My take on RBG (besides the topic rebolving around "history") and the type/tone of comments that I heard her speak was that they were essentislly irrelevant and she was just asking or stating previous facts and not really offering any original thoughts. It seemed like an obligatory comment by her early on in the arguments.
Was she reading off of a prepared question? By whom? Who is making her decisions or steering her?
And the woman attorney (forget her name) who responded to her at one point by saying that the decsion or argument from the court (RBG's opinion?) looked like it was "pasted" into there from a previous ruling or argument.
Question….who is feeding RBG questions or statements that she can handle and deliver and who was cutting/pasting old, tired opinions into what was supposed to be freshly thought out considerations?
Who's her puppet master and who is really making or arguing (weakly) from her Supreme Court pulpit???
Listen to the attorneys response talking about a "pasted" opinion.