The part of the exchange from Gianni Thomas and Mark Meadows I found most disturbing was her statement that “there are no rules in war”. That is wrong in more than one way.
Ok so let me take a stab at playing devils advocate on judicial confirmations. I didn’t watch the hearings and won’t defend Cruz, Hawley, and Co. for grandstanding. But basically, there’s two theories (as I see it) of Senate confirmation that have merit. The first appears to be your inclination and perhaps Sen. Collins: if the president nominates a person (such as Judge Brown-Jackson) who is eminently qualified, barring any major screwup, you should vote to confirm him or her to the court. In other words, you should defer to the president.
The second is what Sen. Sasse believes and probably explains how I would vote if I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee. While I respect the first theory, I don’t think “advise and consent” should equate to rubber-stamping. I think the Senate should hear the nominee (ie not do what they did to Garland) and hold a vote, but I think you can respectfully vote against the nominee based on serious disagreements about judicial philosophy and still be acting in good faith. In this case, while I respect Judge Brown-Jackson, I disagree with her judicial progressivism (although I’m impressed that she made noise about originalism). I would prefer a nominee who is a textualist or an originalist or who at least has a philosophy of jurisprudence influenced by respect for text, history, and tradition. If I were a Senator, I’d reserve the right to respectfully vote against a nominee whose judicial philosophy differed significantly from my own. And I think you can do that without rancor or bitterness.
The part of the exchange from Gianni Thomas and Mark Meadows I found most disturbing was her statement that “there are no rules in war”. That is wrong in more than one way.
Ok so let me take a stab at playing devils advocate on judicial confirmations. I didn’t watch the hearings and won’t defend Cruz, Hawley, and Co. for grandstanding. But basically, there’s two theories (as I see it) of Senate confirmation that have merit. The first appears to be your inclination and perhaps Sen. Collins: if the president nominates a person (such as Judge Brown-Jackson) who is eminently qualified, barring any major screwup, you should vote to confirm him or her to the court. In other words, you should defer to the president.
The second is what Sen. Sasse believes and probably explains how I would vote if I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee. While I respect the first theory, I don’t think “advise and consent” should equate to rubber-stamping. I think the Senate should hear the nominee (ie not do what they did to Garland) and hold a vote, but I think you can respectfully vote against the nominee based on serious disagreements about judicial philosophy and still be acting in good faith. In this case, while I respect Judge Brown-Jackson, I disagree with her judicial progressivism (although I’m impressed that she made noise about originalism). I would prefer a nominee who is a textualist or an originalist or who at least has a philosophy of jurisprudence influenced by respect for text, history, and tradition. If I were a Senator, I’d reserve the right to respectfully vote against a nominee whose judicial philosophy differed significantly from my own. And I think you can do that without rancor or bitterness.