Quote:
|
To begin with, we should set our standards based on whom we believe should sit in judgement of us all on the highest court in the land. This should never be about civil or criminal standards of proof or process, or a trial on the reputation of the nomination. If there is one chance in ten she is right, he ought not to go on the court.
|
I don't think it should be a crim or civil standard as in a court of law. But I'm uncomfortable with a one-in-ten chance of accuracy. That invites reckless allegations each time there's a nomination.
Quote:
It is very much about the credibility of both the Senate and the Court, and each of them are suffering. We still have somewhere from tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand documents withheld as part of this process. We also have a Supreme Court that is rightly criticized for its partisan tendencies, with increasing numbers of votes breaking down based on the Party of the appointing President.
Also, we have a Senate applying a 50 vote rather than 60 vote standard for only the third time that I'm aware of (Thomas was confirmed with 52, Gorsuch with 54 - and I would say Thomas has been a significant contributor to the court's lack of credibility). Sixty votes drove thoughtful consensus candidates rather than partisan hacks; we should be considering whether this is the process we really want.
|
I agree. But that ship has sailed. The court is not much more than a political instrument.
