Right,it's stupid to ask those questions in confimation hearings. Other than this is whatvthey are for.
And to get their opinion on precedent. Just like every hearing for a scotus judge for the last 50 years. Join us in reality.
Stop. She is a black woman. She was nominated for being black and for being a woman (even if that latter word stumps her). But she was already a judge. She went to a renowned school. She was qualified enough. The question about her confirmation was really about whether or not she’s be hesitant to decide cases based on the law, the evidence and the Constitution. The fact that Brandon focused on her skin color doesn’t mean we should.
So was Kavanaugh, and all the other current Supremes.
In order for the judiciary to be independent, justices cannot be pinned down on how they'd vote before a case is even brought to them. If they're not independent, they're political pawns, not an equal branch of government.
Hmm, Kavanaugh barely (and also clearly unfit), Barrett no.
Haha, you are just spitballing now. Join us in reality. Every Justice nominee has asked about President. That's pretty much half the point of the hearings.
Going gonzo nuts over precedent is just another way of trying to say the court must never reverse or overturn a previous incorrect ruling.
wrong liar this is why people like you lose,
I agree Brandon is a racist. He only promised “black” and “female.”
Nope, trying to get a nominee to commit to not overturning a Senator's favorite ruling is making him/her a political pawn and is unacceptable. I believe these threads would be very different if every nominee was asked to commit to leaving Heller alone, for just one example.
No, that's a stupid non sequitur that has no bearing on anything, sorry.
More irrelevant pap. Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's deceitful comments were not in response to, "How would you vote?"
There's that whiny, marble-sharp wit that nobody enjoys.
Reusing your stale old lines to lash out when you’ve been exposed as a useless blood clot again? Poor you.
Haha, I can always send you into an immediate tailspin. Because you are of low intellect.
Why else are they worried about precedent? It's ALWAYS in the context of Roe.
The very fact that you guys are going nuts over what you think is them lying about Roe is evidence that the context was indeed how they would vote on Roe. You can't escape that. I don't, for example, see Heller anywhere in there.
Right, because the religious right has been trying to pack the court for 50 years with activist judges who will overturn it. Again, your ethical compass is ass backwards. THAT is the reason roe comes up in every confirmation hearing.
