Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire

[Ephcc90]

The argument being made is Tucker would have asked for LSAT for any nominee because they are D's.
That is totally false because he never asked for them for past D nominees.

Agree, he would not have asked for a white person's LSAT but I would be shocked if he didn't make the same claim about Sotomayer.

[CountValentine]

Agree, he would not have asked for a white person's LSAT but I would be shocked if he didn't make the same claim about Sotomayer.

We should also remember he never mentioned anything about AA. That would be a whole different discussion.
It would show how when minorities are given the same opportunities as whites they excel. He would not want that discussion.

[aygart]

This all besides that LSAT score are a ridiculous data point to even consider in a SCOTUS discussion. It is like asking a R Gershon Edelstein how he did on his mesivta faher.

[drosenberg88429]

We should also remember he never mentioned anything about AA. That would be a whole different discussion.

Let's save that rabbit hole for a different (longer) Friday.

[CountValentine]

This all besides that LSAT score are a ridiculous data point to even consider in a SCOTUS discussion. It is like asking a R Gershon Edelstein how he did on his mesivta faher.

I have no idea what the second sentence means.
Your first point is correct so that begs the question of why did he go there?
I will the "duck" answer that. 

[CountValentine]

Let's save that rabbit hole for a different (longer) Friday.

Today is shorter?

[zh cohen]

I have no idea what the second sentence means.

Mesivta - Talmudic High School

Farher - (Entry) Exam

I leave describing who R' Gershon Edelstein is to someone else.

[aygart]

I leave describing who R' Gershon Edelstein is to someone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershon_Edelstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponevezh_Yeshiva

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1499442460317126657

[CountValentine]

Wow, he even misspoke then.

What was the point they are trying to make?

[CountValentine]

If you can't attack her qualifications then go for the dirt.

[YitzyS]

If you can't attack his qualifications then go for the dirt.

FTFY, September 2018

[CountValentine]

FTFY, September 2018

If you have a sexual assault claim it must be investigated. That is justice, not dirt.
Dirt is when you throw out there she is for sexual predators and against children.

[YitzyS]

If you have a sexual assault claim it must be investigated.

It must first be sat on for months and then released right at the tail end of the proceedings.

[CountValentine]

It must first be sat on for months and then released right at the tail end of the proceedings.

It still needs to be investigated.
That is not what is happening or going to happen now. AFAIK there are no allegations against her of illegal activity.

[zh cohen]

If you can't attack her qualifications then go for the dirt.

Huh?

Questions about her judicial philosophy are the point of confirmation hearings.

[CountValentine]

Huh?

Questions about her judicial philosophy are the point of confirmation hearings.

Throwing dirt is not.
Here I thought the proceedings were about if the person was qualified to serve.
Both Scalia and Ginsburg had strong philosophies at opposite ends on the spectrum. Both were overwhelmingly confirmed.

[aygart]

What did I miss here?

[zh cohen]

What did I miss here?

Josh Hawley publicizing Jackson's longstanding view that some people convicted of child porn are punished too harshly.

ETA: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-exposes-judge-jacksons-alarming-pattern-sentencing-leniency-sex-criminals

[aygart]

Josh Hawley publicizing Jackson's longstanding view that some people convicted of child porn are punished too harshly.

ETA: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-exposes-judge-jacksons-alarming-pattern-sentencing-leniency-sex-criminals

I am missing anything else? What are the hearings supposed to be about if not the judicial record and philosophy of the nominee?