I couldn't find it on regular TV, which is showing soap operas and children's programming. Even NPR is only broadcasting it online. Is it such a done deal that people can't be bothered to watch? Or is just painful to see what the Republicans are doing to this country?
it's on cable news
I don't have cable. I'm watching it on the NY Times website. The Kavanaugh hearings were everywhere, but maybe that's just because of the sexual assault allegation against him.
Not watching because it just makes me depressed and/or want to throw things at the tv. Doesn't even matter what she says because the Republicans are going to ram her through.
What's to see? There's no question she's qualified, and there's no scandal to make it otherwise interesting television. It's just political as to whether she will have the votes or not. I mean, they tend not to put totally unqualified people up, regardless of party. These people are distinguished jurists and professors. It's just a political question of whether there are enough votes to get them through.
Well, no, it's also supposed to be about questioning them on their views and jurisprudence to determine whether they can rule impartially about key issues. And that is a very salient question in Barrett's case, and there should be more coverage of it. But you are right that it has become a hollowed out process, because as poster above says, Repubs are set on ramming her through no matter what.
@a nonymous There's really no way to vet this. Any judge of her caliber is going to say she's going to put her personal views aside and rule as the law requires. No one is ever going to say differently. It's really not about vetting so much, imo, as deciding whether they have the political votes to get it through. It's really not about qualifications or about impartiality.
@Anonymous Well yeah, in 2020 (and indeed at any time since Bush v Gore, when parties realized the court had power to throw a tight election) it is about whether they have the political votes, but what I'm saying is that the process was intended to be about vetting for impartiality as well as qualifications, and you absolutely can vet for that. If a judge says that they will put their personal views aside, it's up to the senators to decide whether that answer is sincere and convincing.
But yes, at this point it's a sham of a process.
I can't bear to watch
Everyone should watch Senator Whitehouse's presentation in the hearing.
I agree! So much money flowing thru to these law societies/pr. How can the donors stay anonymous? How is it laundered? Does the nominee receive money?
what constitutional process?! I’m sorry but there is no basis in con law for what you’re saying. None. As for the rest, think whatever you like. But since you have this weird fixation on my personal view, I DO happen to disagree with what is happening. But I understand why they are doing it.
I didn't say con law. I said process, which is established by both the text of the constitution and accepted practice. Our whole system relies on the notion that processes will be applied consistently, so that everyone is playing by the same rules. The process is that the president nominates a justice, and the senate considers and votes. The "unless it's the "last days", also known as any time in the last year of the president's term" bit is dishonest garbage that the Repubs made up to justify blocking Garland. (Which, by the way, is NOT something that "everyone would have done". If you think you have evidence of Democrats committing comparable procedural abuse in recent memory, feel free to share it; otherwise you're just projecting based on your faulty assumption of how "everyone" operates.)
What they're doing now would be procedurally fine--I mean, apart from the whole bringing-infectious-senators-to-Washington-and-possibly-infecting-Congressional-staff-to-ram-her-through-before-the-election-so-she-can-throw-it-to-Trump bit--if not for the precedent they kicked up such a huge stink to set in 2016. But having made up and enforced that BS rule, all reasonable notions of fair play and procedural consistency demand that they abide by it themselves. The opportunistic hypocrisy is the bit of this 2020 process that should outrage anyone with a functioning moral compass.
And lol, weird fixation with your personal views? What are any of us posting here if not for our personal views? It's not weird or fixated to assume that what you post reflects what you actually think and feel. That's kind of, you know, how this works. Except for you, who are apparently playing some weird pseudo-intellectual devil's-advocate game, I guess. Whatever floats your boat.
@a nonymous Going from the bottom up: No, it's not necessarily "how it works" that everything said is our own personal view when it comes to how this process is working. I comment on things happening all the time that are not necessarily my own personal view, though I understand the pov. And sometimes need to explain to people like you, including on the Advice and Consent clause -- see below. If you're curious, ask, but don't be insulting just for the sake of it. And don't make assumptions. Ask.
Second, there is nothing illegal OR unconstitutional about what the Republicans are doing, period full stop. You might not like it, and I might prefer to wait, as well, but it is permitted under the laws and constitution of the United States for them to move forward.
