Then she has fallen into the trap set by the DEMs. The trap is to view judicial appointments as another venue for issues advocacy.
The GOP has fallen into the same trap. But courts are not supposed to be the final battlefield for issues advocay.
The WH is giving her the only advice they can... be vague. Just like Roberts was vague. He was just smarter about how he did it.
My premise is that judicial philosophy can be discussed without deciding the underlying social hot button issues. And I vigorously object when a nominee is vague on judicial philosophy. Government by secret code - ugh.
If the GOP stoops to that, and it has, then it can't object when the DEMs do it. Stealth, it's the wave of the future, brought to you by the GOP, who seems unable or unwilling to advance an argument or a nominee based on principle.
I agree with you. But I also believe that most ideologues lose the battle. The reality is that in this day and age, the courts operate in a manner that our founding fathers didn't intend. It is an oligarchy. It is what Jefferson feared. That being true... we've got to nominate people on our side. People who will vote the way we want them to.
I remember getting my first speeding ticket in 1976 and telling my dad "that cop made a comment about the length of my hair and then wrote me at ticket. I wasn't going that fast and he would have let me off if I was older or more clean cut". And my dad says... well welcome to reality. You can complain about the way things are suppose to be or you can accept the way they are, and then work within that framework. These days.... I'm an accept they way they are, and then try to win within that framework type of guy.