To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Bobby Scott (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bobby Scott
BobbyScott.jpg
Chair of the House Education and Labor Committee
Assumed office
January 3, 2019
Preceded byVirginia Foxx (Education and the Workforce)
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 3rd district
Assumed office
January 3, 1993
Preceded byThomas Bliley
Member of the Virginia Senate
from the 2nd district
In office
January 12, 1983 – January 3, 1993
Preceded byHerbert Bateman
Succeeded byHenry Maxwell
Member of the Virginia House of Delegates
from the 48th district
In office
January 13, 1982 – January 12, 1983
Serving with Ted Morrison, Alan Diamonstein
Preceded byHarvey Morgan
Succeeded byMary A. R. Marshall
Member of the Virginia House of Delegates
from the 49th district
In office
January 11, 1978 – January 13, 1982
Preceded byLewis McMurran
Succeeded byVince Callahan
Personal details
Born
Robert Cortez Scott

(1947-04-30) April 30, 1947 (age 72)
Washington, D.C., U.S.
Political partyDemocratic
EducationHarvard University (BA)
Boston College (JD)
Military service
Allegiance United States
Branch/service United States Army
Years of service1970–1973 (Massachusetts National Guard)
1973–1976 (Army Reserve)

Robert Cortez Scott (born April 30, 1947) is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Virginia's 3rd congressional district since 1993. A member of the Democratic Party, he is the dean of Virginia's congressional delegation. The district serves most of the majority-black precincts of Hampton Roads, including all of the independent cities of Franklin, Newport News (where he resides) and Portsmouth, parts of the independent cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Norfolk and Suffolk and all of Isle of Wight County.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    2 235
  • ✪ DeYoung, Duncan, Scott, Um | Keep a Close Watch on the Teaching

