I was listening to this earlier and Sasse asked her the "five freedoms" of the 1st Amendment and she notably forgot one in her answer (freedom to petition), which is pretty embarrassing for a nominee to the highest court of the country.
Presumably, a law professor would have a more full and nuanced understanding of ACB's shortcomings as a SCOTUS justice than say... a random English or music professor.Also still not sure why having a law professor on the list matters? It's not about her qualifications in law, but rather them imploring that she doesn't not let herself be nominated before november as a partisan ploy, and that she also respects RBG's final wish.
To be absolutely 100% fair it gets the least amount of attention, especially since there isn't as much debate regarding it as their is for speech, religion, press, and assembly.
Again, they aren't making a case about her qualifications? They're asking her to not let herself be nominated before november because of the potential ramifications on america's politics it might have.Presumably, a law professor would have a more full and nuanced understanding of ACB's shortcomings as a SCOTUS justice than say... a random English or music professor.
Yeah, but that's just the demographics of the profession, I'd bet if you polled them, 60-75% of college professors would agree with that. Law professors would have more directly applicable concerns.Again, they aren't making a case about her qualifications? They're asking her to not let herself be nominated before november because of the potential ramifications on america's politics it might have.
Yeah, but that not really surprising, I'd bet if you polled them, 60-75% of college professors would agree with that. That's just the demographics of the profession. Law professors would have more directly applicable concerns.
I guess I'm wondering, her claim for every single question is that she can not make any claims or affirmation towards any thing. What has been precedent for past confirmation hearings? What is the point of holding these if a confirmation hearing can't actually get any positions aired out?
We have past decisions, opinions, and proclamation she's signed on to that makes me not trust she won't vote to steal my right to marriage.
Ah so in the past we've gotten more then. Kind of sneaky way to basically hide who she is. What was her comment when told that roberts and Thomas had answered it before?She's going way broader with her unwillingness to answer these sort of questions then past nominees have. Senator Blumenthal even pointed out quotes from prior nominees who are currently on the court, including Roberts and Thomas, who answered the exact question she was refusing to answer based on her "I can't comment on precedent" excuse.
Ah so in the past we've gotten more then. Kind of sneaky way to basically hide who she is. What was her comment when told that roberts and Thomas had answered it before?
Worth keeping in mind. Democrats have succeeded in making this woman the most unpopular SCOTUS nominee in recent history.
For real, I really cant watch much of this because its an obvious farce, the notes thing I saw on twitter tho pisses me off so much, such a manufactured thing. She doesnt need anything because it literally doesnt matter what she says. But wow let's also make sure to ask her about the blank notepad and feign being impressed.must feel so good to be her. knowing you already had the position before this event even started. damn.
Worth keeping in mind. Democrats have succeeded in making this woman the most unpopular SCOTUS nominee in recent history.
Or maybe because she's a womanRepublicans went ALL IN on "No Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year" in 2016. They clearly won the public over to that argument. Now they're rushing this woman with mere weeks before the election in 2020.
I think that's the big reason why she has lower approval ratings than Kavanaugh.
election year, more focus on her being catholic then Kavanaugh, and she's a women which also has an impact i'd imagine.
I wonder if Amy Barrett understands deep down that no one views her as a respectable or legitimate judge.
Worth keeping in mind. Democrats have succeeded in making this woman the most unpopular SCOTUS nominee in recent history.
My hope is the approval for the Supreme Court being so low opens up the country supporting adding justices.
Republicans went ALL IN on "No Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year" in 2016. They clearly won the public over to that argument. Now they're rushing this woman with mere weeks before the election in 2020.
I think that's the big reason why she has lower approval ratings than Kavanaugh.
While I'm not very hopeful myself, I'm hoping that my cynicism is dead wrong.If Democrats take the White House and the Senate and keep the House? It might!
Well I'm not entirely sure how much pressure there needs to be for that to happen but with Biden saying "he is not a fan of that" I'm like how high are the chances of that actually happening even if Democrats win everything relevant. There is too many times where Democrats prefer to take the L just to have the moral high ground.My hope is the approval for the Supreme Court being so low opens up the country supporting adding justices.
My hope is the approval for the Supreme Court being so low opens up the country supporting adding justices.
The problem is none of the theoretically elected officials will have the stomach for it regardless of how much the court's approval rating craters.
It's pretty obvious that we need the Democrats to take the White House and Senate (and keep the House), and then put pressure on them to fix the Courts after what the Right Wing has done.
Biden doesn't have to be a fan of court packing. All he needs to do is hold his nose and do what we want him to do.Well I'm not entirely sure how much pressure there needs to be for that to happen but with Biden saying "he is not a fan of that" I'm like how high are the chances of that actually happening even if Democrats win everything relevant. There is too many times where Democrats prefer to take the L just to have the moral high ground.