3 Reasons Why We Should Get Rid of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Discussion in 'Congress' started by longknife, Sep 8, 2018.

  1. longknife
    Offline

    longknife Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    36,628
    Thanks Received:
    11,302
    Trophy Points:
    1,400
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +22,546


    The reasons listed are right on track. Read them and I’ll comment.

    No. 1: Senators are asking both unanswerable and, frankly, nongermane questions.

    No. 2: These hearings have become nothing but political grandstanding for political bases.

    And No. 3: These hearings have become a circus, a theater, a fiasco, whatever you want to call it.

    The entire committee system was created by the various congresses. Nowhere in the constitution does it call for them. At one time, they were a way of gathering information so members could make informed decisions.


    However, with the advent of live television, they have become nothing but platforms for politicians to grandstand. As the Kavanaugh hearings have shown, what they really display is the insanity of DimocRATs and the forebearance of qualified nominees.


    Did we really learn anything new about Judge Kavanaugh during these shows?


    We did watch a bunch of uncouth barbarians embarrass themselves and driving the judge’s you children from the hearing room. What kind of lessons did those girls learn from sitting there in that hearing?


    What lessons have other youngsters learned from it?


    I cannot agree more with the following:


    It’s time to put an end to this whole political charade. It is full of sound and fury, but is accomplishing nothing. And it’s wasting both the Senate’s time and our taxpayer dollars.

    Full piece @ 3 Reasons Why We Should Get Rid of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

    Here’s some interesting stuff on congressional committees:

    The modern committee structure stems from the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the first and most ambitious restructuring of the standing committee system since the committee system was first developed. The 1946 act reduced the number of House committees from 48 to 19 and the number of Senate committees from 33 to 15. Jurisdictions of all committees were codified by rule in their respective chambers, which helped consolidate or eliminate many existing committees and minimize jurisdictional conflicts.


    They are not part of the constitution!


    The first Senate committee was established April 7, 1789, to draw up Senate rules of procedure. In those early days, the Senate operated with temporary select committees, which were responsive to the entire Senate, with the full Senate selecting their jurisdiction and membership. This system provided a great deal of flexibility, as if one committee proved unresponsive, another could be established in its place. The Senate could also forgo committee referral for actions on legislation or presidential nominations.

    The first House committee was appointed on April 2, 1789, to "prepare and report such standing rules and orders of proceeding" as well as the duties of a Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce those rules. Other committees were created as needed, on a temporary basis, to review specific issues for the full House. The House relied primarily on the Committee of the Whole to handle the bulk of legislative issues. In response to the House's need for more detailed advice on certain issues, more specific committees with broader authority were established. One of the first—a three-member committee "to prepare and report an estimate of supplies ... and of nett [sic] produce of the impost"—was established on April 29, 1789. The Committee on Ways and Means followed on July 24, 1789, during a debate on the creation of the Treasury Department over concerns of giving the new department too much authority over revenue proposals. The House felt it would be better equipped if it established a committee to handle the matter. This first Committee on Ways and Means had 11 members and existed for just two months. It later became a standing committee in 1801, a position it still holds today.

    All of this comes from Wikipedia.


    House Freedom Caucus debates best way to get border wall funding, weighs gov’t shutdown
    @ House Freedom Caucus debates best way to get border wall funding, weighs gov't shutdown - One America News Network
     

Share This Page