A political nightmare

772
0

The news has been filled with coverage of the Supreme Court hearings, but at this point, aren’t the hearings just a waste of time? As the public stands to learn nothing new. 

After the tragic passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a seat opened on the Supreme Court and the Republicans wasted no time on selecting a nominee to take her place going against Ginsburg’s final wish. 

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” was what Ginsburg said, according to her granddaughter Clara Spera.

The double standard within the Republicans in the Senate is astounding. In 2016, former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination judge Merrick Garland was blocked as Republicans claimed it was too close to the election and the new president should get the nomination when the election was still nine months away. President Donald Trump, with 37 days until the election, was allowed to nominate judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hearings for Amy Coney Barrett began on Oct. 12.

During the hearings Barrett described herself as an originalist.

“In English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it,” she said. “So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”

On day two of the hearing one of the highlights came when republican senator John Cornyn asked, “Can you hold up what you have been referring to?” Barrett held up her notepad showing she had no notes to go off when she was answering any questions. 

To which senator Cornyn said: “That’s impressive.” 

Apparently it was something the public was meant to be impressed by, but it was really a sign of her vague answers and lack of sharing an opinion. 

On day three, Sen. Ben Sasse asked Barrett about the first amendment.

“What are the five freedoms of the first amendment,” he asked. 

“Speech, religion, press, assembly, speech, press, religion assembly I don’t know what am I missing?,” Barrett answered. 

Ultimately, Ben Sasse said she is missing “redress or protest,” otherwise known as the right to petition. Ironic that she forgets that one as the country has seen a multitude of protests across the country.

This is a judge who is at the center of these hearings as they are meant to prove she is qualified to sit at the highest court system in the country. It is one thing she could have taken notes — as seen, her notepad had some free space — but the reason this is so important is because the first amendments covers some of the basic rights of citizens.

For a judge who plans to uphold the law and for someone who considers themselves an originalist who abides by the text of the Constitution you would hope she knows all five parts to the first amendment.

At this point the public should not waste their time watching future supreme court nomination hearings as every time it is the same back and forth game. The nominated judge sits there and does not give their opinion on any important or pivotal subjects affecting all Americans. 

All the public tunes into is a judge dodging questions. When for the most part the public knows how they feel on impacting topics due past actions and statements not because they give any official opinion during the hearings.

For example the public knows Barrett has made past remarks that indicate she opposed Roe v. Wade, which determined the Constitution protects a woman’s choice to decide to have their baby or not.

There are some highlights in the hearings here and there, but it is mainly a nominee trying to say as little as possible and trying to avoid saying anything that can possibly be used against them.