Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse puts it very succinctly what is wrong in the swamp.

https://youtu.be/EJK2JveCAbI

nailed it

Sums it up very well.

It goes even farther with the delegation from Congress to the bureaucracy, in that now we have his theory that the bureaucracy itself is somehow "independent" of both Congress and the President. Where does that come from? There's no Article in the Constitution creating those entities.

And I'm thrilled to find a decent and smart man in the Senate. It's a short list, and this guy is on it.

Ya, that was excellent.

It would be far more powerful if he (or someone like him) made that impassioned speech while not confirming a candidate who is being chosen by his own party.
Meaning, if he made that speech when Obama’s choice was being confirmed.

This is much of the gridlock we see today (and why frankly McCain was so respected by colleagues). One party has power and so they have the luxury of espousing higher principles. Until they don’t anymore...and then all the sudden they are doing exactly what they accused the other side of doing 4 years before. Both sides do it. And very very few of our politicians don’t (McCain being one of the few).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Ya, that was excellent.

It would be far more powerful if he (or someone like him) made that impassioned speech while not confirming a candidate who is being chosen by his own party.
Meaning, if he made that speech when Obama’s choice was being confirmed.

This is much of the gridlock we see today (and why frankly McCain was so respected by colleagues). One party has power and so they have the luxury of espousing higher principles. Until they don’t anymore...and then all the sudden they are doing exactly what they accused the other side of doing 4 years before. Both sides do it. And very very few of our politicians don’t (McCain being one of the few).

---

In fairness to him and the GOP, Obama's SCOTUS appointments were handled with at least somewhat more compromise and responsibility than what we are seeing now.

This candidate is a pretty middle of the road conservative, and people like Booker are calling him "evil" and others are saying "women will die" etc. The GOP could have done that with Obama's picks but really didn't. Now part of that is the Dems had solid majorities so it wasn't like they could do anything to stop it, so I get it's a different political circumstnace, not saying the GOP wouldn't do whatever it took to stop a court shift in balance if they had the opportunity. They would, and arguably should.

Sotomayor is easily as liberal as Kavanagh is conservative, yet that was a 68-31 vote. 9 Republicans voted yes.
Kagan also is about the same balance, and was confirmed 63-37. 4 or 5 Republicans voted yes.

Neither had this kind of histrionics, though I get that was liberal replacing liberal versus a conservative replacing a middle of the road Justice. But this has been going on when Conservatives are appointed ever since Ted Kennedy's summer scheme to block Bork.

Hard to say what Sasse would do b/c he didn't take office till 2015, after both of Obama's picks were confirmed. So he's only sat for this and Gorsuch. But while Obama's votes were still largely party line votes, it was nothing like what we've seen with this nomination, despite Kavanaugh being a very acceptable, normal range candidate. He's on the DC Court for heck's sake, which is basically just one step below SCOTUS. So there he's fine, on SCOTUS he's "pure evil" and going to murder women. Uh huh.

Hopefully Sasse will stay long enough to see if he gives that speech when the winds change direction, b/c he seems very earnest in his service as Senator.

And fwiw he needs to give that speech on the floor of the Senate for every vote on some continuing resolution where we never really pass a budget and vote for some 1,000 page bill no one has fully read. He's right as to why the courts have become more political, and he's right that Congress doing its job would solve a lot of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

https://youtu.be/EJK2JveCAbI

---

Thank you for sharing that link. That was outstanding to hear. There is one person in congress that actually understands the problem. I have been afraid that there were none.

The swamp is far more about greed in the lobbyists than bureaucrats.

The most important point made is that Congress has been derelict in its duties by allowing the president to make too many decisions.

Alphabet agencies are a part of the executive office. So the bureaucrat is doing what the president or his senate confirmed appointments decide to do.

It sounded good but by the six minute mark he notes that Congress is made up of people who are not subject matter experts that lack the background to be specific enough in legislation.

It also begins to point out that Congress writes the law relying on the bureaucrats with the expertise to make the decision. The same as letting generals on a battlefield make the decisions.

I can’t tell you how many conversations I have had with people who are given an executive order or a law to implement with no specificity. We would much prefer to have it spelled out. That is on Congress.

But when it isn’t or we have to balance a law requiring a certain type of reporting while trying to follow another law that limits data gathering, it is quite a tightrope walk.

A grant program I worked on once was created under LBJ. That program has very specific regulations that were written into the law. By 2001 grant programs had very few specific regulations that defer to existing rega applicable to all.

That effort is a direct result of listening to the public and trying to create a set of common requirements that are easily understood. In this way, bureaucrats are doing a better job of listening to the American People than the elected officials.

