For instance, when the senator asked her if the Constitution was a "living document", her answer was not clear. She said it was "immutable" except by amendment and then stumbled (ad libbed?) the part about the specification of the amendment process in the Constitution. She said that the document has stood the test of time for 200 years and then ends the statement with "it is society that changes." What does that mean? Is that the caveat that allows her to ignore the Constitution?
It is frightening to think that this exchange was scripted. In fact, I can't tell that she was coached at all. She sounds like she's trying very hard to keep a lid on things. She sounds like she is ready to explode. And we want this thing on the highest bench in the land?
No comments:
Post a Comment