Simple question, but please explain why.
I voted no but it makes no difference. She is going to be confirmed.
I said no for several reasons.
She sounded like she would use foreign law as a reason to make certain rulings though she didn't come right out and say so.
She wouldn't come out and say that a law requiring you to eat 3 vegetables and 3 fruits a day would be unconstitutional. I realize WHY she wouldn't (mandatory purchase of healthcare) that she will probably be ruling on in the future) but that really bothered me.
Also her replacement of words in a memo about partial birth abortion while in the Clinton administration.
I feel that she would make rulings on precedents more than on what the constitution says.
I voted no.
Because from what I've heard about her, we could do far better in choosing a member of the highest court in the country.
But perhaps I am wrong.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Yes, they should confirm her. She is qualified for the position and that's the only thing they should be making their judgment upon.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.