I don't mind her adhering to her faith. I do mind her importing that faith into her legal decisions. Also, if her faith was Islam, the Rethuglicans would be losing their minds.
"Barrett is required to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee all public talks she has given in her professional career, according to a committee staffer."
If I had to do that I'd miss a few events from 7 years ago too, and I don't speak in public near as often as a law professor at a large university.
I would as well. But I don't think it was her alone filling out the disclosure at the kitchen table, while backscrolling through her google calendar. There were teams of people working on this (or at least scrub reviewing it before it was submitted). This guy went to archive.org and found the history, so I presume it didn't take him long. I don't think it's particularly useful either way, but it certainly looks more like "tried to avoid giving the senators anything additional to attack her" vs. "oops, I forgot that one". Given the other stuff she did disclose and her know history those events are not really surprising, I'm surprised they omitted them.
Having just read the piece, that's my takeaway as well. If it was merely an oversight, she and her staff did a sloppy job. If it was intentional, for what end? c.
I don't mind her adhering to her faith. I do mind her importing that faith into her legal decisions. Also, if her faith was Islam, the Rethuglicans would be losing their minds.
"Barrett is required to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee all public talks she has given in her professional career, according to a committee staffer."
If I had to do that I'd miss a few events from 7 years ago too, and I don't speak in public near as often as a law professor at a large university.
I would as well. But I don't think it was her alone filling out the disclosure at the kitchen table, while backscrolling through her google calendar. There were teams of people working on this (or at least scrub reviewing it before it was submitted). This guy went to archive.org and found the history, so I presume it didn't take him long. I don't think it's particularly useful either way, but it certainly looks more like "tried to avoid giving the senators anything additional to attack her" vs. "oops, I forgot that one". Given the other stuff she did disclose and her know history those events are not really surprising, I'm surprised they omitted them.
"Barrett is required to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee all public talks she has given in her professional career, according to a committee staffer."
If I had to do that I'd miss a few events from 7 years ago too, and I don't speak in public near as often as a law professor at a large university.
The important question is Why would her confirmation be "glorious"? Supreme Court appointments should be boring AF and reassuring in that.
If they went about their business and it was unemotional - even rational - then it would alienate their reactive, hysterical, vengeful base. You know, the ones who think there's some benefit to the nation to "own the libs."
(Spoiler: it just means they're looking for an ego boost by feeling like they're bigger and stronger, since they can't compete in any other way)
