Senator Grassley asked Ketanji Brown Jackson a simple yes or no question did she give a simple yes or no answer?

[Concerned American]

"Bear" here means carrying, as what one man can carry.

Like a rocket launcher or a LAAW?

 

[toobfreak]

Good because Biden is in the White House, and I never have to hear Donald Trump's dumbass again.

Wow. Sucks to be you. You lost on BOTH counts.

 

[Concerned American]

Wow. Sucks to be you. You lost on BOTH counts.

I see dumb liberals, they're so dumb they don't even know they're dumb.

 

[excalibur]

Like a rocket launcher or a LAAW?

Standard weapons every infantryman would bear.

 

[OKTexas]

Here is the question asked
"Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?"
She did not give a yes or no answer
Her answer was Senator the supreme court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right.
He didn't ask her what the supreme court views on the right to keep and bear arms, he asked her for her views.
Another sidestep allowed

Link to those quotes please.

.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Good because Biden is in the White House, and I never have to hear Donald Trump's dumbass again.

Don't bet the ranch on that!

 

[gmeyers1944]

Stare decisis is dangerous when the case referred to is a bad decision. It leads to more bad decisions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Link to those quotes please.

.

here's the link
FUCKOFFLAZYASSBITCH.COM

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Eh, I don't know. I think her answer was sufficient. As a justice, she kinda has to remain neutral, especially with potential cases involving this topic. Had she said "yes", then that could have painted her a pro gun, and skewed her ability to rule on future gun law arguments.

Regardless of whether or not she believes it, she kinda can't answer it, right?

her answer was a path to undermining the rights of every citizen.
Suppose she had been asked about voting, abortion, or free speech and answer that way. And yes her opinion matters since it is the opinions of Justices that allow laws to pass or be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[ThisIsMe]

her answer was a path to undermining the rights of every citizen.
Suppose she had been asked about voting, abortion, or free speech and answer that way. And yes her opinion matters since it is the opinions of Justices that allow laws to pass or be ruled unconstitutional.

I understand, I'm just thinking, like many answers these nominees give during these hearings, they just have to remain as neutral as possible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand, I'm just thinking, like many answers these nominees give during these hearings, they just have to remain as neutral as possible.

I disagree they must interpret the Intent or purpose as to why we have specific rights.

 

[Concerned American]

I understand, I'm just thinking, like many answers these nominees give during these hearings, they just have to remain as neutral as possible.

SCOTUS one and only task is to determine constitutionality of laws. They are there to interpret and defend the constitution--neutrality is not an option. I think that is where many people are mistaken. Neutral people don't defend anything.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I disagree they must interpret the Intent or purpose as to why we have specific rights.

Well, then her answer should tell you all you need to know. Being a liberal, I just assume she is anti gun

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, then her answer should tell you all you need to know. Being a liberal, I just assume she is anti gun

No her answer was nothing but bullshit

 

[Tampa_Bay]

Here is the question asked
"Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?"
She did not give a yes or no answer
Her answer was Senator the supreme court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right.
He didn't ask her what the supreme court views on the right to keep and bear arms, he asked her for her views.
Another sidestep allowed

The day that pig Brown steps into the court is a day this country sinks lower into the swamp and sewer