A Solution to the Chaos Surrounding the Next

Quote:

---

A Solution to the Chaos Surrounding the Next Supreme Court Nominee
Embrace the sh*tshow, my friends.

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE

FEB 15, 2016

I am all-in for total chaos on this whole Supreme Court thing.
If the Republicans are going to invent a new constitutional tradition on the fly, I say the Republic is best served by making them choke on it.

Already, Steve M. is pointing out the sh*tstorm that would break if the president were to nominate Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Mountaineer Mike Tomasky has an interesting suggestion regarding a brilliant young jurist who also would put the GOP deeper in the ha'penny place as regards Hispanic voters.

Good. All good. But let me suggest a name as well.

Anita Hill.

I am, as I said, all in for chaos, and this would be the all-timer.
Professor Hill is a widely respected scholar of the law. She would be a fine addition to any court in the land. Also, she would make the Republicans eat their own faces, one at a time.

Imagine the hearings. The Republicans would have no choice but to bring up the whole Clarence Thomas matter again. Although perhaps, this time, the other women who allegedly were harassed by Mr. Justice Thomas would not be intimidated out of testifying, and the Democratic senators would not be intimidated out of calling them.

(Sorry, Joe Biden. That was a bad day for you.) This would be Your Show Of Shows.

Look. We're all kidding ourselves anyway.

The Republicans likely aren't even going to give the president's nominee a committee hearing, let alone a confirmation vote. Any Republican who voted to do either one would be barbecued in a primary, and they all know it.

(Even New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, the Metternich of Manchester, who's in the fight of her life next November in a purplish state against popular Democratic governor Maggie Hassan, took a dive on this one.) We might as well have some fun with this disgracefully futile exercise in allegedly constitutional government

---

Martha Howell

Following the GOP's logic, I don't see why the Senators up for re-election should be able to vote on the nomination, or on any other Senate business, at least not until the voters speak in the fall election. Why don't we just call the last year of every term "campaign year" and put everything on hold until it's over and the replacements are sworn in?