Melissa Murray

So, I mean, the idea that, like, no, I've never heard of this call, you know, kind of surprising. I was surprised. But, you know, for the most part, she didn't have any missteps because, again, she benefits from not being Matt Gaetz. And as long as she is not Matt Gaetz... this is plausible and she's likely to sail through this confirmation. And I think she knew that.

I mean, there were moments during this confirmation hearing where, you know, she injected some levity into it, like made little jokes that were surprising. You know, at one point, a friend of mine texted me and was like, is she flirting with John Kennedy? Like, she was a little flirty. I was like, you can take the girl out of the sorority, but you can't take the sorority out of the girl.

I mean, there were moments during this confirmation hearing where, you know, she injected some levity into it, like made little jokes that were surprising. You know, at one point, a friend of mine texted me and was like, is she flirting with John Kennedy? Like, she was a little flirty. I was like, you can take the girl out of the sorority, but you can't take the sorority out of the girl.

I mean, there were moments during this confirmation hearing where, you know, she injected some levity into it, like made little jokes that were surprising. You know, at one point, a friend of mine texted me and was like, is she flirting with John Kennedy? Like, she was a little flirty. I was like, you can take the girl out of the sorority, but you can't take the sorority out of the girl.

I mean, she was comfortable in part because I think she knows how this ends.

I mean, she was comfortable in part because I think she knows how this ends.

I mean, she was comfortable in part because I think she knows how this ends.

No, I don't think that was the case. Again, you have to think about what are these confirmation hearings for? Obviously, there is some degree of kabuki theater to this. This is performance. And especially in the case of a nominee like this one, who is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed... what is the other purpose? And I think this is where the Democratic senators kind of fell down a little.

No, I don't think that was the case. Again, you have to think about what are these confirmation hearings for? Obviously, there is some degree of kabuki theater to this. This is performance. And especially in the case of a nominee like this one, who is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed... what is the other purpose? And I think this is where the Democratic senators kind of fell down a little.

No, I don't think that was the case. Again, you have to think about what are these confirmation hearings for? Obviously, there is some degree of kabuki theater to this. This is performance. And especially in the case of a nominee like this one, who is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed... what is the other purpose? And I think this is where the Democratic senators kind of fell down a little.

Part of this is alerting the public, like, there is a real threat here, if you see one, and communicating what that threat is. And so there were questions that I wish had been asked. There were follow-ups that I wish the Democrats had asked instead of just, you know, sort of playing on her turf. Like, you know, she was evasive on a lot of different questions. You know, she didn't know things.

Part of this is alerting the public, like, there is a real threat here, if you see one, and communicating what that threat is. And so there were questions that I wish had been asked. There were follow-ups that I wish the Democrats had asked instead of just, you know, sort of playing on her turf. Like, you know, she was evasive on a lot of different questions. You know, she didn't know things.

Part of this is alerting the public, like, there is a real threat here, if you see one, and communicating what that threat is. And so there were questions that I wish had been asked. There were follow-ups that I wish the Democrats had asked instead of just, you know, sort of playing on her turf. Like, you know, she was evasive on a lot of different questions. You know, she didn't know things.

She was unfamiliar with certain things. And, even though we assume she would be familiar with them, but keep pushing. So I think it was Alex Padilla of California who asked her about her stance on Obergefell versus Hodges, which of course is the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage around the country.

She was unfamiliar with certain things. And, even though we assume she would be familiar with them, but keep pushing. So I think it was Alex Padilla of California who asked her about her stance on Obergefell versus Hodges, which of course is the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage around the country.

She was unfamiliar with certain things. And, even though we assume she would be familiar with them, but keep pushing. So I think it was Alex Padilla of California who asked her about her stance on Obergefell versus Hodges, which of course is the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage around the country.

And he asked her about whether or not she would abide by that decision and whether she as attorney general would facilitate any moves that would endanger the integrity of marriage's that were constituted between two individuals of the same sex. And she kept saying, I will follow the law. The follow-up question that I wish Senator Padilla had asked is, what if the president says the law is X?

And he asked her about whether or not she would abide by that decision and whether she as attorney general would facilitate any moves that would endanger the integrity of marriage's that were constituted between two individuals of the same sex. And she kept saying, I will follow the law. The follow-up question that I wish Senator Padilla had asked is, what if the president says the law is X?

And he asked her about whether or not she would abide by that decision and whether she as attorney general would facilitate any moves that would endanger the integrity of marriage's that were constituted between two individuals of the same sex. And she kept saying, I will follow the law. The follow-up question that I wish Senator Padilla had asked is, what if the president says the law is X?

What if the president says that there is an executive order that says we're not recognizing these marriages for purposes of this federal law, or benefits, or X, Y, or Z? If that's the law, is that what you're following? Harder questions, more incisive questions, A similar kind of thing came up with regard to abortion. She said repeatedly that she is pro-life, but she would follow the law.