Who say what now? Part 2
Here's some coverage on a health organization-led study that raises questions about the usefulness of a COVID treatment. No matter that, according to the article, the new study (sourced from informal discussion rather than official publication) was less rigorous than the one showing the treatment's usefulness - it's more important to get those questions out anyway, right? To be fair, this does remind me of an early story that raised questions about the pandemic's risk to 男's little swimmers. That examination turned out to have something to it, but in the case of treatments, I think I'd rather lean toward a study that shows another possible step towards normal-ish, thanks.
Also, it's good to see someone handling a trial by fire quite well. (This line of questioning doesn't seem to be as effective on the current candidate, and looks something like a Hail Mary play.) It's understandable that the people posing leading questions are feeling out how the candidate would rule on precedent-setting cases that are important to their party's agenda. I think that's the reason asking these leading questions brings to mind those mentions of "superlegislature." I'm probably restating the obvious here, but from what I've read, I gather that the responses to these questions were provided in order to leave decisions for the time they come up in front of SCOTUS, rather than to make those decisions in the middle of a confirmation hearing.
And I wonder what this film looks like. Is this another example of a filmmaker who was afraid to say what needs to be said because of the surrounding environment, or the same one I mentioned in an earlier post?