Fantasy Supreme Court Nomination Hearing

I noticed a lot of websites obsessed about the Kagan Supreme Court nomination hearing. Essentially, her responses are "I've got the votes to get confirmed and we all know it! Hahahaha! As long as I give evasive non-answers, I'm getting confirmed!"

This question was really funny.

Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that's now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?

Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law. But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional, and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless.

This attitude illustrates the corruption of the legal system. A judge is not concerned with "What is right and what is wrong?" A judge is concerned with "What is legal?" If "What is legal?" has substantially diverged from "What makes moral sense?", that isn't the judge's problem.

The correct attitude towards the Supreme Court is "Who cares what those 9 pro-State trolls say?" The only reason it matters is that State thugs enforce their decisions without questioning it. Supreme Court judges are chosen by State insiders. They will tend to favor more State power ahead of individual freedom.

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings are one big evil fnord saying "These 9 idiots actually have legitimate authority!"

One of my ideas is "Promote agorism via standup comedy." What would a more honest confirmation hearing be like?

Q: Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional?
A: It's important for government insiders to be able to steal via inflation. It would be awful if non-insiders were able to accumulate capital.

Q: Are the IRS and income tax Constitutional?
A: The slaves have to pay their tribute to their masters. If they're paying that much, we must be doing a great job!

Q: How do you feel about no-knock military-style raids for nonviolent offenders?
A: You can't have a Police State without breaking any eggs! It's important for people to be continually scared. If they say or do the wrong thing, we'll assault/murder them!

Q: What's your stance on abortion?
A: It's an excellent issue for dividing and conquering the slaves. If you know someone's opinion on abortion, you don't need to ask them anything else!

Q: How do you feel about respecting precedent (stare decisis)?
A: Once the Supreme Court makes a decision that erodes individual freedom, it should be treated as absolute unbreakable precedent. In the past, the Supreme Court has made decisions that protected individual freedom. I'd overturn those.

Q: How do you feel about excessive use of plea-bargains by prosecutors?
A: It's great to send someone to jail without a trial. If someone gets 1 year via a plea-bargain, but 10+ years if they go to trial and lose, who wouldn't take the deal? The important point is "The prosecutor is always right."

Q: What's your opinion on jury nullification?
A: If it were possible to completely eliminate it, I would. Anyone who publicly advocated for jury nullification should be arrested for treason. Any lawyer who makes such an argument should be stripped of his law license. Any sui juris defendant who mentions jury nullification should be jailed for "contempt of court".

Q: What's the proper role for the Supreme Court?
A: The Supreme Court's job is to make up plausible-sounding lies for restricting people's freedom. If you pass a law, I'll come up with an excuse for why it's Constitutional. I know where my bread is buttered. The "interstate commerce clause" can be used to justify practically anything! We've got to keep the slaves in their place, while providing the illusion that we're fair and protecting their interests.

It'd be nice if confirmation hearings reflected the true attitudes of the participants. Now that I have greater emotional awareness, the parasitic body language of politicians is very obvious.