Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride. At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted the committee chairman with demands for a recess before the opening statements were made, and protests are being staged in numerous areas around the building.
This hearing is nothing like anything America has seen in her history, but seems to be the new normal in politics. The main argument today is connected to the timing of document delivery. In the weeks leading up to today, more than 400,000 pages have been distributed to members; this figure represents more than twice the amount of any nominee in history. There were documents protected by the White House, which is a standard thing, but Democrats demanded more. Yesterday another batch was released amounting to over 40,000 additional pages in response to the demands.
As of 11:20 EST, the Women's March group is claiming to be the organizers of the protests, which was intended to interrupt the proceeding every few minutes.
The candidate is considered highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
What are your thoughts? Do you see any impact from the protests on the Senate? Are those groups protesting, doing so for nothing? Is obstruction becoming the new normal in politics, especially from the Democratic Party? Moreover, is there any reason why Judge Kavanaugh should be rejected as a nominee?
- Arrests and protests at Senate hearings are common.
- As I understand it, the Dems tried to stop the hearing because the Repubs delayed releasing the 400,000 pages. It does take time to read that much.
- The candidate is considered highly qualified by the conservative Federalist Society, a legal group. He isn't considered qualified by liberal legal groups.
In answer to your questions:
1. I don't see any impact from the protests because they rarely have impact.
2. Most groups protest for nothing because the people in power just ignore them.
3. Obstruction by either party is not a new thing. Mitch McConnell blocked more judicial appointments when Obama was in power than any presidency in U.S. history.
4. Not from what I've read. But if he pushes more extremist court opinions like Citizens United or a weakening of Roe vs. Wade, it could easily lead to major social unrest.
Which Supreme Court Justice hearings in the past had arrests and protests? I can’t find any, thanks.
Please feel free to do your own research on the history of protests and arrests at Senate hearings.
I think you spoke too soon on this one - there have never been protests of this magnitude at a Senate confirmation hearing that I can find.
We are talking about two slightly different things. I was talking about protests at Senate hearings in general. You are talking about Senate hearings for the Supreme Court specifically.
I don't see how you or I can realistically research every single Supreme Court hearing in U.S. history to find out if there have been any previous protests and arrests at SCOTUS hearings.
That said, I will grant you your point that there have been none if you grant me my point that protests and arrests at Senate hearings aren't limited to just this one hearing.
I am glad to see citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest. If not now, when? This is the nominee of a President and administration in the crosshairs of several investigations, a nominee whose record shows he likely believes a sitting president should not be indicted. He should not be confirmed.
Just what are they protesting? The possible appointment of a judge that will give verdicts by law rather than by political affiliation or bent?
I can't speak for them. I personally believe this president should not be allowed to put forward a nominee for reasons I already explained.
The only "reason" you gave is that you don't like the president; all of his perceived faults are thus projected onto other people, people that may or may not be anything at all like him. And this you called "rational"!
Wilderness,that is not what I said and you know it. I didn't like Dubya but I would never claim we should reject his nominee. This President and his administration is demonstrating an unheard of level of corruption and incompetence, and he happens to nominate a guy who likely believes a sitting president can't be indicted. Strange coincidence, huh?
For the record, I don't think that extremist pro choice group should have protested in the hearing and disrupted it. They should have protested outside.
Here is my question, and perhaps someone on this forum can give me an answer: What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Due process? So President Trump is "under investiation" for alleged crimes. Seems that many have already found him guilty, and therefore not fit to be in office. We are a LONG way off from that, folks. You can't just accuse someone and start an investigation and say "hey - stop what you're doing - you are under investigation." If that was true, then certainly Hillary would never have been able to run for president - because she was "under investigation" for the email server in her basement, and more. Or have we collectively decided to give up that basic freedom? Did I miss the memo?
You missed the memo. Trump is guilty of a large number of crimes, declared guilty because liberals don't like his policies and that's enough to declare guilt of anything and everything.
