Truespeak

Just a couple of points about the looming SCOTUS nominee and the subsequent confirmation/fight/fillibuster/whatever the hell you want to call it.

First of all, this is just bullshit.

Democrats called for a deliberate review of any nominee and pledged to press the eventual candidate on issues including abortion and same-sex marriage, while Republicans declared that such specific inquiries were out of line.

"All questions are legitimate," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. "What is your view on Roe v. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage? They are going to try to get away with the idea that we're not going to know their views. But that's not going to work this time."

But Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well, said the push for such detailed positions was highly objectionable and suggested that Democrats might be forming a strategy of trying to derail a nomination on the ground of withholding information.

"You cannot ask a judge to prejudge a specific matter," Mr. Sessions said. He pointed to other cases in which Democrats had raised objections to Bush administration nominees in part on the ground that information was being withheld, including the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. "If the Democrats are pushing that, then they are trying to create an issue," he said.

And Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview: "Any member of the committee can ask whatever they want, no matter how stupid. But I don't think nominees have to answer certain questions. They don't have to answer questions about how they are going to vote in the future. They don't have to answer stupid questions. They don't have to answer argumentative cases."

Haven't these guys ever heard of a job interview? As a teacher, I can't count the number of times I've had to answer the question, "What is your discipline policy?" Or, better yet, "A fight breaks out between two girls in your room. What do you do?" Naturally, this is a situation I may be faced with at some time in the future. It stands to reason that my employer would want to know how I'm going to react to this type of situation. Doesn't it also stand to reason that the American people should know how a potential Supreme Court Justice will react when faced with a particular situation? Makes sense to me.

Second of all, the most shocking part of this whole debate so far is this:

Conservative groups, meanwhile, continued to press their opposition to one frequently mentioned presidential favorite, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Apparently Alberto Gonzales is too moderate. Are you shitting me? This is the man who wrote the memos condoning torture. This is the man that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." WTF? How in the hell is he too moderate? If there was ever an action that could define just exactly how fucking bat-shit crazy these peole are, it's this one right here. How fucking insane do you have to be to think that Al "Torture-boy" Gonzales isn't conservative enough. Maybe they're holding out for someone who doesn't just advocate torture but actually carries through with it.

If nothing else, these guys are entertaining. In a fucked up Paris Hilton sex tape sort of way, but entertaining nonetheless.

BTW - My brother-in-law just got a new shirt. What do you think?