Yeah, except her answers are NOT "evasive." She simply refused to answer hypothetical questions. How on earth would anyone know how they'd rule on supposition. Vanity Fair, another publication for my "I won't miss you when you go bankrupt" file.
I'd agree with that in almost every example you could come up with, except a judicial nominee. It's so disingenuous for the congressional interviewers to ask questions they know cannot be answered (applies to both sides.) It's always a set-up for rhetoric as is in this article. "Cannot Ethically Answer In The Negative"="Sees A Scenario Where the Death Penalty Applies" It truly infuriates me.
I walked through the den earlier and saw some idiot Democrat senator speaking about the "questions that needed to be answered" about and by Ms. Coney-Barrett. My response to the dolt was "well, why the hell didn't you attend the hearings and ASK HER, you gigantic waste of oxygen???"
Yeh, Hal started a Welcome Aboard, Amy thread here. I've been whining that Trump's first "conservative justice" ain't. We'll have to see how this one works out.
Personally, I don't believe a Supreme Court Justice should have any political leanings whatsoever. So no liberal, no conservative... just someone to support the Constitution and the laws of this country.
Agreed 100%. They are there to adjudicate the law; otherwise, our representative legislative system may as well not exist. I only put it in that context because that's how Hal started the thread...context does not exist here.