3 ms·
blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up
by SiVal 8y ago
blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them
The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced.
Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than finding the actual facts.
- RickS 8y agoI'm going to make a distinction here, between "what they're asking" and "why they're asking". Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about "why they're asking:", and he's being asked questions that are intentionally constructed to lead to dark places, trip him up, and paint him in a negative light. Nevertheless, I think any layperson can detect "what they're asking". A person interviewed for SCOTUS, in my view, must still give a straight answer to a question asked in bad faith. Ill intent on the part of (D) committee members does not justify intentionally incomplete answers that intentionally fail to address "what they're asking". Even if the questions are meant to derail him, that doesn't justify omission or disearnestness.
- yostrovs 8y agoHe gave straight answers during the hearings, before the rape accusations. The trial, of course, was and should have been different. He was accused and acted like a human.