he thinks she will turn into a leftist

How

And why

based on some of her judgements he has read

go watch Frei if you want to minutia

Ugh frei

many republican nominees have become the left side of the court

R and R is better

I was bothered that she kept replying that they should take her at her word because of her integrity - as it that was a given.

yea but R&R doesn't know/discuss constitutional law politics as well as Barnes

R said he listens to Barnes ...

Right @TaLoN132

@realz Barnes is too partisan for me

partisan or not, he knows whats going on in the constitutional political circles

How often do constitution and criminal defense intersect

uncivil law and rekita seem okay

really lol

rekieta is too partisan for _me_!

I listen to him when nothing else is on 😛

He is like a memer mostly

I don’t know any other lawyers on YouTube

I found an a video of her talking at a conference in 2016. She was complaining to the audience that Obama shouldn't be allowed to replace Scalia not just because he was a conservative, but because it was *his* seat Antonin Scalia, conservative icon.

Strange

I wonder how she would support that with some formal argument

Check this out - from about 10:00 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjTEdZ81lI

This has taken over an other discord, people literally people screaming at each other https://youtu.be/B19nlhbA7-E

She is an originalist. Just read the law and applied as it is

wouldn't B allow for a perpetual motion machine

As I was watching the hearings and seeing her insisting that everyone should trust her because of her integrity, I thought about the video I shared above. She expressed strong held beliefs that only someone that held a similar legal philosophy should replace Scalia, but RGB did not merit the same consideration. It made me doubt her integrity.

I've heard Barnes talk about something she supposedly said that sounded very odd

it might be this

B is the correct answer

but there was a good explanation

@TaLoN132 not sure if he was talking about this, but his explanation was that she was making an argument that was construed, but not making it as a serious argument (i.e someone gave a challenge to make the argument, and she did her best)

it might be another scandalous thing though

Are you talking about in the video?

yea

No... It was a prepared lecture that she gave at that conference.

She was talking about Textualist/Originalists and this was presented almost as an aside, if I remember correctly.

OK am listening

how long do I have to listen