Fall Seven Times, ENoB Eight

This is getting to be a challenge. Feel free to private mail me with topics for this in the future. I'm a software engineer, which makes me lazy by nature, but I like the idea of a regular feature and want to keep it going. I hink I want to get away from religion for a bit. It's too controversial. Let's talk politics, instead! Samuel Alito is on his way to the Supreme Court unless something really shocking happens. There's a lot of posturing going on this week, but ever since Bork, nominees pretty much say little to sink themselves if they make it to the hearings. We've shifted from a burden of the nominee proving suitable to the Senate proving the nominee unsuitable. And in these days of blind party loyalty on both sides, it is increasingly less likely that either side is going to betray their own. So, what kind of ground rules should there be for a confirmation that is sure to have great impact on the lives of majority and minority alike? Should a nominee be required to answer specifics items about their background? Should hypotheticals be allowed in order to better understand a nominee's philosophy? Either. Neither. Or both?

Categories: Poll, Politics