Climate change is not in the Constitution, therefore she has no idea. (Mind you, she seems to have no idea what the 1st Amendment covers either, but that's another issue.)
Amy Coney Barrett's explanation for why she wouldn't answer Sen. Harris' question about climate change is that climate change is "a very contentious matter of public debate." Climate change is not up for debate; it's a scientific fact.pic.twitter.com/Vp1ESgwc5E
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Sis answered the first two questions as if Sen. Harris was dumb for asking...
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
It has nothing to do with constitutional law
-
Not do most of the questions she was asked by the other side ("do you hate warm puppies?"). It does, however, go to her pre-existing biases which are relevant to her ability to carry out her duties. Even more relevant, is this -https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1316425454128070662?s=19 …
0:19
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.