Amy Barrett has extensive background as legal scholar. That is a type of experience that is extremely valuable on the Court as part of the mix of skills and knowledge that need to be on the court. And it made her judicial philosophy highly knowable and it was upon that philosophy that she was chosen for the court. With consideration to the desire to have a woman also being a consideration. Jackson, in contrast, was unable to even articulate her judicial philosophy. She just babbled out something about her methodology being her philosophy, whatever that means. And said that her philosophy was to be fair and examine the facts. Just bullshit. That is not a philosophy, it is just a fundamental requirement for all judges. It is like asking a doctor what his philosophy toward patient care and medicine is and he says: "I examine patients and do what I think is right." Ah okay. Did not matter though. All the dems wanted was someone of skin color who sits down when peeing. The fact that she could not even define what a woman was let them know that she was one of them.
yeah...... you have short term memory: "Judge Amy Coney Barrett isn't the first Supreme Court nominee in recent history to hide behind the disingenuous notion that a nominee "can't offer an opinion" on possible legal issues that may come before her as a future justice. Much has already been said about her failure to give clear answers about her views of the Affordable Care Act or Roe v. Wade. However, she has taken the art of giving non-answer answers to a new low this week on a matter that affects us all: the stability and security of our elections. On multiple occasions, she gave troubling answers as to whether America can be assured of free, fair and safe elections. This is all the more concerning in light of the fact that more than 10 million people have already cast ballots and open questions about how safe and stable the 2020 election will be."
No that is not going to work. A nominee can and should refrain from commenting on cases that are or could be before the court. That does not mean that their judicial views and philosophy based on the large body of experience cannot be examined and knowable- as it clearly was based on Amy's vast, vast writings on the law and her views. Jackson had nothing- even if allowing for her to not comment on pending or possible cases. Big difference.
If she ever says "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K", I'm nominating you the next President, Ocho.
"We will work together, and continue to work together, to address these issues…and to work together as we continue to work, operating from the new norms, rules, and agreements, that we will convene to work together...We will work on this together"