Democrats interrupted multiple times during the first court hearing claiming that the Republicans are withholding certain documents that have important information about Brett Kavanaugh. The judge claimed that there were enough documents being read and reviewed and denied the Democrats request. The Democrats continuously attempted to postpone the hearing with interruptions and requests but the chairman declared that there was no solid reason for the hearing to be postponed.
Many protestors also shouted their opinions during the hearing which ended with about 70 arrests. Many people yelled their opposition to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and were escorted out showing the immense opposition there is to his nomination. Some senators called this a “mob rule” and “disrespectful” to the law; however, other senators claimed it was merely a showcase of true democracy in which people have the right to state their opinions and not be cruelly punished for it.
Questions:
1) Are political parties becoming too divisive? Why or why not?
2) Do you think people should be allowed to interrupt the hearing? Why or why not?
Websites:- https://www.npr.org/2018/09/04/644602519/kavanaugh-hearings-day-1-protesters-focus-on-roe-attempted-handshake-goes-viral- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-trumps-nominee-will-pledge-to-be-a-neutral-and-impartial-arbiter/2018/09/04/5fbaec1a-b035-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.246c7ecd778c
- https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-hearing-dle/index.html
I would disagree that it was a show of political participation and the opposing hecklers were representatives of true democracy. Although Kavanaugh's admission as a justice would present a threat to democrats and aid in overthrowing the Roe v Wade decision he should still be shown respect when speaking. Opposing parties should maintain a level of mutual respect and not demean individuals for their beliefs. Political disagreement should be encouraged and is necessary but personal attacks and a lack of courtesy is damaging.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteAre Political parties too divisive? I think it would be good if our representatives stuck less to party lines and voted how they personally believed. However, as it is, our political parties are still effective at representing most people.
ReplyDeleteShould people be allowed to interrupt the hearing? I don't think so: the law is that congress decides whether to approve a new justice or not, and following the rules is critical to our republic. A repeal attempt would require the same 3/4 state approval as any other amendment, the people will have their turn to vote, but for now they should respect the system.
To address your second question, I generally do not believe that individuals should interrupt court hearings. Hearings are usually very structured and organized occurrences, and interrupting them simply shows a lack of respect and prohibits the hearing from running smoothly. However, I do believe that citizens should be able to publicly voice their opinions through other methods such as protests, marches, and social media. Other options allow people to voice their opinions in the same way, and will not result in arrests as they did during Kavanaugh's hearing. Additionally, although interrupting the court hearing could draw immediate attention, there are numerous other ways to voice one's opinions that do not involve showing disrespect for such an organized event.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that court hearings should not be interrupted, as it demonstrates a violation of the respect of court proceedings. In my perspective, peacefully observing these proceedings is similar to acknowledging the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power within the US. Regardless of one's political views, respect is crucial to a functional and diverse federal government.
DeleteWhile I think that people should have the right to speak out and voice their opinions, there is a time and place for it. Hearings are very official and organized, and instead of disrupting this process, the protesters should have instead spoke out on a separate occasion. They should have respected this hearing and protested at a different time; that way, they still get to express their feelings and thoughts on Kavanaugh's appointment without interrupting the hearing.
ReplyDeleteI think political parties are becoming too divisive today. People are more loyal to their party than to their personal beliefs. It seems as if people are arguing/disagreeing with others, not over the morality of policies, but just because they are a member of the opposing party. Citizens should be able to freely voice their opinion, however, there is a time and place to respectfully share your point of view. So I believe that the citizens who interrupted the hearing are in the wrong, but I think that the manner in which the Democrats are interrupting is acceptable. This form of stalling is used by both parties, so it therefore should be allowed by both parties. While this delays decisions, it is ultimately a legal strategy for political parties to use to try and stop decisions that are not in their favor.
ReplyDeleteI believe parties today are exhibiting a continuation of divisiveness that has been around for centuries. This is not a new concept, just one that is more apparent to us now with the commonality of thorough, multifaceted coverage of each story. I believe it was not appropriate for interruptions by citizens to occur during the hearings as it prevented proper procedure and likely served as a distraction. In an appointment as important at this, voices should be heard at a less critical moments in a different setting.
ReplyDeletePolitical parties are inherently divisive and it has been that way since the beginning. Recently however, belonging to a certain political party also meant that an individual has to agree with everything that party represents. This pattern does makes sense considering the intense political climate of today, but it is also very dangerous and inefficient. Congress today is having a harder time passing legislation and court hearings can't even happen without protest. I can see why people would say that the chaos that ensued in the Kavanaugh hearings were uncalled for, but I expected it. It is unfair for people to say it was a demonstration of "mob rule" since I saw it as a necessary act of civil disobedience.
ReplyDeleteI would say that political parties are becoming too divisive, but at the end of the day this sparks in a way better review of circumstances. It makes sense that Democrats are putting in great efforts to unveil the "documents" regarding Kavanaugh, yet this leads to further evidence of whether or not Kavanaugh deserves the seat as a Supreme Court justice in the eyes of the American people. Additionally, I agree that the protesters should have spoken out at another time rather than disrupting the hearing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second question, people shouldn't be interrupting the hearing or any other formal hearing in general. How are we supposed to solve the issue of never compromising and never getting anything done if we don't even listen to the other side or give the opposing side the chance to speak? We already know that the political polarization today is extreme and even has the ability to shut down our government. There are a million ways to protest and share one's opinion thanks to the first amendment. Mutual respect on both sides of any situation is extremely important in remaining civil, fair, and productive.
ReplyDeletePolitical parties are most certainly becoming too divisive, and that brings a variety of different problems. One such problem is that certain issues are becoming partisan issues when they shouldn't really be becoming partisan issues, which slows down much needed policies, as the other party will vote no on it, even though they would have voted yes if their own party had proposed it. Furthermore, the presence of such divisive political parties also hurts national unity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stan: people need to realize that faction is not everything and to remember the origin of politics and government. In my opinion, this includes maintaining order between states and generally focusing on improving society. With such divisive parties, it is very difficult to do so... I believe that it is a right to protest any nominations, but that this should be done in a manner which would actually lead to a change in action. Shouting in court would lead to little change other than being escorted out of the court, and it shines a negative light on the opposing people.
DeleteAlthough I strongly believe in freedom of speech and the right of the people to voice their opinions, I do not think that interrupting the hearing was a good decision, nor should it have been allowed. Yes, being a democracy means that the people should have the right to be part of the democratic process, but at the same time, by forcefully interrupting the hearing, they are taking away from the opposing side's opportunity to express themselves. A democracy can only work when both sides of a controversy are allowed to express their opinions in full so that their arguments can be picked apart or supported. Shutting down an argument only serves to weaken one's side, as it demonstrates that they have no real logical arguments and thus can only resort to crude acts to win.
ReplyDelete