Iowans should reject the fallacy of ineffective Congressional Democrats

Politics can be emotional. Health-care reform. Immigration. Bank bailouts. Decisions on these issues affect millions, and citizens and lawmakers are right to stake out strongly held positions.

But, as intransigent Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley and conservative Democrats stall health-care reform, it’s important to reassert the primacy of informed discussion over visceral squabbling.

It is imperative that Iowans are civically knowledgeable and can form coherent opinions rooted in fact — not half-truths or politically charged statements. Only then can we truly hold elected officials accountable. This is especially true for the health-care debate, which has highlighted sometimes-overlooked rules such as the Senate filibuster.

A recent Pew poll found that only 26 percent of Americans are aware it takes 60 senators to break a filibuster, an alarming statistic because of the rule’s importance in the health-care debate.

The health-care debate has underscored the shift in political tactics over the past couple decades. What was once a last-ditch tactic used mostly by those opposed to civil-rights legislation is now a factor in almost all Senate debates. Republicans have used the filibuster to their advantage, creating a seemingly insuperable hurdle. As it stands, it’s difficult even for a party with a large majority to pass its agenda with a cohesive, obdurate minority.

While Iowans may hold Democrats accountable for failure to pass health-care reform so far, it’s imperative they remain cognizant of that fact. It’s difficult for citizens to hold their senators accountable when they are ignorant of basic rules and don’t recognize the inherent inertia of the Senate. Despite Democrats’ huge majority — one of the largest in decades — mostly Republican opponents need just 41 votes to halt health-care reform.

It’s easy for opponents of Obama’s agenda to paint Republican tactics as simply a defensive mechanism — conservatives taking a stance for what is right — but in the end, it’s simply cynical expediency.

“Republicans have decided to become an obstructionist party,” UI political-science Associate Professor Cary Covington said. “They don’t want the Democrats to get credit for passing anything.”

The GOP is working to achieve political capital — or “credit,” as Covington called it — by any means necessary. But its obstructionist tactics fly in the face of healthy political discourse and instead prey on the ignorance and disconnect of normal citizens.

It is the citizens’ duty, as the voice of the republic, to maintain a competent knowledge of the political process and democratic governance. If citizens fail to recognize Republicans’ political posturing, they may unjustifiably paint the Democrats as the party of inaction. Such a characterization is not based in reality.

President Obama’s call over the weekend for a televised bipartisan summit on health care is admirable, and it will offer Americans the opportunity to see open debate on the issue. But whatever Iowans’ opinions — and others around the nation — after the summit, they should remain aware of the procedural constraints on Democrats. Depending on your political leanings, hold Democratic lawmakers accountable for their attempts to pass health-care reform.

Just don’t claim they haven’t tried.

[Editorial published in Daily Iowan, 02/09/2010: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/02/09/Opinions/15469.html%5D

The life of a student commuter

My name is Tyler Hakes, and I’m a commuter.

There, I said it.

I’m one of those weird folks who only turns up in Iowa City when it’s class time, takes up all of the downtown parking, and then scurries away each night without even so much as making an appearance at Jakes or Brothers or 3rd Base. The kind of guy who forgoes Thirsty Thursdays and FACs each week for a boring post-college kind of life that includes working way too many hours and running out of decent Redbox movies to rent.

I know I’m not in the majority as a student commuter, but why is it that the UI seems to disregard this entire population when making decisions to hold classes during fits of bad weather?

UI spokesman Tom Moore said it’s really a personal decision based on perceived safety.

“There’s no expectation that anyone put herself or himself at risk to attend class or work,” he said. “Students should consult the instructor if the person feels it is unsafe.”

The UI doesn’t keep track of the number of student commuters versus non-commuters.

But unsafe isn’t quite the same as unable, and there is certainly a level of expectation to attend class when it isn’t officially canceled — especially on the first day. The safety of people and property comes first — per the UI operations manual — and normal operations come last.

Whatever happened to better safe than sorry, anyway?

According to the Iowa City police website, there were 15 collision reports on Jan. 20, the day of the most recent ice storm. In comparison, there were only three reports the following day. While this can’t single-handedly be blamed on the UI for holding classes amid a sleet downpour, it is quite obvious that university activity is the cause for much of the traffic in downtown. And it certainly raises the question: Could some of these accidents been avoided had classes been canceled?