Third, you are wrong about the process, at least as a constitutional matter. The president nominates a justice, and then the Senate DECIDES whether they will consider and vote, and if they decide to consider and vote, then they do so. But they are 100% entitled under the Advice and Consent clause to WITHHOLD that consent. They are allowed to do that. And that's what they did in 2016. I don't have a view about whether the Democrats would have done the same. I tend to doubt it since Garland was a bi-partisan pick but I think there was more going on there, including the desire to frustrate President Obama's agenda, whatever it was.
I believe their point in 2016 was that there was a division in government between the presidency, held by a democrat, and the senate, controlled by republicans. The republicans expressed the view that in that circumstance, better to wait until after the election to nominate a justice. I did not personally agree with that, and I think Merrick Garland should have been confirmed, but it was 100% legal and constitutional for the Senate to take that view, as they are constitutionally entitled to withhold consent.
Now, in 2020, the Republican party controls both the Senate AND the White House -- there is no division. That's the distinction they are making. They control both, they have the votes, and they are going to get her confirmed. I would personally prefer that they wait until after the election, but I understand why they are not, it's 100% legal for them to proceed as they are proceeding, and there is no doubt in my mind the Democrats would do the same if they had the ability to do so. Of course they would. Notice that RBG's dying WISH was that they wait. But it was just a wish. If it had been the law, she -- or someone -- would have said so, and no one has cited any law that makes this illegal or unconstitutional.
The Republicans are not changing the rules because they ALWAYS had the constitutional ability to act or not act under the Advice and Consent clause. They are on constitutionally solid ground, whether or not you like the outcome. If they weren't on constitutionally solid ground, proceedings could be brought to address that. No one is going to do that. Because they can't.
The GOP argument in 2016 was never ever about a split presidency and Senate. And you will be hard pressed to find any evidence of that. In fact, you’ll find many evidence of Republican Senators saying “if this happens again in 2020, you can use my words against me!” Discussions about party of the senate majority and the President were only invoked by MM within one hour of RBG’s death in the missive he sent out from his office, justifying this blatant power grab.
You mention advice and consent, but there was none of that when BHO nominated Merrick. It was never about advice and consent on the nominee then. It was purely political. They didn’t want a Democratic nominee. They expressly refused to hold a hearing, and insodoing, failed to fulfill their job.
(Np)
So, I'm done engaging with the loon who wants to keep pretending that this is all cool and normal while arguing against a straw-man version of what I or anyone else responding to her actually say.
Who's up for actually discussing the hearings?
What struck me from yesterday is that Barrett clearly thinks that refusing to answer simple questions like "can the president delay the election", "can the president pardon himself for future crimes," "is climate change a thing", "is postal voting a democratic process" etc, shows her neutrality or lack of agenda.
But these things are so basic and so incontrovertible that refusing to answer does completely the opposite. If you refuse to unambiguously disavow the lies Trump is spewing about these topics, you are helping Trump to sow the uncertainty that is exactly what he wants, by giving the impression they are genuinely up for debate.
It's like Trump refusing to condemn the Proud Boys: if you can't condemn it, you're aligning yourself with it.
It's a shame that someone who genuinely does seem like an intelligent person (as much as I disagree with her ideology) has been seduced into accepting this moral debasement as the price of the top job.
back the name calling, are we? I will overlook it since you seem to be trying to have a substantive discussion.
To my mind, the questioners did not lay a hand on Judge Barrett. The caliber of her thought process is reflected the fact that she refused to answer incomplete hypotheticals. Those are not “simple questions” except to those who are not thinking deeply about the issue. It’s like asking if killing someone is punishable. Seems straightforward, but there is no yes/no answer to that. It really depends on facts and circumstances. Giving an off the cuff answer in a political process that could be seen as compromising her neutrality later would have been a rookie move, and she’s anything but that.
@Anonymous Not engaging with you. You're right back to (a) pretending that this is a morally neutral process that doesn't present an existential threat to our democracy and (b) fantasising that you're the smartest person in the room and that there was some hidden layer of complexity to the questions/answers that only you can see.
Have fun with that. I'm not playing.
Don't feel bad for ACB she's going to be sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court while you're doom scrolling in your mother's basement (second part = protected opinion!)