SHEESH!!! Give a little thought to peoples' childhood nightmares willya?! Objects in the rearview mirror may be closer than they appear!!
I would hope and assume that the US Constitution is on the syllabus of a Constitutional Law Course you wrote at length about something that had no bearing on the Judge not knowing about Article II and V of the US Constitution
i don't care how often it comes up i expect a judge in the US legal system to be at least familiar with Article II and V in the US Constitution he wasnt even asking her how they would be used or applied.... he just asked her what they were!
i cry for my country where its acceptable for a Judge not to know what's in the US Constitution or be afraid to 'define what a woman is' you are accepting of both because its in line with your Leftist beliefs
And you opt to be ignorant of science despite the facts repeatedly having been offered to you. You complain about one judge "not knowing the Constitution" (with no evidence that Republican appointees do, for the record), yet you choose to remain ignorant about factual science despite having been taught it multiple times. It seems to me you have no place to criticize others for their lack of knowledge when you deliberately choose to remain ignorant and deny reality because of your "rightist" beliefs. Seems to me you are once again engaging in Performative Outrage.
what exactly do you mean by science? the stuff the Left has made up in the last 3-5 years? changing the definitions of common scientific ideas and principles to suit the Left is not science I certainly will not take any science lessons from you or from anyone else here who thinks that science is dependent on consensus
Science is dependent on testing hypotheses and formulating theories to explain why the hypotheses were upheld. If you think that science does not continue to make discoveries - that it was frozen at some time in the past - then you are mistaken. And what you mean by "changing the definitions of common scientific ideas and principles" is grossly misleading if not blatantly dishonest. Science is dependent on testing hypotheses and formulating theories to explain why the hypotheses were upheld. Sometimes new evidence disproves previously held theories. When that happens, new theories have to be developed. That is how science works. You remind me of the religious people who scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo because it was obvious the sun revolved around the earth. It was blatantly obvious to everyone and supported by the Bible (I mean, how else could the sun stop in the sky?). But guess what, new evidence disproved that. Scientific evidence long ago disproved that gender and biological sex are the same thing. Just because you only starting hearing about it in the last 3-5 years does not mean it is new. I gave you references to scientific books and articles dated well before 3-5 years and you chose not to read them. You have no excuse for your deliberate ignorance of reality - for your ignorance.
You should. Do you expect a federal judge to be familiar with what Articles apply to, or what Articles explicitly say? The prior matters in court, but if miss labeling the articles, so what, as long as the legal aspect is correct. If the latter matters to you more, then you are not interested in what the law says. Which says it was for show. Science has changed the definition of common scientific ideas and principals as long as there has been an idea of science. IOW, forever. Science changes the definition of common scientific knowledge and principals every year...really, every day. For you, it seems, that when there is a contradiction with the Bible, you turn to the Bible (a book based on documents multiple thousands of years old). That is a really stupid position to take. Anti-science is the position taken on consensus. Science is that position taken on hypothesis and testing, followed by hypothesis and testing, followed by...you get the picture.[/quote]
It’s frankly embarrassing that the senator is so poorly prepared for oversight that he asks those first 4 questions to veteran trial judges time for the retirement village!
Wait, we’re all pretending that it’s not bad if a judge doesn’t know the articles of the Constitution? It is, folks, it is. *I* know the first 3 articles. If some schmuck in Virginia Beach knows that, a judge should.
Sigh! Now I understand Auria frustration with you at times. You are smart enough to know that now in these judge interviews nothing substantive comes of it. Republican senators as Republican nominated judges to tells us about their hobbies and Democratic ones why did they not give a kiddie diddler the death penalty. So the tactic has become for a lot of Democratic nominated judges to give nothing. Every question is a gotcha question. "Can you define a woman?" You ask for particulars and clarification before deciding it would imprudent to do so. Taking these out of the eclipse of Fox News. Same goes for constitutional amendments. It is all a setup to get their face on TV.
I don’t agree that “can you define a woman” is the same as asking what is in Article II. I guess you disagree. The reason I don’t think the second question is a gotcha is that all she had to say was, Article II governs the executive branch. Done and done. If your doctor couldn’t answer the question of what the heart does, would you trust her with your health? Not the best analogy, I know, but c’mon.
Your hopes are dashed. Your assumption is wrong. I have explained it, even provided links so you could actually verify what I wrote, but you continue to refuse to see reality, as you would rather deal in "hopes and assumptions" instead of facts. In the immortal words of your two time vote Donald Tr*mp, "Sad."
Republicans are always going to act in bad faith. Always. Senator Methforbreakfast wasn't asking the candidate if she knew what Article II of the Constitution was. He was setting her up for a gotcha, and she refused to participate. It's about time Democrats started fighting back instead of playing along.
No, not the best analogy. It is almost as bad of an analogy as Marek's was (mathematician not knowing 2x2). Yes, she should have been able to answer the questions (especially about Article II), but answering or not answering those completely irrelevant questions has no bearing on whether she will make a good judge. There was no reason for that question, other than to embarrass the nominee, for the reasons I stated previously. For the record, I have no idea who the interviewee is or whether she would make a good federal judge. My sole point in engaging, and continuing to engage on this was to point out the ridiculousness of Senator Kennedy asking the dumb questions and then his awful retort "Don't they teach Constitutional Law in law school?" The questions have no bearing on Constitutional Law as taught in law school.
You exploded your own hot take here imagine if the senator asked a doctor ‘do you know what the heart is’ but the doctor is not a heart doctor it’s a absurd question at a pathetic level of triviality
I agree with the first paragraph. As to the second, we’ll never know, because she didn’t say that Article II is about the executive branch. So we’ll never know what fake farm boy Kennedy would have said in response. And yeah, it probably would have been a dumb ass question, but my point was, two things can be true. She should have given a better answer, AND Senator Kennedy is a disingenuous piece of shit.