I have seen Scalia debate Breyer twice on CSPAN and every minute was a pleasure. He is one person who can explain why an evolving constitution is no constitution in terms everyone can understand. I don't know that Thomas has that articulate ability.
RE :”What would’ve been better would have been “that’s in the constitution ...? government?” To point directly at one of his errors.”
We cant undo the damage of a video clip by argument anymore than a Democrat can for theirs. When you watch that last exchange it comes across as a 'Huh?' moment. "That is in the constitution ?" which is why there was loud laughter.
Unless she feels really comfortable with the topic after dummy practice debates she should avoid it. Face it, she is on trial and the jury already had their minds mostly made up after that previous debate when asked what her favorite disagreed case is and she really looked surprised . I am not trying to be critical just trying to see it through average voters eyes to guess what they will do .
That’s because the dumbasses at that crappy law school laughed.
Christine happens to be right on that one.
She can make the case on that if she wants too.
I don’t watch TV news much. Is this something that is being discussed on TV news much?
Scalia and Thomas are two Justices that I know of that can explain the Constitution and written law in ways that your average citizen can understand.