Confirmation Hearing: Oakvale for Associate Justice (Confirmed)

[bgwah]

Just from little old outsider me:

One of my concerns would be that, without Sam Spade, there's not actually a procedure-focused workhouse type of guy on the court. The type of guy that will spend a long time looking things up on the statute, or writing court opinions that are a a full post-limit long. Are you actually going to take this job very seriously, or end up writing opinions that are a paragraph long, or something?

Nobody knows Atlasian law better than Ebowed. Just because there haven't been any major cases recently doesn't change that.

[bgwah]

That's nice and all guys but that has nothing to do with the question. Are you literally trying to make the argument "Let's confirm him because someone else can do the heavy lifting!"? This is a pretty serious position and losing Sam Spade is a fairly significant blow to the verbosity of the court. This thread isn't about Ebowed, it's about Oakvale.

I swear sometimes I'm the only one that actually considers confirmation hearings as a chance to actually ask questions. You can lay down the sugary sweet praise later. (Sheesh, when I wanted to be on the Court I had to fill out a huge form sent to me from Lief, who was President at the time.)

I just have some questions about some important or controversial court cases, wanting to know your opinion of the conclusion and so on:

Atlasia v. Southeast

UNEPSE v. Northeast Region

SPC v. Atlasia

Peter v. Atlasia

I'd also like to know your opinion on having a strict "standing" requirement to sue over certain laws. Sam Spade was a big proponent of such a thing, but it was eventually discarded after Opebo and I ruled it was a silly extra hoop to jump through. What are your thoughts?

I was merely pointing out that you are severely misinformed regarding the current make-up of the court.

And why are you questioning the nominee? I could have sworn you lost.

[bgwah]

Plenty of people are free to ask questions and comment in Senate stuff, Bgwah. Happens routinely. (Besides, if some in the Senate actually aren't going to ask the tough questions and seriously debate themselves, someone's gotta say something.)

I was just kind of put off by the fact that you seem downright hostile to the idea of actually asking someone serious questions in their confirmation thread.

I'm fine with some comments from non-Senators, and always have been. But questioning the nominee? With, what, five questions requiring very specific and detailed answers? I don't think you're in a position to do that.

[bgwah]

If someone's going to be on the Court they're going to have to deal with this stuff. If they can't handle a few questions then they shouldn't have the job. It's what these threads are actually designed for. If people are actually so stubborn and full of themselves that they're willing to just ignore perfectly legitimate questions purely for the sake of personal grudges, that is their (and everyone else's) loss.

These threads are designed for Senators to question and vote on the nominee.

But perhaps you're right---as Justice, Oakvale may indeed have to deal with a certain fellow jumping into court case threads where he does not belong.

[bgwah]

aye