Transcription

- [Kevin] You just heard from Bobby Scott, who's been preaching to us. And give him a chance to soothe his voice, as he's been working through a cold. But thank you so much, brother. And we heard from Stephen Um earlier today. As some of you have seen, I have three-sevenths of my children here with me, and so they're in the back. So I have been back there, and Ligon has been back there, too. And we have been able to watch the messages with you from that room, even if not from this room. So thank you, both of you, for preaching so well through Second Timothy. And you get to hear from Ligon Duncan here on my right who is the Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary and the erstwhile Pope of Presbyterianism. We're very glad to have Ligon. Sometimes confused as the founder of Ligonier Ministries, but not named after him. So glad to have Mr. Duncan, Reverend Doctor, here. And he will be preaching tomorrow morning and we look forward to hearing that. Last night was "keep a close watch on your life," and tonight is the other half of that verse from 1 Timothy, Chapter 4, "keep a close watch on your doctrine." Keep a close watch on your life and on your doctrine. Obviously the two are related. So I have a number of questions for this esteemed panel. And for some of them, men, we'll have you go down and each respond, but for others I may just call on one or may move us on to the next one so we can get through a number of these questions and not feel like we have to always go down the line. But I do want on this first one, and we will just go down starting with Ligon to Stephen to Bobby, we're talking about keeping a close watch on your doctrine. So I want to know have you been tempted by a particular doctrinal deviation at some point in your life? Either you were mistaken on a doctrine, and I don't mean you went from baptism to paedobaptism or paedobaptism to baptism, if any of you did. But a very serious, heretical heterodox sort of error. Or have you been tempted, you know, wrestled with, such a deviation at some point in your life? - [Ligon] While I was at the University of Edinburgh doing my doctoral work, I read all of the works of James Barr. James Barr was a professor at the University of Edinburgh for a number of years, he wrote a very important book that Stephen will be familiar with because of his New Testament studies called <i>The Semantics of Biblical Language,</i> which is actually a very helpful book in many ways. But Barr was an ex-evangelical, and ex-evangelicals are notoriously antagonistic towards the Gospel, towards a high view of scripture, etc. He was a helpful critic of Scottish Bardianism, but a relentless critic of Bible-believing Christianity. Wrote a large book called <i>Fundamentalism</i>, which was just a broadside assault on a high view of scripture. And I read that book, I probably had more notes in the margin than I had...than he wrote in the book. And, but reading... And I felt like I needed to read his book for apologetic reasons because I knew there would be evangelical pastors that would be disturbed by some of the things that he was saying about the Bible. But it was a soul-killing time for me. It was a very dry season. Interestingly, at the same time I was reading Ned Stonehouse's biography of J. Gresham Machen and I was at the point in that biography where Stonehouse is describing Machen going to study in Germany with Herrmann, who was the major liberal scholar in Europe at that time, and Machen went through a real crisis of faith. Well, I didn't quite go through what Machen went through, but it was a very, very hard time for me. I was never tempted to deviate from orthodox Christian doctrine, but I was very much tempted to doubt. And very frankly it was the faithful preaching of my pastor in the local church, the wonderful witness of godly Christian men and women in the congregation who had no idea what spiritual struggles that I was going through. But I saw a reality in their lives, I often thought to myself, "There is no way you could be like you are if there is no Holy Spirit." You know, just the witness of their lives, the sweet witness of their lives. I saw the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. And then a professor who had gone through some of the same kind of questions that I had gone through, and so he was able to help me through those things. That's probably the closest thing in my experience, Kevin. - That's good, that's good. Stephen? - [Stephen] I remember before going to do doctoral work, I think it was John Piper or somebody told me, he said, "You're going to go through a moment where you will experience doctrinal blues." I said, "What do you mean by that?" "There will be a moment when you're doing your work, you're going to get so caught up in the details and you're going to feel the pressure from the academy. And not that you're going to abandon your faith, but you're going to wonder why you're there." And I certainly went through that. I had a great supervisor, Richard Bauckham, and he was helpful. But I remember when I had to present a few papers. One at the British New Testament Conference, which is the British version of SBL. And I was there presenting some kind of water spirit motif in John's gospel in John Chapter 4 and I had these scholars that I had revered for so many years sitting there. I felt the weight. And I'm like, "Should I go ahead and present it, when they're clearly going to know that I am believing in Jesus as God crucified and that I have an eschatological Christological perspective on this passage? Or am I going to kind of walk myself back on the paper that I had presented to give?" I felt the weight of that. Not that I wanted to abandon my faith, but I wanted to please the people, the scholars, that I revered. And so that's there, that's for real, that's people-pleasing, that's trying to get the approval from man. Because you're...in scholarship it's actually the pressure is more intense, as you know, Ligon. And I just said, "Lord, I'm just going to..." And you're allowed to do this in Britain, just read off your notes. So I just kind of read off the notes and I said, "I don't care what they think, I'm just going to read what I've presented." And yeah, and then they start bombarding you and challenging what you have stated, "Are you serious, that you actually believe this about this particular place?" And so that's one place, and another place would be on...in New Testament scholarship you...people look at you funny if you have an orthodox view of Paul in the law. And they're like, "Are you kidding? Really? Like, you don't understand that we're supposed to have this new perspective on Paul?" "Yeah, I don't. Actually, I don't. And I'll tell you why your position is wrong." But the pressure is intense. And so I think we all go through that at times when we... It's not that we want to stop believing what we want to believe, but we're tempted to not say everything we want to say because we're afraid we're going to get rejected. - Yeah, that's good. And it's not always just...you know, these stories are with academia, but it's not always that, it can be people to the left of us, people to the right of us, people in our local ministerial fraternal, people in our own family. It's those circles often of people we respect and want to please that then our commitment to Christ becomes difficult. Bobby. - [Bobby] There was a season when I was a young believer doing ministry at UCLA when my pastor and I was at Grace Community Church for seven years. John wrote this groundbreaking book <i>The Gospel according to Jesus</i> and it was dealing particularly with kind of a dispensational heresy that was coming out of easy believism. There was just so much dichotomy between just sanctification and justification that some were saying that once you prayed the prayer, you can completely apostatize and reject Jesus and still you will lose your inheritance but you'll go to heaven as aware of the Kingdom of Heaven. And we were on campus and we all got labeled as, attenders of Grace Community Church, as heretics. So we kind of all went to our Bibles and the Lord led us just to study through biblical theology of trying to wrestle through how to answer those objectives. Not wanting to front-load the Gospel, that you've got to do all these things and do all this work first, and then you'll have real faith. And so we were, like, really struggling trying to balance grace and the following sanctification that will come. And so it was a season where things weren't clear in how I would articulate grace in the Gospel. And I think the Lord led us to a safe place. Instead of front-loading the Gospel, just to recognize who Jesus really is, that He is Lord. You're trusting by God's grace the one who is Lord. And He, once He has saved us, progressively transforms our lives and brings our lives incrementally in submission to his lordship, He does all that. So it was a struggle for a season trying to work through that and it was hard, especially as we were being labeled as heretics on campus. - That's hard, that's hard. Let me ask a couple of generalizing questions, knowing that you're not expected to be experts for an entire region of the country. But just as I look down here, I think we have someone who has spent a lot of his life in the Southeast, and we have Stephen who has been pastoring for more than a decade in New England and Boston, then we have Bobby who's here in Southern California. Just real quickly, what might be a doctrinal danger for your kind of region? Because we're humans and there's similarities more than differences. But sometimes in these different pockets there's different idols and there's different potential doctrinal errors. So, Stephen, start with you. - Sure. I mean what you would expect of Boston is what you would expect. I think it doesn't require a whole lot of courage for a Christian to accommodate the baseline cultural narrative in a place like Boston. So if the baseline cultural narrative has a certain view of justice, of sexuality, it's very easy for a Christian not to be counterintuitive but to simply accommodate what the culture has to say about that. Now don't mishear me, I'm not saying that there aren't appropriate points of contact or a place of identification. But I think it requires courage to say something that's countercultural. And I would say the same thing if you are down in the South, it requires greater courage to speak into whatever the baseline cultural narrative is in your setting, which would be very different than mine. And that's why, as I was saying earlier, if you are understanding...if you have an understanding of the Gospel, then whatever your social context is going to be you're always going to seem a little right to the left and a little left to the right on the ideological spectrum. And so...and I think that's a healthy thing. And so for me it would be on sexuality and it would be on the issue of social justice. That would be the challenge. - And in any context, and you've mentioned this and Tim Keller has brought is up that before, too, there's going to be elements in a culture where there may be some overlap. And so you can say true things, you could say a whole lot of true things in Boston that Bostonians would think, you know, "That's wicked awesome. You know, we like that in the Gospel, but not..." I know, I didn't want to, you know, overdo it. And the same thing with other parts of the country. Lig, different set of circumstances, what