Sick enough, and twisted enough. But I think the Constitution explicitly stated, "No person, held to service or labor in one state, escaping therefrom into another" was to be allowed to keep his freedom that way. As Paterson remarked, it might have been held also to apply to white apprentices. But slavery has been abolished (good riddance) and involuntary apprenticeship is practically archaic or obsolete. (Of course, "involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime" has itself been abolished, but apparently that's not considered to apply to the compulsory school attendance law).

Massachusetts, please return Colonel Sander's runaway private property to his Macon, Georgia, plantation or be considered a thief.
Sick and twisted, ain't it? .

Aactually, I have been thinking about the Fugitive Slave Law; there is the matter of "full faith and credit", but that says every state must exend it to every other state That provision is not itself binding on the Federal government..As implied in Isabel Paterson's
The God of the Machine (which I believe is out-of-print, though I managed to get them to dig up for me from the stacks at the Richmond library),
that was a demand that a free state surrender a
fugitive from slavery "in violation of its own basic law." Which renders the argument that the Civil War was a defense of "state's rights" somewhat hollow and hypocritical.--Still, I don't know that the Fugitive Slave Law, however unjust, was un-Constitutional prior to the Thirteenth Amendment.

That is a very good question.

One question that should be asked of a nominee for the Supreme Court: If you see a law that you consider manifestly unjust and know to be unjust--might it nevertheless be Constitutional?
Slavery was unjust, but not un-Constitutional, until the passage of Amendment #13. (It was still unjust before abolition, and I would very likely have broken the Fugitive Slave Law, given a chance, and helped runaways get onto the "Underground Railroad", but then I am not a Supreme Court justice). Amendment #18 was unjust, but being in the Constitution, was still Constitutional until ratifiication of #21.The 16th Amendment (income
tax) is unjust in itself, but one could not expect a Supreme Court justice to declare it un-Constitutional. Different people have different jobs. The job of a justice on the Supreme Court is to say what the law is, not whether he approves of it or not. (I would not much quarrel with his breaking the Fugitive Slave Law during his hours off-duty; of course, in those ante-bellum times, if he had been caught and arrested, he should have been expected to take the consequences).

Constituents who deserve the most blame are those who REELECT such creatures as Mad Maxine for perhaps the most outrageous example.
And I'd like to ask the lib voters of Connecticut why Richard Blumenthal, who lied about serving in Vietnam, is still that state's senior senator?

I do not like or approve of (or even particularly re-
spect) the way they are behaving, but still their constituents elected them, didn't they? So the voters are the ones to blame for electing them, aren't they?--(Not that the rest of us should have to live with the results of how they are behaving now).

Not a deliberative clown circus.

H'm. Just have the vote without the hearing? I hadn't thought of it.--Well, maybe there should be some discussion of it outside, as in people's opinions in newspapers; still , Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body....

The end game obtained by an end run around people who will wake up, saying, "Duh, what just happened?"
Not all of them. A humongous amount of useful idiots will be out dancing in the streets and singing, "La la dee dah!! We tore that mean old republic down!"
The time will come when such celebrators will be putting on smiles so as not to offend their elite leaders.

global socialism= total control of everyone by a select few elite leaders of the party

They need to stay in power to achieve their end run dream of global socialism.

Dang, I can just hear one of those children insisting:
"Pway fair, woo mean dino! Woo fowwoe my wules!! Fowwoe all my wules! Wah!"
Sorry, Mr. Blumenthal, go play with your I lied about Vietnam GI Joe doll..

They are a waste of time (theirs) and money (my money)

Th democratic party has degenerated in to a nothing burger catering only to re-election of its politicians.

Sounds like you've been watching Bull on tv.

Yes, I agree with her as well.

But what was accepted as a done thing due to her liberal views, is now a negative for a judge on the other end of the spectrum.

That is what needs changing. Rules/laws are absolutes not subject to party line interpretation.

Democrat careers would go down the tubes.
Me dino wouldn't mind either.

Dang good reasons.

I happen to agree with Ginsburg that it's nonsense to state a position on a hypothetical case, since there are myriad elements to cases argued before the court that could affect the decision. Case in point: Ginsburg herself cites Roe v Wade as an example of a bad decision, poorly argued, that disrupted the evolution of public opinion, and one she would have ruled against, even though she personally supports the outcome. The decision process can be complex, and the justices are expected to (hopefully) be objective, rather than simply enacting their opinions.

The fault lies in the questions posed by the senators. Rather than cite specific causes they support, it would reveal more about the candidate's likely decision leanings to probe elements of their view of government vs the individual, as one instance. Another might be to ask them to explain what the term "diversity" means to them as to how it should affect society. There are ways to examine a judge's thinking without demanding an impromptu ruling on a case they may never hear.

It's worse than that, dino, it's children insisting that adults follow their rules.

I love "intellectual poverty"!

Yes! Senators who go on soapboxes, interrupt the proceedings, etc. should be subject to Censure right there and then. Part of Censure is to be removed from the rest of the proceedings.

To quote perhaps the best line from a children's cartoon: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

I'll add three more reasons we could use to justify getting rid of these hearings: Kamala Harris, Cory booker, Chuckie Shumer.

no one is asking the proper questions...the philosophical ones...none of the justices have demonstrated any understanding of why and on what basis the declaration of independence and the constitution were written...they are a communist politburo...put them all in prison...

"These hearings have become a circus"

Combine that with the "Bread" provided to buy votes for both statist parties and you have the very essence of the current anti-liberty federal government.

Charge everyone involved with obstruction of justice, let a non-biased jury of Americans rule on their guilt, and throw them in jail.