I find the hearings very sad. The partisanship and posturing on both sides for the past ten years in particular is ruining a functioning government. These people are supposed to be representing their constituents, not special interest groups and making themselves and their cronies richer.
They are all living in crazy town.
Selection of federal judges is high stakes because they are elected for life. Of course there will be partisanship because it can be determining policy for decades. The Federalist Society is the pipeline for libertarians and conservatives, and Kavanaugh is one of them.
Opinion piece, why Kavanaugh was selected:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.3358aa62f400
The change in the last decade or two has been thanks to the Koch Brothers and friends taking a long-term strategy and investing in these judges campaigns, starting with state judges who need to run for election (vs. in states where they are appointed). That used to be a sleepy election but now the most conservative candidate can count on campaign money that a more moderate or progressive candidate will not get. The state judges get tapped for the federal bench, and Supreme court candidates normally come from there. The Kochs and their ilk have played the long game and that, along with their hundreds of millions of dollars, has proved wildly successful.
Are you implying that on the progressive side no one exercises a long term strategy or contributes campaign funds designed to further their favorite causes?Originally Posted by Lainey
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Lainey, those positions are very important since they are appointed for life and will set our country backwards if too many ultra conservatives end up in them.
As long as people view the courts as legislatures of last resort rather than interpreters of the law, we will see ridiculous displays like this. It doesn’t help that every third Democrat is running for president and looking to impress the base with conspicuous acts of dramatic silliness.
The President could have nominated a ham sandwich and we would be hearing the same overwrought rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that the man is already having memory issues. My memory's not perfect but I'd certainly remember if I'd had a conversation about the Mueller investigation with someone at the law firm defending the president and could answer a simple question about it with a declarative yes or no.
It's too bad Republicans stonewalled Merrick Garland. He seemed likely to be a responsible, centrist jurist. Now it's likely we'll be stuck with this unspeakable (literally--he answers nothing honestly) character. Cory Booker just introduced "forbidden" documents into the records. It will be interesting to see the fallout.
Last edited by JaneV2.0; 9-7-18 at 11:45am.
Of course they all do. In the name of what god they believe in, how they can earn the most money, or get the most votes or a number of other reasons.
i watched the hearings this morning. He seems very bright, well, versed in the law and the protesters that were hauled out seemed pointless.
Unfortunately people are only seeing and hearing what what they want to hear. Watch CNN for an hour and you will hear an hour of trump bashing and teeth gnashing. Watch Fox for an hour and you will hear an hour of media bashing, trump loving and Christian undertones. Both have terribly rude interviewers who interrupt if they don’t agree, shouting over each other, smirking and smug superiority. Shameful.
Perhaps if we could get Big Money out of the picture, legislators could spend more time legislating, and less time money-grubbing. Campaign finance reform needs to happen.
Attorneys never answer yes or no. Waitress,”Would you like water?” Attorney, “Well, that depends.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote