Why do we have hearings — especially when it doesn't appear anyone is hearing at all?
The questions are far longer than answers and the answers far vaguer than valuable.
I mean, is it me, or have you found these confirmation hearings for John Roberts (search) to be a total waste of time?
I know they're supposed to be a big deal. My network's on it, after all. So I tiptoe carefully here.
But I'm sorry, I have never seen such stupid, blatant political posturing and pointless, meaningless rambling since... well, since the last high court hearings.
I clocked the question-to-answer ratio for Senators Kennedy (search) and Biden (search) to Roberts at something like 8-to1. That's eight times more pontificating from them than answers from him.
Then Rush Limbaugh (search) noticed something that I had not. No sooner was he done with his show, than Sen. Kennedy was on a CNN show, analyzing the hearings as the hearings were on!
Rush was right to point out, since Kennedy sits on the Judiciary Committee, why the hell was he sitting on a CNN set?
As Rush pointed out, pseudo legal scholars are taking on a guy who was one. And it got me thinking, this is how we appoint the highest judge in the land? Jurist-jujitsu where the questioners ask, but don't really seek answers and the jurist responds, but never really answers?
Roberts is right to be coy in this sham. We should be offended that it is a sham.
Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org