirmed Thomas.) Klain served as the Judiciary Committee chief counsel from 1989 to 1992. Breyer has his own earlier connection to the Judiciary Committee. He was committee counsel in the mid-1970s and its chief counsel in 1979-1980. Even after becoming an appellate judge and then a Supreme Court justice, Breyer remained captivated by Senate politics and would be aware of the benefits to Biden of a Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, who earlier held a narrow majority, confirmed President Donald Trump’s three nominees after abolishing the rule requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster. For the Supreme Court, now controlled by a 6-3 conservative-liberal majority, a Breyer retirement and succession by another liberal would not alter the ideological split. Yet a Biden choice would offer new diversity and youth. In his 27 years on the high court, Breyer has been a low-profile but crucial player. He is a solid liberal but believes in bridging differences when possible and has tried to find compromise between the right-wing majority and remaining liberals. When conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has shifted to the center, as when he voted in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act, it has often involved some negotiations with Breyer and fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan. In upcoming months, the justices will certainly confront new legal challenges to Biden’s policy agenda, along with cases heading their way that test abortion rights, racial remedies, religious liberty and gun regulation. Making the list While early word of a retirement forces an administration to focus on candidates, a White House team typically has some list of possible names ready if an opening suddenly occurs. That was the situation for then-President Donald Trump when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died suddenly last September. Trump had already interviewed his eventual nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Similarly, when Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Obama chose Judge Merrick Garland, who had previously been on his Supreme Court short list. The Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on Garland’s nomination for nine months, leaving an immediate vacancy for Trump. Biden has selected Garland to be his new attorney general. During President George W. Bush’s first term, his legal team interviewed appellate judges for possible elevation, but it was only in his second term that an opportunity for appointment arose. (Justice O’Connor announced her intention to retire on July 1, 2005, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died two months later, on September 3.) Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales referred in a memoir to Bush’s “habit of going with his gut” and wrote that “it was all the more important that I meet with the serious contenders and get to know them on a personal level. Well before any Supreme Court vacancies occurred during the Bush administration, I met privately with Samuel Alito and Emilio Garza in my West Wing office. I met with Michael Luttig at his home in northern Virginia. I spent an hour with John Roberts in April 2005 in my office at the Department of Justice.” Bush initially nominated Roberts for the O’Connor slot but then moved him to the chief justice post when Rehnquist died. Bush then selected Alito for the O’Connor opening. Such serendipity can upend plans. But one consistency in recent decades has been spring timing. Justices announce their retirement intentions to coincide with the last weeks of the annual Supreme Court term. That way, a presidential choice for successor can be subject to the Senate confirmation process in the summer and ready for the new session, which begins on the first Monday in October. When Clinton first took office in 1993, Justice Byron White revealed his decision to retire on March 19. He said he would leave in late June when the court began its summer recess but that he wanted to give Clinton sufficient time to choose a successor. (Clinton selected Ginsburg.) Justice White decided against giving word secretly. Rather, he asked a former law clerk then serving as an associate White House counsel to convey his retirement letter to Clinton. The Supreme Court then made White’s letter public. That former White-clerk-turned-Clinton-counsel? Current chief of staff Klain. In White’s brief letter, the justice wrote that after 31 years on the high court, he thought “someone else should be permitted to have a like experience.” CNN’s Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report. Source link Orbem News #Breyer #House #Justice #Politics #retirement #rules #theWhiteHousemightknowfirst-CNNPolitics #WhenJusticeStephenBreyerrules(onretirement) #White

0 notes

dipulb3 · 4 years ago

Text

When Justice Breyer rules (on retirement), White House might know first

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/when-justice-breyer-rules-on-retirement-white-house-might-know-first/

When Justice Breyer rules (on retirement), White House might know first

Breyer, 82, has declined to speak publicly on any retirement intentions. But if he decides to step down this spring or next, history suggests he will slip early word to President Joe Biden and the public will not know until weeks later.

That was the protocol for Breyer’s predecessor, Justice Harry Blackmun, in 1994, when he privately told President Bill Clinton months before his retirement announcement on April 6. More recently, Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010 quietly passed his intention to retire to President Barack Obama.

Obama’s administration then reached out behind the scenes to possible candidates. White House counsel Bob Bauer called now-Justice Elena Kagan on March 5, 2010, according to details she later provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only when Stevens formally announced on April 9 did the public learn he was leaving.

The pattern is not confined to Democratic presidents. In March 1981, two months after Republican Ronald Reagan became president, Justice Potter Stewart invited then-Attorney General William French Smith to his Washington home and told him in confidence that he would be stepping down that June. The conversation triggered a stealthy search for the first female justice, as Reagan had promised as a candidate. Reagan settled in July 1981 on Sandra Day O’Connor, then an Arizona state court judge.

Breyer did not respond to questions about his retirement plans or any White House contact.

He has appeared healthy and energized in his many extracurricular Zoom appearances with academic and legal groups. He speaks from the Cambridge, Massachusetts, home he shares with his wife, a daughter and three grandchildren, rather than from his usual chambers lined with a private collection of antique books. Breyer enjoys many off-bench pursuits, including architectural study, and some people close to him believe his understanding of nomination politics, along with those varied interests, would prompt him to retire this year or next.

A White House spokesman declined to comment Wednesday on whether any Supreme Court justices have signaled their intentions to retire.

Opportunity to make a mark

A Supreme Court vacancy presents any president with a tantalizing choice and an enormous chance to make a mark on American law. But the selection and confirmation of a justice can also be time-consuming, politically fraught and a distraction from other executive branch business.

