Alito is a shoe-in

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

When did the Republican party claim to have a purpose for the hearings? Or, when did they comment that the hearings should be scrapped?

This is a bizarre non sequitur even coming from you. Are you agreeing that the Republicans fulminating at the confirmation hearings are just wasting their time at taxpayer expense? I honestly don't see it that way, but you appear to be conceding it.

Obviously this discussion was touched off by Pabster's feigned outrage at the Democrats' behavior in the confirmation hearings, and his speculation that the Democrats would lose seats as a result. As you would know if you'd watched or listened to the hearings, there was nearly as much grandstanding by the Republicans as there was by the Democrats.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

When did the Republican party claim to have a purpose for the hearings? Or, when did they comment that the hearings should be scrapped?

This is a bizarre non sequitur even coming from you. Are you agreeing that the Republicans fulminating at the confirmation hearings are just wasting their time at taxpayer expense? I honestly don't see it that way, but you appear to be conceding it.

Obviously this discussion was touched off by Pabster's feigned outrage at the Democrats' behavior in the confirmation hearings, and his speculation that the Democrats would lose seats as a result. As you would know if you'd watched or listened to the hearings, there was nearly as much grandstanding by the Republicans as there was by the Democrats.

Certainly. The original purpose of such hearings, I presume, was for senators to make a decision on a yes/no vote, but since the decision was already made beforehand, why have the hearings?

Of course, it does make for comedic gold when you see Ted Kennedy get pwned by Chairman Spectre!

 

[zendari]

Ginsburg: 17 Hours of Questioning
Breyer: 18 Hours of Questioning
Roberts: 22 Hours of Questioning

Ginsburg: 216 Questions 79% answered
Roberts: 510 Questions 89% answered


Looks like the Democrats enjoy grandstanding and posturing towards special interest groups a lot more than the Republicans.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I find the Republican behavior at these things even more amusing than the Democrats. The Dems at least have a reason of sorts, they don't all like the nominee...he's not THEIR guy after all. But the Republicans have no real purpose at the hearings, certainly no reason to go on and on in an exercise in mental masturbation. He's their nominee, it's not like they aren't going to vote for him.

When did the Republican party claim to have a purpose for the hearings? Or, when did they comment that the hearings should be scrapped?

But yes, there doesnt need to be hearings. In the past, they didnt even have the hearings, and now the Democrats have extended the process into what it is today.

Personally I'd be happy if they just did private meetings, then a vote. That way the Dems could ask real questions without the silly speeches and granstanding, and the Republicans could just do whatever their told, no wasted time for either side.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

Certainly. The original purpose of such hearings, I presume, was for senators to make a decision on a yes/no vote, but since the decision was already made beforehand, why have the hearings?

Of course, it does make for comedic gold when you see Ted Kennedy get pwned by Chairman Spectre!

I thought you hated Senator "Spectre" because he's a "RINO."

Actually my mom has testified three times in the last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she says Senator Specter is an arrogant prick. Personally I like him in that he is one of the last powerful Republicans who isn't a wacko. He's certainly better than Ted Kennedy IMO, though I think Ted has done a lot of good over the years, and gets a bad rap from many Republicans.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari
Ginsburg: 17 Hours of Questioning
Breyer: 18 Hours of Questioning
Roberts: 22 Hours of Questioning

Ginsburg: 216 Questions
Roberts: 510 Questions

Looks like the Democrats enjoy grandstanding and posturing towards special interest groups a lot more than the Republicans.

There was a Democratic majority in Congress when both Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed. Unless you have a breakdown of the time spent and questions posed by the respective parties during these hearings, the raw numbers mean nothing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Certainly. The original purpose of such hearings, I presume, was for senators to make a decision on a yes/no vote, but since the decision was already made beforehand, why have the hearings?

Of course, it does make for comedic gold when you see Ted Kennedy get pwned by Chairman Spectre!

I thought you hated Senator "Spectre" because he's a "RINO."

