Or using motherhood to shield her from being responsible to answer tough questions. Today, she was allowed several minutes to whine about how tough the process has been for her son.

You’re right about political parties, historically and contemporaneously. It’s an untenable position to be sure, you can’t trust either of them completely and both are susceptible to corruption at any time. Still, you have to choose one or the other for the most part as there is no other viable option. Doesn’t mean you like having to do so. We need another viable option.

No, she shouldn’t be persecuted for having children or not. No woman should. My problem is that it should not be brought up for confirmation to the court as it’s not germaine to the issues as hand. Kavanaugh did the same thing, hiding behind his wife and children to dodge questions about his past conduct. That was messy and inappropriate as well. Hands down, it’s a logical fallacy. This shouldn’t become a pattern or a habit for any nominee. You either stand for the position professionally on your own merit or you decline the nomination.

I did not know that her adopted children were of another race. That does not change things for me. It does not mean that as a supreme court judge you will protect civil liberties for anyone. That’s not an accusation toward her specifically, I don’t know her from Eve. Motherhood is not a valid proof against valid Democratic concerns and should not be used as a rebuke against a valid process by Republicans.

She’s making a poor showing. She looks weak, indecisive, and incompetent. She’s coming across like she doesn’t even have a basic grasp of the law. I don’t know what more she could be doing to cement herself as a Trumpian stooge.

And she just used her adopted children as a screen to hide behind concerns about her record against civil liberties and ability to be racially sensitive in her decisions. Had I not read and been responding to your comment, this would have been the first I knew of it.

Good thoughts Allison.