Ideally, a new White House would prepare for the opportunity but not be overwhelmed by it, as Cabinet officers are confirmed, legislative priorities launched and nominations for lifetime lower-court seats begin.

Once a high court vacancy becomes public, the pressure from would-be nominees and their supporters intensifies. Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign to name the first African American woman to the bench, so supporters of individual Black jurists have already been making their cases in public and private.

The New York Times reported that Rep. James Clyburn recently urged Vice President Kamala Harris to consider South Carolina-based US District Judge Michelle Childs for the high court. Clyburn, a long-serving African American Democrat from South Carolina, endorsed Biden at a crucial stage of the presidential campaign and is widely credited with helping him win the Democratic nomination.

Other African American judges who enjoy significant support in legal circles and among liberal advocates include US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, based in Washington and a former law clerk to Breyer, and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, a former law clerk to Stevens and lawyer in the US solicitor general’s office, where she argued regularly before the nine justices.

When Biden first made the pledge during a February 2020 debate in Charleston, South Carolina, he said, “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation.”

RELATED: John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act

Veterans of SCOTUS nomination process

This President is a veteran of selection politicking, as is his chief of staff, Ron Klain.

Biden, a senator for more than three decades, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, including during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. (The Senate voted down Bork and confirmed Thomas.) Klain served as the Judiciary Committee chief counsel from 1989 to 1992.

Breyer has his own earlier connection to the Judiciary Committee. He was committee counsel in the mid-1970s and its chief counsel in 1979-1980. Even after becoming an appellate judge and then a Supreme Court justice, Breyer remained captivated by Senate politics and would be aware of the benefits to Biden of a Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, who earlier held a narrow majority, confirmed President Donald Trump’s three nominees after abolishing the rule requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster.

For the Supreme Court, now controlled by a 6-3 conservative-liberal majority, a Breyer retirement and succession by another liberal would not alter the ideological split. Yet a Biden choice would offer new diversity and youth.

In his 27 years on the high court, Breyer has been a low-profile but crucial player. He is a solid liberal but believes in bridging differences when possible and has tried to find compromise between the right-wing majority and remaining liberals. When conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has shifted to the center, as when he voted in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act, it has often involved some negotiations with Breyer and fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

In upcoming months, the justices will certainly confront new legal challenges to Biden’s policy agenda, along with cases heading their way that test abortion rights, racial remedies, religious liberty and gun regulation.

Making the list

While early word of a retirement forces an administration to focus on candidates, a White House team typically has some list of possible names ready if an opening suddenly occurs.

That was the situation for then-President Donald Trump when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died suddenly last September. Trump had already interviewed his eventual nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Similarly, when Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Obama chose Judge Merrick Garland, who had previously been on his Supreme Court short list. The Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on Garland’s nomination for nine months, leaving an immediate vacancy for Trump. Biden has selected Garland to be his new attorney general.

During President George W. Bush’s first term, his legal team interviewed appellate judges for possible elevation, but it was only in his second term that an opportunity for appointment arose. (Justice O’Connor announced her intention to retire on July 1, 2005, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died two months later, on September 3.)

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales referred in a memoir to Bush’s “habit of going with his gut” and wrote that “it was all the more important that I meet with the serious contenders and get to know them on a personal level. Well before any Supreme Court vacancies occurred during the Bush administration, I met privately with Samuel Alito and Emilio Garza in my West Wing office. I met with Michael Luttig at his home in northern Virginia. I spent an hour with John Roberts in April 2005 in my office at the Department of Justice.”

Bush initially nominated Roberts for the O’Connor slot but then moved him to the chief justice post when Rehnquist died. Bush then selected Alito for the O’Connor opening.

Such serendipity can upend plans. But one consistency in recent decades has been spring timing. Justices announce their retirement intentions to coincide with the last weeks of the annual Supreme Court term. That way, a presidential choice for successor can be subject to the Senate confirmation process in the summer and ready for the new session, which begins on the first Monday in October.

When Clinton first took office in 1993, Justice Byron White revealed his decision to retire on March 19. He said he would leave in late June when the court began its summer recess but that he wanted to give Clinton sufficient time to choose a successor. (Clinton selected Ginsburg.)

Justice White decided against giving word secretly. Rather, he asked a former law clerk then serving as an associate White House counsel to convey his retirement letter to Clinton. The Supreme Court then made White’s letter public.

That former White-clerk-turned-Clinton-counsel? Current chief of staff Klain.

In White’s brief letter, the justice wrote that after 31 years on the high court, he thought “someone else should be permitted to have a like experience.”

Appradab’s Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.

0 notes

the-daily-tizzy · 4 years ago

Text

Meet your new Vice President!

Here is a timely editorial that exposes the hidden background of Kamala Harris from the Combat Veterans for Congress Political Action Committee that is posted here with permission of the author.

CVFC PAC supports the election of US military combat veterans to the US Senate and House of Representatives.

The editorial begins:

Kamala Harris’ father was an avowed Marxist professor in the Economics Department at Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. Both of Harris’ parents were active in the Berkeley based Afro- American Association; Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were the heroes of the Afro-American Association.

The group’s leader, Donald Warden (aka Khalid al-Mansour), mentored two young Afro-American Association members, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale; they created the Maoist inspired Black Panther Party which gained strong support from Communist China; the Black Panther Party served as the model for creation of the Black Lives Matter Marxist organization.

Khalid al-Mansour subsequently went on to arrange financing and facilitated for Barack Hussein Obama to be accepted as a student to matriculate at Harvard Law School.

