What an absurd little dog and pony show our elected officials perform every time there is a Supreme Court Justice appointed. Senator after Senator using 95% of their allotted time to blather on and on, only to either lob a softball or ask a question they know she cannot ethically answer. They go through this ridiculous Kabuki dance before ultimately voting the way we all know they are going to vote even before the nominee is announced. It's madness.
Here's something that I, as an attorney, do not get at all -- what on God's green earth could the firefighters that were the subject of that one case that is the source of all of the controversy (the so-called "reverse racism" case) add to this hearing? What, they didn't like the ruling? By the very nature of the adversarial process, 50% of litigants lose, and those people probably aren't very happy with the rulings, either. Being unhappy about a judge's ruling against you qualifies you to do absolutely nothing at all.
The absurdity is highlighted by the fact that I would be stunned to learn that these fire fighters had ever been in her presence before today, and in the unlikely event they had been, there is virtually no chance whatsoever that they actually interacted with the judge at all. Circuit judges -- which is what she was most recently -- do not try cases, they handle appeals and because courts of appeal do not hear testimony and typically focus upon arguments of a legal -- rather than factual -- nature, there would simply be no reason for them to have addressed the court personally. I have never, ever brought my client to an appellate argument, or anything that didn't require testimony, for that matter. With that being the case, what could they possibly say?
Here's something that I, as an attorney, do not get at all -- what on God's green earth could the firefighters that were the subject of that one case that is the source of all of the controversy (the so-called "reverse racism" case) add to this hearing? What, they didn't like the ruling? By the very nature of the adversarial process, 50% of litigants lose, and those people probably aren't very happy with the rulings, either. Being unhappy about a judge's ruling against you qualifies you to do absolutely nothing at all.
The absurdity is highlighted by the fact that I would be stunned to learn that these fire fighters had ever been in her presence before today, and in the unlikely event they had been, there is virtually no chance whatsoever that they actually interacted with the judge at all. Circuit judges -- which is what she was most recently -- do not try cases, they handle appeals and because courts of appeal do not hear testimony and typically focus upon arguments of a legal -- rather than factual -- nature, there would simply be no reason for them to have addressed the court personally. I have never, ever brought my client to an appellate argument, or anything that didn't require testimony, for that matter. With that being the case, what could they possibly say?
Comment