blegh I shouldn't even be thinking about this but it bums me out how the Thing is playing out and maybe there's something to be gained from working through it probably going to be a thread, maybe interrupted by landing / loss of wifi
-
-
Maybe a separate investigation reveals some novel information (kind of doubt it but) But not a public hearing with huge stakes on the outcome. Just perfectly structured to incentive everyone to obfuscate and distort. And as a means of resolving conflict--it draws in Everyone!
Show this thread -
And no one is going to be helped here. This is now the defining story for both people for the rest of their lives. Political operatives who (pushed?) her to come forward, if she didn't particularly want to and even then, have probably wrecked her life. Kavanadhdhfgh is done too
Show this thread -
I guess I just hate everyone who decided to take advantage of a shit situation for a passing political advantage Not much insight here in the end I guess Idk Stay safe out there, pals
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Its a circus man you dont need to spell it out
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Public Senate confirmation hearings (PSCH) for SCOTUS nominees started shortly after 17th Amndt passed (direct elections of Senators). The aim of PSCHs is for Senators to win elections. Being pro "democratic accountability & transparency" may appeal to voters.
-
Mass media (newspapers, radio, tv, internet) & rising partisanship are important, but direct elections of Senators may be more important. Not sure what effect (if any) PSCHs has on SCOTUS judge quality or how to compare judges b4/after 1913 or high court judges b/t countries.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
archiving this Tweet to use against your future celebrity self (・ω<)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The constitution says Senate provides 'advice & consent'. The evolution into political crucifixions began w/ Robert Bork in 1980s. Ever since then, scotus appointments have involved "Borking"; hysterical counter-campaigns which paint nom as monsterhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork
-
But - to your point - the hearings were never intended to investigate or pass judgment on allegations. Their only role is to say, "Ok, you're qualified", or not. Even the Q&A is 'voluntary'. In theory they could just read the person's resume, and vote (or not)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The issue is not whether or what anyone did to/with whom. The issue is what they do when confronted with the situation. K angrily denied, still denies, explained how everyone was wrong. Then Ford got on the stand and was credible, which was the worst possible thing for him.
-
Like Nixon learned, it's not the crime; it's the coverup. If dude cannot think fast enough to get the right answer to this, then maybe he's not what we want on the Court.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.