might you say for the Southeast? - You still have a lot of nominal Christianity in the Southeastern United States, whereas in the Northeast, in the Northwest that is almost dead as a doornail. You know, there's no cultural capital in nominal Christianity in...by and large in those parts of the country anymore. We're 20 years behind the culture, typically, in the Southeast and so there's still some cache in nominal Christianity. That manifests itself in a variety of ways. One is in it's very squishy doctrinally, it's kind of like they don't care. The other thing is it tends to be very experiential. So it's about a cathartic experience every Sunday. You know, and so you have people sort of running in herds from one cathartic experience to another, so from one big megachurch in the area to the other. And then faithful pastors in that context are just so discouraged because they're preaching their hearts out, they're preaching the Bible, and the herd is running from one superficial, glib... I mean you've got this in Charlotte, my brother. You know, all the bells and whistles are in this zero-intelligent, zero-doctrinal, zero-biblical kind of zone. - Other than that it's really good. - Other than that it's really good, yeah. - Yeah. - So, you know, that is a...that's a reality. If you're a Bible-believing pastor in the Southeastern United States, you've got that reality surrounding you everywhere. And you've got to...you know, you don't want to become cranky in that setting, "I'm going to gather the 13 faithful people in this city and we're going to have a pure church." You know, so you want to reach out to your culture, but you don't want to cave in. Because what often happens is you start accommodating the culture there for the sake of growing your church, and then suddenly you're in the same soup that you're concerned about. So that definitely is one of the things you have to think about in the Southeast. - Yeah, that is right on. - Well, I'm limited in talking about just the church experience on the West Coast in general, I spend so much time in the black church context. And for us in the black church context the Pentecostalism was born here. Azusa Street Revival in 1906, and that, along with just the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement, there was just so much power that the church experienced politically that the black church had to be everything for the entire community. So you get...there's one stop and you represent it in every single way. Because there was so much political clout that the church gained through the Civil Rights Movement, it was a marriage almost, and we need a divorce right now. So power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the legacy of some of that are the Reverend Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons and the Social Gospel. And when you tether that together with almost kind of an all-theological context that there aren't real limits to the Pentecostalism, so it embraces T. D. Jakes the same way it would a sound expositor. So I'm at... I went a few months ago, I was at...I live in Inglewood, it's near LAX. So I was at the Inglewood Ministerial Prayer Breakfast and it must have been a couple hundred pastors there, but also every politician was there and the speaker was an unbeliever, a celebrity unbeliever, and brought the Word that day. And I like the guy, I like Tavis Smiley, but it was Tavis Smiley, he's a part of the Me Too thing, too. And so there's a part of the Church that culturally, I think, is conservative when it comes to biblical truth, but because it's not really grounded in sound doctrine it really can be tossed here and there by everyone in doctrine. So that's the climate that we have to fight against. - You know, that's really helpful, and it leads into the next question which I was going to ask and you already answered it. Was just to speak a little bit, knowing, again, not monolith, I'm not asking you to speak for everyone that fits a certain ethnicity, but Bobby has already spoken very poignantly challenges in the African American community. Particular idols or doctrinal dangers in the Asian American community, the Scottish American community? We'll let you speak for...or speak more broadly. But there are sometimes particular dangers and this gives us an opportunity to speak into them. - I probably have more Caledonian cultural tendencies than Lig does. But, yeah, I would say... - [Inaudible 00:17:35] - Yeah, that's right, that's right. There are some McKims. Yeah, yeah. - That's problematic. - I would say for Asian Americans, especially for Far Eastern Asian Americans, education is idolatry. Okay? Education is idolatry. Now I don't want to question the good intentions that parents have in wanting their children to thrive, right? Every parent has that instinct. But Asian parents, it's kind of...it's uberized, right? I mean when it comes to education, because they heard somewhere at some point that if you receive the kind of educational training here in this country, then you can make it. So, but along with that comes a great amount of commitment and devotion and pressure. And I think that there isn't a whole lot of room and space for grace in Asian American parenting. And I've struggled with this over the years and by God's grace I've gotten better. So my eldest daughter struggled the most because of the pressure that I put on her. And my youngest one, she's reaping the benefits that I got out of my system with the first one. So I just expect less from my youngest daughter. - I've found after seven children that is the secret to successful parenting, low expectations. - Right, right. Well, I mean this is not only an Eastern or Asian thought. Margaret Mead, the mother of anthropology out of Columbia, she said that the following generation...the preceding generation always wants the following generation to surpass what they've accomplished. And there's...I mean there's nothing necessarily intrinsically morally wrong with that, but the idolatrous aspect is when we want to make that too important. Right? Idolatry is taking something...taking a good thing and making it an ultimate thing. So oftentimes most of our idols are good things. So I think that's probably the biggest issue in the Asian American Christian community. - Yeah. Lig, one of the issues sometimes in white culture or just majority culture is the thinking we don't have a culture, we're just sort of neutral. And, you know, other people have interesting things and we're just sort of doing it all vanilla when there is...no pun intended, but there's a culture. What...speak into some of the experience of the majority culture and some blind spots, doctrinal dangers we have. - Well, I mean you've touched on it. I think that, first of all, by the way, I think historically probably the idea of whiteness is a 19th century idea. I couldn't prove that historically to you right now, but I've been working on this a little bit and I'm pretty sure that idea is a 19th century idea, which that needs to ring some bells for us. And that means that in our current discussion today that can be both a helpful and a very unhelpful category, depending on how it's being deployed. It was, of course, in the 19th century developed as a category to protect cultural superiority, now it's being used as a category to critique cultural superiority, and in both ways it's actually unhelpful. So that's another story for another day. But I do think people in my socioeconomic setting in the church... Let's not try and figure out all the world's problems, let's just talk about believers right now. People...believers in my cultural socioeconomic setting and with my skin color very often assume that everybody else in the world inhabits the space that they've inhabited. Because we have a certain cultural capital and cache which we simply assume is the way it is. So we tend to be very, very comfortable with folks that don't look us who are happy to assimilate to how we do things. And we tend to think that folks who don't look like us, who don't assimilate to the way we do, they're weird. And in all of that we are assuming that the way that we are doing things is normal and the way that everybody else is doing things is not. But we are often unaware of how pervasively we assume that. And hence we really need to work to be self-aware about our own assumptions, we really need to work. And honestly this is something...this has only been dawning on me in the last 10 years. I'm almost 58 years old. I was so much the frog in the kettle that I was oblivious to this, and would have been resistant to it if somebody had tried to help me see it. And a lot of this, a lot of the Lord's work on me in this area is through wonderful Gospel friendships with Bible-believing brothers and sisters with whom I share all of the great convictions of my life, but who don't look like me and whose backgrounds are totally different from me. And suddenly in making friends, in beginning to love somebody different from you who shares all your theological convictions and being able to see the world through their eyes and being able to appreciate their concerns and their perspectives and letting them help me see me. That's has been incredibly important in my life and it's the Lord just has just kindly been slowly, you know, putting me into that setting where I could have some self-awareness that I've just not had because I've lived in a cultural situation that allowed me to be with people like me and from my background most of the time. I mean this is one of the real problems in America. We talk about America being a melting pot, we are not. We've got a lot of different racial and social and economic groups and categories, we don't mix very much at all. And that means that we live segregated lives. And when you live a segregated life, it's really hard to enter into the experience of a person who hasn't...who's not from the same background that you are. And I just think we need to be super aware of that. It's not about compromising convictions, it's not about, you know, seeking some secular framework to manage reality, it's about how...as a Bible-believing Christian committed to historic Christian doctrine, how can we as believers relate to one another in a better, more healthy, God-honoring, brother-and-sister-honoring way. And if you're not even aware of the problem, you can't be part of the solution. - That's right, that's right. Bobby, did you have a verse? - No, no. - Save it, you'll have a verse for later. - Can I just follow up on that? - Sure. - So for those of you who are bicultural, it's actually, spiritually speaking, advantageous that you are bicultural in this regard. Right? If the Bible says we are sojourners, then we are resident aliens, right? We belong to a commonwealth which is citizens of the commonwealth of the Kingdom of God, but we're also temporary residents here on earth. Because psychologists call this frame switching. Okay? Frame switching is you're able to look into a situation through the lens of one particular frame. So if you are bicultural, you can look at it from one perspective and it can be helpful, but in another perspective you're looking at it through a different frame. And so if you are always looking at reality from your home culture, whatever that might be, then the way you look at the host culture will be framed by the influence that you've received. Which means we have cultural preferences and customs, we all do. And when we absolutize that, then it becomes a