Another Angle
I love having a blog, because I can post things like this. Short & sweet....I hope you enjoyed it.On Hugh's show yesterday, Lileks, equated the senators' opining (windbagging-if you ask me) to having Einstein in a confiramtion hearing, and having the laugable lefties grill him about e=mc2, and their, ahem, lack of comfortability with the subject, based upon their collective wisdom of a ninth grade science class. Pretty much sums it up. This pretty much explicates the fear.
posted by Grisby @ 3:25 PM
4 Comments:
Wow! James Lileks a constitutional scholar. Wonder what his comments were on Harriet Meyer's nomination (cue sounds of crickets chirping). Maybe his expertise on Supreme Court candidates comes from old postcards?
Thanks for making the point even more obvious.
There isn't a serious constitutional scholar on the panel, let alone a rocket scientist, excuse me physicist. That's why I found the comparison humorous.
If blabbing on, and on, and on, and on, for 25 of the alloted thirty minutes, only to come up with some moronic question doesn't demonstrate an ineptitude of serious thought, not to mention grandstanding, than what does?
Are you suggesting one must be a constitutional scholar to read the writing on the wall?
Perhaps Erwin Chemerinsky should have written the questions for the panel, either way, it seems a little late now and the confirmation a foregone conclusion.
I agree that the confirmation is a foregone conclusion. That in and of itself I do not find so disturbing. By all accounts Alito is a first-rate legal mind and has a fairly broad base of support. That being said, I think your partisanship is showing. Do you mean to tell me that fawning softball questions coming from Republicans constitute “serious” discussion needed for someone who will have a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS? It may not be grandstanding, but it doesn’t further the inquiry. Furthermore, the Judiciary Committee is filled with lawyers who have bunches of aids working for them who are trying to determine what the nominee’s judicial philosophy is all about. So these are all 9th grade questions and James Lileks is the arbiter of what defines a rational debate on Constitutional law? It is not obvious to me that the questioning is simple grandstanding because I am not a lawyer. Methinks that Lileks simply repeating what he hears in the right wing echo chamber and dresses it up in a cute little metaphor. Thus I offer you the alternate interpretation. Recent nominees’ responses to questions are so mealy-mouthed, bland and non-committal that there is nothing to be gained by holding hearings in the first place because they are too afraid to own up to their record and behavior. So where does that leave us?
Mr. Scott is correct that many of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee performed no better then their Democratic counterparts. There are only a limited number of the committee members who are well versed in various aspects of the law to pose meaningful questions. Unfortunately, those Senators were rarely seen. I also agree with Mr. Scott that I would enjoy seeing a serious discussion of the various aspects of Con Law. Although I wonder if half the people who say they want such a discussion could seriously stomach such a discussion.
As for the learned committee members and their diligent army of aides, if the best that they can do is come up with a question which requires the nominee to instruct the senior Senator from New York on the differences between a right that is explicitly mentioned in the constitution and a right that has evolved through case law, I think Mr. Scott is giving them too much credit. If they want to learn his judicial philosophy, they might want to try reading his judicial opinions. Its not like Judge Alito hasn’t written any opinions.
I think anyone can see that these judicial hearings are a joke. But, I don’t think you have to be a Con Law expert to make that observation. That is where Mr. Lileks enters. He provides us with a more common-man opinion (to the best of my knowledge, he has no legal training) and he wraps it in his satirical style. This nomination process needs some humor. It gets old listening to overly-serious newsmen trying to describe the days events in thirty-second sound bites. Mr. Scott may not appreciate his style, that’s his opinion. I, however, do like it.
Oh, and by the way, the echo chamber thing is getting a bit old. I know it may come as a shock to those on the left, but conservatives do not awake in the morning and read the latest briefing memo from Karl Rove. Personally, when I see phrases like “echo chamber” and “no blood for oil,” I tend to start deducting style points. And, yes, Mr. Scott I deduct style points when my conservative friends speak in over-used catch phrases too.
Post a Comment
<< Home