Following her graduation from college, Harris returned to California and subsequently became the mistress of the 60-year-old married Speaker of the California Assembly, Willie Brown, Jr. Brown’s political campaigns were supported and funded by Dr. Carlton Goodlett, the owner of The Sun Reporter and several other pro-Communist newspapers. Brown was elected as Mayor of San Francisco, and strongly endorsed Harris’ Marxist political philosophy; he guided Harris' political rise in California politics, leading to her election as California’s Attorney General.

Willie Brown, Jr. was a well-known long-time Communist sympathizer. Willie Brown, Jr. was initially elected to public office with the substantial help of the Communist Party USA. Today, Willie Brown is widely regarded as one of the Chinese Communist Party’s best friends in the San Francisco Bay Area.

While serving as San Francisco District Attorney, Kamala Harris mentored a young San Francisco Radical Maoist activist, Lateefah Simon, who was a member of the STORM Revolutionary Movement; Simon currently chairs the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board. Simon has always been close friends with the founder of Black Lives Matter Marxist Domestic Terrorists, Alicia Garza, as well as STORM member and avowed Communist, Van Jones.

Harris has been openly and aggressively supporting Black Lives Matter Marxists; Kamala Harris is still closely associated with Maoist Lateefah Simon and Marxist Alicia Garza.

Kamala Harris’s sister Maya Harris was a student activist at Stanford University. She was a closely associated with Steve Phillips, one of the leading Marxist-Leninists on campus and a long-time affiliate with the League of Revolutionary Struggle, a pro-Chinese Communist group.

Phillips came out of the Left, and in college he studied Marx, Mao, and Lenin, and maintained close associations with fellow Communists. Phillips married into the multi billion dollar Sandler family of the Golden West Savings and Loan fortune. He funded many leftist political campaigns, and the voter registration drives in the Southern and South Western states in order to help his friend, Barack Hussein Obama, defeat Hillary Clinton. Phillips has been a major financial sponsor for Kamala Harris’s political campaigns for various California elective offices.

Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff works for the law firm DLA Piper, which “boasts nearly 30 years of experience in Communist China with over 140 lawyers dedicated to its ‘Communist China Investment Services’ branch. He was just appointed to Professor at Yale to school future lawyers in the fine points of Communism.

When she was elected to the US Senate, Kamala Harris appointed a Pro-Communist Senate Chief of Staff, Karine Jean-Pierre. Jean-Pierre was active with the New York-based Haiti Support Network. The organization worked closely with the pro-Communist China/Communist North Korea Workers World Party and supported Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the far-left Communist former president of Haiti and the radical Lavalas movement.

Fortunately for Harris, but potentially disastrous for the Republic, elected office holders are not subject to the security clearance process. If the FBI did a Background Investigation on Kamala Harris, she never would have passed, because of her 40-year close ties with Marxists, Communists, Maoists, and Communist China. Harris would never have been approved for acceptance to any of the 5 Military Service Academies, been appointed to a US Government Sub-Cabinet position, or would have been approved to fill a sensitive position for a high security defense contractor. Yet, since Joe Biden was elected, Harris could be a heartbeat away from being President.

The US constitutional Republic is being threatened by the People’s Republic of Communist China (PPC) externally, and by of their very active espionage operations within the United States. The People’s Republic of Communist China (PPC), with 1.4 billion people, is governed by the 90 million member Chinese Communist Party (CCP), that has been working with Russia to destroy the US Constitutional Republic for over 70 years.

The CCP operates a massive global intelligence network through its Ministry of State Security. The CCP operates a vast intelligence network in the U.S as well. It is made up, not merely of intelligence operatives working for the Ministry of State Security, but it is also made up of a myriad of business and industry officials, Chinese scholar associations, and 370,000 Chinese students currently attending American universities. It also operates the Confucius Institute indoctrination and intelligence gathering centers in the US on 67 University campuses and in seventeen K-12 Public School Districts. The Confucius Centers are staffed by Communist Chinese intelligence operatives. Refer to this.

Kamala Harris is now involved with the Biden Family Business, and is supporting Joe Biden, who has worked closely with Communist China for 12 years. Joe’s son, Hunter Biden, is the point of contact for developing the off-shore Biden Family Businesses in Ukraine, Russia, Communist China, Iraq, Iran, etc. Hunter was provided with a $5 million non-recourse loan for the Biden Family Business to form a partnership with the PPC; that loan was subsequently forgiven by Communist China for one dollar.

Hunter Biden was given $1.5 billion for the Biden Family Business, to strategically purchase interests in companies in the US Military Industrial Complex, whose technologies would enhance and improve Communist China’s defense industry. Hunter Biden was also instructed to try to take control of US companies involved in sourcing rare earth minerals in the United States. Hunter also received $3.5 Million from the wife of the Mayor of Moscow for some carefully hidden reason.

The Peoples Republic of Communist China has a military of two million men, including the world’s largest Navy. The United States does not have enough ships and munitions to defeat China’s Navy, absent the use of nuclear weapons. There is a famous book, Unrestricted Warfare, written in 1999 by two People’s Liberation Army colonels. It argues that war between the PRC and the U.S. is inevitable, and that when it occurs China must be prepared to use whatever means are necessary to achieve victory Refer to this.

If the American voters read the background information (in Trevor Loudon’s article) on Kamala Harris, they would never support her election as Vice President of the United States. Joe Biden is suffering from the early onset of dementia and will continue to decline in cerebral awareness; he will never be able to fill out a four-year term of office. Since Biden was elected, the Socialists, Marxists, and Communist who control Kamala Harris, are planning to enact provisions of the 25th Amendment, in order to remove Joe Biden from office, so Harris can become the first Communist President of the United States.

