Peter Kauffmann

This is a highly relatable story. Remember, Ramirez was part of one of the first generations of women who were allowed to go to law school. This happened about a year after Sandra Day O'Connor became the first woman on #SCOTUS. Before that, every decision was made in a boys club.

In 1983? That’s not true. RBG was an attny in the 1960s.

That doesn't mean she was, at the time, in the decision making sector of her law firm or agency. Being present and being powerful are two very different things.She stayed the course and made her way. The 80s were hard times for professional women.

And I acknowledge that in this thread. My issue is with the characterization of Ramirez as one of the first generation of women allowed to attend law school.

I was OF that generation - she was one of the rare women who, more than one at a time, was in law school. The late 70s and early 80s saw a new wave of women law students.

I come from a family line of ivy educated men. My mom and aunts were the first generation of women to go to college in our family. All nurses and teachers. 1/2

2/2 I'm the first woman lawyer in the family. My grandparents were so pissed at me for not wanting to focus on finding a man and getting married. They were sure no one hires women lawyers and that I would be ruining my child's life by setting "that type" of example. This was 2012

Sounds tough and hard for you. Good that you did what was best for you and not them. Your tweet is misleading & that’s my only point.

What people tend to miss is the Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. The vetting is so we seat people of the high moral disposition. A man whom does not respect half the population in the United States, may not give us due process. FBI need to elaborate background.

The SCOTUS has hosted some of the greatest legal minds in our country’s history. Oliver Wendell Holmes leaps to mind. Brett Kavanaugh would be a disgrace to the legacy so many have given their life’s work to enrich.

McConnell and Hatch say that Dems always try to dig up stuff on their picks. Not true. Did Neil Gorshich, who went to Kavanaugh’s school, have anything questioned in his confirmation such as drinking heavily or participating in gang bangs? #SupplyTheMissingDocuments #Kavanope

Funny thing about digging up stuff: if you never tried to bury anything, there’s nothing to dig up.

So drinking heavy is a crime? All it sounds like is it’s possible he could do this, but I don’t hear he did do this. Since when is “he could potentially do the things described” a piece of evidence lmfao!

No one said heavy drinking was a crime. But unless he is now with AA, we don't need him on the Supreme Court. His judgment would be in question, as far as I am concerned.

Reminder: People withdrew from consideration for judgeships for inadvertently hiring nannies who weren’t authorized to work in the US. This is appalling. #StopKavanaugh

Reminder that people don’t get nominated to judgeships till their children are well into adulthood. So these nanny hires were decades ago. Still, they withdrew.

Exactly. Sen Collins @SenatorCollins, Sen Murkowski @lisamurkowski and Sen Flake @JeffFlake, Roche is EXACTLY the type of witness that needs to be brought to the hearing. It’s this type of CHARACTER witness that provides context. Someone is LYING! - and this helps us decide who.