So your argument is that since she didn’t write the actual text of a decision which cited as support a decision that you yourself agree is concerning, but instead only concurred with it, It has no bearing on her jurisprudence?
That makes no sense. Judges are accountable for their rulings and decisions even if they aren’t the one who actually wrote the text they are agreeing with.
No one has been saying she is definitely a bad pick. But there is more than enough reason to be skeptical. Particularly considering the gravity of a lifetime appointment.
No, I did not say the decision was concerning to me. I said the opposite, in fact.
I said (and will now say again for the third time, but you already know that, demon) that there was a portion of the decision which was in passing and inconsequential to the actual decision that she need not necessarily agree with in order to agree with the overall decision. I also pointed out that no decision which she authored has been offered as evidence that there is any concern whatsoever.
Yeah judges include passing and inconsequential references in their rulings all the time. And then other judges concur with those decisions but that doesn’t reflect on their judgment or positions because they only agreed with part of the decision and certainly not the “passing and inconsequential” justifications it contained.
So your argument is that since she didn’t write the actual text of a decision which cited as support a decision that you yourself agree is concerning, but instead only concurred with it, It has no bearing on her jurisprudence?
That makes no sense. Judges are accountable for their rulings and decisions even if they aren’t the one who actually wrote the text they are agreeing with.
No one has been saying she is definitely a bad pick. But there is more than enough reason to be skeptical. Particularly considering the gravity of a lifetime appointment.
No, I did not say the decision was concerning to me. I said the opposite, in fact.
I said (and will now say again for the third time, but you already know that, demon) that there was a portion of the decision which was in passing and inconsequential to the actual decision that she need not necessarily agree with in order to agree with the overall decision. I also pointed out that no decision which she authored has been offered as evidence that there is any concern whatsoever.
Fuck you, shill.
Yeah judges include passing and inconsequential references in their rulings all the time. And then other judges concur with those decisions but that doesn’t reflect on their judgment or positions because they only agreed with part of the decision and certainly not the “passing and inconsequential” justifications it contained.
You’re an idiot.
No, I’m not. I’m interested in a substantive argument that includes a basis in an actual decision written by Barrett.
Fuck you, demon.