Time to end confirmation hearings regardless of whether the persecutors are R or D or whether the victim nominee is R or D

Politics
#1

Confirmation hearings are clown shows, nothing more.

The first Supreme Court confirmation hearing to occur was in 1916 for Louis Brandeis. It originated in the anti-Semitism of the Senators present.

Basically, the whole point was “How DARE President Wilson nominate a rich Jew for the Supreme Court?”

And basically, depending on which party was making the nomination and which group of Senators were holding the hearings, the clown show has never really changed much.

One group pitching softballs, the other group hurling spitballs.

No need for this crap. All 100 Senators knew how they were going to vote the very instant the nomination was announced, some knowing the minute Biden took the oath of office.

This ain’t about convincing Senators or influencing votes. The votes are already set. Every Senators knows already how they are voting.

This is just a forum for butt hurt losers to hurl invective, both parties taking their turns as the butt hurt losers.

Kavanaugh and KBJ both endured this needless abuse, as did many others.

If the Senate won’t stop this bull ■■■■■ then the nominees should do what Brandeis did.

He simply refused to attend the hearings. All future nominees should do so as well.

Don’t give the ■■■■■■■■ (R & D) of the Judiciary Committee the pleasure.

The ONLY purpose of a hearing is to slander the nominee, with the slanderers cowardly hiding behind their legislative immunity (whether R or D).

They are all a bunch of ■■■■■■■■ at this point.

No more Judicial nominee hearings.

And if the Senate Judiciary Committee insists on holding them, all nominees R & D, should boycott them.

The written questionnaires and written follow-ups are more than sufficient.

The hearings are a ■■■■ show and EVERYBODY knows it.

All they way back to the “How dare he nominate a rich Jew?” days.

2 Likes
#2

Absolutely agree.

#3

But where then would they get their sound bites from?

1 Like
#4

You say that jokingly.

But in the end, sound bites are what these stupid nomination clown shows are all about.

#5

No, no, this is crazy talk. If the senate can’t stage the occasional over dramatic ■■■■ show in order to rile up the zealots, we may move one step closer to finding some semblance of common ground…we can’t have that.

1 Like
#6

I never understood the point of making every single thing the government does a political stage show.

#7

I disagree. The people need to see the way their senators behave and question life-time appointments of the guardians of the constitution, and the mettle of the candidates. It is a suitable rite of passage.

1 Like
#8

IMO…the two aren’t even close to being on par. One is exploring an actual past and exposing their mindset on these judicial matters that have come and may come again before her bench, where as the other was delving into a past that was simply made up for the sole purpose of disparaging the nominee’s character. It was and still is the worst display by Democrats of their inner character that I’ve personally ever witnessed.

2 Likes
#9

Hear! Hear! :+1: :clap: :clap:

1 Like
#10

Are you kidding me? You want to deny those Senators precious TV time to convince people not to vote for them anymore?

Come on, man. We need fodder for those campaign commercials. :rofl:

#11

comparing what kavanaugh went through to the mild questioning of kbj is disingenuous at best. some people may not like the questions, but unlike kavanaugh, acb, and thomas, kbj has been treated with decorum.

3 Likes
#12

how about something different. do away with the ginsberg “rule”. gentleman’s agreement, if you don’t answer the questions, you don’t get confirmed. the senate has a right to have their questions answered if they’re going to vote for someone seeking a lifetime job as a custodian of the constitution. ginsberg should have never been allowed to get away with that

2 Likes