If it were me, and I was qualified and ambitious, I would probably accept the nomination but recuse myself from ruling on litigation involving this election. I would think that me being on the Supreme Court could do some real good for the nation (obviously you would disagree if you don’t like my jurisprudence, but we’re talking about the nominee’s character and motivation). I would also think the apparent conflict of interest and corrupt-bargain, with reference to a possibly disputed transfer of power, could do more harm to the nation than any amount of good I bring to the court. You know, what good is a Supreme Court of America if there isn’t an America any more?
Right. Trump ruins everything, including the reputation of his nominees. The only way to win is not to play, when it comes to Trump. But these are highly ambitious, and highly amoral people. And lots of grifters, of course.
I highly doubt that. We’re in an era where time flies fast and one thing is quickly forgotten in light of the newest outrage. A few years from now, no one is going to think about Barrett and her acceptance of the nomination (especially considering that, compared to Kavanaugh, her confirmation-hearing process is going as smooth as silk). Nobody will remember her confirmation process any more than they remember Sandra Day O’Connor’s or Ruth Ginsburg’s. There will be 1000x other things to occupy people’s political minds.
What pisses me off most about this is that Trump doesn’t give a flying fuck about liberal or conservative policies, or the future, as long as he pleases the people that are telling him what to do and he gets to be in the spotlight and bully people. He only wants to stay in power, rape the country and stay out of the courtroom. That is Trumps ‘policy’. And has been since he fell ass-backwards into the Oval Office.
If the Apprentice TV show had not been canceled, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.
If I thought that the nomination would be withdrawn if I did not return political favors, then I would absolutely not accept such a corrupt nomination.
There is that. There certainly will be those with extremely short attention spans that do not care about what legacies they leave behind. If your contention is that she only cares about the moment, and not about the future, I certainly will not disagree.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I happen to agree with (I think) the textualism she seems to champion. So I don’t hold that against her - I’m able to say that, if I were as qualified, and in her shoes, I would probably take the nomination.
I can’t wrap my head around her refusal to address concerns about Griswold v. Connecticut, not even a little. Previous candidates, even current Justices, have offered opinions on that case. She’s going through anyways, the case isn’t going to come up before the court (by her own admission), so why is she resisting so much? I’m pretty sure she wants to overturn it, no need to be duplicitous.
If you did not promise not to return political favors, during the confirmation hearing. Call me a pessimist, but I think you would have to turn down all nominations. Politics is always involved. You would have to choose between the appearance of propriety and ambition, every time.
Absolutely this. If she doesn’t want to commit to recusing because she thinks Trump would pull her nomination if she committed to recusing, it’s not the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is conflict of interest. Even if no one ever explicitly had the conversation, she knows exactly what Trump expects from her and is at least choosing to keep her mouth shut about her intentions for personal gain. If this line of speculation has any truth to it, all we can hope is that she is able to knowingly take advantage of a corrupt president to achieve her goals of becoming a SCOTUS justice while at the same time not being influenced by them when it comes to a case that decides his political future.
Maybe that’s not the reason she didn’t answer the question. I don’t know. Unless she actually commits to a position this is all speculation, which is obviously why she should.
It’s only a conflict of interest until she’s actually confirmed. Once she receives her commission, the President has no power over her.
But yes, the fact that she accepted a nomination under such circumstances indicates to any reasonable person that, at the very least, she is willing to take advantage of the political situation to achieve her goals of becoming a SCOTUS justice. That’s what I call ambition - it’s not necessarily a good indicator of personal character, but for this kind of position, I don’t really hold it against her.
Her judicial philosophy is separate from her personal character. Considering further, though, judicial philosophy doesn’t really matter when someone’s personal character is low. People of poor character only act to benefit themselves and their interests, whatever philosophy they claim to follow.
Wasn’t everyone crying doom and gloom when Roberts was appointed? Or Gorsuch? How about Kanvanaugh?
Supposedly Roe was going to be overturned; Kavanaugh was supposed to be the deciding vote to kill ACA, etc.
This nonsense happens ever time a Conservative justice is even nominated. Folks run around like Chicken Little, crying “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
She does need to be duplicitous, as if she were to admit that she would uphold a law outlawing basic contraceptives, then even her Republican supporters would have to think twice about supporting her. Abortion is one thing, but outlawing birth control? There really aren’t that many even staunch conservatives that would get behind that.
It wouldn’t be a terrible thing for people to be nominated based on their integrity, rather than based on what they owe to those who nominate them.
I don’t think that you are a pessimist, I think that you are a realist, in that the Republican party has become so corrupt that trading favors for political appointments is just the de facto standard these days.
Still, not really something that we should aspire to, nor something that we should find acceptable.
I don’t think this is actually true. I don’t even think this is true for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I think that they were chosen because conservatives thought they would ideologically lean towards similar positions, but not because they owe any personal favors to specific politicians. Trump is likely enough of an idiot that he thought they would just automatically use their power to work for him as long as he nominated them, but we haven’t really seen that thus far.
ACB is a different story, because we at least know that Trump (and I believe Lindsay Graham) specifically mentioned he nominated her because of a possible SCOTUS decision in the election. She already knows that there is this expectation. Trump is asking to make a corrupt bargain out in the open.