I have held these views since Republican senators disgracefully held up a highly-qualified nominee to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in the mid-1990s whom I knew well and thought the world of. His name was Merrick Garland.
-
Show this thread
-
They were reinforced over the successive years when Republican senators held up—and killed—the nomination of another extremely fine DC Circuit nominee: her name was Elena Kagan. And they were reinforced again when Democratic senators did the same to Miguel Estrada.
5 replies 25 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
Miguel and I later wrote this piece together about the general subject:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-no-longer-are-any-rules-in-the-supreme-court-nomination-process/2016/02/19/2a56198a-d740-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.a98f2550a7ec …
6 replies 45 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
Nobody will ever accuse me of being an apologist for Trump. But Trump is not the only person who abuses power. And the Senate's consideration of qualified nominees over a long period of time has been a gross abuse of power. I am for—passionately for—steps that curtail the...
7 replies 44 retweets 133 likesShow this thread -
...ability of individual senators or minority coalitions of senators to prevent individual nominees from getting votes. I felt that way during the Clinton administration. I felt that way during the Bush administration. I felt that way during the Obama administration.
3 replies 25 retweets 95 likesShow this thread -
And I feel that way during the Trump administration. The ultimate question is simple: Do you prefer a process in which both Estrada and Kagan can be confirmed to the DC Circuit or a process in which neither of them can? That should be an easy question.
5 replies 32 retweets 109 likesShow this thread -
I know this view is unpopular and will appall a great many of my new followers. So be it. And by the way, David Stras is a fine man who should be confirmed.
44 replies 14 retweets 93 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
This is good and defensible — the question is, what do we do with nominees who are patently unqualified that still get rammed through along party lines.
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @cristianafarias @benjaminwittes
That is where hearings can serve a purpose, not necessarily because of the substance of the hearing itself, but rather the spotlight it puts on the nominee that leads to further inquiry (whether by staff or press)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lawrencehurley @cristianafarias
And remarkably, senators managed to gin up political controversies over nominees before the hearing reared its ugly head in the late 1960s. The live confirmation hearing was born in racism and has never recovered from its original sin.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
All true but the alternative could be no oversight at all
-
-
Replying to @lawrencehurley @benjaminwittes
It’s a terrible evil I’d rather risk if it’ll help us avert at least SOME catastrophic nominees.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.