Since Biden was elected, because Biden would not be up to it, Kamala Harris would lead the effort to appoint very dangerous anti-American Leftist, Communist, Socialists, and Marxists to fill highly sensitive positions in the Washington Deep State Bureaucracy. She would fill all appointive positions in the US Intelligence Agencies, in the Department of Homeland Security, in the Department of Defense, in The Justice Department, the Department of State, the FBI, the CIA, most cabinet positions, the National Security Council, and in the White House Staff.

American voters must be alert their fellow Americans that Kamala Harris is a very serious National Security threat to the very survival of the US Constitutional Republic; she has been a fellow traveler of Marxists, Communists, Maoists, Socialists, Progressives, and Chinese Communists for over 35 years.

President Trump had much more background information on Kamala Harris than we presented here, and he was correct, when he accused Kamala Harris of being a Communist subverter.

Geoffrey B. Higginbotham Major General, USMC (Ret.)

#reblog at your own risk while you still can

0 notes

onlymexico · 7 years ago

Photo

María Cristina Estela Marcela Jurado García, better known as Katy Jurado (January 16, 1924 – July 5, 2002), was a Mexican film, stage and television actress.

Jurado began her acting career in Mexico in 1943. During the 1940s and early 1950s, the era called the Golden Age of Mexican cinema, Jurado played villainous "femme fatale" characters in Mexican films. In 1951 she was discovered in Mexico by the filmmaker Budd Boetticher and began her Hollywood career in the film The Bullfighter & the Lady. She acted in Western films of the 1950s and 1960s, including High Noon (1952), Arrowhead (1953), Broken Lance (1954), One-Eyed Jacks (1960), and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973). She was the first Latin American actress nominated for an Academy Award, as Best Supporting Actress for her work in Broken Lance, and was the first to win a Golden Globe Award for her performance in High Noon.

Jurado made seventy-one films during her career.

Katy Jurado was born María Cristina Jurado García in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. Her parents were Luis Jurado Ochoa and Vicenta Estela García de la Garza. Her brothers were Luis Raúl and Óscar Sergio. One of her great-grandfathers was of Andalusian origin. Her father was a lawyer, and her mother was a singer who worked for XEW. Her mother was sister of Mexican musician Belisario de Jesús García, author of popular Mexican songs like "Las Cuatro Milpas". Jurado's cousin Emilio Portes Gil was president of Mexico (1928–1930).

Jurado studied at a school run by nuns in the Guadalupe Inn neighborhood in Mexico City, and later studied to be a bilingual secretary. As a teenager, she was invited by producers and filmmakers to work as an actress, among them Mexican filmmaker Emilio Fernández, who offered her a role in his first movie The Isle of Passion (1941). Although her godfather was Mexican actor Pedro Armendáriz, her parents never gave their consent.

Another filmmaker interested in her was Mauricio de la Serna, who offered Jurado a role in the film No matarás (1943). She signed the contract without authorization from her parents, and when they found out, they threatened to send her to a boarding school in Monterrey. Around this time she met the aspiring actor Victor Velázquez and married him shortly after. Velázquez and Jurado were married until 1946. Velázquez was the father of her children, Victor Hugo and Sandra.

In No matarás, Jurado played her first villain and femme fatale. Jurado specialized in playing wicked and seductive women. She said, "I knew that my body was provocative. I admit, my physical was different and very sensual."[this quote needs a citation] She appeared in sixteen more films over the next seven years in what film historians have named the Golden Age of Mexican cinema. In 1943 she had her first success with her third film, La vida inútil de Pito Pérez.

In addition to acting, Jurado worked as a movie columnist, radio reporter and bullfight critic to support her family.[4] She was on assignment when filmmaker Budd Boetticher and actor John Wayne spotted her at a bullfight. Neither knew she was an actress. However, Boetticher, who was also a professional bullfighter, cast Jurado in his 1951 film Bullfighter and the Lady, opposite Gilbert Roland as the wife of an aging matador. She had rudimentary English language skills, and memorized and delivered her lines phonetically. Despite this handicap, her strong performance brought her to the attention of Hollywood producer Stanley Kramer, who cast her in the classic Western High Noon, starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. Jurado learned to speak English for the role, studying and taking classes two hours a day for two months. She played saloon owner Helen Ramírez, former love of reluctant hero Cooper's Will Kane. She earned a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress and gained notice in the American movie industry.

Despite her Hollywood success in the early 1950s, Jurado continued to act in Mexican productions. In 1953 she starred in Luis Buñuel's box-office success El Bruto, with Pedro Armendáriz, for which she received an Silver Ariel Award (The Mexican Academy Award) as Best Supporting Actress. She also acted in English-language films produced in Mexico, such as El Corazón y La Espada (1953, opposite Cesar Romero) and Mujeres del Paraíso (1954, opposite Dan O'Herlihy). The same year she had a role in Arrowhead with Charlton Heston and Jack Palance, playing an evil Comanche woman, the love-interest of Heston's character.

In 1954, the also Mexican actress Dolores del Río was chosen to play Spencer Tracy's Comanche wife and the mother of Robert Wagner's character in the film Broken Lance, directed by Edward Dmytryk. However del Río was accused of being a communist during the McCarthy era. Then Jurado was chosen for the role despite the resistance of the studio because of her youth. But after viewing footage of her scenes, studio executives were impressed.[6] Her performance garnered an Academy Award nomination (a distinction shared by only two other Mexican actresses since then: Salma Hayek as Best Actress in 2002 for Frida, and Adriana Barraza as Best Supporting Actress in 2006 for Babel).

