Reasons Why We Should Get Rid Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.
The article gives three listed reasons. What me dino considers the most important reasons stated elsewhere in the article were left out of the numeration bit.
At the top of the article the writer states that "the Constitution doesn't require a hearing. All it says is that the Senate must give advise* and consent."
"Advise" is a typo. Me dino had to look up what I thought was the word was~ta da!~"advice."
The next most important reason is at the bottom of the article where it states that these hearings is a waste of the Senate's time and the taxpayer's money. Oora!h
The listed three reasons ran like so~
1. Senators are asking both unanswerable and, frankly, nongermane questions.
2. These hearings have become nothing but political grandstanding for political bases.
3. These hearings have become a circus, a theater, a fiasco, whatever you want to call it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJG...
At the top of the article the writer states that "the Constitution doesn't require a hearing. All it says is that the Senate must give advise* and consent."
"Advise" is a typo. Me dino had to look up what I thought was the word was~ta da!~"advice."
The next most important reason is at the bottom of the article where it states that these hearings is a waste of the Senate's time and the taxpayer's money. Oora!h
The listed three reasons ran like so~
1. Senators are asking both unanswerable and, frankly, nongermane questions.
2. These hearings have become nothing but political grandstanding for political bases.
3. These hearings have become a circus, a theater, a fiasco, whatever you want to call it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJG...
That goes for a socialist too with a photo of a giddy for happy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beside that new definition
"Pway fair, woo mean dino! Woo fowwoe my wules!! Fowwoe all my wules! Wah!"
Sorry, Mr. Blumenthal, go play with your I lied about Vietnam GI Joe doll..
To quote perhaps the best line from a children's cartoon: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Me dino wouldn't mind either.
Slavery was unjust, but not un-Constitutional, until the passage of Amendment #13. (It was still unjust before abolition, and I would very likely have broken the Fugitive Slave Law, given a chance, and helped runaways get onto the "Underground Railroad", but then I am not a Supreme Court justice). Amendment #18 was unjust, but being in the Constitution, was still Constitutional until ratifiication of #21.The 16th Amendment (income
tax) is unjust in itself, but one could not expect a Supreme Court justice to declare it un-Constitutional. Different people have different jobs. The job of a justice on the Supreme Court is to say what the law is, not whether he approves of it or not. (I would not much quarrel with his breaking the Fugitive Slave Law during his hours off-duty; of course, in those ante-bellum times, if he had been caught and arrested, he should have been expected to take the consequences).
The God of the Machine (which I believe is out-of-print, though I managed to get them to dig up for me from the stacks at the Richmond library),
that was a demand that a free state surrender a
fugitive from slavery "in violation of its own basic law." Which renders the argument that the Civil War was a defense of "state's rights" somewhat hollow and hypocritical.--Still, I don't know that the Fugitive Slave Law, however unjust, was un-Constitutional prior to the Thirteenth Amendment.
Sick and twisted, ain't it? .
spect) the way they are behaving, but still their constituents elected them, didn't they? So the voters are the ones to blame for electing them, aren't they?--(Not that the rest of us should have to live with the results of how they are behaving now).
And I'd like to ask the lib voters of Connecticut why Richard Blumenthal, who lied about serving in Vietnam, is still that state's senior senator?
Th democratic party has degenerated in to a nothing burger catering only to re-election of its politicians.
Not all of them. A humongous amount of useful idiots will be out dancing in the streets and singing, "La la dee dah!! We tore that mean old republic down!"
The time will come when such celebrators will be putting on smiles so as not to offend their elite leaders.
We don't learn anything about the candidate. They simply don't answer questions about their standing on crucial issues, see Ginsburg hearings.
Add to this that some announced at the start they won't vote for the candidate (Schumer). So why are they there? We are not interested in their personal opinion.
The SCOTUS hearings like many other things are a phenomenon how destructive the left have become. They want anarchy and unrest (see Booker's "release" of Kavanaugh documents which were already approved for release) because they need chaos to operate. As long as this state prevails, things are going to be even worse.
The fault lies in the questions posed by the senators. Rather than cite specific causes they support, it would reveal more about the candidate's likely decision leanings to probe elements of their view of government vs the individual, as one instance. Another might be to ask them to explain what the term "diversity" means to them as to how it should affect society. There are ways to examine a judge's thinking without demanding an impromptu ruling on a case they may never hear.
But what was accepted as a done thing due to her liberal views, is now a negative for a judge on the other end of the spectrum.
That is what needs changing. Rules/laws are absolutes not subject to party line interpretation.
A Gulcher mentioned that book when we were discussing something on another post last night.
Combine that with the "Bread" provided to buy votes for both statist parties and you have the very essence of the current anti-liberty federal government.
Charge everyone involved with obstruction of justice, let a non-biased jury of Americans rule on their guilt, and throw them in jail.