One-Sixteenth

Ah, but you are still missing some vital points, young Padawan. Allow me to elucidate.

These hearings are about abortion and the extent of the Congress's power to make laws (for example: can the Congress prohibit you from growing orchids on your land for your use? [the answer, apparently, is yes]) and the power of the President to arrest anyone he wants, provided the country is at least arguably at war, and hold them without trials or access to lawyers (this one is still up in the air).

Because we have removed large and important questions of policy from political discussion, via the Supreme Court's arrogated powers to decide the law, the only way for those elected to pass laws to have any impact on the law is to act to confirm or prevent confirmation of judges and Justices that will decide in a certain way on certain kinds of cases.

What do I mean by "the Supreme Court's arrogated powers to decide the law"?

You see, in 1803 the Supreme Court decided that, the Constitution notwithstanding, the Supreme Court had the final decision on what the Constitution means in any case, and that understanding supersedes the lawmaking power of Congress and the executive power of the President. Then, starting about the late 1920s or early 1930s, the Supreme Court begun to change its thinking on how to interpret the Constitution rather radically: the Court began to hold that the Constitution did not mean what it was commonly understood to mean at the time that it was passed and/or amended, but instead means whatever is most convenient to current political sensitivities. That is, the current political sensitivities of at least 5 of the currently sitting Supreme Court Justices.

No kidding: the Constitution says the Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States", and the Supreme Court decides that "Commerce ... among the several States" includes non-commercial activities done entirely within one State. Under the Raich decision, the Congress could legally decide that you cannot grow orchids for your own use on your own land. No kidding.

So, basically, our system of government is fundamentally broken, and these hearings are about abortion. Bleh.

Short version: The Congress wants to regulate your life, but so does the Supreme Court. To get to the Supreme Court and be able to overrule Congress, though, a nominee has to kiss-up first.

That's what this all boils down to.

I'm not so sure Justices want to regulate people's lives. I think it's more they feel obligated to do so. Whether or not they want to make definitive decisions, they cannot avoid it, because of Marbury. Even when they explicitly declare a decision does not constitute precedent, such as Bush v Gore, it is still cited opportunistically. In fact, a big part of the blundering jurisprudence of the last 20 years has been due to Sandra Day O'Connor having the illusion that we still live in a true common law system, so each case has to be decided purely on the merits. That is true for lower courts, of course, but not for the Supreme Court, which leads to decisions that a school board can provide secular text books to religious schools, but not other secular educational material like curricula, without violating the separation of church and state. (And to be fair to O'Connor, I believe those decisions were prior to her getting on the Court.)

Yes, the nominee does have to suck up to get on the Court.

When you get to the point of 24 hour C-SPAN, then you know you're in trouble -- like my mother-in-law who bases her choice of hotels on which carries her beloved government proceedings.

No, you know you're in trouble when you keep a videotape set back to catch Byrd's filibusters.

Best. History Teacher. Ever.

*sigh* that's one of the few things I miss since unplugging.