How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

I am glad that Cornyn asked her about the notes in front of her.
She is there - answering questions with NO notes in front of her. Impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patrick Leahy needs to retire. He is making a fool out of himself.

Also Grassley and Feinstein.

Way. Too. Old. Leahy is falling asleep in the middle of his questioning. Feinstein doesn't know where she is. Grassley . . . well he's Grassley. Enough with people who have been in office since before I was born being in charge of such important things that affect all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Right, but the Senators seem to not have this information at the ready to call her out on it. This is really disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1. She doesn't have to stress about her answers. They are literallly irrelevant, as Lindsay Graham already announced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

I am glad that Cornyn asked her about the notes in front of her.
She is there - answering questions with NO notes in front of her. Impressive.

I love that she cited Ginsburg during the judicial litmus questioning from leahy. This lady is the sh$t!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

What does this even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

What does this even mean?

“I’m salty”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

What does this even mean?

Graham started the whole process yesterday by saying, "We're not going to persuade each other. The GOP will vote yes, the Dems will vote no."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1. She doesn't have to stress about her answers. They are literallly irrelevant, as Lindsay Graham already announced.

Mostly non-answers anyway with prep for easily anticipated questions, sometimes weaponizing the words of former and current liberal justices. No great legal reasoning on display, but she did come prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1. She doesn't have to stress about her answers. They are literallly irrelevant, as Lindsay Graham already announced.

Mostly non-answers anyway with prep for easily anticipated questions, sometimes weaponizing the words of former and current liberal justices. No great legal reasoning on display, but she did come prepared.

Can you please point us to a recent SCOTUS confirmation hearing where “great legal reasoning” was on display? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1. She doesn't have to stress about her answers. They are literallly irrelevant, as Lindsay Graham already announced.

Mostly non-answers anyway with prep for easily anticipated questions, sometimes weaponizing the words of former and current liberal justices. No great legal reasoning on display, but she did come prepared.

I'm a lawyer and I have found her answers to be really basic and unimpressive. Maybe I should be on SCOTUS. I'm sure other lawyers will disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1. She doesn't have to stress about her answers. They are literallly irrelevant, as Lindsay Graham already announced.

Mostly non-answers anyway with prep for easily anticipated questions, sometimes weaponizing the words of former and current liberal justices. No great legal reasoning on display, but she did come prepared.

I'm a lawyer and I have found her answers to be really basic and unimpressive. Maybe I should be on SCOTUS. I'm sure other lawyers will disagree.

If you are a lawyer, then you should know that these hearings aren’t really about showing off your fancy lawyer chops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is brilliant and she is handling this extremely well...they can't touch her. Great job Amy.

Is easier to handle something well when you've been told the result is already set in stone no matter what you say or do.

+1. She doesn't have to stress about her answers. They are literallly irrelevant, as Lindsay Graham already announced.

Mostly non-answers anyway with prep for easily anticipated questions, sometimes weaponizing the words of former and current liberal justices. No great legal reasoning on display, but she did come prepared.

I'm a lawyer and I have found her answers to be really basic and unimpressive. Maybe I should be on SCOTUS. I'm sure other lawyers will disagree.

I agree. She told us why she likes originalism - because it's easy. Like the dissent she's discussing now, where she said felons can own guns, but can be forbidden from voting.