A) We don't get to vote on them, not really even indirectly (Senators are elected every 6 years, and who they voted onto the Bench is never a campaign issue), andA Supreme Court confirmation hearing is a rare opportunity for the public to hear directly from someone who could sit on the court for years, if not decades, and senators on both sides owe it to the public to ask good, probing questions that shed light on a nominee's philosophy.
— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) October 13, 2020
B) You think people are really paying attention to this, or could even tell you how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court (9) or for how long (life), or what "judicial philosophy" is? (Barrett doesn't have one, it's a pretend philosophy. But it's nicer to call it a philosophy than what it is: "I know what I like, and what I like is what the 'plain language' of the Constitution and the statutes mean.")
I mean, what did we do in the days before mass communication? Or when Senators were appointed by Governors? Even if the public despises a nominee's philosophy, will that change anything?
No comments:
Post a Comment