Once you've decided to vote no, a hearing is pointless. Hearings are not for the nominee, they're for the Senators.https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1144651071819800576 …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
By this reasoning, Dan, you could just whip votes on anything and skip all hearings. Come on.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom
That would be fine with me. There are times when hearings are useful, but they are at all times solely for the benefit of the Senators - to learn things, to build or erode public support, to get people on the record. And most hearings are a waste of time.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Um, no. They are to put things on the record, including testimony, for the public, no matter how the vote goes. Saying that hearings "are for the Senators" is fundamentally wrong. We're an open society. Hearings exist for the sake of the public, and the record.
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom
That's a fairly recent view of the Senate. No SCOTUS nominee appeared for a hearing until Brandeis. As recently as the 1940s, nominees were confirmed without a hearing. And most of them just duck any question that matters anyway.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Yes, it's a view that emerged, oh, like, in the past 100 years. We're an open society, and we expect to know what our electeds are doing. "Screw hearings" is elitist even by *my* horrible standards.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
I think there'd be a better argument against *confirming* without a hearing - something that was still happening under FDR. Then, the minority is deprived of asking questions. But if a majority knows the guy's not getting the job, it's all a pointless waste of time.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.