If you are talking about Mannafort, Cohen, Gates and Papadopoulos, they were found guilty of their crimes.
If you are talking about the other 30+ people who have been indicted and not faced trial yet, you are right, they are innocent until proven guilty.
From Carolyn's post: " So President Trump is "under investiation" for alleged crimes. Seems that many have already found him guilty, and therefore not fit to be in office.".
Seems she was talking specifically about President Trump, declared guilty of crimes he is not even indicted for and therefore not fit to hold office. Not anyone else - what makes you think she was speaking of anyone outside of the President?
To clarify - yes, I was just speaking of President Trump. And only Trump in this instance. I also don't believe in guilt by association - with some exceptions. I think you need to take each person and each case based on the merits. That's just how I roll.
Thanks, Carolyn. I understood your post. I was trying to say that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The opinions of other people don't matter.
I avoided using Trump's name because I was trying to be civil with you and avoid knee-jerk reactions from a couple of Trump extremists who bully people on here. I'll be more direct next time.
Actually, confirmation hearings for supreme court justices were born out of some form of protest against a nominee. And, it surprisingly has a short history (102 years-old). In 1916, the first confirmation hearing was held for a controversial pick made by President Wilson. He was controversial for two reasons: he was Jewish and he was a successful lawyer who sued corporations. They had the senate meeting, but the nominee, Louis Brandeis, wasn't called in to testify. That wouldn't happen until 1939 when another Jewish lawyer (see a pattern?) was nominated by FDR. the nominee, a man with the unfortunate name of Felix Frankfurter was controversial for something else; he defended the accused anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti. Still, he didn't answer many question and only told them that his record speaks for itself (it worked for him).
The type of confirmation hearing that we've come to expect was in 1959, when Potter Stewart was nominated. Again, the controversy was that Southern Democrats and Conservative Republicans were leery of anyone who supported desegregation and affect National Security (that was never fully explained).
Now, what seems to be happening, is the public is taking part in it. I can't say for certain if protesters from the public showed up at the meetings. In many cases, these things were not often televised until recently. And many protester likely stayed outside the court to voice their opposition.
Still, it appears that confirmation hearing has evolved and there appears to be more attempts at vetting a nominee. The only problem is that the nominees get nominated. I believe only one nominee Justice Bork, was rejected after a confirmation hearing.
The McConnell Doctrine clearly states that no SCOTUS nominee should be voted on during an election year.
I believe this was specifically a Presidential election year, but I respect your opinion on the subject if you feel differently. Thanks for contributing!
For what it's worth, I believe it's the right of the President to nominate whomever he wants and for that person to be confirmed if he/she is qualified. That said, Merrick Garland should have been confirmed and that's why people are protesting now.
Now, with all those caveats, I still think he should be confirmed. He's clearly qualified. His appointment will wake up people who believe in individual rights over corporate rights and the rights of women and other marginalized individuals. If you feel stress from a potential blue wave now, wait until Kavanaugh swings a few decisions toward increased restrictions on abortion and more rights for corporations at the expense of individual rights.
I agree. What goes around comes around. Mitch McConnell deserves as much credit for these silly battles as anyone.
If one is okay with what McConnell did to deny Obama his Supreme Court nominee, then one should be just fine with the Democrats' tactics now.
And if they weren't OK with it? It's still OK because it's Democrats this time that are playing a political game to the detriment of the country?
They are playing political games for the betterment of the country, just like MsConnell did.
See how that works?
Yep! A pack of small children fighting in a sandbox, not one of them any better, smarter or caring any more about the people or country than any other one. And that most definitely includes Democrats along with the independents, tea party and republicans. Uncaring, sleazy crooks refusing to do the job they are paid to do while the country spirals further and further out of any semblance of control.
(Is this where we should take note that President Trump did his job in supplying a very qualified candidate - that it is the Democratic party refusing to do their job?)
https://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066456 … t-a-person
Yes . . . during a PRESIDENTIAL election year.