There’s no way to tell for sure, but I can tell you that I forwent the nasty weather and skipped the first day of my night class. Not because I couldn’t physically make it to the classroom from Cedar Rapids, but because I felt that the road conditions were such that it wasn’t worth the risk of traveling 20 miles both directions, after dark.

When I met with my professor the next day to find out what I had missed in class, he quipped immediately, “You’re from Cedar Rapids. I’m from Cedar Rapids, too, but I left early and made it down.” Before I could plead my case however, he concluded, “I didn’t make it home though — I ended up staying down here.”

I’m grateful that he was understanding, but I’m perplexed at the UI’s insensitivity to commuter students. I recognize that the university has canceled one day this year for weather-related issues, but during my four years, classes have routinely carried on unflinchingly during record-breaking ice storms.

Maybe I’m just a kid inside, pining for the chance to recollect my childhood through a snow day. Or maybe I’ve finally grown out of that “invincible” feeling they — adults, that is — always say we youngsters have. Or maybe I’m a little bit paranoid after I did a 360 on I-380 trying to make it to work during a snow storm two years ago.

Either way, I think I’ll “consult” my teachers a little bit more often and just stay home from now on.

[Column Published in Daily Iowan, 02/03/2010: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/02/03/Opinions/15364.html%5D

Iowa lawmakers should back proposal to expand poker tournaments

Poker enthusiasts and the state’s coffers would both win if a poker proposal makes its way through the Iowa Legislature. The plan would allow casinos to host poker tournaments in areas outside the gaming floor.

We urge Iowa legislators to pass this salutary proposal.

In fiscal 2009, the state received more than $300 million in revenue from the gaming industry, according to the Legislative Services Agency. The poker proposal, pushed by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, would undoubtedly add millions of dollars to that total. It’s money that the state cannot afford to let slip away.

McCarthy was unavailable for comment on Tuesday.

Under current regulations, gambling sites are strictly controlled, and all betting activity is clearly confined to the gaming areas. This includes poker games, which can only take place in the small-ish rooms reserved specifically for the game. McCarthy’s proposal, as he outlined last month on “Iowa Press,” would allow large poker tournaments to spill into other casino-owned properties outside of the gaming floor, such as ballrooms and dining areas.

These new poker parlors would be subject to the same stringent regulations and restrictions as the gaming floor and would funnel tax dollars into the state’s coffers.

The main concern is that the measure would allow further access to gambling, potentially increasing the risk of gambling addiction and the debt and marriage issues generally associated with such addictions.

“Gambling is addictive because the anticipation of waiting for the result after placing a bet excites pleasure centers in the brain,” UI sociology Professor Michael Lovaglia said. “It is placing the bet and waiting for the result, not winning or losing that drives addictive gambling.” A certain percentage of people will become addicted to gambling if given the right amount of exposure, he said.

The underlying problem with such an objection, however, is that access to gambling is already widely available. Simply increasing the size of the tournaments would not, in and of itself, catalyze increased addiction.

There are already plenty of opportunities to gamble for would-be addicts, and passing legislation allowing casinos to use other parts of their property for controlled tournaments would have little or no effect on the prevalence of gambling addiction.

What it would do, however, is generate money for both the casinos and the state. With the looming Feb. 8 deadline for a 19-member council to decide which UI graduate programs will get the ax and ubiquitous dire reports, the state needs all the help it can get.

With such a minimal effect on the community and the action’s ability to replenish the state’s waning revenue stream, the decision seems to be clear cut.

The Legislature should aggressively pursue this opportunity, casting aside the mostly perfunctory objections. The money the state would gain from the poker plan would far outweigh any potential downsides.

[Editorial Published in Daily Iowan, 02/03/2010: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/02/03/Opinions/15363.html%5D

Responsible drinking event has possibility to create real change

UI junior Greg Pelc should be applauded for his efforts to exemplify and encourage responsible drinking habits. His Jan. 22 SoBar Experience — and events similar to it — has the potential to improve the alcohol culture on campus.

