What?? The liberal newspapers think she wasn’t hard enough on Kavanaugh? They are angry because she didn’t do enough to take down Kavanaugh?
I’m naive perhaps, but is it really the function of the opposition party, to take down a nominee for a position which requires Senate confirmation? Is that really how we should be evaluating the performance of someone at these hearings?
To answer your question you only need to understand what the Dems expect out of a SC nominee - to be a radical activist judge. They can’t pass any of their crazy, anti-liberty, legislation with the Constitution as it stands today. They have only two options, get rid of it, or reinterpret it. They would fail at amending it.
So of course, their assumption is that the “other side” intends to do exactly the same (have an activist judge). The difference is that non-activist judges interpret the Constitution as it is written, which is just unacceptable to the left.
When they talk of “maintaining precedent” they’re talking about Roe vs. Wade. They’re hypocrites, if it’s about gun control rulings they’d want an activist judge to overturn it in a heartbeat. I find it disgusting when they claim that the nominee can’t be all of the things that they would want in a judge if the situation was reversed. They’re admitting what they would want, so it can’t be enabled on the other side.