Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzgirl
Fixed it for you.
|
So that's pretty standard and not answering questions regarding cases which may come before her follows with the judicial canons. My cousin is the Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice right now. I am fine to discuss my own cases with her at family gatherings as whenever I appeal, she recuses, so those cases are definitely not going before her. Literally any other case, I know better than to bring up, even in a private conversation.
And the last Justice appointed by either party who really did answer questions and invited a spirited discussion with the opposing Senators was Robert Bork, and you remember how that went.
I don't like that she is being appointed. I disagree with textualism. I think it's a hoax. They claim these philosophies so they can seem all pure and idealistic, but I've seen the hyper-textualist Scalia do some pretty great mental gymnastics to try and tell us that the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the power to regulate marijuana grown entirely within a state using implements and materials only from within the state to be sold only within the state because in his view, it would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce and therefore, the feds can list it as a schedule 1 susbtance.
Hybrid Mode
