Once again, our politicians on both side, seem to take pride in outdoing each other on how embarrassing they can make themselves look to the American people and the rest of the world.
Since it is the blatant objective of the Democrats to disrupt the process as much as they can, I'll start with them.
First off, they know that there is little they can do to prevent ACB from being confirmed so what do they do? They decide to use their questioning time to campaign. I've watched several hours and with few exceptions, they spew out misleading if not completely false information about the ACA, LBGT rights, abortion, etc. etc.
Let's take the ACA issue. Several have gone down lists of people whom they say will lose insurance, surely die, go bankrupt, remain uncured, .... if ACA is struck down. First off, the issue to strike down or keep the ACA is not going before the court but even if it were, so the fuck what.
The legislature sets policy, e.g. the ACA. The court rules whether as the law as written is constitutional or not. Not if it were a good thing or a bad thing. It is the most fundamental tenant of being a judge. That's what keeps the three branches separate and different. The executive branch can't write law or spend money. The legislative branch does that. The courts can't write law or set policy either. You want the ACA, free education for all, legalized drugs, closed boarders, open boarders, access to unrestricted abortion, the criminalization of all abortions, warrantless arrests, free guns for all, no guns for anyone? Just write a law that avoids a constitutional challenge and it's yours.
Then they prattle on and on while ACB listens politely and then come a question. FINALLY. For example, "Will you pledge to recuse yourself from any issue that comes before the court that pertains to a challenge to the 2020 election results?"
WHAT! This is my second beef. The moron that asked that question should have known better. He's a fucking lawyer himself as well as a Senator. The process for recusing ones self is very well defined and has multiple steps. The very first step is that there has to be an actual case before the court before the process is to start. Then comes self examination, consultation, and then discussion with the other members of the court. Who was one of the most staunch advocates of this process? Why Judge Ginsburg and as it turns out, ACB is also a firm supporter of that process. So the correct and only answer would be, "No, I will not pledge to recuse myself from any case that may or may not come before me on the court."
If that doesn't tan your hide, how about this? She was asked how she would rule on the ACA issue that will be before the court in November. Judges are never, NEVER supposed to "signal" how they will treat or rule on any subject that is or will be before the court. If she had answered that question one way or the other, it would be the most egregious failure of her career and she should be kept off the court if she had done so.
Politics in this country is a disgusting business. The worst side effect of it is that there a lot of people defending their side while vilifying the other side. This is like arguing how you want to die. Cancer or starvation and defending how your way is better.
Since it is the blatant objective of the Democrats to disrupt the process as much as they can, I'll start with them.
First off, they know that there is little they can do to prevent ACB from being confirmed so what do they do? They decide to use their questioning time to campaign. I've watched several hours and with few exceptions, they spew out misleading if not completely false information about the ACA, LBGT rights, abortion, etc. etc.
Let's take the ACA issue. Several have gone down lists of people whom they say will lose insurance, surely die, go bankrupt, remain uncured, .... if ACA is struck down. First off, the issue to strike down or keep the ACA is not going before the court but even if it were, so the fuck what.
The legislature sets policy, e.g. the ACA. The court rules whether as the law as written is constitutional or not. Not if it were a good thing or a bad thing. It is the most fundamental tenant of being a judge. That's what keeps the three branches separate and different. The executive branch can't write law or spend money. The legislative branch does that. The courts can't write law or set policy either. You want the ACA, free education for all, legalized drugs, closed boarders, open boarders, access to unrestricted abortion, the criminalization of all abortions, warrantless arrests, free guns for all, no guns for anyone? Just write a law that avoids a constitutional challenge and it's yours.
Then they prattle on and on while ACB listens politely and then come a question. FINALLY. For example, "Will you pledge to recuse yourself from any issue that comes before the court that pertains to a challenge to the 2020 election results?"
WHAT! This is my second beef. The moron that asked that question should have known better. He's a fucking lawyer himself as well as a Senator. The process for recusing ones self is very well defined and has multiple steps. The very first step is that there has to be an actual case before the court before the process is to start. Then comes self examination, consultation, and then discussion with the other members of the court. Who was one of the most staunch advocates of this process? Why Judge Ginsburg and as it turns out, ACB is also a firm supporter of that process. So the correct and only answer would be, "No, I will not pledge to recuse myself from any case that may or may not come before me on the court."
If that doesn't tan your hide, how about this? She was asked how she would rule on the ACA issue that will be before the court in November. Judges are never, NEVER supposed to "signal" how they will treat or rule on any subject that is or will be before the court. If she had answered that question one way or the other, it would be the most egregious failure of her career and she should be kept off the court if she had done so.
Politics in this country is a disgusting business. The worst side effect of it is that there a lot of people defending their side while vilifying the other side. This is like arguing how you want to die. Cancer or starvation and defending how your way is better.
