It is, in fact, moral in nature. For it to be political in nature, the question would have to relate to something the nominee might reasonably have to rule on.
There is no chance that Barrett will be asked to rule on whether or not it’s okay for armed Trump fans to block black people from a polling place, or anything remotely related.
A person of integrity, asked whether voter intimidation is protected by the Constitution, would answer plainly ‘no, of course it is not.’
A person lacking integrity, asked the same question, would give a weasel answer, very much in the style of Amy Coney Barrett.
I’ve got a sort of Schrödinger’s cat perspective on the ACB nomination. I’m okay not knowing what she thinks about particular cases, controversial issues, or subjects that are reasonably likely to become cases before her … AS LONG AS … nobody else knows what she thinks about those issues either.
I wish I felt more secure that the right-wing machinery, the Trump campaign, the Federalist Society, and the White House were truly just rolling the dice and hoping for the best.
These machines (on both sides of the aisle) are evil, though – not generally stupid.
We’ve been surprised (and Republican Presidents have been disappointed) before.
What I’m not okay with is how the Republicans left no end of judicial vacancies under Obama, only to fill them under Trump, and …
What I will never be okay with was the Merrick Garland bullshit. Full stop.
ETA: obviously, we know a great deal about what she thinks from opinions and scholarly writings. I mean the ubiquitous post-Bork Hearing dodge – that, I’m okay with … given what I stipulated above.
It actually is about the specific question. If the specific question is about something clearly not protected by the Constitution, then just as clearly, no case about that issue will arise that would require a ruling from Barrett.
The problem that your defense of Barret ignores is that she is refusing to say that clearly-unconstitutional things are clearly unconstitutional. Her answers imply that she believes, in essence, that ‘anything goes.’ This liberality of Barrett’s may stem from intellectual laziness; from arrogance about the Senate-hearing process, or from a genuine intention to twist the Constitution so that it enables all sorts of fascist conduct.
Barring some trip-up - which Barrett seems perfect at evading - she appears to be on smooth pace for the confirmation vote on October 26 (or other day that week).
Yes, for real. Get your outrage for every tinymisstatement right or just don’t have ir
Yeserday it was “sexual preference” becoming a horrible slur, a dog whistle of oppresion (even though even the most pro LGTB people here have used it) when it was clear what she wanted to say. Today, however, someone says, basically, “only women can become pregnant” and there is no indignation.
Also, Senator Booker said that sexual orientation in immutable and man, saying that here gets you crucified. Get your outrage right, because it does look like you (generic you) don’t really care.
I’m not “defending” Barrett. I started by saying that the fact she didn’t answer the question is not about morals. That’s all. As for her answer showing that she believes anything goes, I have no idea how you get that.
It has already decided that case, unanimously. Congress has the power to pass laws against voter intimidation, pursuant to Article I Section 4 (“Congress may at any time make or alter” regulations regarding the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”) and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).
I don’t know why we even bother vetting this piece of crap. Let me make it easier for future SCOTUS vetting.
Are you atheist?
Nominee: No, I’m Cath–
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
Nominee: But I only go to church on Christm–
(BUZZER SOUNDS)
NEXT!
As others have said upthread, this type of person will use her own personal character/views to make Supreme Court decisions. Will this benefit my religion? Will this benefit my mythology which “guides” my life? Let’s ask God, oh, but I’ll ask my husband first if that’s okay.
I don’t care if she comes out saying “abortion is good for all, and all republican voter intimidation will stop when I charge them”, not even that would sway me into thinking she’s able to even fathom the responsibility of being on SCOTUS.
And anyone who even thinks this is anything but a political ploy by the orange turd to get re-elected, you’re fooled. Pleasing the GOP base is easy: nominate 1) woman who is 2)religious and 3) listens to husband, ‘cause he’s in charge. She makes Kavanaugh look like a freakin’ saint.
There is no next president who will nominate Barrett to the Supreme Court. If Trump wins, he’ll hold a grudge and pick someone else. If Biden wins, there’s no way he picks a conservative. So that leaves what option for Barrett? Pence after 2025? Your asking for Barrett to throw away an almost 100% guarantee of a Supreme Court seat on a longshot chance over 4 years from now to do some grandstanding that only partisan Democrats are calling for. For her to do so wouldn’t be honourable, it would be stupid.
By the way, what did Trump actually say that amounts to:
Trump nominated Barrett because a) she’s qualified, b) she has a political philosophy that he more or less agrees with, and c) she was recommended to him by Republicans who are thinking about the future of the Supreme Court. She’d be a perfectly acceptable candidate if she was nominated by a hypothetical President Ted Cruz. The idea that she’s tainted by association with Trump is preposterous.
As for you CFO question, Barrett’s not going to be working for Trump. She’ll be in an entirely separate branch of government. A better analogy would be to ask if I’d accept a contract as the auditor for Enron when Jeffrey Skilling was in charge. That didn’t turn out so well for Arthur Andersen. Nevertheless, if I was an auditor, I would accept the contract. Just because a corrupt individual may at some point in the future try to influence me into doing something dishonest doesn’t mean that I will be dishonest. I’d simply turn down such a dishonest request and make him aware that it had been documented. The worst Skilling could do would be to end the contract. And Barrett doesn’t even have that to worry about that from Trump.
What statement has Trump made saying that he expects Barrett to be corrupt and help him steal the election? Trump babbles, and I know he said something about the importance of Barrett being confirmed before the election. But your allegation takes that to a whole new level.
Before joining the bench, Judge Barrett spent 15 years as a Professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. She was renowned for her scholarship, celebrated by her colleagues, and beloved by her students. Three times, she was selected at Notre Dame, Distinguished Professor of the Year.
When I nominated Judge Barrett to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, every law clerk from her time at the Supreme Court endorsed her and endorsed her nomination, writing, quote, “We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents…yet we write to support the nomination of Professor Barrett to be a Circuit Judge…Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is eminently qualified for the job.”
In case context is needed for the above comment, it’s a joke relating to Barrett’s statement
“I have no agenda,” she said, “and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”
and the outrage it’s causing among some leftist groups because she used the term "sexual preference”.
I’m sure some woke individuals would prefer Harris to use the term cis-woman when discussing pregnancy. No idea if any have called Harris out on it.
No idea why you’d give Trump any benefit of the doubt here – it’s crystal clear to those of us who’ve been paying attention. I’m sure it’s clear to Barrett as well.
These are scumbags. Why are you acting like there’s any decency or honor at play here?
US leftists have been seeking to cancel the Trump presidency since before it even began. They’ve tried obstruction, impeachment, and most recently spit-balled the idea of setting up a Congressionally appointed committee to invoke the 25th amendment. I’m hardly going to accept their assertions and interpretations based on faith.
You’ve cited a Slate opinion column as your source. That’s hardly impartial. That column contains a quote from Trump babbling about hoax mail-in votes and how he wants a full Supreme Court to protect the election. It then deduces from Trump’s babbling that he has a Machiavellian plan to deny the legitimacy of mail-in votes. Except in true James Bond villain style, he can’t help but talk about his brilliant evil plan. Sorry, but I think Trump is a buffoon, and when a buffoon babbles, he’s just being a buffoon. And that quote in no way proves there’s a serious plot to steal the election, or that Barrett has a role in that fantasy plot.
