Good points. I guess a rubber stamp approval and a closer to unanimous vote would have had the advantage of removing a racism/sexism talking point, too.
I didn't pay much attention either, for the simple reason, as you stated at the beginning, this was a fait accompli from the moment of nomination. I disagree however, that the Republicans shouldn't "fight" each nomination to the extent they can. The "people" need to know what the fight is about: one party - and ONLY one party - has sought to make the Supreme Court into a super-legislative branch, in order to accomplish by judicial fiat that which they cannot accomplish democratically. Only one party does that - the Democrats. The Republicans don't try to make law through the court. Since Roe, this has only been going one way. That question of temperament is both relevant and worthy of people knowing. As ugly as much of this is, yes it needs to be aired because the constitution isn't an infinitely flexible, living document. And if that means sometimes ugly things should be left to the States to decide, so be it. If we don't like that, we amend the constitution - we don't "elect" justices to go around it.
All you write could be accomplished in a cordial manner. The Senate *should* ask questions - real questions - to get a sense of a candidate's intellect and judicial views - but judges in general are not supposed to rule on hypotheticals.
It serves no purpose, other than grandstanding, that is, to try and back a candidate into a corner regarding a hot-button issue, for the simple reason that the details are absolutely critical to every real world case.
As I wrote earlier, KBJ mishandled the "woman" question with the biologist line. The Right went bonkers, but the balance of her response spoke to the reality: If a case that calls for a legal definition gets to the Court, then there is a dispute that worked its way up the appellate chain, and therefore there *is* some detail that matters therein.
The Dems did start this, with Bork. But, the only way out is for somebody to take the first step back toward civility. The GOP had a chance to do so, but instead we got more of the same, diminished only somewhat (and if KBJ were a straight white man, it'd have been "payback time").
Good points. I guess a rubber stamp approval and a closer to unanimous vote would have had the advantage of removing a racism/sexism talking point, too.
I didn't pay much attention either, for the simple reason, as you stated at the beginning, this was a fait accompli from the moment of nomination. I disagree however, that the Republicans shouldn't "fight" each nomination to the extent they can. The "people" need to know what the fight is about: one party - and ONLY one party - has sought to make the Supreme Court into a super-legislative branch, in order to accomplish by judicial fiat that which they cannot accomplish democratically. Only one party does that - the Democrats. The Republicans don't try to make law through the court. Since Roe, this has only been going one way. That question of temperament is both relevant and worthy of people knowing. As ugly as much of this is, yes it needs to be aired because the constitution isn't an infinitely flexible, living document. And if that means sometimes ugly things should be left to the States to decide, so be it. If we don't like that, we amend the constitution - we don't "elect" justices to go around it.
All you write could be accomplished in a cordial manner. The Senate *should* ask questions - real questions - to get a sense of a candidate's intellect and judicial views - but judges in general are not supposed to rule on hypotheticals.
It serves no purpose, other than grandstanding, that is, to try and back a candidate into a corner regarding a hot-button issue, for the simple reason that the details are absolutely critical to every real world case.
As I wrote earlier, KBJ mishandled the "woman" question with the biologist line. The Right went bonkers, but the balance of her response spoke to the reality: If a case that calls for a legal definition gets to the Court, then there is a dispute that worked its way up the appellate chain, and therefore there *is* some detail that matters therein.
The Dems did start this, with Bork. But, the only way out is for somebody to take the first step back toward civility. The GOP had a chance to do so, but instead we got more of the same, diminished only somewhat (and if KBJ were a straight white man, it'd have been "payback time").