In 1954 Jurado appeared with Kirk Douglas and Cesar Romero in the Henry Hathaway's film The Racers, filmed in France, Italy and Spain. In 1955 Jurado filmed Trial, directed by Mark Robson, with Glenn Ford and Arthur Kennedy. It was a drama about a Mexican boy accused of raping a white girl, with Jurado playing the mother of the accused. For this role she was again nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress. In the same year she traveled to Italy for the filming of Trapeze, directed by Carol Reed, with Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis.

In 1956 Jurado debuted on Broadway, playing Filomena Marturano with Raf Vallone. Eventually she participated in a series of westerns like Man from Del Rio, opposite the also Mexican actor Anthony Quinn, and Dragoon Wells Massacre with Barry Sullivan. She made guest television appearances in a 1957 episode of Playhouse Drama and in a 1959 episode of The Rifleman as gambler Julia Massini (Andueza) in "The Boarding House", written and directed by Sam Peckinpah.

In 1959 she filmed The Badlanders, with Ernest Borgnine and Alan Ladd, and worked with Marlon Brando in the film One-Eyed Jacks. In the film, Jurado played the role of Karl Malden's wife, and mother of the young Mexican actress Pina Pellicer.

In 1961 she starred in Dino de Laurentiis Italian productions like Barabbas with Borgnine, Anthony Quinn, Jack Palance and the Italian actors Silvana Mangano and Vittorio Gassman, and I braganti Italiani, directed by Mario Camerini, again with Borgnine and Gassman. In 1961, Jurado returned to Mexico. She filmed Y dios la llamó Tierra (1961) and La Bandida (1962), with the Mexican cinema stars María Félix, Pedro Armendáriz and Emilio Fernández.

Jurado returned to Hollywood in 1965, with the film Smoky, directed by George Sherman, with Fess Parker. In 1966, she played the mother of George Maharis in A Covenant with Death. That same year she reprised her "High Noon" role in a TV pilot called "The Clock Strikes Noon Again". As her career in the U.S. began to wind down, she was reduced to appearing in the movie Stay Away, Joe (1968), playing the half-Apache stepmother of Elvis Presley.

In 1968, she moved back to Mexico permanently. She took up residence in the city of Cuernavaca.

In the next years Jurado alternated her work between Hollywood and Mexico. In 1970 she filmed the Hollywood film production The Bridge in the Jungle, opposite John Huston. In 1972 she starred in Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, directed by Sam Peckinpah, playing the role of the wife of the actor Slim Pickens.

Jurado received one of her best dramatic roles in the last episode of the Mexican film Fé, Esperanza y Caridad (1973). Directed by Jorge Fons, Jurado was cast as Eulogia ("La Camota"), a lower-class woman who suffers a series of bureaucratic abuse to claim the remains of her dead husband. For this role she won her second Silver Ariel Award of the Mexican Cinema. Jurado recognized this character as her best performance.[8] In 1973 Jurado starred on Broadway again in the Tennessee Williams stage play The Red Devil Battery Sign, with Anthony Quinn and Claire Bloom.

In 1974 Jurado filmed the American film Once Upon a Scoundrel (1974), opposite the American comedian Zero Mostel. In 1975 Jurado participates in the social criticism film Los albañiles, again directed by Jorge Fons. The film was awarded with the Golden Bear of the Berlinale 1975. In 1976 appears in the role of Chuchupe in the film Pantaleón y Las Visitadoras (1976) adaptation of the novel of Mario Vargas Llosa (who also directed the film). In 1978 she played a small role in the film The Children of Sanchez (1978), opposite Anthony Quinn and Dolores del Rio. Jurado also reappeared on television

frequently in the 1970s. She made guest appearances on such shows as Playhouse Theatre and The Rifleman.

In 1980 Jurado filmed La Seducción (1980), directed by Arturo Ripstein. In 1984, she acted in the film Under the Volcano, directed by John Huston. In the same year she co-starred in the short-lived television series a.k.a. Pablo, a situation comedy series for ABC, with Paul Rodriguez.

In the 1990s Jurado appeared in two Mexican Telenovelas. In 1992, she was honored with the Golden Boot Award for her notable contribution to the Western genre. In 1998, she completed a timely Spanish-language film for director Arturo Ripstein called El Evangelio de las Maravillas, about a millennium sect. She won the best supporting Actress Silver Ariel for this role.[5] Jurado had a cameo in the film The Hi-Lo Country by the filmmaker Stephen Frears, who called her his "lucky charm" for his first Western.

In 2002 she made her final film appearance in Un secreto de Esperanza. The film was released posthumously after Jurado's death.