He and approximately 25 students hit 3rd Base, 111 E. College St., vowing to drink without over-consuming. Pelc’s effort to change the drinking culture on campus by example could stand to make a real, lasting change in student drinking habits in a way that UI- and Iowa City-imposed punishments cannot.

Pelc and his peers didn’t set out on that day to convert or preach — their goal was simply to have a good time. The UI junior, who is a resident assistant at Burge Hall, sees the SoBar Experience as a viable way to spread awareness and help others in the same way that he’s helped those from his hall.

(Full disclosure: Pelc is a cousin of Opinions Editor Shawn Gude. Gude did not write or participate in the discussion of this editorial.)

The UI has traditionally taken a hard-line approach to curbing dangerous drinking habits. Its attempts to bring down binge drinking include imposing hefty fines on dorm-room drinkers, threatening expulsion from residence halls, and mandating alcohol-education classes. The effects of these actions have been debatable, and it’s clear they haven’t fostered a healthy student relationship with alcohol.

For UI officials, it’s a difficult subject. Promoting more responsible drinking habits (even among those of legal age) is still seen as akin to condoning drinking — something that would make even the most progressive university official skittish. The prospect of combating alcohol abuse with responsible drinking is essentially seen as promoting abstinence while disbursing condoms: From the public’s eye, it is giving permission to engage in the very act they are attempting to control and discourage.

Events such as the SoBar Experience can bridge the gap between public distaste and actual results by promoting safe drinking while avoiding the public-relations constraints the university is tied to.
In a way, it’s like the Dark Knight.

One of last summer’s biggest blockbusters made it abundantly clear that the caped crusader, played by Christian Bale, is no hero. His unconventional tactics and crude punishments force the police to consider him a criminal, despite his efforts at cleaning up crime being more effective than their own. Because he owes no explanation to the public, he’s able to break the rules for the sake of justice. And Gotham City is better for it.

Pelc certainly isn’t masquerading around town and beating down binge drinkers, but he’s fighting overindulgence in a way that the UI cannot publicly support. University officials cannot explicitly encourage drinking, even if the overarching theme is to promote responsible consumption.

But the SoBar Experience may be far more effective at creating real change than the university’s policies could ever hope to be.

What cannot be changed through threats of repercussion can be altered through strong leadership and peer influence. The SoBar Experience leverages this to initiate a shift away from dangerous drinking toward responsible, controlled consumption. Students and UI officials alike should see Pelc’s SoBar Experience as a positive move.

[Editorial Published in Daily Iowan, 01/25/2010: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/01/25/Opinions/15146.html%5D

Too big to fail: Analyzing the AIG bail-out

What makes one company worthy of a substantial and unprecedented federally funded loan while other businesses are left to crumble in their wake? Many people may be asking questions like this, with all of the coverage regarding failures in the stock market, corporate bailouts, and politician’s claims that the proverbial “sky is falling.” What does it all mean? Why did AIG receive preferential treatment from the government while Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers were made to fend for themselves? The answers lie in a deeper understanding of AIG’s true place in corporate America and how it facilitates business from every industry.

American International Group (AIG) is known to most individuals for their quirky commercials advertising their personal insurance services for things such as boats, automobiles, and homes. However, AIG is a highly diversified corporation with subsidiaries touching nearly every facet of American life. As one of the world’s largest insurers, one of their main sources of income is dealing with what is known as a credit default swap (CDS). Essentially, a credit default swap is insurance for a financial institution against any individual or business that they have loaned money to from defaulting on their obligation. In other words, if you go to a bank and take out a loan to purchase a vehicle, that bank can then pay a premium to AIG in exchange for a guarantee that if you are to default on the loan, the bank will still be paid from AIG. This safety net has allowed banks to account for their assets more accurately and completely, because they are not faced with the uncertainty that is associated with lending out money and instead transfer that burden onto AIG.

The added security for lending institutions historically led to an increase in the number of loans and a decrease in collateral required to secure the loan. This development fueled the occurrence of subprime mortgages that is now often being referred to as a crisis (subprime refers to the fact that the “loanee” is viewed as under-qualified for the loan based on traditional standards). Subprime mortgages truly proved detrimental to AIG in two ways: as the housing market began to deflate they saw an increase in people defaulting on their loans that were insured through a CDS, which held them accountable for covering more bad debt. On top of this, credit reporting agencies were keen to the fact that this was lowering the firm’s financial resources and began to place serious doubt on their ability to summon up large amounts of cash if the need should arise.