cultural prejudice. So we all have different preferences when it comes to time. I'm from the East Coast, so I'm a lot more uptight about time than I would imagine those of you who are from the West Coast. That's not even a cultural...that's not a racial cultural difference, that's just... - Regional. - Yeah, yeah. - Some of them just woke up. - Yeah, that's right, that's right. You know the biases that Easterners have, Northeasterners. You know, we assume that we work harder and we're more punctual, and so we're going to be uptight. We're going to look at somebody...So if I'm officiating a wedding and there is...I'm officiating a biracial marriage. And so on one side represents the dominant racial culture and the other one is, let's say, a non-Western culture. So if the wedding starts at 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon, everyone on this side will be there at 2:40, 2:45, but there's no one here on this side. And so right around 2:55 everyone is getting nervous, they're saying, "What happened? Did this person abandon the wedding?" And then they start coming at 3:10, 3:15. And they're happy because it's a wedding and all the people over here are uptight and they look angry or very subdued like they're at a funeral. Because what they're saying is, "This is very rude of you to come here, it's irresponsible for you to come here late." Whereas the people over here say, "Look, it's a wedding, relax." People have different sensibilities when it comes to time. Now, I mean, I like to be prompt wherever I go, however what I'm saying is that if you take a cultural preference, such as time, and you absolutize it, it becomes cultural prejudice. And what Lig was saying is so true. "We do it this way, why can't you do it this way?" And then we start demonizing people who are from a different tribe. - Yeah. Let's segue into an important question. We're talking about keeping a close watch on your doctrine, one of the doctrinal controversies, one of the doctrinal elephants in the evangelical room at the moment is how we should think about social justice. And many of us have read discussions online, some of us have been a part of those. All of us read the statement that came from Pastor John and from others and all count him a friend and a mentor and with a great appreciation. So we're not speaking to that statement in particular, but grateful for the opportunity to speak to the issues because they matter. So let me put the question to any of you who can jump in this way. I want to ask you twofold. First, give me a definition of "social justice" that you don't like, "If 'social justice' means X, I'm not for it." And then we'll go on, "But if 'social justice' means Y, then I think Christians ought to be engaged in it." We'll set aside whether you should use the category or if it has too much baggage, we'll save that. But just start, give me, "If it means X, I don't want any part of it." - Well, to give an example, sort of the humanist approach to social justice would be something like this, "Any social, economic, gender, or racial inequality or disparity is the result of injustice." Okay? And that's crazy. You know, and so I think some of the friends that were involved in the social justice statement are really afraid that that kind of thinking, which is pervasive in the university culture, the academic culture of our country, part of the political left, they're afraid of that influence in evangelicalism. That's a bad definition. And, by the way, it's a definition that establishes an impossible goal to ever achieve, as well. And therefore it becomes one of those "don't waste a crisis" kind of things. It can be used to hammer any nail into any, you know, piece of wood that you want to hammer it into. - And no one really thinks that when it comes to it because no one really...no one then goes to the disparities in the number of men in prison versus women, that that automatically equals injustice. Now what you haven't said is that the disparities may be the result of injustice, you're simply saying the equation, there's a disparity, that means injustice. - And I think most reasonable people, believers or not, would look at it and say, "Well, some of those disparities probably are and others are not." And how you go about figuring that out takes some hard work. - So that's one component. Other components of a bad definition? - If I could just add to that, a couple of thoughts. First is if we talk about justice and there's no forgiveness, then there's no point of reference with the justice that the Bible speaks about. Now, again, I'm not saying that we should not address injustices, absolutely so. But if there's a form of position on social justice that is devoid of any forgiveness, it doesn't align with the justice that is emphasized in scripture. Secondly, when you look at the book of Micah, right? So I wrote a little book on the book of Micah, it's 80% judgment. And after a while you're like, "Is there any hope?" And then we kind of see glimpses of it, and then at the very end, right? The great passage, "Who is a God like you?," right? "Micah," that's what the word means. And, but what you find is there was exploitation, there was oppression, there was the manipulation of power, there was lack of concern for the poor, but all of that in the Book of Micah is connected to idolatry. So to talk about social injustice separated from idolatry is not a perspective that the Bible supports, as if that there's some sort of a framework of social injustice that's separate. So I wrote in the book, I said we love the idea that God is a just God, we just don't want him to be just towards us. - Right. - So that is, "Well, bring judgment to that tribe over there, but we don't want that to fall on us." And that's working with the assumption that we're far more self-righteous than others on the other side. - That's good, those are really good. Bobby, what goes into a bad definition? - Yeah, I think when it turns into just class warfare that... And I get it, that our brothers could be sensitive to that, that there's a particular victimized class and they're all morally superior. There's an oppressive class and if you're part of that class, you're all the villain. And so you could have women now the superior class and all men are evil. You know, blacks are the victims, all white people are evil. And so when it just turns into class warfare, then I think that's really...that's problematic, obviously, for believers. - So just summarizing, that the social justice Christians ought not to be for is the kind that just in a totalizing way says every disparity is injustice. You know, I like what you said, Stephen, you talk about injustice and we never talk about the Gospel of forgiveness for those who commit injustice. There's no connection to the vertical dimension, the spiritual idolatries, or that sort of class warfare, or just making people the product of their class or position in some sort of hierarchy, "You're nothing but a white person, you're nothing but an"... You're nothing but that sort of social justice. So we could go on, but for the sake of time then transition what would we mean by social justice in a way that we would want to commend it to Christians? What would go in that definition? Any of you? - Loving your neighbor. So every Gospel preacher wants men and women and boys and girls from every tribe, town, people, and nation to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as He's offered in the Gospel. And people who are so converted, we want them to live as Christians. And the most quoted Old Testament command in the New Testament is "love your neighbor." And if you look at Leviticus 19, it's very clear that that command entails responsibilities in the family, in the congregation, and in the community, even with strangers to the community. And that means that any good pastor wants his people to live as Christians in relation to the people that they engage with in the society, treating them in the way that they would want to be treated, and that means treating them justly, treating them fairly. Dick Halverson who was the Chaplain of the Senate, pastor of Fourth Pres. in Bethesda, Maryland tells the story of a man who owned a lot of car dealerships in the D.C. area who came to faith in Christ, started attending his church, and came to him one day and said, "Dr. Halverson, I'm going to start giving out tracts, Gospel tracts, to the people that come to my car dealerships." Well, Dr. Halverson had heard that this man's service departments were notoriously unfair, they ripped people off. And Dr. Halverson, as a pastor, said, "You know, what, brother? It might be better if your service departments didn't rip people off, that may be the best Christian witness that you could give." Well, what was he asking him to do? He was asking him to be socially just, he was asking him to act with righteousness in the way that he related to the society. Every pastor wants that, we want our people to conduct themselves with righteousness and with love and with concern for the well-being of others in the way that we relate to them. Every pastor wants that. So that's one way to define it. - Yeah, any catechism on the Ten Commandments from the Presbyterian reformed tradition is going to give significant social entailments of how we love our neighbors as ourselves. - Right, right. I think it's important for us to distinguish between... So I can appreciate the sentiment of those people who are concerned about the main-line cultural narrative about social justice, I can absolutely empathize with that. And I want to follow up on what Lig said, and sorry if I'm just reading a definition that I have in my book here, okay? So let me just read it. "When we think of doing justice, we typically think of something like performing retribution. Most people equate justice with punishing wrongs. That's certainly part of what justice entails, but it's actually much more broader than that. It is certainly giving the perpetrators their due, but doing justice is also giving those who cannot stand up for themselves, the victims, the poor, the vulnerable, the voiceless, their due, as well. It is more than only punishing wrong, it is creating a situation in our society where everything is right, a society where every last person in it, including the most vulnerable and the weakest, can flourish and thrive. That's what doing justice according to the Bible really means." And so essentially what it means is you need to love your neighbor. What does it mean to love your neighbor? Regardless of where that person has come from, whatever the background is, and especially for those who have been marginalized and who are vulnerable and who don't have a voice. And so when we think about justice, we can't just talk about, purely about, retribution and punishing the perpetrator. - That's good. Bobby, what would you add to this working good definition? - Yeah, I would just add a couple of Bible verses, and we've already alluded to them without directly stating them. But in Leviticus, Chapter 19, "You shall do no injustice and judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly." My co-pastor always says that...I hear him say from time to time that Lady Justice has a blindfold on for a reason. - That's right. - That God is not a respective persons. And so justice looks equitable, it just is going to...the punishment is going to match the crime. But then Stephen, I think, just as he was talking, I was thinking about, you know, Deuteronomy, Chapter 