ACB Hearings

[LDAHL]

Well, we learned today that she truly is a partisan hack. Despite trump stating on multiple times that he wanted her sworn in before the election so that she could be on his side in any election related matters she refused to state that she would recuse herself from those matters. And even took fake umbridge at the idea that her integrity was being called into question with the question. I guess we’ll potentially get to see soon enough if she does lack the integrity she felt that that question implied.

I’m disappointed though. That would have been a great moment for fake outrage and crocodile tears to please the fat orange man and give the hearing at least a fake sense that something real was happening because as it has been so far I doubt she would be willing to answer a question regarding the color of the sky.

I like the way she cited the Ginsburg rule of “no hints, no previews”. It seemed to enrage them.

[iris lilies]

I don’t agree with the idea that women must always support women. Nor do I think her role as mother with school age children is especially important in bringing a point of view to the Supreme Court I find that concept irritating. I think her age, the fact that she’s not ancient, might be a bit of fresh air.

She can separate her personal religious beliefs from interpretation of the law. She talks about it quite a bit. It is ridiculous, the idea that her husband is going to guide her point of view on the bench. Do you think she’s gonna go home at night and ask about what she should do? Really? Did she do that in her current court appointment? Do you have the evidence?

[early morning]

[QUOTE It is ridiculous, the idea that her husband is going to guide her point of view on the bench. ][/QUOTE] OTOH, it seems ridiculous to ME that she would willingly belong to, and support, an organization in which a husband's "guidance" is a central principal - and then not even pretend to follow it. And I don't see why that membership, and her beliefs regarding male dominance and authority, should not be strongly questioned.

[Teacher Terry]

I watched the hearing yesterday and it’s pathetic that she doesn’t know what’s plainly illegal but Amy klobacher was happy to read the law to her. Yes it’s disturbing that she belongs to a fringe Catholic group that until recently called themselves handmaidens and allowed their husbands to make their decisions. It’s a joke that she was nominated but so is the person that nominated her.

[Alan]

It's interesting to see the effect of all the politicking going on in this hearing and in the media. And even more interesting to see how many people are taken in by it and then expose themselves as the judgmental wags they'd otherwise condemn.

While I really enjoy our ability to watch and sit in on important hearings such as this, I wonder if the way they've been perverted for political gain and the willingness of the masses to be duped isn't counterproductive.

[jp1]

At least she did inadvertently explain how she intends to justify overturning marriage equality.

[Alan]

At least she did inadvertently explain how she intends to justify overturning marriage equality.

I must have missed that. I have noticed over these past few days how every other questioner has spent the majority of their 30 minute questioning period trying to imply her intention to overturn everything that's dear to them, but haven't seen her approach the bait.

What did I miss?

[frugal-one]

I don’t agree with the idea that women must always support women. Nor do I think her role as mother with school age children is especially important in bringing a point of view to the Supreme Court I find that concept irritating. I think her age, the fact that she’s not ancient, might be a bit of fresh air.

She can separate her personal religious beliefs from interpretation of the law. She talks about it quite a bit. It is ridiculous, the idea that her husband is going to guide her point of view on the bench. Do you think she’s gonna go home at night and ask about what she should do? Really? Did she do that in her current court appointment? Do you have the evidence?

You obviously have not looked up the group that her parents and family were/are an integral part of.

[Alan]

You obviously have not looked up the group that her parents and family were/are an integral part of.

I think it more likely that she simply hasn't made the same assumptions as you.

[frugal-one]

I think it more likely that she simply hasn't made the same assumptions as you.

The tenets of the group were unequivocally spelled out. There is no assuming.