She never said that she would go against the rule of law. Of course the law is supreme, but how are you supposed to block out your understanding of life in order to make a blind decision? It's CRAZY to say that anyone checks their own experiences and history at the door when sitting at the bench.
Asked by Anonymous at 10:21 AM on Jul. 14, 2009 in Politics & Current Events
Answer by beckcorc at 11:45 AM on Jul. 16, 2009
Answer by BEXi at 10:27 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
It's the fact that she feels that she can come to a BETTER CONCLUSION than anyone else because of her life experience. SHE brought up her heritage as a part of her decision making process. Not the other way around.
Answer by Anonymous at 10:28 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 10:29 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Answer by Carpy at 10:29 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Answer by BEXi at 10:29 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 10:38 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Well then, she shouldn't be surprised to have to answer to that. What do you expect, the right to roll over just because O thinks she is the bomb? Get over it. It's a hearing that every SC nominee goes through. Their words and decisions are up for complete and total scrutiny. If she wasn't prepared for it, she shouldn't have accepted the nom. Furthermore, I think her words that the bench is where policy is made is far more concerning than the comment about her life experience.
Answer by Anonymous at 10:53 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 10:55 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Answer by Carpy at 11:02 AM on Jul. 14, 2009
Next question overall
Going to my appointment to find out the sex of the baby!