tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post112121907966631440..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Duck and CoverDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1121302359598187712005-07-13T17:52:00.000-07:002005-07-13T17:52:00.000-07:00Hamilton, if I read him right, argued that basical...Hamilton, if I read him right, argued that basically none of the committees questions should be about his "preconceived biases and theories". <I>That role</I> is for the nominator, i.e., the Executive. <BR/><BR/>The committe is certainly not the best organ for introducing the jurist to the American public. I would put that responsibility on the free press. Off an on now for the last two weeks, I've been harping on this topic, and have had no substantive response. So I'll challenge you. Read Federalist #76. Argue why Hamilton is wrong and instead we need, as you say,"tough questions" from the committee. He writes that the Senate committee's primary purpose is to insure that the Executive did not pick the candidate in an improper fashion (because of favors owed or personal ties for example).Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.com