The Marxists hate him. He should be confirmed without delay. Can't wait until Ginsberg dies. Maybe it will be today. What a wonderful time to be alive!
I'm really not seeing anything that would derail him at this point. I did see an article on the net over the weekend that had a prominent Democrat lamenting about Harry Reid bringing the "nuclear option" to the Senate for judicial confirmations. Apparently there are current lawmakers who want to return to the old rules (even though it will likely never happen in our partisan world)
"Can't wait until Ginsberg dies."
Wow, you certainly lived up to your forum persona with that one.
I am in favor of the Democrats doing whatever it takes to prevent his nomination.
Is that because he is viewed as a conservative-leaning judge, or because he is a Trump nominee?
What if Trump nominated a Liberal Judge, would you still reject him or her?
That sounds spiteful PrettyPanther. I was hoping that wasn't your reasoning.
The nominee seems to be well qualified - by anyone's standards. It looks like you have decided to 'join the game, standards be damned.'
No, it is not spiteful. It is rational to reject the nominee of a disgusting, lying POS who is not fit for office.
Can you describe your reasoning? Is it like rejecting because of skin color, a parent in prison or a cousin using drugs? Does "rational" mean actions of other people are used to determine what a nominee would do or what kind of person (s)he is?
Because if the answer is "yes" you truly have gone to the dark side where anything associated with Donald Trump is bad regardless of how good it is. Where WWIII is preferable to Trump as president and where anything that removes him from office is acceptable up to and including assassination.
Based on the number of corrupt individuals he has surrounded himself with, I would say that the odds are pretty good that a person associated with Trump is a corrupt individual. At the very least, he or she is a person who tolerates the lying POS, and that's enough for me.
Kavanaugh might be a great guy, but there is evidence that he leans toward believing a sitting president cannot be indicted. Imagine that. I'm sure that had nothing to do with his being nominated for the Supreme Court by a sitting president in the crosshairs of several investigations. (sarcasm) If you believe Trump nominated him because he is a great legal scholar, well, then that would be typical of Trump supporters: ignoring the obvious.
He may believe that, according to the law, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Does the opinion of Democrats, uneducated in the nuances of the law or ignoring the law in favor of political power plays, make him wrong?
It seems so, doesn't it?
"Kavanaugh may not become the most conservative member of the court, but his background suggests he would be the most partisan.
"Working for Kenneth W. Starr in the 1990s, he was involved in the Vincent Foster and Monica Lewinsky probes, proposing an explicit line of questioning for President Bill Clinton with graphic queries about genitalia, masturbation, phone sex and oral sex.
"And as a young lawyer under George W. Bush, Kavanaugh was involved in Bush v. Gore, the probe of Clinton’s pardons and legal decisions about torture."
No wonder Trump chose him. He wants a partisan Supreme Court for his impeachment challenge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … aaa0c7d711
According to Wikipedia, "At the federal level, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments"."
What does a partisan Supreme Court have to do with preventing or approving an impeachment?
Impeachments are guided by laws. If the House impeaches him, and the Senate goes to trial with the impeachment, then a procedural flaw in either one could lead to court involvement.
And during a Senate impeachment trial, the Chief Justice serves as the judge. So SCOTUS potentially gets involved two ways.
Spoken like a true partisan. I watched part of the hearing today. I must say, it went on better than I had expected. Senator Lindsay Gramm did an excellect job framing the debate. This man seems well qualified to be a justice. Those who don’t support him or vote for him based on merit just shows how partisan they are. I am all for the democratic process. Let the Senators do their job.
Just like with Merrick Garland?
But wait, that was different!
Yes, it was. That was a presidential election year. Remember the Biden rule?
"Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate." - Wikipedia
Biden simply suggested they wait. McConnell refused even to hold a hearing -- a first in U.S. history.
Garland was nominated nearly a full year before Trump took office and not a couple of months like the Biden example. McConnell didn't even offer the moderate option.
