Which demonstrates your ignorance about the purpose of a SCOTUS justice.

She is being confirmed to a position in which the one, single, only consideration is the letter of the Constitution, not her personal 🎵feelings 🎶, as the Democrats seem to believe supercede a justice's (or any judge's, for that matter) duty to apply the rule of law.

It is not a job for a political activist, as the Democrats (your ilk) would prefer.

Yet, the not so Fine Steen and other Democrats are using up their hearing minutes preaching to her about Obamacare, the evils of Trump and all sorts of things not pertinent to the hearings at hand.

Fig A: a hand ✋

As she has repeatedly and correctly replied that it would be completely improper for her to mix her irrelevant personal beliefs with her qualifications to be confirmed to the Court.

It has been established that throughout her legal career, she has steadfastly remained an originalist, her teachings and her decisions deferring unerringly and homogeneously to the letter of the Constitution.

The only thing any thinking person could surmise by your post and by the nature of the Democrats' lines of "questioning" at the hearings thus far is that they are afraid of the Constitution because it is inconvenient for their political agendas.

come on Weasel,, pay attention.. trump is hoping that as his lose becomes every more certain, he can use the SC to postpone, halt or reverse the e******n. Or at least stop most of the Dem v**es..

he needs to stay in office to avoid the indictments waiting for him, both at the federal and state level. he may get the pardon for the feds, one way or another but the state charges will be on him like fleas on a dog..

so he is grasping at the conservatives he put on the court to rescue him.. easy peasy .. very obvious.. If he can end the ACA ending health care for 20 million Americans, well that would be so much better in his eyes.. women's health,, end that for sure.. another purpose of the se******n..

I think your brain has flea larva crawling around in it.
I can't wait for his 1st State of the Union of his 2nd term

come on Weasel,, pay attention.. trump is hoping that as his lose becomes every more certain, he can use the SC to postpone, halt or reverse the e******n. Or at least stop most of the Dem v**es..

he needs to stay in office to avoid the indictments waiting for him, both at the federal and state level. he may get the pardon for the feds, one way or another but the state charges will be on him like fleas on a dog..

so he is grasping at the conservatives he put on the court to rescue him.. easy peasy .. very obvious.. If he can end the ACA ending health care for 20 million Americans, well that would be so much better in his eyes.. women's health,, end that for sure.. another purpose of the se******n..

The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an e******n, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “m*****a”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay e******ns, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any e******n disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.

The woman chosin to rescue trump from the real world is facing the ravages of the country trying to fullfill her assigned job of stopping an e******n, keeping the criminal in office and making sure he can avoid jail time..

It seems a challenge she can not meet and is not prepared for.. a justice of the SC is meant to enforce the laws of the land, not help the critin in the oval office avoid the punishment for his life time crime and abuse..

She has not spent nearly enough time practicing law (as opposed to teaching it) to be on the Supreme Court.
She claims to be an “originalist”. This is the legal version of Biblical literalists, who claim that their interpretation is privileged because (they claim) it isn’t an interpretation at all. This is clearly codswallop. It would require thinking that an appropriate definition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, “speedy trial”, “m*****a”, “unreasonable search”, or dozens of other things have not changed in society between 1791 and today. It also ignores the historical fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution immediately began to disagree about what parts of it meant. The idea that there is a single “right” historical interpretation of the entire Constitution is preposterous, but it is an article of faith with some people who apparently can’t defend their legal theories with anything other than an appeal to authority.
She has written that the only rights we have are ones specified in the Constitution. This directly contradicts the Ninth Amendment; anyone with that poor an understanding of the Convention should not be on the bench in any court.
She refused to answer simple and direct questions with obvious and clear answers, such as whether the President can legally delay e******ns, during her confirmation hearing. This clearly positions her as a political actor, not a legal one.
The very fact that she was willing to accept a nomination under circumstances where a) she has written that a nomination should not occur and b) the man who nominated her has made it clear that he views the nomination as part of a plan to have the Court decide any e******n disputes in his favor clearly indicate that she lacks the judgement to be on the Court.