Prior to the 1950s, SCOTUS nominees almost never had to testify. Their written judicial opinions formed the substance of debate in the senate.
Then they started calling nominees to testify. Some would simply say “my record speaks for itself.” But others started elaborating. Soon the senate testimonies became routine, but were respectful.
Then with judge Bork, who was eminently qualified, the left realized it could start using the hearings to trash nominees and prevent their appointment. And here we are.
This is what made me upset about Kavanaugh, the republicans did not need to have a hearing but "in good faith" or whatever you want to call it, they allowed it. Look what happened. Republicans need to grow some balls and avoid that same fiasco that happened last time, do not concede to a hearing. It will be in bad faith on the Dems side if they do. Why even bother this time. Learn your lesson, grow some balls republicans.
I think the Dems know they've lost this nominee--they haven't found anything to start complaining about and she's brilliant, great mentors, great family, no scandal...very hard to attack. The Republicans should just hold the vote--unless there's some fear the RINOs are plotting something...
Kavanaugh was such a low point--beyond low. I can't even look at CB Ford's picture without wanting to puke.So fake.
Dems think the average person has a 5 minute attention span and doesnt remember the Kavanaugh hearings, and they are such power hungry dregs. You think they wont attempt to smear her with anything even mad up talking points? They are already attacking her for "kidnapping" Haitian children, as if she isnt giving them a better life in the US.
The Senate can vote in a Justice without any debate if they have the majority.
Yeah, weird they do any hearings. What did the nominee do wrong to need a hearing over? Just vote.
Prior to the 1950s, SCOTUS nominees almost never had to testify. Their written judicial opinions formed the substance of debate in the senate.
Then they started calling nominees to testify. Some would simply say “my record speaks for itself.” But others started elaborating. Soon the senate testimonies became routine, but were respectful.
Then with judge Bork, who was eminently qualified, the left realized it could start using the hearings to trash nominees and prevent their appointment. And here we are.
And Bork becomes a verb.
As far as I can tell, it is precedent to have a hearing with any potential federal judges, but it's more of a guideline than a rule
There were rinos that would use the lack of a hearing as justification to vote no
There were with Kavanaugh, very true, but here we might not have that problem!
This is what made me upset about Kavanaugh, the republicans did not need to have a hearing but "in good faith" or whatever you want to call it, they allowed it. Look what happened. Republicans need to grow some balls and avoid that same fiasco that happened last time, do not concede to a hearing. It will be in bad faith on the Dems side if they do. Why even bother this time. Learn your lesson, grow some balls republicans.
I think the Dems know they've lost this nominee--they haven't found anything to start complaining about and she's brilliant, great mentors, great family, no scandal...very hard to attack. The Republicans should just hold the vote--unless there's some fear the RINOs are plotting something... Kavanaugh was such a low point--beyond low. I can't even look at CB Ford's picture without wanting to puke.So fake.
Dems think the average person has a 5 minute attention span and doesnt remember the Kavanaugh hearings, and they are such power hungry dregs. You think they wont attempt to smear her with anything even mad up talking points? They are already attacking her for "kidnapping" Haitian children, as if she isnt giving them a better life in the US.