I accept your correction on this point.
I disagree. She has done ( R ) and religion. She is guilty.
I believe that you are correct. Neither a qualifier or disqualifier.
No? Weren’t you counting religious heads earlier? Catholics, 7 out of 9, that sort of thing?
RGB’s interpretations were a nightmare to be honest.
Falls in line with liberal interpretation that the Constitution is a living, breathing document,
Yes. Which is BS of course.
The point being that these were opinions based on law, or her legal philosophy. You can agree or disagree. I think you would find it difficult to find an opinion that is based on “personal” opinion. Whereas a legal opinion that is based on religious dogma is not acceptable. I could go on with why all conservative arguments against abortion cannot be sustained without reference to religious doctrine, but that’s for another conversation.
This attack mode is the new norm for how the Dems conduct themselves (whenever they are not in charge).
Keep in mind, that hearings are not mandatory here either-only that Senators ultimately vote when the Senate majority leader calls for it as defined in the Upper Chamber rules.
Murkowski now says she may vote for the nominee.
Oh i think she usually ruled based on personal opinion rather than the constitution.
I’m sure you wouldn’t feel this way if the person were Muslim.
If 66% of the SCOTUS was Muslim? Yes, that would be a problem. Wanted to interpret the Constitution according to the Qur’an, hadith and shira? Yes, a problem. Don’t project what you think you know about me, because you will be largely wrong.