Actually my mom has testified three times in the last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she says Senator Specter is an arrogant prick. Personally I like him in that he is one of the last powerful Republicans who isn't a wacko. He's certainly better than Ted Kennedy IMO, though I think Ted has done a lot of good over the years, and gets a bad rap from many Republicans.

I don't have to like him, but he has done a reasonable job running the committee. Doesn't make the incident any less amusing. You seem to have no problem with the Democrats delaying the vote and wasting more taxpayer dollars.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I find the Republican behavior at these things even more amusing than the Democrats. The Dems at least have a reason of sorts, they don't all like the nominee...he's not THEIR guy after all. But the Republicans have no real purpose at the hearings, certainly no reason to go on and on in an exercise in mental masturbation. He's their nominee, it's not like they aren't going to vote for him.

When did the Republican party claim to have a purpose for the hearings? Or, when did they comment that the hearings should be scrapped?

But yes, there doesnt need to be hearings. In the past, they didnt even have the hearings, and now the Democrats have extended the process into what it is today.

Personally I'd be happy if they just did private meetings, then a vote. That way the Dems could ask real questions without the silly speeches and granstanding, and the Republicans could just do whatever their told, no wasted time for either side.

They already had private meetings.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

I don't have to like him, but he has done a reasonable job running the committee. Doesn't make the incident any less amusing. You seem to have no problem with the Democrats delaying the vote and wasting more taxpayer dollars.

How does delaying the vote waste taxpayer dollars?

For what it's worth, I am a pragmatist, and I'd agree it makes more sense to let the process happen, but I don't see that delaying it wastes any taxpayer dollars.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari
Ginsburg: 17 Hours of Questioning
Breyer: 18 Hours of Questioning
Roberts: 22 Hours of Questioning

Ginsburg: 216 Questions
Roberts: 510 Questions

Looks like the Democrats enjoy grandstanding and posturing towards special interest groups a lot more than the Republicans.

There was a Democratic majority in Congress when both Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed. Unless you have a breakdown of the time spent and questions posed by the respective parties during these hearings, the raw numbers mean nothing.

The time allotted per senator is equal, so the 22 hours is split proportionally. Republicans in 1993 still took less time than Democrats today.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
alito is scum, regardless of how stupid the democrats are

Yes, yes he is. After all, we ought to be seeking Ginsburg-style nominees who believe the age of consent should be lowered to 12 and that the Constitution perhaps provides for legal polygamy

You'd be wise to read the definition of 'scum' before spouting such nonsense.

Please provide any evidence that the Constitution bars polygamy. Thanks.

The word abortion never appears either, let alone the words "right to an" preceding it.

Neither does eating, reading, or writing. Or surfing the internet, and posting troll messages on the Anandtech P&N forum, as a matter of fact.

According to our constitution, all rights that are not specifically enumerated are reserved. So anything not specifically against the law is legal.

pwned

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I find the Republican behavior at these things even more amusing than the Democrats. The Dems at least have a reason of sorts, they don't all like the nominee...he's not THEIR guy after all. But the Republicans have no real purpose at the hearings, certainly no reason to go on and on in an exercise in mental masturbation. He's their nominee, it's not like they aren't going to vote for him.

When did the Republican party claim to have a purpose for the hearings? Or, when did they comment that the hearings should be scrapped?

But yes, there doesnt need to be hearings. In the past, they didnt even have the hearings, and now the Democrats have extended the process into what it is today.

Personally I'd be happy if they just did private meetings, then a vote. That way the Dems could ask real questions without the silly speeches and granstanding, and the Republicans could just do whatever their told, no wasted time for either side.

They already had private meetings.

I know, that's why I said JUST private meetings. Let them meet with the nominee in private, decide whether or not they support him based on partisan politics or reasoned argument, and vote. I don't see the advantage of a public hearing, except to provide the lawmakers a chance to make a lot of noise. Which is fine, but they have enough other opportunities to do this.