ThelmaLou for instance mentioned how this is 10 days out from an election, implying there is something wrong, that a rule of some sort exists that shouldn’t allow it. That is what I’m talking about, and I happen to think that that too is bullshit.
Sure, on this we agree. They are hypocrites. But I wasn’t talking about it being different in that way, only that no such rule exists for the Reps and none exists for Dems.
Let’s not take my example too far. I was just saying that if someone is qualified, why not give them the job? You say Barrett is potentially problematic. I’m not sure in exactly what way, but I can could probably accept that if I knew more about your position. I do not think she is problematic, so no, in fact I would not hesitate.
I wonder what Murkowsky’s position will be on Biden’s nominees for the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth positions on the court.
I seriously doubt that any court packing will be done after Biden wins, but going by her track record of voting for every SCOTUS justice nominated by a Republican, and against every one nominated by a Democrat, that they would all be NO votes.
The standard for not filling senate seats in an election year was set by Republicans. Holding Republicans to a more extreme example of their own standard is not creating a new standard.
Yes, but expecting Republicans to hold to their own standard is.
With respect, I think you are missing my point: they both are bullshit. No standard was set, and surely not just because the Republicans said there was. Therefore, the Dems don’t get to make up their own rule and use the “Garland” rule as an excuse.
As I pointed out, Barrett really isnt that qualified for SCOTUS. Normally, many more years at the Appeals level would be expected.
I suppose it depends on one’s definition of “qualifications”.
In practice the Dems don’t get to make up any rules because they don’t have a majority. They have every right to point out how hypocritical and self-serving Republicans are. Pointing out hypocrisy is not in itself hypocritical.
Least qualified in decades.
Yes, of course Dems get to point out hypocrisy. But doing a similar thing as McConnell that they disagree with, but using it to then do the same thing, is just another form of hypocrisy.
3 things here:
- Every senator has an opportunity to control the process. Murkowski expressed concern about the process, and she could shut it down if she wanted, but she’s just… not going to. That’s about as cowardly as it gets.
- What qualifications? Judge Amy has barely been on the bench for 2 years. She brought a blank pad to the hearings. She feigned inability to answer basic legal questions such as “can the President delay the election?”
- Her judicial philosophy, originalism, is utterly inadequate and bankrupt. If we followed strict originalism, we wouldn’t have an Air Force or a Space Force, because the Constitution only specified an army and a navy, obviously with no thought to air or space travel, yet we now have both of those things.
It would be abundantly justifiable for Murkowski to say “this is bullshit and I won’t support it”.
The only defense for supporting… and I happen to agree with this wholly… is that Senators and Reps are obliged to represent the interests of their constituents. I voted for my congresscritters to do what I say. Specifically I voted for a Democrat. If they vote for Republican interests that I oppose, better believe I’ll be voting them out ASAP.
So I think Murkowski, like every other Republican, is wrong for supporting this nomination. They’re wrong on the merits. I specifically despise Murkowski for bleating these weak objections and then rolling over anyway.
However, that’s between her and her constituents. There’s no reason she should be prioritizing me, a rando from a very far-away state who hates her party quite a bit.
Are you saying the Murkowski could have stopped the nomination going forward? That is, what does “shut it down” mean? This would be news to me, hence my question.
On a purely technical level, she is qualified simply by the fact that she was nominated. But as you say, she has had little time on the bench. But then she graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame law school, as well as other things we can look up on Wikipedia. Based upon other nominees in the past, I think Murkowski can easily make a case that she is qualified. As for her answers, I saw her dodge questions, as they all do, but some of the questions seemed like bullshit to me.
That may be so, but it’s just your opinion on her philosophy, etc. But, can you show how Barrett has specifically said that she is a 100% originalist, and that your example holds? But even if you can, to me, and I am far from an expert, originalism doesn’t mean that you can’t create an Air Force in your example. The Constitution does of course only mention the army and navy, but there is nothing in that document ruling another type of “force”. That is, take what is there as it was originally intended, but feel free to add to the Constitution or get rid of parts as desired.
I will say that we do at least agree on one thing, that about her representing her constituents.
This piece lays out some of the reasons I find the prospect of Barrett sitting on the Supreme Court problematic. It’s a quick read, so I hope you’ll take a look. Her rulings on cases involving race-- and there are others not mentioned in the linked article–and immigration are troubling, not simply because they were morally questionable but because of the reasoning Barrett used and because, as appellate court justice Kenneth Ripple said in his dissent on the Mohsin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo case, they sometimes display “no respect for the Constitution.”
And Barrett is not highly qualified for the position. She has been on the bench just 3 years, and that appointment, to the Court of Appeals, was made by Donald Trump. (She did not appear on his 2016 list of potential SCOTUS nominees, raising the possibility her appellate appointment was merely to give her experience .) Before that, her experience was entirely in academia: she’s never once argued a case before a judge. She’s never served as an attorney, period. And though the American Bar Association recommends law school students do at least 50 hours of pro bono legal work, Barrett did…Drum roll, please…zero.
Barrett appears to have secured the nomination not by experience but by connections, specifically those made when she joined The Federalist Society, the conservative organization that pushes nominations based on ideology alone and that has been the source of so many of Trump’s nominees.
So, yeah, Barrett is potentially problematic.
Since HMS brought up originalism, I was reminded of this article I was reading earlier.
What is the difference between “original meaning” and “intent”? Because the distinction doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. How can something have a specific meaning, but a different intent?!
She is qualified to be a Judge, even Appellate Court. But not for SCOTUS. Her only qualifications for that is that she agreed privately to trump to dump Roe vs Wage.
That Salon article is full of crap. They go on and on about commas and Militia. You dont need to be in the Militia to have the right to own a gun. They arent legal experts and the Court has already ruled that.
Thanks for the post and explaining what you mean by “problematic”. In this sense, the article makes a good case, in the same way that others have suggested some of her writings/rulings may mean doom for the ACA and Roe v Wade, which to me is most certainly problematic! When I said I didn’t find her problematic, I simply meant that based on other qualifications of judges in the past, she too is qualified, thus “no problem”. From the article, if you will excuse me, I am far from qualified to analyze who might have been right or wrong from a legal standpoint, and defer to others on this, while noting that at least in some of the cases, others voted along with Barrett, and will leave my statements on qualifications earlier to speak for themselves.