ACB Hearings

[Alan]

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the republicans the last 6-8 years it’s that political norms are for suckers. Nine justices on the Supreme Court is merely a political norm. Might as well blow that norm up too.

Would you still believe that if the Republicans were to add 3 or 4 more justices before the election?

[jp1]

Would you still believe that if the Republicans were to add 3 or 4 more justices before the election?

It’s interesting that the best the republicans can come up with when their norm breaking is pointed out and Dems threaten to do similar norm breaking is ‘but what if we behave even worse?’

Probably the only reason they haven’t done this yet is because they are confident they can jam this nomination through and that at the end of the day the party that still has morals and ethics will chicken out in behaving equally deplorably.

[Alan]

It’s interesting that the best the republicans can come up with when their norm breaking is pointed out and Dems threaten to do similar norm breaking is ‘but what if we behave even worse?’

Probably the only reason they haven’t done this yet is because they are confident they can jam this nomination through and that at the end of the day the party that still has morals and ethics will chicken out in behaving equally deplorably.

What norms have been broken?

[Tammy]

This is astonishing. Why in the world do you think Amy Barrett operates according to what her husband Says? That is just… I have no words.

Because the Catholic cult that she was a part of believed that women should do exactly as their husbands say in all matters.

[bae]

She seems to be a qualified candidate, properly nominated by a sitting President. The Senate should perform its duty.

Of course, that's what I also thought when Obama nominated Garland.

Bother.

[jp1]

She seems to be a qualified candidate, properly nominated by a sitting President. The Senate should perform its duty.

Of course, that's what I also thought when Obama nominated Garland.

Bother.

And they should have performed their duty when Obama nominated three well qualified individuals for the DC court of appeals well before the election (not that that matters obviously as we're now seeing). But since the republicans, with mitch at the helm, didn't consider any democrat to be a legitimate winner of the public trust to do their constitutional duties we ended up with a frustrated Harry Reid implementing the "nuclear" option of abolishing the filibuster for all but supreme court vacancies. A policy that mitch doubled down on. And now we're at the point where the democrats would be perfectly within reason to change the entire structure of the supreme court. And with republicans all the while whining that the dems shouldn't escalate, but never peeping about the fact that every democratic party escalation is a result of previous republican escalation of the destruction of norms. At least the democrats have the fact that the majority of citizens don't like republican policies (are there actually any republican policies at this point beyond jam as many partisan hacks onto the courts?) or attitudes. Eventually that will shove them into the dustbin of history as they so richly deserve. And the majority of Americans will say "good riddance to bad rubbish".

[bae]

And they should have performed their duty when Obama nominated three well qualified individuals for the DC court of appeals well before the election (not that that matters obviously as we're now seeing).

You might enjoy this article JP1:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/o...ons-trust.html

[LDAHL]

You might enjoy this article JP1:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/o...ons-trust.html

I’ve always liked Yuval Levin. He’s written a couple of good books on this topic. Of course, the Times being the Times, the comments section is often the most telling part. Look at all the rabidly political commentary about an article saying rabid politics is harming our institutions. I hope some editor doesn’t lose his job over letting a piece by an AEI fellow slip through.

[catherine]

Imagine the freak out and scrutiny that would be happening if she were in a fringe Muslim group instead of a fringe catholic group.

I was thinking of EXACTLY the same thing watching Cruz's sanctimonious blether about how terrible it is that some courts have taken down The 10 Commandments and Christian crosses on public property. So what are the chances that they would let a star and crescent fly on public grounds?

Everyone is entitled to their own belief as long as it isn't different than mine.

[jp1]

Well, we learned today that she truly is a partisan hack. Despite trump stating on multiple times that he wanted her sworn in before the election so that she could be on his side in any election related matters she refused to state that she would recuse herself from those matters. And even took fake umbridge at the idea that her integrity was being called into question with the question. I guess we’ll potentially get to see soon enough if she does lack the integrity she felt that that question implied.

I’m disappointed though. That would have been a great moment for fake outrage and crocodile tears to please the fat orange man and give the hearing at least a fake sense that something real was happening because as it has been so far I doubt she would be willing to answer a question regarding the color of the sky.