Reflecting on the Inquisitions

As we should all know by now the role of the Senate to offer their “Advice and Consent” to a President’s nomination to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is no longer just a simple act required of the Senate by our Constitution.  It has turned into our version of the Spanish Inquisition.  In the end, thanks to recent changes in Senate rules it has evolved into a political circus.  If it mattered, we could trace this back to a particular Senator from New England and a candidate for Justice who once worked for Richard Nixon, but at this point, it really doesn’t.

Today, whichever party controls the Senate will get their way.  It is only a matter of how spectacular or subdued the opposition will be.  If we know nothing else, we should understand the Democratic party has the support of the entertainment industry and can, on-demand, roll out all the theatrical outrage it requires.  The Republican party seems to be a bit more subdued in its star power but can, when necessary, rise to the occasion by mocking the obvious hypocrisy of people who will stage their own racist attacks simply to spark interest in their career or people who’ve slept with powerful men and women to get to the top and once there accuse those women and men of being rapists (but only when it serves some higher purpose).

I wish for a time when these inquisitions could be handled in the cellars of the Capital with the candidate hung from the rack, but kept away from the prying eyes of the opinion media.  A time when the candidates were not allowed to answer with mundane answers like “I can’t comment on any issue that may come before the court. Or. I will follow precedent in all matters.”  A printed copy of the inquisition and the answers could be made available to the interested media who could then offer their opinions on what the questions and answers really meant which is after all, what we need.  Someone to explain what a question and answer really means.  If you doubt me watch the news, that is almost exclusively what they do.

Questions I would like to see asked:

·       In your opinion what is the role of the SCOTUS?

·       Do you believe SCOTUS can establish new rules for society?

·       How many cases have you argued before Federal Courts?

·       How many times have your judgments been reviewed and overturned for conflict with existing law?

·       When confirmed what are the most significant cases you hope to arrive at the court for justice?

·       What is the role of Executive departments like the Department of Justice?

·       What is the role of the Legislature?

·       How would you handle ambiguous wording in a law?

·       How could the legislature restructure the Judicial Branch?

·       What is the role of the states in a federal system?

·       What are fundamental rights, and who provides for them?

Thankfully, I’m just an interested bystander and my concerns will never rise to the level of the political elite, so I can sit here in the quiet of my study opining away.