Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
A judge shouldn't express "feelings" about binding precedent. Most judges must have feelings about what came before that they must follow. They shouldn't allow that to impact decisions. The whole "how do you feel about X" grew out of Roe. I doubt it came up before the 80s.
I don't disagree she probably believes whites and blacks shouldn't be in school together, but without the "how do you feel about Citizen's" question the answer appears okay. If one of Pony's associates came back with this as a dep transcript, he'd fire the guy. Ask the money question, not just the one that causes your base to post quotes of your question on social media.
|
I don't really want to continue this. I don't disagree with you when it comes to judges who are qualified for the positions they are being nominated for. However, the ABA graded her as unqualified. If she is unqualified, there is only one reason why she is being nominated to the bench and that's her ideology. If she refuses to answer questions about even basic positions she's taken publicly (and I think the headline should have been more about her positions on abortion) and declines to answer questions about where she stands on settled law, then she should be deemed a danger to our system of justice and not allowed anywhere near a bench.
TM