#katy jurado #mexican actress #mexican woman #mexico

186 notes · View notes

conniejoworld · 4 years ago

Link

By Sharon Grigsby The symmetry was almost too rich. I was interviewing my first feminist role model Tuesday about the significance of the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage when she interrupted me with the news that Joe Biden had just named Kamala Harris as his running mate. “Now that’s what we are talking about here,” said longtime political journalist and college professor Carolyn Barta, invoking the words of suffragist leader Susan B. Anthony: “There will never be complete equality until women themselves help to make the laws and elect the lawmakers.” I had sought out Barta and two other insightful women -- local executives in education and the law -- to discuss the historic anniversary of the 19th Amendment because I feared that it, like so many other female achievements, would be completely forgotten. The three noted the eerie parallels between then and now: The 19th Amendment was ratified on the heels of the deadly 1918 flu pandemic. Black women were abandoned as part of the deal that pushed suffrage through; not until 1965′s Voting Rights Act did Americans of color fully attain access to a ballot. Carolyn Barta, in her office at SMU just before she retired after 15 years of teaching journalism. She says that the young women in her classes reminded her of the suffrage leaders: "confident and ready to take on the world." Getting the vote “didn’t produce a yellow brick road. It’s been a very slow journey forward,” Barta said. “The promises of what women’s suffrage would bring are just now being realized -- and it’s been 100 years.” The Anthony quote that has stuck in my head since I last wrote on this topic, just before the 2016 election: “Our job is not to make young women grateful. It is to make them ungrateful so they keep going.” Ingratitude. Ambition. Nastiness. Whatever label you want to use, it’s taken a heck of a lot of it to keep on going for 100 years. But these three women, like millions of others, do just that -- working for a world that is fair not only for them and their daughters but for all who are marginalized or oppressed. For more than two decades, Dr. Monica Williams, a vice president at the University of North Texas at Dallas, has been a passionate advocate for giving voice to the underserved. Dr. Williams told me that the suffragists’ struggles remind her not just of the advantages of today but her responsibilities to the future. “We are here to help people understand that education is the great equalizer,” she said. Her work as VP for university advancement is focused on bringing educational opportunities to southern Dallas. “This is a community that still has so much more to receive, and I want to do everything I can to give it the resources it needs to thrive.” Dr. Williams said that as a Black woman whose right to vote didn’t become a reality until 45 years after the 19th Amendment, she equates “not voting with not mattering.” Because Dr. Williams had been in back-to-back meetings Tuesday afternoon, I was the first to tell her about Harris’s selection. She immediately made the connection between the day’s news and the centennial. Like the suffragettes, Dr. Williams said, Harris is a warrior and unafraid. “She doesn’t seem to be intimidated by the big boys.” Dr. Monica Williams, vice president for university advancement at the University of North Texas at Dallas. Her hope is that the 19th Amendment celebration will morph into a serious equity campaign. Growing up in Houston, Monica was surrounded by women who didn’t flinch at obstacles. “I’ve been blessed to have strong Black women in my family -- my mother, my mother’s mother and generations of great-grandmothers who paved the way for me,” she said. Dinnertime conversations often turned to politics, and her grandmother took her and her siblings to the polls on many occasions to show them what Election Day was all about. “We would actually get into the voting booth and watch,” she recalled. Today Dr. Williams impresses the importance of voting on her own daughter and her 5-year-old granddaughter. “She loves that voting sticker, and I put mine on her hand in hopes that it will instill in her the importance of this moment.” Dr. Williams’s hope is that the 19th Amendment celebration will morph into a serious equity campaign. She thinks she’s been rewarded for her merits, but she knows other women who haven’t. And she said that must change. “We aren’t asking for a handout but for what is due to us as a result of our hard work.” Cynthia Garza, too, is driven to build a more equitable and just world, starting with her work as chief of the Conviction Integrity Unit in the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. When we talked Wednesday, she wondered aloud what her career – and even her life – would look like had it not been for the suffrage pioneers. “These women fought long and hard through an arduous battle to get the 19th Amendment passed,” she said. “Look at the trajectory of where we are now in our history with the selection of Kamala Harris.” Growing up as a young Hispanic woman in Houston, she saw plenty of examples of unfair treatment of women, whether in unequal pay, social issues or health care. Those disparities “motivate you to have your voice be heard,” she said. “You can’t just sit there and complain. For me, that means voting in every election -- local elections, primaries, the general election.” It also means trying to motivate everyone she can to vote. She is particularly mindful of people who are eligible to vote but who can’t speak English. “I point them to resources such as videos so they can learn how the system works and go out to vote as well.” This month’s centennial led her to reflect on the persistent lack of women in leadership roles in the legal field. She recalled how as a young lawyer, she questioned whether she would be seen as a good leader or “as something else when I tried to assert myself. Any woman in a male-dominated field has that same thought.” But she reminds herself that women -- including the women who fought so hard for the vote -- would have accomplished nothing if they had let male disapproval paralyze them. “You have to brush those thoughts aside, hold your head up high and keep going,” she said. As a trailblazer in the newsroom, Carolyn Barta faced more than snarky words. “Without what happened 100 years ago, I would never have had the career I had in journalism,” she said. “It was not a good career path for a woman in the 1960s and 70s.” For starters, she cut her teeth at a time when women at The Dallas Morning News lost their jobs as soon as the bosses recognized they were pregnant. That just wasn’t a “ladylike” look for reporters out in the community, Barta recalled. She started in “women’s news” and the first time she applied to be the local political reporter the bosses said no, claiming that because she “couldn’t play golf or go to bars with my sources, I’d get beat on stories.” Management decided to give her a shot when she applied again in 1972, but they paired her with a man. “It didn’t matter,” Barta said as I made her retell the story. “My political reporting career was finally launched.” She worked for several decades as a political reporter, columnist and editor at The News -- and later as part of the Editorial Page team -- before teaching journalism at SMU for 15 years. She got a kick out of my telling her that she was my first feminist role model. “I never thought of myself as a feminist. I was just trying to get ahead in my chosen profession.” But from the time I joined the newspaper in 1980, I looked up to her as a woman who was fearless and surefooted, whether it was covering local, state and national politics or negotiating the male-dominated management ranks. Watching her go toe to toe with strong male egos -- so often the only woman at the table -- are lessons I’ve never forgotten. Musing on what women’s votes will mean this November, Barta believes that the “three Ps” -- pandemic, protests and today’s toxic politics -- will play a big role in their decision-making. The pandemic has increased the burdens on most women, and that could have a big influence on their vote, she said. “We remember the soccer moms of the 1990s. This year it’s the pandemic moms or, as they’ve been called, the guardian women. These are women who take care of children or their elderly parents.” She said that women are also looking with concern at the responses to racism, to the protests and to the social unrest. “Women are starting to recognize that women are better problem solvers,” Barta said, and she expects that will increase the number elected this year to Congress and statehouses. Women today, she said, listen “to the name-calling, bullying, disregard for ethics and common courtesy and they say, ‘I don’t want this as a role model for my children.’” “If women are paying attention to this anniversary, they are saying, this [political climate] is not why the suffragettes wanted us to have the right to vote.”