Congress on many levels has deferred to the executive far too often.

That said the Cornhusker grandstanded to make himself sound good instead of questioning the nominee

That was the purpose of the hearing.

Rather than your thought at the end, I think he conveyed that the supreme court has become far too political due to Congress not doing its job properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

The swamp is far more about greed in the lobbyists than bureaucrats.

The most important point made is that Congress has been derelict in its duties by allowing the president to make too many decisions.

Alphabet agencies are a part of the executive office. So the bureaucrat is doing what the president or his senate confirmed appointments decide to do.

It sounded good but by the six minute mark he notes that Congress is made up of people who are not subject matter experts that lack the background to be specific enough in legislation.

It also begins to point out that Congress writes the law relying on the bureaucrats with the expertise to make the decision. The same as letting generals on a battlefield make the decisions.

I can’t tell you how many conversations I have had with people who are given an executive order or a law to implement with no specificity. We would much prefer to have it spelled out. That is on Congress.

But when it isn’t or we have to balance a law requiring a certain type of reporting while trying to follow another law that limits data gathering, it is quite a tightrope walk.

A grant program I worked on once was created under LBJ. That program has very specific regulations that were written into the law. By 2001 grant programs had very few specific regulations that defer to existing rega applicable to all.

That effort is a direct result of listening to the public and trying to create a set of common requirements that are easily understood. In this way, bureaucrats are doing a better job of listening to the American People than the elected officials.

Congress on many levels has deferred to the executive far too often.

That said the Cornhusker grandstanded to make himself sound good instead of questioning the nominee

That was the purpose of the hearing.

---

Perhaps. But the purpose of the hearing is to judge kavanaugh’s qualifications. Here the senator while complaining Congress doesn’t do its job, didn’t do his job. He can needlessly pontificate on his own time

As does Colin Kapernick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

He can needlessly pontificate on his own time

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

As does Colin Kapernick.

---

Technically CK wasn’t pontificating.

He was making a political statement at work.

while the senator elected to use time to talk big in a circle instead of asking lava sigh questions.

It’s the same. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth so to speak.
Neither are pontificating. Both are making valid points, but if work isn’t where it’s to be done (and I agree with that sentiment) then it shouldn’t be made there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Technically CK wasn’t pontificating.

He was making a political statement at work.

while the senator elected to use time to talk big in a circle instead of asking lava sigh questions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

The swamp is far more about greed in the lobbyists than bureaucrats.

---

without political greed there is no lobbist greed. Politicians votes and souls is for sale at the voters expense where as lobbyist are just working for those who pay them. So while lobbyist are easy to villianize, its not them who is unethical or greedy. Its the politicians who are paid by the people, then sell their vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Perhaps. But the purpose of the hearing is to judge kavanaugh’s qualifications. Here the senator while complaining Congress doesn’t do its job, didn’t do his job. He can needlessly pontificate on his own time

---

SCOTUS nominee hearing have nothing to do with judging a nominees qualifications. Zero, zip.... It's nothing more than a political forum for Senators to get face time and attack the other side. There isnt a single thing learned about Brett Kavanaugh in the last two days. No different than the Gorsuch hearings, or Sotomayor, or Kagen. Its an opportunity for the committee members to hold the spotlight and state their piece. Democrats have the chance to bitch and GOPers to bitch about them bitching. The hearings will change nobodies mind. Nor would the release of thousands of Kavanaugh documents. Plain and simple...is he qualified? Yes or no? The answer to that is in his rulings. Those who are not going to vote for him already decided, and those who will vote are also decided. Qualifications have nothing to do with the hearing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

It’s the same. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth so to speak.
Neither are pontificating. Both are making valid points, but if work isn’t where it’s to be done (and I agree with that sentiment) then it shouldn’t be made there.

---

Literally CK was not talking. That was my point. Sasse while sounding good was not really helpful but his comment more appropriate in the setting.

My response was directed at the fact CK didn’t speak which means he could not pontificate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

SCOTUS nominee hearing have nothing to do with judging a nominees qualifications. Zero, zip.... It's nothing more than a political forum for Senators to get face time and attack the other side. There isnt a single thing learned about Brett Kavanaugh in the last two days. No different than the Gorsuch hearings, or Sotomayor, or Kagen. Its an opportunity for the committee members to hold the spotlight and state their piece. Democrats have the chance to bitch and GOPers to bitch about them bitching. The hearings will change nobodies mind. Nor would the release of thousands of Kavanaugh documents. Plain and simple...is he qualified? Yes or no? The answer to that is in his rulings. Those who are not going to vote for him already decided, and those who will vote are also decided. Qualifications have nothing to do with the hearing

---

Spot on Doc.