It's actually a good rule considering the hypotheticals are not real cases, are not nuanced in any way, and are meant as gotcha questions 99% of the time.
A judge should be able to take a hypothetical and say something like, "Well given those parameters and some basic law I know from the top of my head I would say X would be an appropriate response."
Like different people can have vastly different answers to the same question I don't tink its unreasonable tbh..
As a judge she is allowed to explain her methodology for a ruling but she can't give opinions that demonstrate political leanings or else she risks being deemed unfit for the job...
This is established precedent. A nominee judge won't answer hypothetical questions about cases that might come before them.
It doesn't prevent Democrats from trying to bait them, though.
In this case, Hawley was simply getting the news out there on national TV.
No, it's not ridiculous.
Judges are not supposed to pre-judge a case.
Of course, Democrats are allowed, but Republicans can't.
It's actually a good rule considering the hypotheticals are not real cases, are not nuanced in any way, and are meant as gotcha questions 99% of the time.
That's an overly broad statement to rule on. She's not a legislator. Cases that come to the SC are specific cases. Also wtf is an assault weapon?
she explains why she can't many times and the reasoning is sound.
Yeah, I agree with you.
A judge should be able to take a hypothetical and say something like, "Well given those parameters and some basic law I know from the top of my head I would say X would be an appropriate response."
Like different people can have vastly different answers to the same question I don't tink its unreasonable tbh..
As a judge she is allowed to explain her methodology for a ruling but she can't give opinions that demonstrate political leanings or else she risks being deemed unfit for the job...