LOL. What makes you think this is any more true for him than for President Trump?
Perhaps the example in the VERY MESSAGE YOU’RE QUOTING?
Not fair to expect Trump to have any knowledge of legal stuff outside of bankruptcy.
Aside from the fact that your idea of what is reasonable is light years apart from mine, sure they can ask questions. I’d be fine if they dispense with the entire confirmation hearing process and simply vote, or have private meetings and vote, etc. The hearing process now has morphed into something almost structured to not produce anything of value.
But when a large number of Democratic senators announce prior to the hearings that they will not vote for Kavanaugh, it belies any fig leaf of usefulness of the hearings. Booker and Harris grandstanding is fine for energizing their supporters, but it’s not in any way connected to the qualifications of Kavanaugh. That’s why I compare their declaration to vote against like your indication that accepting the nomination is disqualifying. Anything after that is theater, not to be taken seriously.
I’ve heard of a single substantive discussion from these hearings, and that was questioning around Carpenter. Other than that, near everything else has been a joke. The questioners are not equipped to have a substantive dialogue with Kavanagh - they can read the question prepared, and Kavanaugh can easily address or deflect, and the senators are not equipped to follow up.
But once they declare their position, continuing as if the questions are meaningful is a transparent laughable joke.
When Scalia died, Republicans controlled the Senate. That’s the only reason he wasn’t able to ram through another ideologue SCOTUS nomination. He wasn’t “president of all Americans” until the voters left him no choice but to cooperate with the Republicans, and I don’t see any particular virtue in him pursuing his leftist agenda as hard as he could while he had majorities in Congress and only waiting until he’d lost those majorities to seek compromise.
Of course there is political theater involved, as there is with pretty much every political exercise. But political theater can still reveal useful information. If the hearings are going to occur, Senators might as well make use of them, both for political purposes and to try and find useful info from the nominee. From what I can tell your mind was made up as well (and do you really think the minds of most of the Republicans weren’t also made up? If they were, then there’s no reason to single out Booker and Harris, unless it’s just their unusual honesty that bothers you).
It just “happened”, in the passive voice? Nobody was responsible for it? Odd.
“Democrats”? McConnell’s offense was against the Constitution and the nation, don’t you think? If you’re not offended, then please tell us why not.
Depends on what you mean by “qualified”, doesn’t it? His views and agenda are *certainly *part of that for a lifetime, unappealable position, and if it doesn’t align with doing impartial justice then a claim to still being “qualified” is dubious. If you mean he’s legally eligible, then so what, so am I - a Justice doesn’t even have to be a lawyer.
What, then, is a citizen responsible for, in your philosophy of governance?
Because there was no offense against either the Constitution, or the nation.
Fortunately his views and his agenda (so to speak) do align with impartial justice, so there is nothing dubious about saying he is qualified.
Your points would be excellent if they were true. But they aren’t.
Regards,
Shodan
Still having trouble with this letter vs. spirit stuff, I see. Pity.
No, I’m not the one having any trouble.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a big difference between listening to people other than yourself, and simply outsourcing the whole thing to a particular interest group.
No offense against the letter of the Constitution perhaps. But I have a hard time believing the Founders intended the Senate to respond to a nomination to our highest court by refusing to even consider it, unless perhaps the nominee was so flagrantly unqualified and unworthy as to be beneath the Senate’s notice.
Offense against the nation? Surely. To refuse to even consider the nominees put forward by the duly elected President in a naked power play to create a politicized Supreme Court aimed at thwarting both longstanding interpretation of the law and the will of the people, is unquestionably an offense against the nation.
The Republican project has become one of hanging onto power from a position of minority support, from undermining efforts to register prospective voters, to overzealously kicking them off the rolls, to voter ID requirements placing unreasonable burdens on people with minimal resources, to attempting to get rid of polling locations in majority-black counties, to gerrymandering state and Congressional representative districts to obtain substantial majorities in legislative bodies even when they lose the overall popular vote.
And this effort to perpetuate a right-wing court majority is part and parcel of that, and indeed backstops it, as such a court will rule that all the other tactics are legitimate.
How about we use the definition that the ABA uses when rating judicial candidates.
Here is what the definition for “qualified” is (note that Kavanaugh was rated “well qualified”, the highest rating available):
The key part you are look for, apparently, is “judicial temperament”. What does that mean? Here are the thoughts of a retired Democratic judge on the matter:
Emphasis added.
Then, by that definition, an anti-abortion zealot is unqualified. Glad we agree.
#ILoveThatStory. :rolleyes:
is “McConnell’s offense was against the Constitution” just the latest recycled version of the “it was unconstitutional to not vote on Garland” argument we keep hearing?
We do understand you don’t want to discuss it.
On the contrary, I’m delighted to discuss it, and prove it wrong, yet again. We did already do this earlier in this very thread. Did you read that part?
I guess we each have to go with the best arguments available to us.
If you finally have thought of something more substantive than “Nuh huh!”, let’s have it.