In realizing this, the credit reporting agencies lowered the credit score they had assigned to AIG as a corporation, and this is where the one-two punch from the subprime mortgages really put AIG “down for the count” if you will. With the lower credit score, as with individuals, AIG as a company was seen as less capable of repaying their financial obligations to other firms. This lead to firms who had lent money to AIG to fear for their own investments, and AIG saw an increase in the collateral requested by approximately $14.5 billion. Their already-strained supply of cash at hand was pushed past the breaking point by these requirements, and to further the metaphor, AIG was up against the ropes. They were in desperate need of large amounts of cash to meet their immediate financial obligations or they were going to have to declare bankruptcy.

Let them go bankrupt; they’re just another insurance company one might argue at this point. However, the depth of their involvement with other corporations and the sheer number of CDS-backed investments that existed through AIG would have pushed our economy further downward, possibly into a full-fledged depression. Had AIG been allowed to declare bankruptcy and therefore defaulted on all of their CDS accounts, the value of every piece of credit that was previously backed by a CDS would drop by a significant portion as the risk of individuals defaulting on their obligations would then have to be subtracted from the face value. To exemplify this, if I have a loan for $10,000 from a bank that is backed by a CDS through AIG, that bank knows they will receive their money either from me or from AIG, and they can therefore extend this credit to me with little or no consideration for my current financial status or credit history. If the CDS backing is withdrawn, the bank will then have to rely entirely on my ability to repay the loan back if they wish to get their money. Essentially, it shifts the emphasis back onto my personal financial history, and if my credit score is less than stellar, the bank will be required to account for the likelihood of me defaulting on my loan when reporting their assets. With this drop in value, many financial institutions would face similar problems as AIG had faced as their credit ratings would plummet with the loss of these fiscally-secure investments. The collateral damage of this happening would amount to banks struggling to be able to secure lines of credit necessary for their operation, which would in turn ripple through the business sector and eventually decrease the availability for loans to private citizens as well. Essentially, every level of the population would experience what is referred to as a cash freeze, where in there is a halt on the ability for cash to flow from the top tiers of financial institutions, down through corporations, and to the general public. Without liquid assets necessary to perform day-to-day operations businesses and people would suffer immensely and our country would face dire consequences: our economy would slow to a standstill.

With apocalyptic-level circumstances such as these facing our country it is no mystery as to why the AIG “bailout” was swiftly approved. The government was convinced that the company was simply too deeply rooted in our economy to be considered expendable: AIG was too big to fail. The terms of the bailout revolved around a maximum amount of $89 billion to be loaned out by the Federal Reserve, to be repayed within a 24-month term at libor plus 8.5% (a technical way of calculating the interest, equates to around 11%, but fluctuates daily). In addition, the credit is secured by a 79.9% stake in the assets of AIG.

What kind of effects does this legislation carry for us as a nation? First and foremost, the government is now the principle owner of a private insurer, which has never been seen in the history of the United States. Secondly, the government (and taxpayers by association) actually stand benefit monetarily as this is in fact an interest-bearing credit extension backed by a significant portion of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Although it is definitely worth noting; remember those subprime mortgages that were at the bottom of this entire ruckus? Well, those guys are still around, except for now the government owns a stake in the ordeal. This is something to think about, although if a lower percentage of people default on their mortgages than the entire credit industry is predicting, the government does stand to benefit.

So, what makes a business more important than another? If the failure of that business breeds a flash-freeze of all liquid assets within the United States and has a significant chance of bringing about the downfall of our entire economy, it is most likely worth lending $89 billion. With circumstances as menacing as those faced in the AIG bailout, it is most imperative that government officials shed their partisan affiliations and roll up their sleeves for the sake of the preserving our economy, and our country.

