I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Friday, October 11, 2013

No Comment

Dear Senate Judiciary Committee members,

Every time there is a Supreme Court Justice nominee they come before your committee and you ask them what they think about this or that and they say: “I can’t comment on that because it might come before the court.”

And you then say, “Oh yes.  I forgot about that.”

Why don’t you consider the following.  Well ahead of time of the hearings, give the nominee 2 or 3 recent Supreme Court cases and ask them to study the transcript of the case and render an opinion in the same way they would have done if they had been on the court at the time the case was heard.  

They may object that the matter might come before them if they are on the court. 

Explain to them that that is true and that if it does then it will also come before all of the other justices who rendered a real verdict.  Therefore the nominee (if confirmed) will be in exactly the same position on this case as all of the other (current) justices.  

On what basis will they then object to indicating what their verdict would be?

1 comment:

  1. A logical suggestion assuming that the confirmations hearings were truly aimed at finding out about the candidate. Since 1988 the goal of the committee members appears to be to bloviate. The goal of the candidate appears to be avoiding getting Borked.