Professor Kingsfield goes to Washington; Bluto cross examines

Great Debates
1

Let’s play moot court.

All the dems on the judiciary committee are lawyers (I guess…)

Let’s imagine that in their questioning of Roberts and Alito they were attempting to win a moot court argument.

It is not a pretty picture.

Those who remember The Paper Chase and Animal House are in a position to compare the performances of the nominees on one hand, and the assembled interlocutors for the opposition.

Roberts especialy, but Alito also, wiped the floor with the best of them (I guess that would be Teddy before drinking lunch…)and walked out without a mark on their faces.’

If there is another nomination where the Dems are playing defense, they should hire a *gunslinger and let him or her just subcontract each senator’s half hour, seriatim. They’d get the follow-up questions that they fumbled as a team and a lot more brainpower.

I’m pretty sure that there is no actual senate rule that would prohibit this (other than the rule that senators who sacrifice face time on national tv are subject to a 48 hour observation hold).

In any case, for the sake of generations yet unborn, whoever gets the contract, don’t let this same crew of clowns loose on the field if there is another vacancy before 2008!

I realize that on its face this suggestion seems farcical, but the relatively easy construction and defense of what really were, especially from Alito, bullshit evasions, showed the Dem senators to be intellectually unprepared to bring to the discussion anything like the kind of rigor necessary to even have a prayer with sharp guys who think for a living as opposed to dialing for campaign contributions, eating knishes, kissing babies and making speeches to an empty senate chamber. I don’t know if Lucky Chucky Shumer was EVER smart enough to take on Roberts or Alito, but if he was, that was back in Law School, the day of his last final–he’s been on a downhill slide ever since…
*They needed a good cross examiner–Gerry Spence would have been perfect, or maybe Dangerous Davey Boies.

Actually, since the evasion that Alito practiced was so largely linguistic, there is really only one name. The man who just finished fucking up that snake Dershowitz in a mano-a-mano. Not a lawyer, but smarter than anyone who is… I mean, of course, the Monster Mauler of MIT, Chompin’ Noam Chomsky…

2

You gotta be kidding. While I’m completely with you on the fact that Roberts and Alito “wiped the floor” with the Senators, and while your suggestiong that the Democrats might want to bring in some muscle (of the intelletctual type) makes a lot of sense… Chompsky??? His politics are soooooooooooo far to the left that the American people would cringe in horror at the thought of that guy participating in the vetting process. The Democrats would not only lose on the Senate floor, they’d probably lose every election for the next generation, too. I don’t have the time or the inclination to google up some quotes from the Noamster, but I’n sure someone else will be more than happy to do that soon.

You start with a great premise, an interesting suggestion, and then take it out into left field, so to speak.

3

how 'bout davey boies

4

Youse gots, mebbe, a debate in there somewhere? It looks a li’l bit like a rant and a li’l bit like a poll.

5

I guess the practical version boils down thusly:

ought we to render the process more like litigation, viz. each side could have one (at team?) of lawyers, (that is to say, professional trial counsel) doing the questioning.

'there is precedent in impeachment proceedings, where not every house member had to individually spend ten minutes cross examining monica lewinsky…

We’d still have to let the senators have their full number of half hour photo ops, but why not add some horsepower to the give and take?

6

It’s not supposed to be an adversarial situation. At least in theory, it’s not meant to be a forum for two sides to push their points of view. If an inquiry into the beliefs, skills and general suitability of a candidate for such an office is not the place for an inquisitorial approach, I don’t know what is.

Alaric, just as a matter of respect for your fellow posters, since we have to make sense of your posts, please cut down on the odd renaming of individuals. When I read the title, I have no idea who “Professor Kingsfield” and “Bluto” are meant to refer to. Take the time to edit your posts a little, for God’s sake. Have you noticed that almost all the threads you start require multiple clarifications before we can begin debating? I’m not trying to junior mod here, these are just my opinions.