[Published in Content Magazine, Fall 2008]

Check the facts

The commercial for Senator McCain and Governor Palin that tag the duo as “mavericks” fighting against government corruption and fighting outside of party lines seems to be lacking a lot of the truth. Specifically, in reference to the “Bridge to Nowhere” project. If you aren’t familiar, the project was a $398 million bridge to connect the town of Ketchikan with the nearby island that was home to it’s airport. This was meant to replace the already existing ferry service that served as a link between the islands. The issue isn’t whether or not it was a legitimate use of government (read: tax payer) money, but the fact that the commercial clearly states that Sarah Palin “blocked” the bridge to nowhere.

Please, spend 30 seconds to type “bridge to nowhere” into google. You will easily find 1,000 websites that refute this claim, and I have yet to find one that supports it as the truth. It is documented that Palin herself was displeased by the phrase “bridge to nowhere” because of its negative connotations about the project, and yet now she champions herself as leading the opposition. Simply put, Palin supported the bridge until it was convenient for her to kill the project because it had gained so much notoriety as a classic example of over-the-top pork barrel spending. In addition, the money that Alaska had already received for the project was kept anyway and spent on other various projects. Well, Governor Palin, thank you very much for your help, I’m sure glad you saved us that $398 million.

[Letter published in The Daily Iowan]

Argument against gay rights doesn’t add up

(In RE: Letter to the Editor)

I could hardly contain laughter at the ludicrous level of misinformation and poor logic used in Kevin Hoover’s letter on Wednesday, May 20. I am honestly in awe that anyone can quote the Declaration of Independence as a way to dispel the right for homosexuals to marry. Two of the listed unalienable rights can be directly associated with the rights for gay marriage (liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Further, nothing within that document nor any other federal document mandates the teachings of the Bible as basis for federal or state law. In fact, as you must well know, the establishment clause of the Constitution strictly forbids the federal government from recognizing any particular denomination as superior or discriminating on the basis of faith. This would include any legislation that may prohibit certain actions or rights to individuals based solely on the teachings of one particular faith.

Lastly, and certainly not least, although there is mention of a Creator in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence there is no indication that it is to be identified as the God outlined within the Bible. In fact, many of the founders and writers of the Constitution and Declaration have been quoted as opposing many teachings of the Christian faith. Included in that is Thomas Jefferson, who is quoted as having said “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law” (letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814). You have the right to disagree, but your argument is unfounded.

[Letter published in The Cedar Rapids Gazette]

Equality editorial hits issue head on

I agree 100 percent with the June 9 editorial, “Law meant for inclusion will end up sponsoring exclusion.”

Haphazard forms of inclusion are detrimental to the institutions they attempt to influence. I agree that diversity on a board or commission is important to maintaining fair and balanced opinion sets for making the best decisions that affect an entire community. Attempting to accomplish it in such a blatantly sloppy manner undermines the means for the sake of statistics. If you’re trying to force diversity for the sake of making the math work out on paper, that’s one thing, but that is not going to be nearly as effective as a well devised plan that incorporates differing opinions based on something other than arbitrary percentages.

[Letter published in The Daily Iowan]

When Size Doesn’t Matter

The health care debate rages on, and it seems even more clear that members of the Republican party have no real way in which to attack a bill that will benefit millions of middle-class Americans. Those rallying against the move are doing whatever they can to demean it, but in ways that are unethical, untrue, and just plain idiotic. Conservatives (including Sarah Palin herself) have resorted to out-right lies about death panels in the bill, the now-notorious “You Lie” outburst (turns out, he wasn’t lying) and most recently bashed it based entirely on–it’s size?

Indeed, the latest round of objections to the bill has been based solely on the length of the document. Apparently, legislation that exceeds a certain length cannot possibly benefit the the country or it’s citizens (yeah, that’s really the argument). The favorite prop of Fox News anchors has become an enormous stack of paper, which is meant to represent the size of whatever current form of the legislation they are bashing at the time, coupled with claims of it’s weight exceeding that of a small child (up to 70 pounds, apparently). And just when you’re expecting them to pull out the facts and figures, they stop. That is literally their argument; this health care bill should not be supported because it’s too long.

I am subjected to a bit of Fox News (One of the TV’s in front of the treadmills at the gym–the one next to the one on ESPN– is stuck on that channel permanently, and I have wandering eyes while I run) and actually got a chance to see their argument first-hand. I thought, perhaps, they had stepped up to the plate this morning when one of the hosts  started off by bashing the assertion that it would be deficit neutral as promised by Obama (now we’re getting somewhere), and just as he was getting to the peak of his argument, he fell flat. His support for his claim? The size of the document. The health care bill can’t be deficit neutral because it’s too long.

