Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I just don't think nominees ever answer these types of questions. Maybe there are examples that prove the rule, Now I most certainly don't listen to much of these hearings so this is second hand opinion, but I don't think those asking these questions even expect an answer. Heck, maybe a nominee should take one such as this and shock them all into silence with a real answer for a change.
I mean, I can now see how that community might think that's how "sexual preference" is being used by those who believe it is a choice. They've had to fight against the idea of choice for a while. But, I can easily use "preference" in many other statements without someone assuming it suggests choice.
Assuming one acts on those preferences, how are they not implying a choice? Arguing that you might prefer something but choose something else is probably not a good argument to make in this case. Neither would be that those are my preferences, but I'm not given that choice.
Election date is set by statute, not the Constitution. I think it's reasonable that a judge would say they can't answer that question without further analysis. I guess it's possible that there is a provision that allows the executive to move that date in case of national emergency or something. Seems unlikely, but unless you've already done the analysis, I don't think it's wise for a judge to offer an opinion on that legal question.
Excellent example of why not spreading wrong information on both sides is so important. By the time the "correction" comes out, the damage is already done.
The action is a choice. The preference isn't. Just because you prefer something, doesn't mean you've made a choice yet. Our choices are driven by our preferences.
What she is doing is actually very smart. she is reinforcing the notion that she, by herself, is not going to make a unilateral decision or opine the proposed question. Instead, she is reiterating in almost every response she is giving that -
I dunno. She used the term "sexual preference" which is deeply problematic as of about 5 minutes ago. That might be a game-changer, folks.
Its all semantics and time-drag at this point. The Democrats on the committee have already stated point blank they will not vote for her confirmation.
I agree in the bit I listened to she is saying many of the correct things. She carries herself well as well. Much better than Kavanaugh.
That attitude in a modern society is absolutely unacceptable and a disqualifier for the highest court in the land. She should be called out vigorously and repeatedly.Yikes!
I thought it was the opposite of well when she asked ACB if Roe v Wade was a Super Precedent and when asked her definition more or less couldn't answer.
Not sure if you're being serious or facetious. I can't imagine Republicans flipping their votes over it.
You did, also if she committed any. Sounds like the Democrats laying the groundwork here for another Blassey Ford debacle-
She said she asks that question of everyone (in scope of some context related to appointments/hiring/positions/etc).
Without any supporting context?
I don't think its nearly the same as your "how about" question. Seems a legitimate question if she does, in fact, ask it of anyone if they have done so. Especially in today's climate.
You think it was a legitimate question to ask? Because Hirono says she asks everyone that question, it makes it ok? My example was tongue in cheek, but the point is that it is not only a baseless question, but its also pretty offensive.
I think for a lifetime appointment...and even some other long term things...yes, it is legitimate to ask if the person has ever been accused of such things. I don't find it offensive to be asked such thing at all.
He’s letting her talk more than any others I’ve seen the last hour or so. He’s actually asking questions.
He does like to hear himself speak. But he's actually a really great listener. If I was going to have a conversation about my issues with a Senator, he'd be high on my list of Senators to talk to.
