The witness refuses to answer
Excuse me?
Is that right? So, is it illegal to murder people? Is it illegal to fly planes into tall buildings full of people? Is it illegal to hold up a bank? Is it illegal to stab people on the street? Is it illegal to extort money with menaces?
I guess she can’t characterize the facts in that situation and can’t apply the law in it either?
Being unable to say “I don’t know” is the epitome of arrogance. Fuck hypotheticals, what does the law say? More political mumbo jumbo if you ask me.
She spent a good chunk of her career as a law professor, where she dealt with hypotheticals extensively, both in the classroom and in publishing. Good luck answering a law school exam with “I’m sorry, professor, I don’t do hypotheticals.”
She does seem to do hypocriticals though, and seems to have a good grasp of political evasion tactics, how clever of her! :P
She’s an academic at a big and prestigious law school. Hypotheticals should be her bread and butter.
That’s bananas.
With all the issues in her background and views, I am astounded that there is such heat over her saying “sexual preference” instead of “sexual orientation”. I know that activists like to insist “born this way” is correct, but pushing that position so strongly is a slap in the face to people who’ve changed their minds, perhaps several times, or who’ve wrestled with their sexuality. What difference does it make if it’s a preference or innate, as far as rights go? We don’t insist “born this way” regarding religion, or regarding speech in defense of political positions. And “preference” instead of “orientation”, that’s a terminology nit. People are innately (for the most part) right-handed or left-handed, and nobody would bat an eye at a reference to “hand preference”.
The fact that ACB quickly issued an apology should be clear evidence that the issue is meaningless in her eyes; an apology over wording, not anything of substance.