I’ll just take that as a “Hell, no, I won’t.”
Based on this “originalism” manages to mean both everything and nothing simultaneously.
It’s a waste of time to ask questions they know she won’t answer just like almost all judges who are up for the SC. She’s Scalia with a uterus .
Worse when it comes to her position on the 2nd Amendment. At least Scalia thought that even non-violent offenders should be prevented from having guns. So we shouldn’t be expecting any help from her on cases related to gun control.
Barrett does not believe in settled law. In her legal writings, she criticized Scalia for being “timid” in showing deference to legal precedent.
This is an amazing summary by Senator Whitehouse today concerning money and Republican judicial strategy.
Worth the 25 minutes.
I wish there was more from that interview at your link, because this is what is quoted there, as said by Barrett:
From this alone, I cannot say that hypocrisy was involved, because those two statements are factual in nature. That is, I take “lateral move” to mean simply mean that Garland and Scalia were two very different judges.
ETA: On this note, from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/24/what-amy-coney-barrett-actually-said-about-election-year-supreme-court-vacancies/:
Agreed, this was a masterful presentation summarizing so much that is wrong about the way things happen in D.C. today. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it has absolutely nothing to do with if it is right or wrong for Barrett to have accepted Trump’s nomination of her to sit on the court. She doesn’t make the rules for how she got there. I’m not saying you think it was right or wrong, mind you, but simply that it will do nothing to sway anyone about how they feel about Barrett. Hopefully, though, a lot of people will be educated by this, so that something may be done to prevent it from continuing to be the way nominations are made.
I agree. If I were an optimist, I might think that the future Justice Barrett might try to avoid being influenced by this Dark Money and might try to be more independent, despite the fact that these people got her the job.
I don’t blame her for wanting the job. It’s not her fault the Senate is rushing her through.
And on a similar note, today I saw Amy Klobuchar bringing up the consequences of the ACA being found unconstitutional, as well as Roe v Wade. Again, unfortunately for the Democrats, it’s not up to Barrett to decide to help “save” a given law because if she doesn’t, many people will be harmed. It is her duty to decide whether or not something passes constitutional muster. I sympathize greatly with Klobuchar, and many others, because I want to see those things preserved. But it’s all political in a hearing such as this, and sadly and unfortuantely, should have nothing to do with whether or not Barrett is qualified for, and should sit on, the SCOTUS. If indeed the ACA is thrown out, it will be up to our political leaders to find a way that will stay the law of the land. So again, maybe this will further popularize the benefits of something, but it won’t change any votes from the Republicans.
I’ll blame her. Anyone accepting a SCOTUS nomination from this President, especially this close to an election when he’s insisted that he needs the nominee to help him hold power, doesn’t have the personal moral character to serve as a small claims judge, much less on the SCOTUS.
I just can’t go that far. She seems to have plenty of moral character to me, and I am not convinced that she is going to rule in a way that liberals won’t like. I’m also not convinced of the opposite. I just don’t know. But as for it being close to an election, I don’t buy the argument that the people should get to decide it in a case like this. A president gets four years, and he/she should be able to do whatever the Constitution provides for. After all, most people (I assume) know that the president nominates judges, so they have in fact spoken, it just happened to be four years ago. Nope, we just have to live with it.
Yes, if not for what they did four years ago. But that’s just pointing out their hypocrisy, not advocating a new standard. I continue to believe a president’s nomination, even in an election year, deserves a hearing and vote. That doesn’t mean he or she should necessarily be confirmed.
That just sounds incredibly naive to me. These (Trump and allies) are awful, awful people. Liars and scumbags and grifters and worse. No decent person would accept this from him.
Oh, no doubt, the hypocrisy by the Reps would be stunning if it weren’t so expected.
Awful they may be (and of course many are), but this has nothing to do with my naivete. If she was nominated a year ago, would that make Barrett moral in your eyes if she had accepted the nomination then? What’s the difference, if she is the same person now?
Not quite true. Someone that believed they were unsuitable for the job, or that it was somehow against the will of the people, could accept the job and then resign on day one of the new presidency. That would ensure no further shenanigans from the outgoing administration. Not that I think there’s the tiniest chance of that happening here, but the thought is funny.
I’d be a little less sure of her poor character, in that case. The only way I can figure accepting this nomination could be a morally acceptable thing to do would be if one plans to subvert Trump’s plans once confirmed. And even that is probably only acceptable if they resign once the new administration is in.
You guys are really funny
Someone that believes in the supreme authority of her divinely chosen and the correctness of her morality is really going to turn the opportunity?
Additional evidence about Barrett’s lack of moral character: today she had to opportunity to say that it’s unconstitutional for armed people to go to polling places and menace those attempting to lawfully vote.
She declined to cast any doubt, any at all, on the alleged constitutionality of voter intimidation.
She was also asked whether it could be constitutional for a President to unilaterally change the date of a US Presidential election. She refused to cast any shadow of doubt on a President’s right to claim to be able to do exactly that.
These were not requests that she reveal how she would rule on such cases. They were merely opportunities for her to demonstrate her supposed knowledge of our Constitution.
She is manifestly unfit for service as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.