379. Sessions' laws

The Sotomayor confirmation hearings were pretty sad.  It's not that I expect meaningfulness, or even necessarily meaning, but it would be nice if the participants could avoid actively misleading C-Span viewers.

Alabama's Jeff Sessions describes himself as one who enjoyed a "distinguished legal career," and he was once proposed for a federal judgeship himself, and he wasn't turned down for lack of ability (not that that's necessarily a disqualifier, anyway), but for certain, ahem, speech patterns of the type you'd expect from an Establishment white Alabaman of a certain age.

And yet in his opening remarks during the confirmation hearings, Sessions began with sententious incoherence:

This nomination hearing is critically important for two reasons.

First, Justices on the Supreme Court have great responsibility, hold enormous power, and have a lifetime appointment.

Just five members can declare the meaning of our Constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what the people intended.

Second, this hearing is important because I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads.

Down one path is the traditional American legal system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to their own personal views....

In the American legal system, courts do not make the law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make laws would strike at the heart of our democracy.

 Apparently it's possible to say those words without becoming aware of their self-contradiction.  At least, Sessions gave no sign of noticing that one cannot "make the law or set policy" any more definitively than by "declar[ing] the meaning of our Constitution."

Supreme Court justices have much less scope than senators - the justices are sea anemones, predators who must wait for their prey to come within their grasp, in comparison to which senators are Sea World performers. 

But let the prey come within the anemone's grasp and it won't get out.  Legislation is subject to judicial review, but the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings are the word of God.

Now, I realize the main point of Supreme Court confirmation hearings is that pre-selected opposition senators to try out various talking points to see if any theme gains sufficient traction to dominate the news cycle for more than one day (please excuse my lack of mastery of the jargon). 

After sufficient time, poll numbers can then tell minority-party senators how to vote: since your side is going to lose anyway, is it better to cultivate (say) the projected 77% growth in Hispanic population in one's state, or keep the wingnuts happy for the next primary?

Apparently, focus group testing tells the Republicans that "judges don't make the law" gets reactions.  But, if it does, it can only be because politicians repeat it so often.  By doing so, they erode their own power of advise and consent, because it prevents them from questioning nominees about the way they'll actually use the power once they get their mitts on it.

Obviously there are worse ways to run a country than by randomly selecting experienced lawyers, closing one's eyes and hoping for the best.  But you'd have to think there might be better ways, too.