the Janus decision is important here because it shows your nomination fits in a larger campaign that groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have been waging for decades.

Is temperament also an important trait for us to consider?

This moment has become a crucible. It's a test of our progress. Do we start by believing victims of sexual assault and treating them with dignity or don't we?

this process of advice and consent is really a job interview, certainly not a criminal trial.

The President admits on tape to assaulting women. He separates children from their parents. He takes basic healthcare protections from those who need them most.

Are credibility, character, and candor of a nominee things for us to consider in your job interview?

I am particularly troubled that the five Justices in Janus claimed, 'It did not matter that public sector unions have relied on the Abood case for decades.'

my colleagues on the other side are accusing the Democrats of some sort of political conspiracy

The prosecutor should know that sexual assault survivors often do not remember peripheral information, such as what happened before or after the traumatic event.

Does character matter? Do our values, our real values about what is right and what is wrong and about whether we treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect, do they matter anymore?

We all know that the prosecutor, even though this clearly is not a criminal proceeding, is asking Dr. Ford all kinds of questions about what happened before and after, but basically not during the attack.