For sure, I believe her comments on George Floyd and boys and girls could point to a justice that will bend to popular will. That being said, she will be heads and shoulders better than RBG no doubt!
Questions asked to her about Floyd, or asked to Trump by Wallace about "White Supremacists in Kenosha and Portland" are deliberately designed traps. If you deny the framing of the question, you will immediately painted as a white supremacist yourself. If you indeed agree to the framing of the question, you are now complicit in peddling the blatant lie.
In the case of ACB, I dont think there was any other way she could have realistically replied without taking a LOT of heat, potentially derailing the nomination. Yes, I really cringed when she answered regarding Floyd, but she did her job there - I don't think it was indicative of a justice that will bend to the popular will. Infact she made some really nice hidden attacks that went completely un-noticed by the senators, I got a feeling she won't let anyone bend her to their will.
Yeah its true. She took path of least resistance at times, and I believe it is to ensure she doesn't make GOP senators' job harder.
Remember, her primary job in this hearing is to make it as easy for the GOP to confirm her as possible, while also ensuring she does not make any bad promises. As long as in the process she doesn't turn away any normies in large numbers (and she hasnt) she has done the job.
Couldnt bother watching the whole thing. TL;DR on why "ACB could be disaster"?
For sure, I believe her comments on George Floyd and boys and girls could point to a justice that will bend to popular will. That being said, she will be heads and shoulders better than RBG no doubt!
Questions asked to her about Floyd, or asked to Trump by Wallace about "White Supremacists in Kenosha and Portland" are deliberately designed traps. If you deny the framing of the question, you will immediately painted as a white supremacist yourself. If you indeed agree to the framing of the question, you are now complicit in peddling the blatant lie.
In the case of ACB, I dont think there was any other way she could have realistically replied without taking a LOT of heat, potentially derailing the nomination. Yes, I really cringed when she answered regarding Floyd, but she did her job there - I don't think it was indicative of a justice that will bend to the popular will. Infact she made some really nice hidden attacks that went completely un-noticed by the senators, I got a feeling she won't let anyone bend her to their will.
I hope you are right. She definitely took the path of least resistance which in certain situations, makes sense.
Hopefully she will have the resolve and fortitude to not fall into that trap as a supreme court justice.
Hope you can tune into the show!
Yeah its true. She took path of least resistance at times, and I believe it is to ensure she doesn't make GOP senators' job harder.
Remember, her primary job in this hearing is to make it as easy for the GOP to confirm her as possible, while also ensuring she does not make any bad promises. As long as in the process she doesn't turn away any normies in large numbers (and she hasnt) she has done the job.