A Supreme Court Justice nominee who doesn't know the Constitution?

If Klobuchar simply asked her if it was illegal, Amy would have obviously said YES, but Klobuchar had to preface the question by giving her opinion that 'poll watching' is 'voter intimidation.' I think that Amy still should have just said YES, but it seems that she didn't want it to appear that she was calling poll watching illegal.

 

She can’t answer those types of questions. Any question dealing with a matter which might be in front of the courts is off limits.

It’s not just her. Go to one of these events where your local judges are being voted in and ask them the same questions. Ask them about their views on the 2nd amendment or anything that might have to do with a case that could be brought before them and their answer will be the same. “I can’t answer that question.”

 

If you honestly believe she doesn’t know the constitution verbatim after she spit out case law, quotes from decisions and references and sources right and left during questioning with ZERO notes... you’re just not being honest.

 

Ask Amy if the 2nd Amendment exists and I guarantee she'll say yes

Ask if if voter intimidation is illegal and ...nope

 

Ben Sasse asked her the five freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights...and she failed

 

You're not following the discussion. Nobody asked her to comment on any case.

This
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-constitution.579761/page-3#post-1072124514

 

How do you force a woman to give birth?

 

Deny her the right to abortion

 

She can always kill the kid with a coat hanger

 

How is asking her about a law in an interview where she will administer the law, not be relevant to her qualifications?

What is politically charged about voter intimidation being illegal? By not answering, she politically charged it. But it's a softball question that any judge who is not politically guided would answer without even thinking. There she demonstrated that she was appointed for her political positions. And that she will be a very activist justice. Just like her mentor, Scalia.

 

Yes they did....on issues that could becomes cases.

Because you said that on your thread about not picking a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS a few weeks ago

 

Which is exactly WHY we ended up with Roe

 

To legally murder babies...got it!

 

And here come the abortion zealots

 

She was not asked about issues or cases but rather if she was aware of Constitutional provisions and election laws

She refused to answer. Does that signal her opposition to those provisions and laws?

you bet​

 

yes...related to potential cases that might come up...

Face it....this is the RGB rule...it's appropriate

 

Acknowledging that a law exists is not that... regardless of how many times you make that claim

 

obviously she is aware there are statutues on the books...she couldn't comment on the hypo preented by the Senator.

Who asked if sending former military folks to be at polls is a violation of the law.

 

I'm not sure why they bother with the pretense of a hearing. It's just theater. She could answer, "Yes, if Trump loses, I will do everything in my power to keep him in office," and she would still be confirmed.

Our SCOTUS process is a joke.

 

Obviously? Why is that obvious? She claimed otherwise

 

huh? No sure didnt....she never claimed voter intimidation wasn't a crime.

 

/thread,

...but there are still many $.05 per post to be made, so expect the thread to go on and on and on and on.

Thread is great shilldar though. No one passing the mirror test who actually watched the hearings, and not referring to a prepared talking points memo provided by their employer, could make the claim that ACB didn't know the Constitution.

 

If she gets into the court and votes for the litigant, it won't kill the ACA. Much ado about nothing.

 

Actually...yea it will...that's the whole point

 

Ok. You are obviously refusing (I am compelled by forum rules to say) to understand that they are not asking her about any law.

Thanks anyway....