10.13.2020 12:17 PM

He’s baaaaack

17 Comments

  1. Steve T says:

    On a more serious note re ACB, this hearing is evidence of all that is wrong in politics – and especially U.S. politics.

    As you know, I am hardly a Trump fan, nor a rabid conservative. However, the Dems arguments against ACB seem to boil down to:

    1. You did this to us when we were in power.
    2. ACB holds views that we don’t like, and we worry she will allow them to skew her decisions.

    The first point is obviously weak and juvenile. So let’s move to the second point. I am curious how many Democratic judicial nominees were grilled about their views on abortion. Or asked what religion they are. Or asked if they are going to secretly work to install a particular presidential candidate if there is a court challenge.

    Either the SCUS is broken or it isn’t. Either make these political appointments outright (as they are in Canada), or make them a pure election. This half-pregnant approach of insinuating that judicial candidates are secret spies for their nominating party is insulting, demeaning, and betrays the fundamental idea of what the court is supposed to do.

    As an aside, there were two side victories for ACB today. First, she was asked to show her notes, and she showed… an empty pad of paper. Wow – you mean she actually is smart enough to answer questions?

    Second, another female lawyer critiqued ACB’s dress as being too “casual”. Hoo boy, the rebuttals to that are priceless.

    • The Doctor says:

      I think the problem here is that the truly slimy, outrageous thing happened in 2016: i.e., Mitch McConnell refusing to proceed with the Merrick Garland appointment, which Obama proposed way earlier in the year than Trump proposed Barrett. That was an incredibly offside abuse of raw power by Mitch McConnell, and it was in tacit recognition of that that you had people like Lindsey Graham promising at the time that he certainly wouldn’t proceed with a nomination in the circumstances we have right now.

      I agree Trump and the Republicans have every constitutional and legal right to do what they are doing right now. It’s just that in the context of Moscow Mitch’s slimeball move in 2016, it becomes very stinky.

      • Martin says:

        Please. The Dems would have done PRECISELY the same thing in 2016 if all the roles were reversed.

        • The Doctor says:

          That’s really cool that you have this counterfactual time machine that allows you to know exactly what would have happened four years ago in a parallel alternative universe.

          To my knowledge, no Senate majority leader in the modern era, Democrat or Republican, had ever pulled the stunt that McConnell pulled in 2016 (i.e., refusing to put a duly selected judicial appointment to the Senate for confirmation for an entire year in order to wait out an election cycle) — but if you can provide me with examples of same, I’ve got an open mind on this.

          As far as I’m aware, McConnell’s level of scumminess on this count was historically without precedent. But please correct me if I’m wrong.

          • Martin says:

            In today’s partisan fighting over SCOTUS that has been getting worse and worse since Bork, it doesn’t take a time machine to say what would have happened in 2016 if the rolls were reversed, it is a self evident truth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or blinded by their biases(note I didn’t comment on whether it was “right” or not”). Kind of surprised because you don’t strike me as either.

          • Walter says:

            As I recall, 5 times out of 6, a judge was confirmed when a vacancy opened in the election year and the Senate and President were the same party.
            Also, 5 of 6 times, the judge was not confirmed when there was a split.
            So both the Obama case, and the Trump case – follow the precedent.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Doc,

            Have a heart. What would Elaine do if the jackass suddenly said Your Fired!? That’s why Mitch is an even bigger lap dog now than he was before Trump got there.

  2. Gilbert says:

    I was surprised that Kamala Harris gave very long statements followed by short questions. I think it’s unnecessary to read such long statements. She was so boring that not even CNN could show everything she had to say.

    • the real Sean says:

      She’s not speaking to the nominee, the news media or the hearing attendees. She’s speaking to voters. Using the hearings as a substitute for the rallies that can never be held. Nothing wrong with that. The Republicans asked for it with this sham process and she’s jamming it down their throat, giving them exactly what they deserve.

      • The Doctor says:

        And Ted Cruz took the same opportunity this morning — basically took his alotted mic time to make a campaign speech about how horrible Democrats are, how Democrats are responsible for absolutely everything that’s wrong in America etc.

  3. the real Sean says:

    In a live hearing one should refuse to to state what she believes on every issue. This is the example ACB has set for young women aspiring to high office.

  4. Max says:

    “Unnecessary to read such long statements” says Gilbert. And she was boring to boot. Are you not entertained Gilbert. One supposes if Harris has asked longer, tougher questions, Barret woulda folded like a cheap tent and the moderate Republicans would have went against Trump and McConnell and rejected her nomination. Eh, Gilbert? If only the Democrats had a guy like Gilbert in their war room. She was using her time to inform and influence voters you dolt! The Republicans already have the votes. Barret is in the bag. Have you learned nothin about Gorshuk, Garland, Kavanaugh?? Harris can see the forest AND the trees Gilbert. Wakey, wakey.

  5. Gilbert says:

    I know that Kamala Harris was speaking to voters, but I don’t like it. The chair should insist that senators make their statements short prior to their questions.

    Kamala Harris is too far to the left for Americans. She did very poorly in the primaries. She really attacked Joe Biden in the primaries. Have her views about Joe Biden suddenly changed?

    • Mark D says:

      As Canadians we really don’t pick up all the nuances of American elections. This applies to both Canadians on the left and Canadians on the right.

      Kamala Harris did quite well in the primaries once it became clear that the race for top spot had narrowed to Biden, Warren, and Bernie.

      Traditionally, the role of vice-presidential candidate is to off-set the presidential candidate’s weaknesses, as well as act as the presidential candidate’s bulldog during the general election. Although I am not a fan of Harris personally and was hoping Biden would choose Tammy Duckworth as his running mate, Harris proved during the primaries that she could be an effective bulldog within a general election, much like Biden had been for Obama during their two presidential elections together.

      It also cannot be denied that Harris offset a number of Biden’s weaknesses. So all in all, she did quite well in the primaries, as she likely would not have won the veepstakes without her aggressive attacks against Biden.

    • Max says:

      Gilbert says “The chair should insist that senators make their statements short prior to their questions.” Would that be the same chair who opened the proceedings with a shameless partisan STATEMENT playing to the voters in his home state of North Carolina? The same Lindsay Graham who said he could not support a HEARING for Biden’s nominee (Merrick Garland) because 10 moths was too close to the 2016 election. Sure Gilbert. And Gilbert says Harris is “too far left for Americans”. Why, the US should just forgo all the shenanigans and billions of campaign expenses and simply turn to the Oracle Gilbert. Who need pesky voters and democracy? Just ask Gilbert! As for “her views about Biden suddenly changed”, have you no comprehension of leadership politics Gilbert? In the end, they’re in the same tent, on the same side, and inevitably end up in key positions )Cabinet, Secretary, etc.) In USA, UK and Canada. You sir are an ignorant fool. Full stop.

Leave a Reply to Max Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*