Graham’s questioning Jackson AGAIN? Why?

This may be a stupid question (actually, I know it’s a stupid question), but why is Lindsey Graham questioning the Supreme Court nominee AGAIN, just now? I just grabbed the less-than-ideal image above from the live feed on The Washington Post site.

I’ve done my best to ignore these hearings for quite a few years, because I find them to be such torture (I don’t think I’ve followed one closely since Clarence Thomas). That’s the only excuse I have for not understanding how they work.

But I’m aware that Lindsey had some time with her Monday. And again on Tuesday. I mean, near as I could tell from the info that slipped through as I was trying to ignore it. So… why is he on again?

These hearings do so little that is of any value, and do so much harm to our country — both in terms of fueling destructive partisanship and undermining confidence in our courts — that it really, truly seems they should be streamlined. Each member gets some time with the nominee (and they’ve each met with her privately before the hearings, right? what is this but a show for strutting before the base?), and we’re done. One day, tops.

You’ll say, that will never happen. But I know of one way to change that. Bar TV cameras from the hearing room. That would guarantee that the hearings would resume to simply conducting business, as required by the Constitution.

But of course, that will never happen either, will it?

7 thoughts on “Graham’s questioning Jackson AGAIN? Why?

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    Oh, and another thing I half-perceived a few days ago, which is relevant to this:

    I saw something about Ms. Jackson meeting privately with Graham, a week or two ago. And what I saw noted that the meeting was very brief.

    Why? Because it’s not about getting answers to questions. It’s about the TV show…

    1. Barry

      Even Ben Sasse in very respectful questioning regarding his dislike for cameras in the courtroom referenced other members whose soul purpose in Congress appears to be to get in front of cameras

      I cant help but think he was referring to Cruz and Lindsey.

      Cruz was particularly nasty today. (I’ve heard most republicans can’t stand him behind the scenes)

      I kept wanting the nominee to ask Senator Cruz why he’s not willing to change the law if he hates that judges make up their own minds…

    2. bud

      We should probably discontinue the hearings altogether. But if we’re going to have them they should be televised. Americans have right to see their government in action rather than rely on the print media who frequently get things wrong.

  2. James Edward Cross

    Senator Graham gets to ask her an additional round of questions because after the last two Senators who did not ask questions yesterday had their turn today *everyone* on the committee gets 20 minutes to ask additional questions. That is how the committee structured this confirmation hearing.

  3. Barry

    Michael Smerconish is an attorney and spent some time this week on his Sirius show discussing this in detail and mentioned how there was a time where these hearings were a real effort to discuss legal viewpoints in a detailed way but that only a few senators do that now. He had some very good legal minded guests on to discuss the hearing

    I think Ben Sasse tried to do that and did a good job. I don’t think he will vote for her (he pretends to be a guy willing to compromise more than his record indicates he actually does) but at least he talked with her in way that showed he was listening and wanted to talk about some more serious issues.

    I liked the questioning of Chris Coons. He dives into details and tries to discuss legal issues in a smart way. He’s a very smart lawyer himself. I noticed how Ted Cruz went way over his agreed upon time and cut into the time of Coons but Coons didn’t make an issue of it because that’s not really the type of person he tries to be.

    Dan Abrams also has had several really good shows this week on Sirius in the afternoon discussing the hearings in detail. Dan is also an attorney and his insight and comments were very interesting.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *