Who Said This? Subject The Confirmation Hearings

Posted on January 12, 2006

Who said:

They are called hearings. Why? Who’s hearing?

I suspect, Judge Alito… and that’s it.

He’s the one we should be hearing. But he’s the one who isn’t talking.

Senators are doing the yapping, at a ratio — I clocked, unscientifically today — at about 6-to-1.

That means, six times more bloviating from senators than answering from Judge Alito.

And don’t gang up on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That’s all committees in Washington.

Every time Alan Greenspan comes up on Capitol Hill for his “hearings,” he’s the one listening — usually to long-winded politicians grandstanding and meaningless pseudo-intellectual babble, the stupidity of which is, well, stupefying.

And by the way, fair and balanced here, this isn’t a Republican issue or Democrat issue — this is an all-senator, all-points-bulletin issue.

They all yap too much and ask too little.

It’s insulting to us, it’s insulting to Judge Alito and it’s insulting to our country.

I’m still waiting for the senator who asks short, to the point questions, because he wants clear, to the point answers. In short: The senator who makes sense, not speeches. Alas, I haven’t found him or her.

Hearings? Try… hot airings.

I will post the answer and source this quote in a comment that I plan on posting at midnight tonight. I thought that these common sense words needed to be exposed. Some of you have heard or read them but others have not.

» Filed Under Supreme Court

Trackback URL

Comments

5 Responses to “Who Said This? Subject The Confirmation Hearings”

mild mannered reporter on January 12th, 2006 2:49 pm

Good point. I would like to add this:

Supreme Court nominee Alito has been grilled this week by senators questioning his past associations, writings, and decisions. Is Alito being treated fairly? It is time to revisit how they approached another Supreme court nominee.

Let us image for a moment that a Supreme Court nominee had advocated, this week, for the following through writings and speaking engagements: (A). A constitutional right to prostitution and polygamy. (B). Attacked the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. (C). Proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day. (D). Called for an end to singe-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. (E). Wrote, “use the Supreme Court to enact `social change….without taking giant strides…the court, through constitutional adjudication, can reinforce or signal a green light for social change.” (F). Also wrote, “boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding of the Constitution is sometimes necessary.” (G). Advocate universal court-ordered work place affirmative action quotas, even if no discrimination is found.

Surely no Senator would support Alito if he had such views. And surely no president, no matter how outrageous, would nominate such a candidate.

Unfortunately, the hypothetical nominee I have just described is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.

In conclusion, it is hard to imagine any senator attacking Alito’s respectable record with a straight face, while confirming an extremist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Cross posted at Rosemead Times.
Jay on January 12th, 2006 4:10 pm

Is it Biden?
Peter Bella on January 12th, 2006 5:01 pm

The Democrats really hate any Repulican who is smarter than they are. They also despise people who are honorable and dignified.

My real problem is the discrimination. The Judicial commitee gave Ruth Bader Ginsburg the kid glove treatment. She was treated with dignity and respect. Her memebership and employment by a radical legal organization, the ACLU, was not criticized. Her views were not criticized.

Mr. Alito has been treated in a disgusting manner. What is worse, this is our tax money at work. Tax dollars for hazing.
apostle on January 12th, 2006 5:23 pm

Mild Mannered Reporter: Could I get a source on that? Trust me, I totally buy it (don’t put anything past Clinton) I just find it fascinating.
ryan on January 23rd, 2006 10:21 pm

Even still, Judge Alito’s record and intellectual with overmatched these tactics.