The democrats were the one that changed the Senate rule of a 60 member majority. Now they cry foul...
What does that have to do with anything on this thread???
It relates to how judges are reviewed and appointed...
Do you deny that Democratic Senators changed the rules on the 60 majority? They did and at the time, I remever distinctly McConnell warned them of changing times. In a few short years, they lost their majority and now we are more partisan. Who are we the people to blame? Not the GOP.
Guess what? There are rules in the US Senate and the Supreme Court nomination process. The majority party in the Senate chooses what does and does not come up for a vote. The Republican majority in the Senate was under NO obligation to begin the nomination process with Merrick Garland. Rules don't change because Democrats don't like them. If Democrats didn't like it, they should have gotten enough Democrats elected to control the US Senate. That is how it has worked for hundreds of years and doesn't change to appease the Democrat party. People voted a majority Republican Senate and this is how it works.
Ah, the hand grenades are back.
Refusing to have a hearing to fill a Supreme Court seat is not "how it works".
From now on, let's have the party in charge of the Senate always refuse to have a hearing on filling any SCOTUS seat if the President is from the other party.
During an 8-year presidency, if we had 3 openings, all 3 can sit there empty until the same 2 parties control both the Senate and White House.
The hearing process worked during the entire history of the U.S. government because no party was asinine enough to refuse any SCOTUS hearings.
Until now, thanks to Republican extremists.
Kavanaugh is probably as good as it gets for a Republican nominee. I think this kind of thing is the new norm.
The Senate refusing to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nomination is NOTHING new. Here is an article about how common it was in the 1800s.
"Battles over a president’s late-term judicial nominations are nearly as old as the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson’s successful fight against John Adams’ “midnight judges,” appointees rushed through in Adams’ last days in office in 1801, led to the famed Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ … 180962589/
Again, the US Senate is under NO obligation to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nomination. If Democrats don't like it, they should have worked harder and elected more Democrats. President Donald Trump provided a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court nominations during his campaign. This is what the people of the United States voted for. Sometimes when you lose, you have to accept everything that goes with it. That is how adults handle things. Maybe not liberals or Democrats, but adults.
Horsepoop. That's a complete misreading of the article. Those were nominees who simply weren't confirmed.
The article clearly states they took place before hearings became a standard for all future nominees.
Garland is the only nominee denied a hearing since hearings were first implemented BY BOTH PARTIES.
Adults with a conscience and who believe in the Constitution fight for democracy.
Right-wing extremists want everything their way, without compromise, even when it comes to putting an illegal President into the White House with Russian money and propaganda.
For them, the only Constitution is the 2nd Amendment and a puppet dictator.
See, we all can throw hand grenades. What good does it do?
Sounds like your DTS is in overdrive. Work hard to elect more Democrats to the Senate and THEY can determine Supreme Court nomination hearings. Until then....sour grapes. Be honest, if the roles were reversed, the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing as the Republicans are doing now. You're not as upset with what is being done as much as you are that your side isn't doing it. That is the bottom line.
When wrong, evade and get personal.
My side? You still don't understand a thing about me or anyone else who doesn't agree with you.
By the way, it's a little hard for Democrats to win elections when Russians and billionaire Republicans are rigging them.
Oh well, it that's all you have....you have nothing. it's not a personal attack...NO Democrat would complain if the tables were turned. THAT is my point. Democrats are NO better than Republicans. They only complain better and act like children better when they don't get what they want.
LOL It's come to that now? Without Russian lies and false information Trump would not be President? As the Democrats 100% rig their primary to get the result the handlers want?
That's about the funniest thing I've heard yet!
The left has been very good for jokes since the election.
I beg to differ. They were a joke long before the election.
Did you hear about the reporter who asked Obama a hard question? Neither have we!
Remember when some Republicans were saying that due to his current scandals, President Obama should be impeached. In response, Obama laughed and said, 'Two words fellas: President Biden.'
