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

the only thing I heard her say is that if Obama replaces Scalia, it would be a sea change in the court

"the symbolic nature of that flip would be significant"

did that strike you as objecting to his ability to select a justice?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I got all the way to 15:00 and I couldn't find anything crazy

she's just explaining the politics of the court AFAICT

I guess I should have said about 9:25 on

I’ve watched that video before, she never says it’s Scalia’s seat. She is just worried about where the court will go if liberal non originalist thinking takes over

Which is now the opposite

at 10:01.... "But the symbolic significance is that it is HIS seat. So, he is the face... really... he is the face of this originalist textualist approach..."

not seeing anything objectionable

yea I think you are misunderstanding his stress

she means "his" as opposed to another conservative

she isn't saying he owns the seat

that is a really silly understanding of what she is trying to say

That’s how I understand it too

just listen 5 more minutes

and you will see

she is detailing the politics of the court

that's all

the fact that scalia's seat was to be flipped would mean something very significant, that's all she is saying