This is a lifetime appointment, and taking it seriously, asking her actual questions that pertain to the job matters.
Maybe, but Durbin argued with Cruz several times over his “performance”, though I’m inclined to agree it was not nearly enough for what he was doing. So… in that sense, they did not do enough. But they did their jobs in terms of trying to interview her for the job.
Sure, never said they didn’t. But it’s the Republican grandstanding that grabbed headlines and clip-views, not that kind of mundane, routine work. I remember Durbin just sitting there like a bullied schoolkid, probably on his gavel, while Graham ranted and went 10 f’ing minutes overtime.
Booker was great* in realizing that the cameras were rolling, and in playing to that. All I’m saying is that as far as I know, in this event that’s now as much of a stage for political posturing and issue-mongering as it is for the task of appointing a judge, more Dems could have at least directly and loudly denounced the BS that people like Graham and Cruz were flinging.
*I watched his half hour, and one part that nauseated me, and seemed like a bad move, was Booker’s joshing references to both Graham and Cruz as great friends of his. Yes, he did also undercut Cruz in other ways, but damn, what is it with Dems’ insistence on reaching across the aisle to their “friends” publicly, when Repubs do nothing but demonize them in return? I think that too makes them look weak, and also out of touch.
Hm. I get what you’re saying - be more pro-active in standing up to the GOP… but given the divisive media landscape, I don’t really know if that’s really an effective strategy in contrast to calling out lies when they happen and doing their jobs. Right wing media is of course only going to play the “gotcha moments” by the Republicans, while there won’t be any clips of Democrats doing their job or countering their lies (which did happen - there were several instances where Democratic members reframed the gotcha questions to let her give a full answer with the larger context, since Graham especially would not let her get an answer out). But we all know how the right wing media spin works. But if the Democrats took the same tactics as the GOP, wouldn’t they just come off as imitating the far right, which only turns off their own voters and independents who actually do want them to do their jobs?
Meanwhile, CNN, NPR, etc, will play Booker’s moving comments, but that’s generally speaking preaching to the choir and maybe speaking to some “independents”, since most far right wingers won’t watch those stations for the most part. And Durbin did cut off Cruz, though he let Graham go on to long, and he and others repeatedly apologize to her for their colleague’s behavior. They all did what their constituents wanted of them - which is to vet the candidate.
I’d also argue that in fact the tactics they took were probably just as planned as the GOP - leave the strongest support and defense of her in the hands of the only Black man on the committee, because it has a much stronger emotional impact that way. And it absolutely did. I doubt anyone thought that Booker was being insincere.
As for Booker pointing out that he’s friends with Cruz, maybe that serves to undercut him with his own base (Cruz’s I mean, not Booker). Cruz and others posture like they’re sticking it to the libs and that they are staunch enemies, so any reminders that the public persona of some of being tough on the Democrats is just that, only serves to undercut them.
TLDR: I don’t know if there is a “right” answer with regards to tactics of countering the current hysterical GOP and their antics. If you imitate them, you risk alienating your own voters, but if you let them go, it seems like you’re letting them off the hook.
Don’t think i said that.
Sorry if i said or implied that too.
I think there’s a difference between answering back
directly and righteously and acting like a rabid, moronic clown while drawing demonizing cartoon caricatures of the other side.
And I’m almost tempted to say I think both of those are better than saying repeatedly in that setting that some of the worst of the Repugs are your very good friends. Almost. (I dont know if other Dems did that too, hope not.)
That’s true, so fair enough there…
Again fair enough, but I do think there are those who really do want Democrats to just imitate the GOP and play the same dirty games. I don’t think you are advocating for such, but I did want to point out to the general crowd here that there is a problem with doing so.
Maybe, but it could also both be a) true, and b) a calculated tactic to try and undermine the GOP’s supposed purity…
Ha, maybe!
What’s this now, Cruz and Graham are great friends with one of those black ones?!
I suppose it’s also possible that Booker was being sarcastic about that. Some of his other comments seemed close to inside jokes.
I think there was a whole thing where Booker said he was a closet vegan? 
Hard to know the reality of course, but I get the sense that at least some of the far right wingers are leaning farther into the Trumpism playbook as a means of staying in office rather than really buying into all of it. I waffle on that with Cruz, honestly. He’s loathsome either way, of course.
inside jokes
It reminds me of Al Franken’s comment:
“ I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.”
The last head of the UK Supreme Court had to retire - she was under an old rule where any judge had to retire at a certain age. I think we’ve done away with that rule, and the Lords mostly sit for life. I think the bishops lose their seat on retirement.
What does work, at least from where I’m sitting, is that the judiciary promote their own, like a professorship. Instead of appointment by the Executive. Though ask me in 3 centuries what the unintended consequences of that are.
Maybe less than that, the modern concept of political party is nothing like what a early 20th century politician on either side of the pond would recognise.
I can tell you right now what they would be in the current context of the US being highly partisan - the partisan judges that were championed by the right wing group the Federalist society, would push for their own proteges to fill their old spots as they move up to new spots. It would not help the current partisan problem we have with the judiciary.
Yeah, designing a better system from scratch vs getting to a better system from where you are are two very different problems. Look at when the UK advised former colonies on forming a state. We never recommended an unelected upper house with inherited life appointments + life appointments by the executive, an establishment religion,… I’m not sure if we exported the weird mix of having the same people be the Executive and the Legislature, but we really shouldn’t have.
I get how elected everything made sense in the 18th century as a response to appointments by the crown.
Evolving these systems is HARD. I’m looking forward to seeing how the Foundation TV series plays with this theme.
Agreed, but here we are. I can’t speak for the UK, but for the US, we have a huge problem with how the right wing has been approaching the court - installing ideologues, while point their finger and making that claim about the democratic party. The far right is pretty organized and disciplined about these things. The way they’ve been able to claw back the democratic (small d, not the party) gains made since the Warren court era has been upsetting (in case you’re not familiar, the court under Warren passed Brown V. Board, Loving, and all sorts of other pro-rights decisions). The far right is the actual problem, not necessarily the process of the executive branch appointing judges.
Democracy is STILL the best option out there - more democracy, that is responsive, and where rights are specifically enumerated is always going to be better than a system that confers power in a few.
I still haven’t seen that, so will have to dig it up to watch sometime. Of course, the last time I read any of those books was high school…
I am sure it will be just fine. I have.no doubt they are completely aligned politically and it is not like that asshole…excuse me, proper respect…Justice Thomas, who is an asshole…has ever felt the need to recuse himself no matter what the conflict of interest
Still, a five year term (or whatever limit) would achieve the same goal of not giving a fuck.about critics without having us have to live with these clowns forever (I say that about both the current clowns and the ones who hang on forever refusing to retire, which is also bullshit)
Lee Pace is in it, if that helps get you onboard. Lee Pace helps me get onboard with nearly anything
Three SC judges think they’re commander in chief.