What's even funnier is someone who denies dozens of indictments and even Trump's own cabinet members saying the Russians are interferring in our elections.
The joke is on you.
Now that we have the Bob Woodward book and the NYT article by a senior Trump Administration official, we pretty much know, without a doubt, that Trump is a lunatic, unhinged, and childlike. Anyone who supports him is an active participant in the destruction of civility and perhaps the Presidency itself.
Those around him still clearly believe in conservative principles. We should all be thankful that, conservative or liberal, there are people like them in government willing to do what's best for the country and keep Trump under control.
"Anyone who supports him is an active participant in the destruction of civility and perhaps the Presidency itself."
Puts them in great company, for that is exactly what the TDS crowd has been doing for months and months now. You know - spouting that he is mentally ill (without ever performing an exam or being qualified to render an opinion), exaggerating his every move into something it wasn't, taking words out of context when it can be made to show him wrong or foolish. All that a and much more. About all they haven't done is prove Trump/Russia collusion to fix the election!
TDS is definitely a thing, just not what you think it is.
Again, you have somebody from within the administration saying that almost the entire administration is controlling Trump to keep him from destroying everything because he doesn't have any guiding principles and changes his mind from one minute to the next. He's unstable.
And then you have Woodward, one of America's most trusted journalists.
Sure, you have a mess of chaotic responses to Trump because he's unstable.
Did you read the NYT article? It's both unnerving, but somewhat confidence inspiring because it's good to know that even though the administration is conservative, they hold their responsibility to America higher than they hold their responsibility to Trump.
Why would I want to read something a liberal news source says is from an anonymous source making grandiose claims while hiding behind the curtain? Reminds me of the sad little guy in the Wizard of Oz.
"TDS" is silly Fox News propaganda for the enjoyment of simple minds. It really needs to take a rest.
But you understood the point being made with the term, right? I'd have to say it is quite useful in that regard.
Not at all. I am not a psychiatrist with the credentials to make up a mental illness.
What's hilarious about TDS is how ironic its use has become. Between the anonymous NYT article by a Trump administration person and Bob Woodward's book, you'd have to be in complete denial not to see the serious, unprecedented and dangerous problems.
I pretty much agree with that cartoon. Unfortunately, it is simply a response commensurate with how they are treated by the President.
I saw part of the hearing and I must say, whether you agree with his politics or not, this man is an excellent choice. I don’t get the people against him or the protesters. What are they afraid of?
If anything, he seems too perfect. A father, a husband, a coach, a volunteer, a teacher and a judge. What else is he missing?
For those who are afflected with TDS, anything that Trump proposes must be wrong or bad. That is how insane this process has become.
You wonder what happened to civility in our country? What happened to tolerance? And what happened to free speech? Is this the best example we can present to the kids of our country?
I love it when Trump supporters ask what happened to civility and tolerance in this country. Get a clue. You elected a lying, bullying, name-calling, misogynistic POS to the highest office in the land.
That's what happened to civility and tolerance in this country.
BTW, I did not vote for Trump, but I will take him anyday over the lying, corrupt and scheming Hillary Clinton for POTUS.
Your "case" is apparently that the President can be as obnoxious, deceitful, and hateful as he wants and you still defend him, while holding your fellow citizens who call a spade a spade to a higher standard than their leader.
That is the true derangement.
Just so you know, I may not like his style but in almost every instance, Trump was attacked first and he responded in kind. Unlike previous GOP candidates, like McCain and Romney who were too nice and they lost.
What I do like is his policies and his choices for the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, that is what counts.
Then don't complain about civility and tolerance if you are okay with a president who displays neither. You continue to encourage the low, low bar demonstrated by your dear leader. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticize your fellow Americans for despising that low, low bar and calling him out for what he is: a lying POS.
Who started it? The chicken or the egg? Doesn’t matter does it...
He gave what they dish out and more.
He could have behaved like Romney and then again Hillary would be president today.
