And the dumbest thing said by a Senator is…..
The hardworking staff here at danieldrezner.com would like to thank the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their performance this past week. They provided a lot of grist for contest-entrants and commentators alike. It’s telling that the week ended with numerous pieces on how to improve the confirmation process — even though Alito proved ...
The hardworking staff here at danieldrezner.com would like to thank the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their performance this past week. They provided a lot of grist for contest-entrants and commentators alike. It's telling that the week ended with numerous pieces on how to improve the confirmation process -- even though Alito proved relatively forthcoming in his answers. Dahlia Lithwick reminds Democratic Senators that members of the Federalist Society are not teeming with hate and rage; T.A. Frank suggested at TNR Online that the way to rescue the dignity of the hearings is to remove television from the equation. My one good government suggestion -- give both the majority and minority counsel for the Judiciary Committee an hour or two to question the nominee. That'll never happen, of course, but it might actually generate some useful back-and-forth. Now, on to the contest -- on Monday, readers were encouraged to submit "the single dumbest thing a Senator says during the hearings." A lot of very worthy entrants were submitted. In the end however, there can be only one. And the Senator who said the dumbest thing is..... Congratulations to Senator Diane Feinstein of California for this exchange with Alito: FEINSTEIN: So if I understand this, you essentially said that you wanted to follow precedent, newly established law in this area. And you left a little hedge that if Congress made findings in that law, then that might be a different situation. If Congress did make findings, would you have agreed that that statute would been constitutional? ALITO: What I said in the opinion and what I will reiterate this afternoon is that it would have been a very different case for me. I don't think I can express an opinion on how I would have decided a hypothetical case. FEINSTEIN: It's not hypothetical. I'm just asking you, if there were findings as you said, you might have sustained the law. ALITO: And I reiterate that... FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law... ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me. Feinstein had some tough competition -- The Kennedy/Specter exchange over mail delivery, Tom Coburn's auto accident metaphor, anything that came out of Chuck Schumer's mouth, and what I can only figure was Joe Biden's attempt to win a bet in which he could use the word "Princeton" in every sentence he used for an hour. And I confess I might be biased in favor of Feinstein because of her runner-up status during the Roberts confirmation. Let me stress that dumber things might have been said this week -- but the folks here at danieldrezner.com could only judge the submissions we received. In the end, Feinstein's ability to deny the existence of a hypothetical in her question about... a hypothetical was what swayed the judges. To be fair, Feinstein was talking about a counterfactual, but I think it's safe to say that counterfactuals were included in Altio's definition of hypotheticals. Congratulations to Millers Time for being the first to submit the winning entry! [What's his prize?--ed. What all bloggers desire -- links and attention! Plus, you gotta check out this other post of his -- it's the funniest blonde joke I've ever seen.
The hardworking staff here at danieldrezner.com would like to thank the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their performance this past week. They provided a lot of grist for contest-entrants and commentators alike. It’s telling that the week ended with numerous pieces on how to improve the confirmation process — even though Alito proved relatively forthcoming in his answers. Dahlia Lithwick reminds Democratic Senators that members of the Federalist Society are not teeming with hate and rage; T.A. Frank suggested at TNR Online that the way to rescue the dignity of the hearings is to remove television from the equation. My one good government suggestion — give both the majority and minority counsel for the Judiciary Committee an hour or two to question the nominee. That’ll never happen, of course, but it might actually generate some useful back-and-forth. Now, on to the contest — on Monday, readers were encouraged to submit “the single dumbest thing a Senator says during the hearings.” A lot of very worthy entrants were submitted. In the end however, there can be only one. And the Senator who said the dumbest thing is….. Congratulations to Senator Diane Feinstein of California for this exchange with Alito:
FEINSTEIN: So if I understand this, you essentially said that you wanted to follow precedent, newly established law in this area. And you left a little hedge that if Congress made findings in that law, then that might be a different situation. If Congress did make findings, would you have agreed that that statute would been constitutional? ALITO: What I said in the opinion and what I will reiterate this afternoon is that it would have been a very different case for me. I don’t think I can express an opinion on how I would have decided a hypothetical case. FEINSTEIN: It’s not hypothetical. I’m just asking you, if there were findings as you said, you might have sustained the law. ALITO: And I reiterate that… FEINSTEIN: And I’m just asking you would you have sustained the law… ALITO: I don’t think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that’s different from the case that came before me.
Feinstein had some tough competition — The Kennedy/Specter exchange over mail delivery, Tom Coburn’s auto accident metaphor, anything that came out of Chuck Schumer’s mouth, and what I can only figure was Joe Biden’s attempt to win a bet in which he could use the word “Princeton” in every sentence he used for an hour. And I confess I might be biased in favor of Feinstein because of her runner-up status during the Roberts confirmation. Let me stress that dumber things might have been said this week — but the folks here at danieldrezner.com could only judge the submissions we received. In the end, Feinstein’s ability to deny the existence of a hypothetical in her question about… a hypothetical was what swayed the judges. To be fair, Feinstein was talking about a counterfactual, but I think it’s safe to say that counterfactuals were included in Altio’s definition of hypotheticals. Congratulations to Millers Time for being the first to submit the winning entry! [What’s his prize?–ed. What all bloggers desire — links and attention! Plus, you gotta check out this other post of his — it’s the funniest blonde joke I’ve ever seen.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
