Advise and Shut Up Already

I would aggree that confirmation hearings are a circus, but I would like to know how Ms. Sotomayer makes her judgements. I want to know how a firefighter exam can be racially biased. As a white male, I want to know whether or not she thinks that I should get literal equal protection under the law, or the Democrat party sanctioned version of equal protection, in which we calculate whether or not giving literal equal protection to a white male will have a "disparate impact" on a more deserving group. I'd like to know what she thinks about "hate crime" legislation, in which we have one set of punishments for one group of people, and a different set for a different group. How does she reconcile this with the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution ? I'd like to know why "life experiences" should have anything to do with justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. I'd like to know why the press is so enamored with the fact that this candidate is a Hispanic woman. Aren't we supposed to be racial blind and gender blind ? I'd like to know whether Ms. Sotomayer believes that women and minorities have a different sense of justice than white males, or does she believe that justice is a universal priciple that can be applied across races and genders. I think that the American public has a right to know something about these candidates before they get confirmed.

I have spent my life paying for the sins of former generations

"The theory was that senators needed to handle the merchandise before giving "advice and consent" on the nomination. "

They do. Taking away the public hearings guarantees that all nominations will turn into back room affairs, with the senate as a whole becoming nothing more than a rubber stamp.

I agree that these hearings are pointless. The person who wins the presidential election gets to make the nominations. Democrats don't like it when a Republican is in charge, and vice versa. If there are serious problems with a nominee, they will be duly evicerated by the media (remember Harriet Myers?). It also seems pointless to bring up "activist" judges. To me, it seems that a judge is labeled "activist" by those who just disagree with their rulings.

Howard. Speaking of shutting up, when will you shut up? How about your stupid pal Keith Olbermoron when will he shut up?

Howie, as usual, you are wrong. These hearings did show us what an imbecile that Al Franken really is. Who cares if Frankenberry and his stupid family got into watching Perry Mason? Isn't it about time for Franken to go back to his padded room?

The hearings prove that no intelligence test is required for admission into the Senate. Did we really elect these senile old men to govern our country? The more I see of them the more pessimistic I become about the future of the Country. If we held a contest to decide who was the dumbest Senator it would be difficult to pick a winner out of so many prime candidates.

I yearn for the day that a supreme court nominee falls asleep on camera while a bloviating senator blabs about twenty five minutes before asking some stupid loaded question calculated to embarrass the nominee.

Howard: Do you want Harriet Miers appointed during a recess and on the bench before she's reviewed?

Our legislators live for these moments. They get their moment in the spotlight and know, full well, all eyes are trained on them. For a short while,they are in 'show biz'. One defining quote, like Lindsey Graham, and they are on the evening news. This isn't about the nominee. It's about them. That's why they drag it out.

The press has not yet realized President Obama is skipping the press and going directly to the people through mass media and free no question ask appearances on the 3 minor networks, plus Mr. Fineman.

When Louis the 14th set up his monarchy he went directly to the people, the revolution in France - Bonaparte went straight to the people, the same in the former USSR. Louis also had a Rahm, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu. He sought to consolidate royal power and crush domestic factions. By restraining the power of the nobility, he transformed France into a strong, centralized state, he made the gathering of taxes more efficient; but he needed more money to fund his programs; so he raised taxes and set up leaders to represent him in different areas, sort of like czars. Now the people did not need local leader, government was centralized. He had the money to fund his programs, the right of coinage, control of the dispensing of justice, and an army to enforce the laws. Kind of like a new national police force, the fed printing money wildly, stacking the court, making nuclear decisions without consulting congress, setting up over 30 czars covered by executive privilege. It all rings of a monarchy to me. President Obama believes he is amoung equals when with heads of state, any head of state; as the old saying goes a king among kings, we are all equal.

Shakespeare wrote 23 plays 10 had to do with the problems of kingship, one of Shakespeare great worries; his other worry was his adorers. Might President Obama???s worries be the same?

Take your own advice Howard.

Mr. Fineman can write better than this. At least I assume he can. And his point is worth about one paragraph - two for a bit of symmetry. I agree with at least one premise: the Senate has become a stage for mediocre politicians who want nothing more than to misbehave in front of a camera. The election cycle never ends.

Why spend all this time asking these questions if you all were going to vote her in anyway. Do all of you up there think the American people are stupid? If you all knew you were going to vote yes why waste our time. These hearing just make all of you look stupid. I for one will not be voting for anyone who is in office now. We have to stop this madness now.

Some might believe that as Mr. Justice Thomas was consented to, the bar has been lowered as far as it will go, and hearings might as well be dispensed with. Speaking of the "proof of the pudding,"--a bit of legalese Judge Fineman may not be familiar with, that might be true. But as there are only nine Justices of the Supreme Court--as opposed, for example, to a hundred United States Senators--and as the Justice's term is properly for life, I for one believe it is of some value to allow the public to see the prospective Justice tapdancing a little bit before he or she is permitted to hide behind the bench. If we can eliminate a Judge Bork or two along the way, so much the better. I have been very pleased with what I have seen and heard about Judge Sotomayor, and I hope everyone else has as well--even those so ideologically hidebound (like old lawbooks) that they WILL NOT vote for her.