By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Saturday, the Senate confirmed Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News personality and Trump loyalist, as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by a vote of 50-45. Pirro had been serving in the role on an acting basis since May after previously co-hosting “The Five” on Fox News. The confirmation followed the approval of Emil Bove, a former Trump defense lawyer, to a U.S. appeals court. President Trump praised Republican senators for their efforts to approve his nominees, blaming Democrats for delays.
Read the original article here
Senate confirms Jeanine Pirro as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and the news has certainly sparked a reaction, to put it mildly. It seems the confirmation has been met with a considerable amount of disbelief and a healthy dose of frustration. It’s clear that many people are struggling to find any silver linings in this particular cloud. The general sentiment leans towards viewing this appointment as a symptom of something deeply wrong with the current political landscape.
Jeanine Pirro’s past, particularly her association with Fox News, is a significant part of the conversation. The comments bring up her on-air persona, painting a picture of someone whose approach might not be ideally suited for a position of legal authority. Some people are immediately drawing comparisons to a reality show, suggesting this appointment is more akin to casting for a television program than filling a serious government role.
The appointment seems to have prompted a wave of dark humor, with jokes about the availability of wine in the District of Columbia. It’s a way, I think, of coping with what many see as a troubling development. The idea of a “reality TV government” is a common theme, reflecting a feeling that the standards of professionalism and competence have been drastically lowered. The confirmation is viewed by some as emblematic of a descent into what they consider “idiocracy.”
There’s a sense of a deep disappointment that resonates through the comments. People express their frustration with the entire system and express a feeling of embarrassment at the direction of the country. There are expressions of concern about the lack of checks and balances within the government, which seems to be enabling these sorts of appointments. There are questions about the vote tally and a desire to know exactly how this happened, with many people wanting to know who voted for and against her.
Some people feel that the confirmation signifies a step backward. The idea of Pirro’s approach to law, combined with her public persona, is seen as a problem. The comments express anxiety and a feeling of powerlessness as the confirmation is perceived to be a sign of the system’s complete breakdown.
The comments frequently mention the perception that she might be unqualified for the role, questioning her understanding of the responsibilities of a U.S. Attorney. There’s speculation about her potential impact on the legal landscape and even suggestions about who she might target in investigations.
The response is characterized by a strong feeling of anger and a sense of desperation. The confirmation is seen as an example of what’s wrong with the system. The comments are very critical of the senators involved, suggesting that their actions warrant removal.
The situation is viewed as a significant blow to the integrity of the legal system. The idea of “drunk” is an expression of concern about the professional standards that this appointment represents. The conversation is saturated with feelings of dismay, as people express a feeling of hopelessness and a sense that the country is becoming a joke.
The overarching impression is one of dismay and a loss of faith in the system. The confirmation of Jeanine Pirro is interpreted as a symptom of a larger, more troubling trend. This appointment has clearly struck a nerve, serving as a focal point for a range of concerns about the direction of the country.