7

The looney right is quite visible and it hasn’t stopped the Republicans so far. They licked their wounds after Goldwater in '64 and came back with a stunning victory for Reagan in '80. If the “looney left” just kept being persistant instead of cowering in fear over losing a few elections in the short term I think we’d eventually succeed. I even think it’d even be worth 20 years of Republican domination.

8

I know that “advise and consent” is supposed to be different from cross and re-cross, but the process has become so politicized that unless someone who is used to working a hostile, highly paid and highly educated and highly capable expert witness in front of a half-bored jury has a crack at these guys, they are ALWAYS going to be 50 IQ points ahead of any two members of the the committee combined.

9

Senator Feinstein is not a lawyer.

10

So, to rephrase, you feel that the Democrats in the Senate aren’t smart enough to fulfill the “advise and consent” part of their jobs.

ISTM that therefore they don’t belong in the Senate, not that they should subcontract out the Borking of whoever Bush nominates.

You do realize that they already get a shit load of assistance from liberal groups like PfAW and the ACLU, do you not? And still Teddy K. looks stupid reading off the questions his staff put together for him.

And very much what Atticus Finch had to say. Either write in English, or provide a crib, if you would.

Regards,
Shodan

11

they can advise and they can consent, but they can’t cross examine worth a lick.

12

Godlwater represtents the Loony right? Um, he got elected to the Senate. If you can elect Chomsky to the Senate, I’ll eat my hat. Are you familiar with his politics???

13

Well then they don’t belong in the Senate, do they?

Look, the undeniable fact that Alito and Roberts are intellectually light years ahead of short-bus riders like Kennedy and Biden is nobody’s fault but the good people who elected them. If Teddy and Joe are reduced to gibbering incompetence by someone who actually writes his own material or takes his own tests, the remedy is not to hire further help for the intellectually challenged Senators but replacing them.

The Dems politicized the whole process with Bork. The fact that it is no longer working for them is not evidence of a problem - just the opposite.

Regards,
Shodan

14

*They may belong in the senate, but they don’t belong in court.

**If intellectual horsepower is going to be posited as a job qualification for political office, might not your fearless C in C be facing job uncertainty?

***highlighted only because they are playing defense. Please list the Pug senators who could have dealt with Roberts & Alito?

15

Much better suggestion. I have to wonder, though, if Senate rules allow for non-Senators to take an active role in the actual questioning of the appointee.

Surely the Dems aren’t so stupid as to not have a whole slew of lawyers working with them in preparing their questions. They’ve had months to prepare. And since the process goes on for sevearl days, they can get re-coached after screwing up, and then go after him again the next day.

16

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well then they don’t belong in the Senate, do they? Look, the undeniable fact that Alito and Roberts are intellectually light years ahead of short-bus riders like Kennedy and Biden Regards,
Shodan

[QUOTE]

Furthermore, when you express opinions like that, you slap these brave little tykes down just when they begin to muster the courage to look their disability straight in the eye, and begin honestly to cope (by delegating the intellectually challenging chores).

Remember, the process of recovery starts with a frank admission of the problem, such as would be represented by simply hiring someone smart to do the questioning. Shall they go on in the shame and horror of constantly fearing exposure for the boobs they are, always faking it, never making it…I say let us support them in coming out of the closet.

But YOU! What is YOUR response to this potential manifestation of candor?

You threaten the disabled with job loss, in open contrtavention of the ADA.

I propose a reasonable accomodation–it is fair, it is right, it is the law. Hire some brains, but let the tinybrained senators have the fully dignity that they deserve as elected human beings, however venal their occupation.

17

oh yes they are.

Or else they are really hopeless on execution.

I think thry really needed their idea person whispering right in their ear. Obviously they were incapable of maintaining a line of interrogation.

18

all undeniably true, which leaves one tearing out hair, wondering, how, HOW, HOW???
could they let themselves be reamed without at least asking for a little vaseline (which is to say, ordering out for brains)…