0 notes

internetbasic9 · 6 years ago

Text

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge

Nature

Image

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, center, on Capitol Hill in August.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two wildly different portraits of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh are set to emerge on Tuesday when he appears on Capitol Hill for the opening of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. One is a champion for women; the other a threat to women’s rights.

Republicans will present Judge Kavanaugh to the nation as an experienced, independent-minded jurist with a sparkling résumé, and as an advocate and mentor for women in the judiciary. Among the cases they will cite: his 2009 ruling in favor of Emily’s List, the group that backs Democratic women who support abortion rights.

Democrats will tell an entirely different story, painting Judge Kavanaugh as a far-right extremist who would roll back abortion rights, deny health coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, protect President Trump from the threat of subpoena — and as someone who may have misled Congress when he testified during his appeals court confirmation hearing in 2006.

Those two competing narratives will define the contours of a deeply partisan and immensely consequential battle over Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. But while Democrats vowed early on to scuttle the Kavanaugh nomination — Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, promised to “oppose him with everything I’ve got” — they are unlikely to find success.

Democrats have been unable to muster much public outrage over his nomination or Republicans’ refusal to grant them full access to documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time working for former President George W. Bush. Even the Trump White House’s decision over the weekend to keep 100,000 pages secret produced little blowback. And Democrats fell flat in their effort to delay the hearings after Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, implicated the president in a hush-money scheme to influence the 2016 election.

Judge Kavanaugh, 53, has spent the past 12 years on the federal appeals court here — a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court. If he is confirmed, he will shape the course of American jurisprudence for generations to come, filling the seat long occupied by the retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — a critical swing vote on divisive matters like same-sex marriage and abortion — with a committed conservative who would push a rightward-leaning court even further in that direction.

“The stakes are so high,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “We’re talking about a vote on the United States Supreme Court that could well decide whether women can decide when they want to have children, and whether Americans can decide whom they want to marry.”

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary Committee chairman, argued in an interview Monday that it was folly to try to predict how Judge Kavanaugh might vote on any given matter.

“How do I know what he’s going to rule on 10 years from now?” Mr. Grassley asked. “All I want is somebody that’s going to interpret the Constitution strictly and leave legislating to the Congress of the United States, and I think he’s the sort of guy who will do that.”

The hearings will play out for the next four days before the judiciary panel, with opening statements on Tuesday by senators and Judge Kavanaugh, followed by two days of questioning and a final day of testimony from outside witnesses. As Mr. Blumenthal, perhaps in a moment of understatement, predicted, “Sparks will fly.”

Judge Kavanaugh’s views on reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case legalizing abortion, will take center stage. In addition to demanding to know whether he believes the case was correctly decided — a question he is all but certain to refuse to answer — Democrats will question him aggressively about his dissent in the case of Garza v. Hargan, in which he argued that a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant should not be permitted to have an immediate abortion. They have called Rochelle Garza, the girl’s lawyer, as a witness.

And in this era of #MeToo, Democrats also plan to raise pointed questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s views on sexual harassment. Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, plans to ask Judge Kavanaugh if he has ever sexually harassed anyone — a question she said she asks of all nominees — and will also ask him about a judge for whom he clerked, Alex Kozinski, who abruptly retired last year from the federal appeals court amid harassment allegations.

Republicans intend to push back by highlighting Judge Kavanaugh’s record of hiring female clerks — 25 of his 48 clerks have been women — and by making the case that he has taken pains to mentor women. Among those who will formally introduce him on Tuesday are Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, and Lisa S. Blatt, a self-described “liberal Democrat and feminist” lawyer who has advocated Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

“We want to lay the groundwork to show that this has been a judge who is empowering and mentoring women,” said one Senate Republican aide, speaking anonymously to discuss strategy.

Judge Kavanaugh has expressed strong support for executive power, hostility to administrative agencies, and support for religious freedom and for gun rights. Democrats will press him on all of these topics, but are expected to drill especially deeply into his assertion, in a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, that sitting presidents should be “excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship,” including responding to civil and criminal lawsuits.

Those comments are especially relevant in light of the special counsel investigation being led by Robert S. Mueller III. Democrats want Judge Kavanaugh to commit to recusing himself from ruling on matters involving that inquiry — a commitment he will undoubtedly avoid making.

But perhaps the most blistering accusation Democrats will levy is that Judge Kavanaugh was untruthful during his 2006 testimony, when he told the judiciary panel that he was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing” the treatment of terror suspects. A White House spokesman, Raj Shah, has said the testimony “accurately reflected the facts.”

An email, recently made public as part of a trove of Bush records, shows that while working in the Bush White House Counsel’s Office, the future judge volunteered to prepare a senior Bush administration official to testify about the government’s monitoring of conversations between certain terrorism suspects and their lawyers.

