confirmation hearings

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) offered Republicans the simplest of reasons to vote against Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin Friday — he lied.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) offered Republicans the simplest of reasons to vote against Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin Friday — he lied.
Honestly, this did not come as a surprise to many who have had their collective ears to the ground. To be fair, Gorsuch was
After acknowledging that the Clauses apply to the President, Sessions said, "[T]he discussion is to what extent does it apply
"As with Trump himself, the net worth of many of his top advisers and nominees for Cabinet positions is difficult to pin
Although, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I do not get to ask Senator Jeff Sessions questions during his confirmation hearing (the Senate has that duty), I have been thinking a lot about what I would ask, and what I encourage Senators to ask with what is at stake.
Are there heroes who will oppose the confirmation of Trump’s nominees?
Which do you prefer- acting or writing? I love both of them equally. They flex very different muscles and when I get to see
Hill's recollection of incidents in which Thomas, her superior, had professed his interest in bestiality porn and Long Dong Silver, was a sobering wake-up call to members of the generation that had both endured the fanny-slapping Mad Men era and given rise to the women's-rights movement.
Although there are liberals who are disappointed that President Obama did not nominate someone more in the spirit of a William Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall, Merrick Garland is an exceptional choice. But Senate Republicans, led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley, refuse even to consider his nomination.
No one can say that Garland is a political pick. He does not have a notably liberal record, and as a white male he does not appeal to die-hard liberals. Obama didn't pick him to motivate voters. He picked him because he is a bipartisan choice who is undoubtedly qualified for the position.
We write to you as scholars of American history, politics, and the law. We express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms by the Senate majority in refusing to consider a nomination for the Supreme Court made by a president with 11 months to serve in the position.
But with members of Senate locked in a heated debate whether Obama or the next president should name Scalia's replacement
Much is at stake in this battle the Republicans have forced upon the nation. It is a battle that must be fought and won, and one that is the president's job, above all, to lead.
Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they will not consider any nominee put forward by our nation's president. This is unconscionable. If they carry through on this threat, it will be directly incompatible with their solemn responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution.
Imagine the Supreme Court deciding more than 100 cases without its full complement of nine Justices. Imagine this closely divided Court splitting 4-4 in many of those cases, meaning that it cannot issue a decision that provides binding law for the whole country.
Only three candidates are willing to say that the system is corrupt: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Lawrence Lessig. But Trump has no solution to the problem, while the other two do.