10. But also his concern about the reality in the broken, fallen world, you know, you're going to have people who will abuse their power, you will have therefore real victims. When we talk about sex trafficking, there are real victims. I got a call a couple of months ago that there was a lady who bumped into one of our church members. She wasn't a Christian, didn't attend our church, she just reached out to our member and says, "Please have your church members pray. My 15 year old daughter, you know, has disappeared." And I think coming home from school someone grabbed her, forced her into prostitution. Her older sister was driving a bus and sees her on a street corner and jumps off the bus to go and the pimp beats her up. They go to the police and a couple days later her daughter is rescued. She's a real victim. And so what Deuteronomy says in Chapter 10, "He executes justice for the orphan." I'm reading Deuteronomy 10:18. "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow and shows his love for the alien by giving him food and clothing." And so God had the laws of gleaning that is right, I'll use "justice" as a synonym for "right." That it's right just to be mindful of your neighbor and love your neighbor, your poor neighbor, so that he can eat. And Jesus says in the New Testament that He's... there's weightier matters to the law and he talks about justice, so that we can love our neighbors and do what's right. And I think in a historical context, I think, that often in the room is, like, war. If you have slavery for 250 years and you have Jim Crow for another 100 years, there might be some aftermath to that where there are certain disparities that systematically worked its way into our culture. And as Christians we would be...why would I not want to, if I can, to show...yeah, to deal with that? So I think the fruit of our preaching, if we're going to do good deeds, and I think we looked at that at the end of 2 Timothy, Chapter 3, that we want to go out and do good. And part of doing good is doing justice. - Yeah, Stephen. - Kevin and I really appreciate this one writer, Jonathan Haidt, who is an ethics professor at Stern Business School at NYU. I really think that he is...his work is the modern-day...late-modern-day version of Bloom's<i> Closing of the American Mind</i> and Bellah's <i>Habits of the Heart.</i> He is brilliant. He's a moral psychologist, world-class. - So his most well-known book is <i>The Righteous Mind.</i> - <i>The Righteous Mind,</i> but a book just came out three weeks ago and it's brilliant, it's called <i>The Coddling of the American Mind.</i> And he talks about the over-fragility that you find in the most selective and elite schools. And he's not Christian, he's probably a bipartisan, a little left of center, a nominal Jew. And, but what he talks about is this. He says that when we think about a people who are in the other tribe, we no longer have rights to be able to disagree in the public square. Because once you start using language or start thinking about things using critical thinking and using provocative language and disagreeing with someone in the public square, you don't have permission to do that because it's a trigger warning. And they have medicalized our language in saying, "This is not a safe place," the harm principle and the like. And so when we talk about the issue of justice, what we need to do is people say, "Do you have difficulty talking about judgment and wrath and hell in a city such as Boston?" I said, "No, there hasn't been a time that it's easier for me to be able to talk about these doctrines from the pulpit than now in Boston." Because I can say, you know, all of you, it doesn't matter where you come from, there are certain injustices that we can all agree on. Pederasty. Right? We know it's evil, it's wrong. Racism. Oppression. Rape. So we can...it doesn't matter what your political or ideological perspective is, we can all be in agreement about that. So when the Bible teaches about justice and about hell and about judgment, you have a natural point of reference. You say, "God hates injustice." God is agreeing with you that these are evil things. Now what you need to do is you need to let them know that the biblical narrative about this is far more exhaustive, which now includes every single one of us. As Solzhenitsyn has said, right? "Evil goes through every single human heart." So no one is going to be spared. If you're crying out for judgment for the other person in the other side, the other tribe, well, guess what, you're going to get consumed, too. And then you have to bring people to a point where they are longing for a just and holy God who is going to bring justice in the midst of injustice, but being able to spare us in the process. And then they'll start hungering for the grace of God. - Which is Paul's movement from Romans 1 to Romans 2, I mean precisely what he's doing. "Oh, you want God to be against those things? He is. And he's against you for a good reason." Let's finish this way. Okay, we are down to our last second, so this will be very brief. But thinking for church leaders, there's some pastors here, and then there's a lot of...almost everyone, probably, involved in some kind of ministry. Just think real quickly in 30 seconds what are some habits you've developed to keep a close watch on your doctrine and maybe one way to get at that, or just some books. Could be a book like that that's not a Christian book or a classic. So habits/books that you've found helpful to keep you doctrinally lined up. Lig? - Well, I mean obviously just stay in God's word and have a plan for how you're staying in God's word. You know, and my plan changes all the time. I was asked just a couple of days ago, "What are you in right now?," and, "Well, I'm in the Psalms. I'm working through the Psalms." Constantly there have been times when I've been working systematically through the Bible, or sometimes it's working through the ESV Bible study notes for First and Second Chronicles. It changes all the time, but you've got to...you know, you've got to be in the Word for yourself. It doesn't matter how much other ministry you're doing, you've got to be in the Word for yourself. And so...and if you don't plan for it, you won't be, so be in the Word. And then I just...I love to read historic Christian creeds and confessions. Because, as much as I love to read Augustine, and Calvin, and, you know, some of the great heroes of the faith, they're just one man and the creeds and confessions are the confessions of whole bodies of believers. And I just...and they are rich for... You know, so, you know, our friend, Pete Lillback and company produced a whole volume of reformation creeds and confessions regarding the doctrine of scripture. And then there's a wonderful four-volume set of reformed creeds and confessions from the 16th century following that Denison did. And so I just love to read those kinds of things because they summarize basic Christian doctrine as believers have held to them for the last 2,000 years. - That's great, that's great. - I'm a fellow Presbyterian, so love catechisms. But I would say, and somebody, a friend of mine, shared this in our pre-conference, and it was a quote from C. S. Lewis in <i>First Things</i>. He says, "If we try to make the second thing the first thing, then it fails to obviously be the first thing, but it also fails to be the second thing." And so I think that when we don't make the Gospel... Apostle Paul says 1 Corinthians 15:3, says, "I delivered to you that which is of first importance," which is the Gospel. And we start making other things central, even though they're important. Justice, sex trafficking, piety. Whatever these issues are, all important concerns that a Christian should have, but the center is not the Gospel which shapes everything that we look at, all of these second things, the secondary things. And I think that's when we're going to lose our way. So we need to have our eyes on scripture, on sound doctrine, as we're seeing here in 2 Timothy, and to be able to say, "I'm going to stand firmly on this foundation." Which has a seal, this is the word of God which reveals to us what Christ has accomplished in history and what the promises are of God's word. And we keep standing on that, and then we won't swerve from the truth and we'll make that the first thing. The first thing is the first thing, and let everything else flow out from that to be the second and the third and the fourth thing. - That's great. So keeping our doctrinal commitments in some sort of proportion. I always said one of the things I loved about my church is I felt like the sermons that were most central, most foundational and fundamental were the sermons that the people loved the most. I took that to be a sign of a good church. You don't want a church that says, "That was sin and salvation again, that was cross." And, yeah, we can all do it in a clumsy way, but the people that say, "When are you going to get back to the millennium? When are you going to talk about homeschooling? When are you going to talk about the issues that are out there?" Well, there is a time to talk about all those things as they connect, but you want people to say, "Yes, I want to hear about the Trinity and the Gospel and Christ." Bobby, give us the last word. - Yeah. I would say, in addition to what has been said, reading biblical theologies, Paul House has a really friendly <i>Old</i> <i>Testament Survey.</i> He's out of print, I think the name of it is <i>Old Testament</i> <i>Survey</i>. So we can keep learning how to think in biblical categories. I just think in this information age that we are in right now we are just bombarded with talking points from the conservative left and right, Fox News, CNN. And I think that's dominating our minds more than we think. And so when we enter conversations more than coming out with a biblical worldview and perspective, we're coming out with our tribal worldviews and it's causing us to clash. And the last thing I would say is Deuteronomy 8 is just that we really don't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. That we really have to, out of a spiritual hunger, keep fighting to keep ourselves in front of the word of God, and reading and reading and reading, and learning and learning, and not be passive learners. Coming...you know, hearing...coming to conferences and church. And hearing is a little different than learning, you have to really learn it. And so taking that personal responsibility really to chew and digest and swallow and eat the word of God. - Amen, amen. Thank you, brothers. Let me pray for us. Father, we pray that our time together has not been in vain and we pray again for the Word going forth with power from Alistair and from Ligon tomorrow. Thank you for Bobby's word to us tonight from Your Word. We pray, as we have been thinking about these last two nights, that we would keep a close watch on our life and our doctrine. Many people depend upon us. And if we take a few steps in the wrong direction and travel just a few degrees off of center for a long time, we can lead many people astray. And so, Lord, please help us, keep us faithful, always coming back to your word. And may we keep as a first importance, as Stephen so ably reminded us, that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and was raised again on the third day. What good news you give us to proclaim to the nations. We thank you, in Jesus we pray, amen. See you tomorrow morning at 9:00.

