Whats the point of this hearing?  everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Whats the point of this hearing?  everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Whats the point of this hearing?  everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Whats the point of this hearing?  everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?

Some people speculate that Grassley's strategy of allowing all the disruption both on the floor and on the dais was to let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope. The other side of that is that it will "stimulate" the Dem "base" to get more actively involved in the fall election.

I'm guessing that a few people will be stimulated to be more "active" than they otherwise would have been... on both sides. Net result: zero difference.

It was quite the entertaining spectacle though.

My favorite part was the other day when the girls basketball teams showed up to support their coach and had their group pictures taken with him.

how do they decide who gets to testify?
like why was that MSD student allowed to talk?

Choosing and Inviting Witnesses

In choosing witnesses, committees pay careful attention to the viewpoints that are heard, who should testify, and the order and format for presenting testimony.

In some cases a committee strives to assure that all reasonable points of view are represented, while in other cases witnesses expressing only particular points of view are invited. Senate rules allow the minority party members of a committee to call witnesses of their choice on at least one day of a hearing, when the chairman receives a request from a majority of the minority party members before the completion of the hearing (Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(d)). The Committee on Appropriations is exempt from this rule. In lieu of this formal option, the minority sometimes works informally with the majority to invite witnesses representing its views.

To testify, a witness must be invited by the committee. Before officially inviting a witness, committee staff identify, and often interview, prospective candidates. When appropriate witnesses are found, the committee chair commonly sends a formal letter of invitation. This letter gives the witness some basic information, including the purpose, subject, date, time, and place of the hearing. In addition to specifying the portion of a measure or issue the witness should address, the letter might contain a limitation on the length of the witness's oral testimony.

The committee may send the witness additional information. This information may include a list of committee members, the committee's rules, the measure under consideration, and press articles relating to the issue. A staff contact is indicated. Staff sometimes meet with witnesses before a hearing to answer questions and to review procedure.

A Senate standing order authorizes reimbursement for per diem expenses of witnesses (S.Res. 259, 100th Congress). The actual expense basis for reimbursement generally cannot exceed the daily rate set by the Committee on Rules and Administration although the committee may consider deviations from this policy on a case-by-case basis. A committee also may reimburse a witness for travel expenses related to testimony. If reimbursement is expected, the letter of invitation may address this. Usually a witness is reimbursed only in hardship circumstances, and then only for expenses related to transportation from the witness's place of residence to the hearing and return.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30548.html#_Toc256754276

There are a few republicans that could potentially be swung. I think that is the Democrat's only plan here.

Does anyone know when was the last year that it was a real hearing (majority supported regardless of GOP/Dem values)? 

Through all of this, I was a little surprised to learn about the numbers of lower court positions that have been filled.  Hopefully all good selections.  But the Dems (Mazie in particular) Sen Judiciary committee brought up all of these issues they had with many of the confirmed selections.  Uh, what do they have to do with Kavanaugh?  To me, they are just trying to make a point that has no logical basis.  So when asked to substantiate their case, they revert to stuff like "we hate Trump", which is basically what this is about.

Ironically, probably Trump's worst selection to the circuit court of appeals was his pick for the Ninth Circuit from Hawaii, Mark Bennett, former Hawaii state Attorney General. (Like the Ninth Circuit needs another anti-Second Amendment judge!) This is made clear by the fact that both Hirono and Schatz spoke in glowing terms of the nominee (and you saw last week how Hirono treated Kavanaugh, so...),  who famously submitted an amicus brief along with five other state AGs supporting Washington, D.C.'s handgun possession/ownership ban in the District of Columbia v. Heller case (aka Heller I). He also opposed, via amicus brief at SCOTUS, the Citizens United decision. During his confirmation hearings, Senator Cruz brought up both these issues (http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/12/ted-cruz-trump-ninth-circuit-nominee/).

Both Hirono and Schatz voted for a R Trump nominee.  Well, $hit. Will have to see how things pan out. The swamp is pretty deep in the 9th. I remember looking up the makeup after the Young decision and was shocked at justices from the Carter admin. O.o

Trump's obviously playing the long game.  Guaranteeing that gun rights cases get overturned in the 9th so it can be settled in the supreme court.  Underwater 4D chess being played right before our browbeaten eyes.

How things stand as of today:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for Thursday on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

The vote follows four days of testimony surrounding his nomination last week, including two in which he answered a marathon of questions from senators on the committee.

Democrats, however, will likely delay the vote until next week, which they are allowed to do under committee rules. The nomination is expected to be reported out of committee along party lines. This timeline will likely set up a full Senate confirmation vote on Kavanaugh the week of Sept. 24.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on MSNBC last week that he’ll be confirmed before the high court’s next term next month.

So more time and tax dollars wasted.  Everyone already made up their minds, but yet the dems are going to delay.

Because that is what our congress has become. Dysfunctional bickering and wasting of time and both sides are guilty of it. Congress needs an overhaul.

Give us an example of the exact wording of a law or rule that would change what we saw during the Kavanuagh confirmation hearings (I mean other than limiting the time for each member to have the floor). I don't think "Be nice. And only ask questions that are REALLY relevant." will cut it. Not even a little. Nor would "Don't be a dumbass (Mazie)".