Bean Counting Motivates Everything in Washington

Bean counting is what politics in Washington is all about, whether we're talking about amassing enough Electoral College votes to swing a presidential election, manipulating the U.S. Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process to gain or enhance a like-minded majority, passing legislation to address either emergencies or the ideological interests of one's own party, or getting enough senators or representatives elected on one's own side in Congress to assure their party's control of the Senate or House, respectively.  I have been watching snippets of Amy Coney Barrett's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing as she aspires to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a justice on the high court, just as I've observed similar proceedings with the nominations of current justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Roberts in recent years.  It's obvious that the underlying motivation, both in the nomination process from the view of the President as well as those of the Republicans and Democratic senators considering them in through advice and consent, is primarily a matter of selecting someone whose expressed ideology and judicial record will help to tip or maintain the Court's voting numbers in their party's favor on key political issues.  In our current world it's issues like the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, gun regulation laws, LGBT rights, environmental legislation, voting rights and the limits and extent of allowable presidential and congressional authority that motivate the bean counters as they look at the new nominee.  But during the hearing all we've basically seen is Barrett sitting there batting back question after question as if she were in some kind of verbal tennis match, with the objective of avoiding transmitting the least bit of information as possible about her judicial temperament or philosophy, much less anything about specific issues...in a similar way that the four previous nominees performed.  Maybe the hearings serve an educational and political purpose for the voting public by allowing the different senators on the committee a forum to express their own opinions, but as far as enlightening anyone as to what kind of Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett will be, I think we'd be better informed by a journalist or announcer just sitting there reading verbatim the nominee's previous statements from earlier times.  Of course, this hearing is a charade: the Republicans have enough votes to confirm and will do so in plenty of time for Barrett to sit in on next month's case as the deciding "bean" on Obamacare's fate.  And since it is clear that Republican Senate Majority Leader McConnell's actions are only designed to enhance his own party's power through partisan bean counting, the Democrats had better regain control of the Senate if Biden gets elected, otherwise few if any of his cabinet, judicial, or other nominations will ever see the light of day...