Contents

Early life, education and law career

Scott was born in Washington, D.C. and grew up in Newport News, Virginia. He is of African American and Filipino (maternal grandfather) descent.[2] His father Dr. Charles Waldo Scott (1916–93) was a pioneering African American surgeon[3] and in 1952 became the first African American appointed to the Newport News school board in the 20th century.[4] Scott's mother Mae Hamlin-Scott (1918-2010), a graduate in chemistry from the University of Michigan, was an educator who taught science in the Newport News public schools.[5]

Scott graduated from Groton School in 1965. He went on to receive his A.B. in government from Harvard College in (1969) and his Juris Doctor from Boston College Law School in 1973. He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity.

Scott is a former member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard (1970-1973) and Army Reserve (1974-1976).[6] He was a lawyer in private practice from 1973 to 1991.

Virginia legislature

Scott was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates as a Democrat in 1977 and he was elected to the Senate of Virginia in 1982, after a census-based reapportionment changed district numbers (thus, his nominal predecessors were in fact representatives from Northern Virginia). While in the Virginia legislature, Scott worked to allow the poor and children greater access to health care, as well as to increase the minimum wage, and increase job training. Scott also authored legislation providing tax credits to business that provide donations to serving local communities in preventing crime or improving social service delivery.

U.S. House of Representatives

Elections

Earlier official photo of Scott
Earlier official photo of Scott
1986

Scott first ran for Congress in 1986 in the 1st district, which included his home in Newport News. He lost to Republican incumbent U.S. Congressman Herb Bateman 56%-44%.[7]

1992

In 1992, the Department of Justice directed the Virginia legislature to draw a black-majority district after the 1990 census. The legislature responded by shifting most of the black residents of Hampton Roads and Richmond into a newly created 3rd District. Scott won a three-way Democratic primary with 67% of the vote,[8] which was tantamount to election in this heavily Democratic district. In the general election, he defeated Republican Dan Jenkins 79%-21%.[9]

1994-2008

During this time period, he won re-election every two years with at least 76% of the vote, except in 2004. That year, he was challenged by Republican Winsome Sears, a former State Delegate. He won with 69% of the vote, now the second lowest winning percentage of his career. In 1994, Scott won 79.44% of the vote, defeating Republican Thomas E. Ward. In 1996, he won 82.12% of the vote, defeating Republican Eisle G. Holland. in 1998, he won 75.97% of the vote, defeating Independent Robert S. Barnett. He ran unopposed in 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2008.

