With all the attention on Trump not promising to recognize the results of the election, there has been less attention on some of the other things we learned from the third debate. One of the most disturbing was Hillary Clinton's views of how to select a Supreme Court Justice.
"That's how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans."
It is clear from what Clinton says that she wants judges that have already decided how they will judge. What ever happened to blind justice?
Part of the question from moderator Chris Justice was "what's your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders' words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?"
Clinton ignored these questions in her answer.
Clearly the judges she will appoint will be pursuing social justice, not fair justice. She says she wants judges to stand up to the powerful. Does this mean the powerful are always wrong and should always lose in the courts?
Senator McCain is flouting the idea that the senate block any Clinton nominations to the Supreme Court. Based on here standards for what qualifies as a judge, McCain has a smart idea.
follow on Twitter @fiddlingant
If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.
If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.