Assuming that, in revisiting the Louisiana redistricting case #SCOTUS doesn't cement one-party rule for the Republican party #MAGA, and further assuming that #Democrats can attain control of either house of #Congress, the rules around hearings need to be changed. Specifically, congressional members of a hearing-panel need to be given mute buttons to cut off hearing-subjects that speak out of turn (become combative, issue evasive replies, insult panel members, ramble on/go off-topic, etc.)
With respect to the #Bondi snippet, the Senator should have responded to her evasiveness about the #Homan investigation, "I'm not calling you a liar, I am simply pointing out a fallacy that you offered. Further, as head of the #DoJ, it's your responsibility to know the answer to this question. That you're being evasive and claiming you _don't_ know indicates one of two things: you're knowingly abdicating the responsibilities of your office or you're incompetent. Which is it? In either case, in a sane world, such displays would be grounds for your removal."
https://youtu.be/PYyTS6VwFus?si=PwEr-xoFhyXLtTBT
#USpol
@ferricoxide I don't think you understand what's going on here.
Firstly, the LA redistricting case isn't about one party rule. It's about settling a longstanding contradiction in law that has vexed courts for decades and left officials around the country without clear rules for how they should conduct elections.
But as for hearings, many of the folks we elect to congress LIKE those exchanges because they can fundraise and score political points off of them.
We keep electing stupid and combative congresspeople so it's no surprise that they set up stupid and combative hearings.
The rules don't need to be changes as they're working exactly as intended. We should probably change the congresspeople, though.
