When asked during the hearings if it would be Constitutional to criminalize IVF treatments, she will not answer & says that that’s a hypothetical question. It is not a hypothetical at all.

Oct 13, 2020 · 8:20 PM UTC

55
133
8
783
Replying to @marwilliamson
Yes, it is, because she has not seen the specific statute in question.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Of course not. But why do I have to pay for someone else’s damned IVF treatment?
Replying to @marwilliamson
The point is that she can't weigh in on opinions without the judicial process.
8
Replying to @marwilliamson
It is hypothetical question until a specific case comes to SCOTUS for opinion. DETAILS matter.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
I don't think you know what that word means...
Replying to @marwilliamson
What about Trump taking Regeneron developed with aborted fetal kidney stem cells? What are ACB’s views on using aborted fetal cells for research & development of drugs. yes or no? It is not hypothetical Trump took the drug.
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
She is trying to adhere to the letter of the law and they are doing everything they can to try and destroy her and it’s not working
4
17
Replying to @marwilliamson
She as a supreme court justice is hypothetical af.
Replying to @marwilliamson
The real crime is that their obfuscation and avoidance are even legal, frankly.
Replying to @marwilliamson
In this setting, it is. Judges cannot share their personal beliefs or opinions as it is their job to determine each case put in front of them objectively and fairly without personal opinion or bias. If you can't understand why its inappropriate, then you don't know enough.
Load more