When people defend her they always explain her words with reasons/traits that are not virtues for a judge. The only answer for a judge here is the correct one. If she wanted to demonstrate political understanding should could have addressed the lunacy. She could have made a cohesive comment about the 1964 CRA and recent decisions. Instead she showed herself to be dumb, partisan, and willing to deny the truth.
[ + ] NastyNancy
[ - ] NastyNancy 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 26, 2022 06:34:33 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 26, 2022 08:43:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 2 points 3.1 yearsMar 26, 2022 09:27:33 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] hootersmcboobies
[ - ] hootersmcboobies 2 points 3.1 yearsMar 26, 2022 11:44:10 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 26, 2022 14:13:43 ago (+1/-0)
"Describe the flow of blood in the human body."
"I am not a cardiologist."
"Label the organs in the frog"
"I am not a biologist"
etc.
Fun tactic to bring down the entire educational system.
[ + ] Neral
[ - ] Neral 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 27, 2022 01:24:22 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 28, 2022 10:20:54 ago (+0/-0)