She wasn't a conservative at all.

She's a moderate liberal. If she was a conservative, she wouldn't be peddling the Rawls approach when dealing with cases. The Rawls approach is when we give perceived oppressed people the benefit of the doubt, err on the side of the oppressed, rather than plainly seeing the case for what it is. It's been a while since I read the cases which she was involved (two years exactly).

This is what's wrong with this country. Some person claims oppression, and suddenly we're supposed to bend our arse to them. If you want to understand what goes on her mind, try reading the pieces she writes for journals, she's peddles the same diversity and inclusivity nonsense.

She wasn't a conservative at all.

She's a moderate liberal. If she was a conservative, she wouldn't be peddling the Rawls approach when dealing with cases. The Rawls approach is when we give perceived oppressed people the benefit of the doubt. It's been a while since I read the cases which she was involved (two years exactly).

This is what's wrong with this country. Some person claims oppression, and suddenly we're supposed to bend our arse to them. If you want to understand what goes on her mind, try reading the pieces she writes for journals, she's peddles the same diversity and inclusivity nonsense.