General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo why are hypotheticals not ok during SCOTUS confirmation hearings
But are perfectly fine during arguments before (and by) them?
Seems that the hypotheticals play a much more important role during the vetting process to see whether one should be seated.
unblock
(52,494 posts)Bobstandard
(1,334 posts)It just as poster above says, the right wingers just dont want to address them. Their real opinions would lose them confirmation votes.
Ms. Toad
(34,127 posts)Not being expected to answer them.
It is the attorneys ethical responsibility to advocate for their clients, by answering hypotheticals in the way that best serves their client. They are supposed to be biased.
Justices are not. It is their ethical responsibility NOT to state opinions on masters they might later be expected to rule on.
former9thward
(32,151 posts)A senator can ask whatever they want. In the modern era confirmations have turned into a series of gotcha questions against the nominee by the opposing party. So, nominees have been reluctant to answer, and they use the excuse they may have to rule on the issue in a future case.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Not on some hypothetical case that might happen in the future?