hearing (v) the act of listening; (n) a meeting in which a members of a group or committee ask questions, listens to witnesses, and review information related to the topic of the meetingBefore President Trump had even introduced his nominee for the Supreme Court, Republican and conservatives were lining up to celebrate, and Democrats and liberals were making protest signs. We need not be naive or complacent to just accept whomever the president selects. But, if we are to reject a nominee, we should make that decision after giving him a fair hearing. If he lacks qualifications, experience, or character, then challenging questions should reveal his limitations.
The Republicans failed to give President Obama’s nominee the dignity and respect of a hearing. Their bad behavior does not justify and equally poor treatment for President Trump’s nominee. The Senate already has its tale between its legs by changing the Senate rule to allow for a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 member majority that would have shown stronger agreement from both parties.
Senators Manchin and Capito,
With Justice Kennedy retiring from the Supreme Court, President Trump has made a nomination. The Republican controlled congress sent a shameful precedent by not bringing President Obama’s nomination for hearings when Justice Scalia’s seat was open. Please give President Trump’s nominee the respect and dignity of a fair hearing and vote.
But, a fair hearing is not a cake-walk. Justice Scalia, during his nomination hearing, chided “soft-ball” questions from senators. We need to know who will be reviewing laws for the next generation. Questions should be challenging to allow us to know how the nominee views and argues cases.
No Supreme Court seat is reserved for a conservative, liberal, swing-vote, male, female, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or another other criteria judge. We need to know that the judge will set aside personal positions to focus on interpreting the Constitution. Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun Ownership, Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Business, Pro-Redistribution of Wealth, or any other litmus test should be irrelevant. Pro-Constitution should be the only criteria.
Get those pencils sharpened, and put on your 18th century hat if someone declares adhering to original intent. Remember, the colonist used to cut off ears, tar and feather Royalist (and bearing arms meant belonging to the military).