Based on the above, I suspect we could guess the shape of an answer as to whether, say, the President would be committing a crime if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
From what I’ve been able to tell, she hasn’t answered a single question about how she would rule on any of the many hypotheticals presented, cleverly deflecting everything, a technique for which she was actually praised. Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst who seems reasonably balanced. Maybe her best equivocating was over Roe v Wade, which she characterized as a “precedent”, but not a “super-precedent” (more at the link).
The impression I have is that (a) she is a very smart lady, and (b) she is a religious nutjob with far-right views on most issues. That makes her especially dangerous, more so than idiots like Thomas and Alito. Obviously the Orange Imbecile didn’t pick her himself and undoubtedly never heard of her or knew anything about her, but was used as the tool that he is by far-right Republican strategists who are now rejoicing about an effective takeover of the Supreme Court.
It is a very good technique, and one that she has executed on impeccably. But this has been the MO for all Supreme Court nominees since Bork – don’t answer any questions regarding any matters of law, since those issues, “may come before me as a Justice.” Just issue bland, generic statements indicating some level of respect for stare decisis, that you won’t “legislate from the bench,” blah, blah, blah.
Seemingly the only way to potentially derail a nomination (if the President’s party controls the Senate) is to dig up some personal malfeasance (e.g. Kavanaugh) or for him to nominate someone so grossly unqualified that even his party balks (e.g. Harriet Miers).
My assessment as well. She’s going to be influencing policy for decades.
Yeah. ACA is fucked. Gun control is fucked. Abortion rights are fucked.
I hold out the single hope that in joining the SC, other jurists, like Gorsuch, will not only look more moderate but will actually move more center left to consciously balance the court. Color me a hopelessly naive optimist.
You really expect her to turn down what is almost certainly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in order to make some “moral” grand gesture against a Senate policy from four years ago that she had nothing to do with other than commenting on? Can you name a Democrat who has made an equivalent “moral” sacrifice?
Yeah, but of course there is a chance that the public will elect representatives who will effective legislate on all of those matters.
The Democrats have never had the opportunity. We’ve never had a Trump.
And yes, I expect a person of high character to behave that way.
So if you were offered your dream job, one you believed you were thoroughly qualified for, and where you could make a difference to society for decades, you’d turn it down because some other candidate got screwed out of the job four years ago due to office politics?
If the Court grounds its decisions on the text of the Constitution itself, as her hero and mentor Justice Scalia often did, overturning a ruling will require amending the Constitution itself, which, to put it mildly, ain’t easy.
If it had been offered by Trump (or an equally corrupt equivalent), who had repeatedly espoused that he expected me to act corruptly for his benefit? Absolutely I’d turn it down.
This is not a hypothetical worth considering. You would not have to worry about turning it down because you would not have been offered the job. Which is why we have Barr as the AG, and why we got Kavanaugh as the previous SC pick, and why we are stuck with a rash of incompetent and corrupt boot lickers in this administration.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? My position is that the fact alone that Barrett accepted this nomination (from this president at this time) is sufficient information to conclude that she doesn’t have the requisite personal character for the job.
Barrett has been masterful thus far. Deflecting like an expert and preventing any controversy or “aha” moments or anything particularly headline worthy. Impressive professional.
I’m agreeing with you. This pick was in the queue long before the seat became available because those who advanced her as a pick already vetted her as someone with far more ambition than scruples, despite her insistence on being of high moral character.
The argument that Barrett should turn down the job because it was offered by Trump is even worse than the argument that she should be grandstanding against Republican hypocrisy. Trump is the President. He had the constitutional right to nominate Barrett. Barrett’s politics were certainly considered by the Trump administration, but she’s got no reason to believe that she wasn’t nominated on her merits. You’re essentially stating that Barrett should turn down Trump’s nomination because you don’t like Trump.
This is my primary concern as well. Anyone who would accept a nomination from this President at this point in time is inherently undeserving of the position. A good judge would simply say, “I will accept the nomination from the next President, whomever that may be.”
That’s an extremely poor summary.
I’d say it’s more that she should turn down Trump’s nomination because he is a thoroughly corrupt individual, and accepting the nomination from a thoroughly corrupt individual delegitimizes the Supreme Court, and tarnishes her reputation personally.
By being part of that corruption and delegitimization of the Supreme Court, she should be aware that her legacy will always be that she was appointed in order to try to keep an authoritarian in power, and no one will ever remember what her merits were, or how hard she worked to get there, just that she was the toady of a dictator wannabe.
Would you accept an offer to take the job of CFO from Jeffrey Skilling?
I think what he’s saying is, IF Barrett was a person of high moral character, she would not consider the nomination. What he is missing is that Barrett was not chosen because she is a person of high moral character. She was nominated because she could be counted on to support the very conservative agenda without objecting to the corruption and incompetence of the current administration. Her nomination goes beyond the expected/projected lifespan of the Trump administration.
Trump has said again and again that he nominated her to help him win, to destroy the ACA, etc. Of course it wasn’t “on the merits” – it was based on how he expects her to rule, politically (and corruptly – expecting favorable rulings is pretty normal, but not when it comes to corruption and election-stealing). Further, he’s acted in a corrupt manner for his entire presidency. All those reasons are more than enough for a person of good character to reject such a nomination.