Democrats, led by Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, had questioned Judge Kavanaugh’s veracity even before that email’s release. In an interview, Mr. Leahy drew a comparison between Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Jay S. Bybee, who was confirmed to the federal appeals court in 2003 — years before the release of memos showing that, as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, he had given the C.I.A. its first detailed legal approval for waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.

“Had that come out before the confirmation,” Mr. Leahy said, “I doubt very much that he would have been confirmed.”

In a narrowly divided Senate — 50 Republicans, 47 Democrats and two Independents who caucus with Democrats — the Kavanaugh nomination could be defeated if all Democrats hang together and one Republican votes no.

But two Republicans most likely to cross the aisle, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, both supporters of abortion rights, have made favorable comments about Judge Kavanaugh. And at least three Democrats — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — are facing re-election in states won by Mr. Trump and are under intense pressure to vote in favor. None of those senators are on the Judiciary Committee.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings are always as much about political theater as they are about substance, and Judge Kavanaugh’s will be no exception. Several Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — are possible 2020 presidential aspirants and will no doubt take advantage of the free national television exposure.

Judge Kavanaugh, too, will take advantage of that limelight. In the nearly two months since Mr. Trump nominated him, he has been a silent presence in Washington, traipsing through the corridors of the Capitol complex, trailed by a retinue of security officers and advisers, as he made the customary “courtesy visits” to senators.

Now he will have a chance to speak for himself, spotlighting his academic pedigree — he has undergraduate and law degrees from Yale — and addressing questions not only about his judicial record, but also the more contentious aspects of his résumé, including his days working for Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated former President Bill Clinton.

While there, he urged prosecutors to pose graphic questions to Mr. Clinton about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky — a history that Democrats will invoke as they try to cast Judge Kavanaugh as a partisan political operative.

“Will the real Brett Kavanaugh please stand up?” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group. “You hear very contrasting views. This is a chance for people to see who is telling the truth about Judge Kavanaugh, and what is just spin.”

Follow Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Twitter @SherylNYT

Read More | https://ift.tt/2wBpwD2 | https://ift.tt/2wD0TG3

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge, in 2018-09-03 23:43:11

#Nature of Business in the Current Market

0 notes

blogwonderwebsites · 6 years ago

Text

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge http://www.nature-business.com/nature-an-advocate-for-women-or-a-threat-as-hearings-begin-differing-views-of-kavanaugh-emerge/

Nature

Image

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, center, on Capitol Hill in August.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary Committee chairman, argued in an interview Monday that it was folly to try to predict how Judge Kavanaugh might vote on any given matter.

“We want to lay the groundwork to show that this has been a judge who is empowering and mentoring women,” said one Senate Republican aide, speaking anonymously to discuss strategy.

“Had that come out before the confirmation,” Mr. Leahy said, “I doubt very much that he would have been confirmed.”

Follow Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Twitter @SherylNYT

Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/03/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html | http://www.nytimes.com/by/sheryl-gay-stolberg

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge, in 2018-09-03 23:43:11

#Nature of Business in the Current Market

0 notes

blogparadiseisland · 6 years ago

Text

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge

Nature

Image

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, center, on Capitol Hill in August.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary Committee chairman, argued in an interview Monday that it was folly to try to predict how Judge Kavanaugh might vote on any given matter.

“We want to lay the groundwork to show that this has been a judge who is empowering and mentoring women,” said one Senate Republican aide, speaking anonymously to discuss strategy.

“Had that come out before the confirmation,” Mr. Leahy said, “I doubt very much that he would have been confirmed.”

Follow Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Twitter @SherylNYT

Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/03/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html | http://www.nytimes.com/by/sheryl-gay-stolberg

Nature An Advocate for Women or a Threat? As Hearings Begin, Differing Views of Kavanaugh Emerge, in 2018-09-03 23:43:11

#Nature of Business in the Current Market

0 notes

nightmareonfilmstreet · 7 years ago

Text

[First Look] Brooklyn Horror Film Festival 2017

New Post has been published on https://nofspodcast.com/first-look-brooklyn-horror-film-festival-2017/

[First Look] Brooklyn Horror Film Festival 2017

The 2nd edition of the Brooklyn Horror Film Festival has upped the ante since their incarnation last year: the festival has extended its run to a fourth day, doubled its number of feature-length movies and added more participating theatres!

The festival will open with Turkish surrealist horror Housewife, making its North American premiere. The two centerpiece features will be Cold Hell (Die Hölle in German) and Joe Lynch’s bureaucratic Battle Royale, Mayhem. Closing the festival will be the North American premiere of The Book of Birdie.

The line-up includes horror films that have already travelled the world film festival circuit like Game of Death, Fashionista, Sequence Break and Tragedy Girls. However, there will be a world premiere of the New York-made rape-revenge flick, Get My Gun.

Slasher fans will most likely be lining up to see To Hell and Back: The Kane Hodder Story. The documentary examines the early years of the actor whose resume includes playing Jason Voorhees and Victor Crowley of the Hatchet series. There will also be a mini-marathon of the first four parts of Friday the 13th, to be appropriately screened on Friday, October 13th.

There are loads of other events like a drunk TedTalk on final girls, a focus on Mexican horror, an art and VR showcase, and a midnight drunken ghost hunt, as if you needed an excuse to drunkenly wander around Brooklyn.

You can read the synopses of the feature films below.

1974 (EAST COAST PREMIERE)

Mexico / Dir. Victor Dryere