ICYMI (v82)

 Time to recap last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

The week started with a visit to the Sunday School classrooms, where we heard from The Grim Reaper himself, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He offered some thoughts to Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation on Putin's war, including that

The Ukrainians have killed more Russians in three weeks than we lost in Afghanistan and Iraq in 20 years. 

Given how well the Ukrainians are doing, he suggested an open purse - and an attitude adjustment - might be helpful. 

If Ukraine needs more aid, on top of the $13.6B that was just approved, "we ought to give them more." And,

Look, I think we need to change our attitude here. The Ukrainians could actually win this thing and that's - the attitude we ought to have, that we're in it to help them win.

I also covered UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who joined Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom.

For your Sunday School Extra Credit I wandered into the host's chat with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom. Barrasso and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) traded a few barbs separately, including on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to move up to the Supreme Court.

George picked up with Sen. Barrasso where he left off with Durbin, asking if Hawley was engaging in what Barrasso specifically said should not happen with Jackson: "a process of character assassination." Barrasso said "the whole process is going to be fair, respectful, and thorough." And he offered an attack on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

I’m less concerned about her statements than I am about Chuck Schumer's statements. He said she's going to rule with empathy. A judge ought to be making decisions based on the law as written, not the way they feel about it. So, he also said check her record. And going through the record, there are some concerns that people have about her being perceived as soft on crime. That's all going to come out with the hearings but they're going to be respectful, they’re going to be thorough and they’re going to be fair, George.

We now know what happened on the 'respectful' part, don't we?

I was Wondering on Wednesday about the KBJ hearings, and the approach the Rs took in their questioning, much of it focused on Judge Jackson's sentencing of child pornography defendants. For some reason, this is a GOP Most Favored Topic - remember Pizzagate? Anyway.

And I wonder why these child-porn-focused Republican senators are now asking to receive additional information on these cases, including pre-sentencing reports? And why is Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin withholding information from the Republicans, if in fact that's happening here?

Truth be told, there's a simple way to resolve that conflict, and I wonder why no one has suggested it yet: have the FBI urgently investigate, like it did with the sexual harassment allegations against Brett 'I Really Like Beer' Kavanaugh, and then the senators can all go into a SCIF or something and have the report read to them. Oh wait - we all remember how that went.

That didn't happen, of course. We know they didn't really want to see the reports; they just wanted their moment in the spotlight, to pound their chests and scratch themselves and pick bugs off each other... 

Interestingly, that whole "moment in the spotlight" stuff came up in my TGIF entry. In a blitz of mostly bad week items from the hearings, I dropped this kudo.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) had a good week, for calling out the bad behavior of his colleagues - and not just the ones making fools of themselves in these hearings. While explaining why he doesn't want cameras in SCOTUS proceedings, he offered this bit of wisdom, with which I can't argue. 

I think we should recognize the jack-assery we often see around here is partly because of people mugging for short-term camera opportunities.

And later, after my  post was published, we learned that he was going to vote 'no' on Jackson, even though there'll be no change in the balance of the Court. 

Sasse can't vote for an "extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story" who "love(s) this country" and who has "impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law..." because she's not an 'originalist.' 

But boy, she's damn qualified., isn't she?

I'll be back with a special post for this special day - stand back and stand down, or something.