>> The're not looking for justification, they already have that.

> They're fine in asking some questions but it's unfair for them to ask her
> about her policy views; she's obviously a Republican, so hypothetically, the
> answers to their hypothetical questions should be inferred.

This is the same process as always, there is nothing different about it.

When the senate installs a justice to decide issues of law they want to know
how that person interprets the laws they write.

The senate will not (I hope) install a justice that decides cases of law in a
way that will be outside of what the senates laws set out to do in the first
place.

> If they had any reason not to confirm her, it would be out in the open. The
> whole senate, on both sides, has turned it into a cultural phenomenon. Their
> role in the USSC is to either vote & confirm, or play around and waste time.
> Must be a fun job! It would be rare for a SC nominee to be rejected.

There is a mountain of reason not to confirm Barrett. We don't even need to
question her, we can see it in her writings/doings.

> A Democratic senate vetoed one of GHW Bush's nominees because the guy was
> heterosexual and drank alcohol. Back then these Senate dems were anti-lots of
> stuff, but now that they defend criminals, they are ganging up on an
> adorable lady and intuition tells us that this little blondie is pro-life and
> if you ask her expecting a different answer, you're playing the senate
> confirmation game well.

Her pro-lifeness is OK, her being a tool to do gods work is another.

We do not want or need the state deciding for us what faith or morals we should
live by. Women don't want or need the state to decide for them if they should
have an abortion.

People should be free to live their lives as they choose.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4