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

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

  1. longknife
    Online

    longknife Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    37,783
    Thanks Received:
    11,635
    Trophy Points:
    1,400
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +23,710


    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
     
  2. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,000
    Thanks Received:
    706
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +3,899
    You whole post is right out of the GEORGE SOROS PLAY BOOK.

    The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.


    His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

    “The prosecutor exercises the greatest discretion and power in the system. It is so important,” said Andrea Dew Steele, president of Emerge America, a candidate-training organization for Democratic women. “There’s been a confluence of events in the past couple years and all of the sudden, the progressive community is waking up to this.”

    Soros has spent on district attorney campaigns in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas through a network of state-level super PACs and a national “527” unlimited-money group, each named a variation on “Safety and Justice.” (Soros has also funded a federal super PAC with the same name.) Each organization received most of its money directly from Soros, according to public state and federal financial records, though some groups also got donations from nonprofits like the Civic Participation Action Fund, which gave to the Safety and Justice group in Illinois.

    [​IMG]
    2016

    Meet the man siphoning money from Donald Trump

    By SHANE GOLDMACHER

    The Florida Safety and Justice group just poured nearly $1.4 million — all of which came from Soros and his 527 group — into a previously low-budget Democratic primary for state attorney in Central Florida before Tuesday’s vote. The group is backing Aramis Ayala, a former public defender and prosecutor, in her campaign against incumbent Jeff Ashton, whose jurisdiction covers over 1.6 million people across two counties in metro Orlando.
     
  3. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,000
    Thanks Received:
    706
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +3,899
    • An anonymous group released thousands of hacked documents from the Open Society Foundations this week
    • One batch of documents shows how the foundation's U.S. officials wanted to influence the Supreme Court on a key immigration case
    • OSF wanted Supreme Court to defend Obama executive order that would have granted the right to stay for millions of illegal immigrants
    • George Soros, the Hungarian-born magnate, founded the foundation in 1984
    • Foundation describes itself as an organization that works 'to build vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable and open'
    • They fund 'a range of programs around the world, from public health to education to business development'

    New documents reveal George Soros' foundation aimed to influence members of the Supreme Court to get a favorable decision in a key immigration case.

    This week an anonymous hacker organization released thousands of documents from Open Society Foundations, which was founded by the Hungarian-born magnate in 1984.

    In one memo written to members of the organization's board - which include journalists and members Soros' wealthy family - in February, officials for the foundation's U.S. operations set a goal of influencing a positive outcome in the U.S. vs. Texas Supreme Court Case.

    Scroll down for video

    [​IMG]
    +1

    Newly released documents show how George Soros' Open Society Foundations tried to influence the Supreme Court justices in a key immigration case

    'Grantees are seeking to influence the Justices (primarily via a sophisticated amicus briefs and media strategy) in hopes of securing a favorable ruling in U.S. v Texas,' the memo notes.

    The case dealt with an Obama executive order that would have give the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens the right to stay in the country - an order that would have applied to millions of illegal immigrants.

    By the time the court got around to making a decision on the case, Antonin Scalia had died, effectively tying the justices on the issue.

    RELATED ARTICLES
    Therefore, the lower courts' ruling to overturn the order was held.

    The memo is perhaps shocking considering that the OSF officials were directly asking members of the media to write favorably in an attempt to sway the justices to defend the Obama order.

    Some of those board members who are members of the media include Harvard University scholar and Washington Post columnist Danielle Allen, Foreign Policy contributor and Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks, and Steve Coll, who is the dean of Columbia University graduate School of Journalism.
     

Share This Page