2010

Scott was challenged by Republican Chuck Smith, a former JAG. Scott defeated him 70%-27%,[10].

2012

After redistricting, Scott's district was made even safer; he picked up all of Portsmouth and Newport News, as well as Petersburg. In 2008, President Barack Obama had carried the district with 76% of the vote; he won the new district with 78%.[11] Scott faced Air Force officer Dean Longo.[12] He easily won an 11th term with 81.26% of the vote.

Scott joined President Obama in kicking off his campaign at Virginia Commonwealth University. The focus of the rally was largely on Obama's timeline for leaving the Middle East.[13]

2016

The 3rd was reconfigured as a result of a court-ordered redistricting in 2015. It lost its territory in and around Richmond to the neighboring 4th District. However, the new 3rd was no less Democratic than its predecessor.

Scott was challenged by Republican Marty Williams. Scott defeated him 66%-33%, the lowest winning percentage of his career.

Tenure

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, speaks in opposition to the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011 (HR 1254) by arguing that it is excessive in scope, imposes limits on researchers, and bypasses the existing process of banning substances. The legislation passed the next day, December 8, 2011 by 317–98. Video: C-SPAN

Scott is the first African American Representative from Virginia since Reconstruction. Also, having a maternal grandfather of Filipino ancestry gives Scott the distinction of being the first American of Filipino descent to serve as a voting member of Congress. Scott's congressional district is the only one with a majority black population in Virginia. The district was created in 1992 and has remained the most Democratic district in Virginia.[14]

Scott's annual Labor Day picnic, generally held at his mother's residence in Newport News, is a major campaign stop for statewide and federal candidates in Virginia.

On November 7, 2009, Scott voted for the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962).

Scott has voted progressively in the House of Representatives. He has supported increases in the minimum wage and has worked to eliminate anti-gay bias in the workplace.[15] In 2010, Scott co-sponsored the "Lee-Scott bill" with Barbara Lee to make it easier on individuals who had been on unemployment for 99 weeks without finding work. In regards to the bill, Lee said that "it is important that we put in place a safety net for those still looking for work. We cannot and will not allow our fellow Americans to fall by the wayside. Congressman Scott and I plan to continue to push for passage of this legislation because it is simply the right thing to do."[16]

Scott supports LGBT rights. In 2009, he voted in favor of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that expanded the federal hate crime law to cover crimes biased by the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity.[17] In 2010, he voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act.[18] In 2019, Scott voted in favor of the Equality Act, a bill that would expand the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[19] and urged Congress members to support the legislation.[20]

Scott was an outspoken opponent of the Bush administration. He opposed the Patriot Act explaining that officials may abuse the power by promoting anti-terrorist security and develop unfair "racial profiling". In 2002 Scott voted nay on the Iraq war resolution and did not support any of the Bush Doctrine in reference to the Iraq war.[14]

Legislation sponsored

Scott introduced the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (H.R. 1447; 113th Congress) on April 9, 2013.[21] The bill would require the United States Department of Justice to collect data from U.S. states and territories about the deaths of prisoners in their custody.[22] States and territories would face monetary penalties for noncompliance. The bill would also require federal agencies to report on the deaths of prionsers in their custody.

Committee assignments

Caucuses

U.S. Senate speculation

When then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton selected Tim Kaine, a U.S. Senator from Virginia, as her running mate in July 2016, speculation arouse about who would be nominated to replace Kaine in the Senate, should the ticket win. In August 2016, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Douglas Wilder stated that he would want Governor Terry McAuliffe to appoint Scott to the seat, stating that it "would be good for the commonwealth, good for the Democratic Party, of which Bobby has been most supportive, and great for our nation."[27] On November 8, however, Clinton and Kaine lost the election and Kaine remained in his Senate seat.[28]

Controversies

2017 sexual harassment allegation

On December 15, 2017, Marsheri Everson (also known as M. Reese Everson), a former congressional fellow who had worked in Scott's office, alleged that Scott had sexually harassed her in 2013 by making inappropriate comments and touching her on the knee and back on separate occasions.[29] Scott strongly denied Everson's claim.[29] Everson was represented by Jack Burkman, known for his involvement in the conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Seth Rich[29] as well as his alleged involvement in a scheme to pay women to lie about sexual harassment claims against special counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller.[30][31]

A December 22, 2017 story in the Richmond Free Press questioned Everson's allegations, saying, "Since 2015, Ms. Everson has told at least three different versions of events."[32]

Everson had sued her former employer, the Inspector General's Office for the city of Chicago, accusing her former supervisor of sexual harassment, but dropped the suit after going to work at the U.S. House of Representatives.[33]

In October 2013, Everson was dismissed from her fellowship with the House Financial Services Committee.[32] She had begun work for the committee after leaving Scott's office.[32] Before leaving Scott's office, she had a going away party with members of his staff; after leaving, she contacted Scott to thank him for the opportunity.[32] In neither case did she mention inappropriate conduct by Scott.[32]

Knowledge of sexual assault allegations against Justin Fairfax

Scripps professor Vanessa C. Tyson alleged in 2019 that she was sexually assaulted by Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax in 2004 and had approached Scott, a long-time friend, about these allegations between the time of Fairfax's election in November 2017 and inauguration in January 2018; Scott was also contacted about the allegations by The Washington Post.[34][35][36][37] In a 2019 statement, Scott said, "Allegations of sexual assault need to be taken seriously. I have known Professor Tyson for approximately a decade and she is a friend. She deserves the opportunity to have her story heard."[35][36][37]

Electoral history

Virginia's 1st congressional district: 1986 results[38]
Year Democrat Votes Pct Republican Votes Pct
1986 Bobby Scott 63,364 44% Herbert H. Bateman 80,713 56% *

*Write-in and minor candidate notes: In 1986, write-ins received 9 votes.