Yes, it matters. I expect more of my president. It's sad that you don't. It's even sadder that you turn around and criticize your fellow citizens while praising your childish, bully president.
I am being objective. I am defending him only because he was unfairly attacked in many incidences by a biased media. Do you deny that?
You can't be objective if you don't even understand what the word means. Your opinions are as subjective as they come.
I know what it means. You can be objective in your judgement and still hold an opinion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
By the way, here is a simple test on objectivity. Anyone can do it.
Suppose there is some proposal or law on the table. If you support it because Obama proposed it and now is against it when Trump also propose it. That is a sign of bias. On the other hand, if you support or not support any issue, regardless where it came from, that is being objective.
Take immigration and the wall. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported it down theough the years especially during campaigns and pre election. You can look up youtube videos of Clinton calling for it... I support it. Now, some politicians are going back on their words and even some Republican lawmakers have backtracked.
So, the moral of the story...I am being objective and these politicians are two-faced.
If you think you're being objective, you're delusional. You hold conservative views. You use conservative sources to back up your opinions. That's all fine. But it's not objectivity. We've already seen on climate change that you have absolutely no idea how to evaluate data and therefore, have formed a very subjective opinion about climate change.
Claiming you're objective is claiming that you somehow have a line on the truth. You have no such line. Your opinions are entirely subjective and probably more subjective than others since you hold a strict party line on virtually every subject. You obviously only tend to look at one side of an issue.
Actually not being able to acknowledge your subjectivity makes your opinions even less valuable.
And you proved me right by giving an incorrect definition of objectivity. There's bias in every statement you make. Somebody so biased isn't objective, which again, is fine.
"What are they afraid of? "
A judge that will render verdicts based on the law rather than Democratic ideology.
I would chime in with some depth, but for two things.
A) He will be confirmed and nothing is going to stop that, so what is the point in putting effort into debating the matter.
B) The one person I defer to in all things political has thrown her support in his favor 100%. She is far more sagacious than I in such matters. Her testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcbiB1AWPI
"He will be confirmed and nothing is going to stop that, so what is the point in putting effort into debating the matter."
Grandstanding and posturing for gullible voters in the upcoming elections; voters that think it's a sincere effort to stop the inevitable. Happens all the time, which is probably why many politicians still have a job.
Other than that, I haven't a clue.
If even Trump were a" bully " and he still nominated Kavanaugh AND given that Condoleezza Rice stands up for him the way she did - a black ,female , ex-Bush leaguer ; who served as a REAL Secretary of State . That is good enough for me .
And , Kavanaugh will be the next supreme court Justice .
No matter how it makes the left's heads explode !
The SCOTUS hearings were a democratic circus act beginning from day one , Harris , Booker , all the rest of the opposition one on top of the other vying for election attention , I find it interesting to see what the Democrats 3 ring circus act will do to mid term impressions of these grandstanders .
Come on red tide .
I loved it when Condi Rice educated everyone there about Kavanaugh , That woman shows more class than the entire sitting committee . Notice , no racism chants or feminists whining about her testimony ,
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Christine Blasey Ford is currently being questioned in a Senate Hearing and her narrative is showing some holes, especially the "fear of flying" portion. For those of you just tuning in, she had asked for the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying. What's been...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
Does he favor and lean toward the the Right, or does he truly follow the precepts of the Constitution of the United States.Some would say the Right ARE the upholders of the Constitution! (And the Left are the destroyers of the Constitution.)
by JAKE Earthshine 2 years ago
*Public Domain*is it true and should cowardly complicit republicans agree to investigate the claims to find out? Of course they should but they probably won't, just like they've refused to live up to their oaths of office: In a normal, functioning American society which we are unfortunately light...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Do you contend that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice will set women's rights & reproductive choices back? Judge Kavanaugh position is pro-life. He is against abortion & even view birth control pills as abortifacient drugs. The...
by ga anderson 9 months ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering for Supreme Court nominees; just as Democrats...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|