(02-05-2022 06:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 03:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 03:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You think the Justice directed these edits on her behalf or did the former clerk due them in order to polish his/her CV (now a former clerk for a Supreme Court Justice!)?

I don’t see that it matters either way, but I think the clerk did it on their own, probably not for the self-serving motives you ascribe, but out of loyalty. JMHO.

Surely it matters more if this was directed by the candidate for the seat herself?

Why would it? What boxes would it uncheck?

Obviously my point has nothing to do with boxes checked or unchecked.

You had a point?

I’ll say it another way - even if she was the one who instigated the clerk to do it, it would not matter at all. After all, we just elected a man who has a creepy history with women, a history of mental gaffes, and a reputation as an influence peddler. I doubt polishing her CV would garner much attention compared to those things.

Any nominee must check certain boxes. This nominee needs to check even more than usual, but this candidate would still check the major ones - black, female, friendly to Progressive causes, a safe vote on RVW, gun laws, and race laws. Nothing would change.

So, no big deal.