03-24-2022, 07:21 PM
(03-24-2022, 07:07 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I was not defending her response. I think it was a weak response. She was just playing dodge ball, because these hearings are less about finding the right person for the job, and more like a game of "Whack A Mole".
The representatives have to have their time in the lime light, and they want their stars, likes, and up votes, from around the internet. It all has the appearance and atmosphere of a TV show. I can almost here them all saying, "You're Fired!"
I wish like Hell we could fire the whole lot of them.
I understood that, and agree - she WAS being evasive with her response. I was simply pointing out in my ham-fisted way that we should not be placing a "judge" on the bench who does not even know basic legal definitions. How can we expect her to properly apply law if she does not even know what law is?
To that, I might add that it could potentially be a very bad idea to emplace a justice on the SCOTUS who has a hard time taking an affirmative stance and sticking to it - that seems to me to not be a very "judgely" quality.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’