I can’t see how any political commentator can be meant to be taken seriously with absurd arguments so clearly based in biased, nonfactual, straw-grasping.

I sure hope our health care bill can lose a little weight before it gets denied coverage like that newborn that was apparently too heavy to qualify for private health insurance.

Sotomayor Picked for Her Record (Not the Criminal Kind)

The upcoming confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor has lead to plenty of preliminary commentary on her track record and her qualifications (or lack there-of). Many pundit heavyweights have tipped the scales already; Limbaugh and Coulter seemed to have nothing especially nice to say about her. The battle rages on between conservatives and liberals over her qualifications, judicial record, and what seems to be most important: Her identity.

Sotomayor is a 55-year old member of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2^nd Circuit. She is also a Puerto Rican female, which would make her (arguably) the first Hispanic appointed to judgeship in the Supreme Court. Her history is a well-documented case of rags-to-riches that has come to win the hearts of many politicians, and much of the public. Growing up father-less from age nine in the Bronx seemed to be a minor hurdle for her, as she managed to grow an impressive list of accomplishments despite her early life setbacks.

Graduating as the Valedictorian from high school paved the way for her career at Princeton where Sotomayor received summa cum laude recognition. From there she attended Yale Law School and was an editor of the Yale Law Review. Certainly a very distinguished resume, Sotomayor is definitely no slouch on paper. From my readings, it seems—although there are a few rumblings of her being “dumb”—the general consensus is that she is certainly qualified for the position on paper and in tenure.

The issue begins to boil over more quickly when addressing her judicial record. The heart and center of the debate is a quote that conservatives have taken to indicate that she is perhaps racist. The quote is often summarized as a slash at white justices, as detailed in this article. However, the quote in it’s entirety could, at best, only vaguely be seen as a racist remark:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

I feel as though, within the context, the quote has clearly been misinterpreted if it used as an indication of Sotomayor being a “racist” or “bigot”. She seems to be referring to an instance in which one’s first-hand understanding of Latina culture and heritage would allow them to make a more informed decision rather than a blanket statement about the intelligence of white males versus Latina females.

Regardless, what should be more carefully considered when analyzing Sotomayor are the accounts of her in-court temperament. It certainly appears to have been less-than-friendly in many instances. Jeffrey Rosen outlined some of the issues that many of her current and former colleagues have encountered in this article. One unnamed former Second Circuit clerk is quoted as having said, “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” I think it is safe to say that such accusations may very well be a solid base for examining Sotomayor’s in-court history as closely as possible before any confirmation.

The last major controversy surrounding Sotomayor is an especially-heated debate about her identity as a Latina female and what role it should play in her career. Her nomination is seen by many conservatives as an act of identity politics: She is appointed only because she is a Latina female, and that is a bad thing. As Leonard Pitts Jr. made clear in the Miami Herald, I think it would be in their best interest to look back at McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. If a conservative can give me any other explanation for her selection outside of her sex while keeping a straight face I would be floored. There really was none. Additionally, he certainly has the right idea that diversity (or identity politics) can certainly stem positive results.

Charles Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post charges that it’s not only identity politics, but that the leading reason for simulated-diversity is empathy. He makes a good point; justice should indeed be left blindfolded and not based on the ability for the “decider” to relate to the situation at hand. However, I see this simply as a misunderstanding of the logic behind diversifying the judiciary. In most scenarios, I’m personally unable to see any need for diversity for the sake of diversity, but when dealing with a powerful body such as the Supreme Court it is much more apparent that diversity is an essential element to providing balanced and fair assessments. And this need not be rooted in empathy, but rather a diverse set of personalities, perspectives, and backgrounds can in and of itself serve as a proponent of proper justice.

The only true blemish on the case for Sotomayor, in my mind, is the interesting comments about her in-court behavior. Aside from those, claiming her to be ill-qualified or a product of useless identity politics seems to be an act of desperation from my seat. With more investigation into these acts, I may be willing to support her confirmation, but then again, I don’t get a vote.