Anti pedophilia does not stem from Qanon. The 2 examples you gave are valid questions that are worthy of deep debate, as is this one. Or do you think it's a non-issue?I dont think these hearings are really for answers. To try and break down someones legal career you need a lot more time than a few days. She has been involved in over 1000 cases I believe, so to think a few questions over a days (many of the questions being similar, others being pointless), is impossible to to really determine if she is qualified. And I will also add, most of these people have some cases you can point to and have questions about. Barrett over turned a settlement a pregnant woman received because she was raped over and over by a corrections officer, so should we argue she is light on pregnant people being raped? By Republican logic, then yes. Gorsuch had a case where a truck driver was fired because he was late for a delivery, because he wouldnt drive his truck over a mountain during a blizzard, etc etc. NOw, I am sure there is more to these cases than the average person knows, but that is what these hearings provide. They provide soundbites for legal cases and legal cases arent soundbite material. The only reason this one sticks out to Republicans, is because of the Republican fascination with pedophilia, which most certainly stems directly from Qanon.