Virginia's 3rd congressional district: Results 1992–2016[38][39]
Year Democrat Votes Pct Republican Votes Pct 3rd Party Party Votes Pct
1992 Bobby Scott 132,432 79% Daniel Jenkins 35,780 21% Write-ins 261
1994 Bobby Scott 108,532 79% Thomas E. Ward 28,080 21% Write-ins 8
1996 Bobby Scott 118,603 82% Elsie Goodwyn Holland 25,781 18% Write-ins 34
1998 Bobby Scott 48,129 76% (no candidate) Robert S. Barnett Independent 14,453 23% *
2000 Bobby Scott 137,527 98% (no candidate) Write-ins 3,226 2%
2002 Bobby Scott 87,521 96% (no candidate) Write-ins 3,552 4%
2004 Bobby Scott 159,373 69% Winsome Sears 70,194 31% Write-ins 325
2006 Bobby Scott 133,546 96% (no candidate) Write-ins 5,448 4%
2008 Bobby Scott 230,911 97% (no candidate) Write-ins 7,377 3%
2010 Bobby Scott 114,656 70% Chuck Smith 44,488 27% James Quigley Libertarian 2,383 2% *
2012 Bobby Scott 259,199 81.27% Dean J. Longo 58,931 18.48% * Write-ins 806 0.25%
2014 Bobby Scott 139,197 94.43% (no candidate) Write-ins 8,205 5.57%
2016 Bobby Scott 208,337 66.70% Marty Williams 103,289 33.07% Write-ins 714 0.23%
Write-in and minor candidate notes:In 1998, write-ins received 772 votes. In 2010, independent and write-in candidates received 2,210 votes.

See also

References

  1. ^ "3rd District of Virginia". Congressman Bobby Scott. July 1, 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2018.
  2. ^ Edmund Silvestre (November 8, 2008). "Fil-Am elected to US Congress". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on November 10, 2008. Retrieved November 8, 2008.
    Jon Sterngass (January 1, 2009). Filipino Americans. Infobase Publishing. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-4381-0711-0.
  3. ^ http://www.scottcenter.org/about/about-dr-charles-waldo-scott
  4. ^ KNEMEYER, Nelda (January 11, 1993). "C. Waldo Scott, Civil Rights Pioneer And Physician, Dies". Newport News Daily Press.
  5. ^ "Mae Hamlin Scott, Rep. Scott's mother and Mayor McKinley Price's mother-in-law, dies at age 89". Newport News Daily Press. November 25, 2010.
  6. ^ "Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.)". Roll Call. Economist Group. 2014. Retrieved December 18, 2014. Military Service: Mass. National Guard, 1970-74; Army Reserve, 1974-76
    "Rep. Scott, Huntington Ingalls President to Deliver Addresses at ODU's 121st Commencement Exercises". News @ ODU. Old Dominion University. November 2014. Retrieved December 18, 2014. He received an honorable discharge for his service in the Massachusetts National Guard and the United States Army Reserve.
  7. ^ "Our Campaigns - VA District 1 Race - Nov 04, 1986". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  8. ^ "Our Campaigns - VA District 3 - D Primary Race - Jun 09, 1992". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  9. ^ "Our Campaigns - VA District 3 Race - Nov 03, 1992". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  10. ^ "Our Campaigns - VA - District 03 Race - Nov 02, 2010". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  11. ^ "Daily Kos Elections 2008 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)". docs.google.com. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  12. ^ "CAMPAIGN 2012: Dean Longo challenges Bobby Scott". CBS6. May 19, 2012.
  13. ^ "Obama kicks off campaign in Richmond". Daily Press. May 5, 2012.
  14. ^ a b The Almanac of American Politics, National Journal Group, 2009.
  15. ^ [1], Project Vote Smart.
  16. ^ "Barbara Lee, Bobby Scott Introduce Bill For 99ers". Huffington Post. December 20, 2010.
  17. ^ Final Vote Results for Roll Call 223
  18. ^ Final Vote Results for Roll Call 317
  19. ^ Final Vote Results for Roll Call 217
  20. ^ "House Debate on the Equality Act". C-SPAN. May 17, 2019.
  21. ^ "H.R. 1447 - Summary". United States Congress. Retrieved December 9, 2013.
  22. ^ Kasperowicz, Pete (December 6, 2013). "House bill would require states to report on prisoner deaths". The Hill. Retrieved December 9, 2013.
  23. ^ "Members". Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Retrieved May 17, 2018.
  24. ^ "Membership". Congressional Black Caucus. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  25. ^ "Membership". Congressional Arts Caucus. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved March 21, 2018.
  26. ^ "90 Current Climate Solutions Caucus Members". Citizen´s Climate Lobby. Retrieved October 20, 2018.
  27. ^ Vozzella, Laura (August 9, 2016). "Douglas Wilder wants Rep. Bobby Scott for Kaine's Senate seat". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 18, 2016.
  28. ^ Flegenheimer, Matt; Barbaro, Michael (November 9, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2016.
  29. ^ a b c "Former staffer accuses Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott of sexual harassment, Scott 'absolutely' denies claim". Richmond-Times Dispatch. December 15, 2017.
  30. ^ Cummings, William (October 31, 2018). "Jack Burkman: The conspiracy theorist accused of offering money for Mueller allegations". USA TODAY. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
  31. ^ Goldman, Adam (October 30, 2018). "Plot to Smear Mueller Unravels as F.B.I. Is Asked to Investigate". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
  32. ^ a b c d e "Questions, doubt about credibility of Rep. Robert C. Scott’s accuser".
  33. ^ Lazarus, Jeremy (December 22, 2017). "Questions, doubt about credibility of Rep. Robert C. Scott's accuser". Richmond Free Press. Richmond, VA.
  34. ^ U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott knew of Justin Fairfax allegation in late 2017 — but says he had few details (Virginian-Pilot)
  35. ^ a b Rep. Bobby Scott learned of sexual assault allegation against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax a year ago from the accuser: Aides (ABC News)
  36. ^ a b Dem Rep. Bobby Scott learned of accusation against Virginia Lt. Gov. Fairfax last year (Fox News)
  37. ^ a b Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott knew of Fairfax allegations a year ago (Axios)
  38. ^ a b "Election Statistics". Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Archived from the original on December 26, 2007. Retrieved January 10, 2008.
  39. ^ "Election results". Archived from the original on June 17, 2010.|accessdate=February 7, 2019}}

External links

Senate of Virginia
Preceded by
Herbert Bateman
Member of the Virginia Senate
from the 2nd district

1983–1993
Succeeded by
Henry Maxwell
U.S. House of Representatives
Preceded by
Thomas Bliley
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 3rd congressional district

1993–present
Incumbent
Preceded by
Virginia Foxx
Chair of the House Education Committee
2019–present
U.S. order of precedence (ceremonial)
Preceded by
Bobby Rush
United States Representatives by seniority
33rd
Succeeded by
Nydia Velázquez
This page was last edited on 1 July 2019, at 05:50
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.