A Supreme Court Justice nominee who doesn't know the Constitution?

Barret couldn't answer questions like, for example, if according to the Constitution, a President can unilaterally delay the elections.

She couldn't answer that???

But also she couldn't answer if Trump should commit to a peaceful transition of power. She said that was "controversial". My God! It's not controversial. She didn't know if it was illegal to intimidate voters. And she didn't know that Trump had said that he would select justices that would strike down the ACA.

This is the fakest fake!

Now it's clear that she's there to perpetuate Trump in power.

https://www.axios.com/amy-coney-barrett-election-delay-5b1df160-1640-4757-8476-3707a693c531.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...-transfer-of-presidential-power/#59f43a92fca5

https://apnews.com/article/confirma...upreme-court-28c69f97c0bebedbbdbc933a7f92f3b7

 

I'm trying to understand why she just doesn't answer the questions because there is no wrong answer. Nothing she says or reveals is going to change the outcome of her confirmation. This is what is considered a slamdunk.

 

What I heard her say is the Ginsberg rule don't let all your positions be known

 

The only reason is that if she answers honestly, voters will make them pay on November 3. And we might start thinking about a Democratic supermajority in the Senate if they confirm her.

 

That has nothing to do with whether or not the President can delay an election, or if it's legal to intimidate voters... or any of the things I mentioned on the OP.

 

Honestly I think they already sense they are going to lose the super majority but I'm sure you're right.

 

It seems all the same to me, here is her direct quote.
.


"Justice Ginsburg with her characteristic pithiness used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her. But everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely,” Barrett said of the woman whose seat she would take if confirmed

 

Biden says we don't need to know if he plans to stack the supreme court. Amy Barrett shares Biden's penchant for keeping secrets.

 

So... you're saying that she wants to keep whether or not intimidating voters is illegal, secret?

I think Republicans are going to pay a huge political price.

 

She's not going to put herself in a box answering hypothetical questions...

 

It's not like Republicans are willing or able to take advantage of the positives they have.

 

As a sitting judge and SCOTUS nominee no.....................you didn't listen today she explained it over and over and over when the Dems tried to get her to prejudge matters that may come before her.

 

How many times does she have to explain it? The Ginsburg rule.

 

What a non-sequitur.

 

I'm known for my sequiturs. Non ones and otherwise.

 

Does anyone know, was Amy Coney Barrett the Dodge Ball champion when she was a kid?

 

We're already voting in record numbers compared to past early voting. That's a good sign, in my opinion. I just sealed my own ballot into its bar-coded envelope, signed, dated, and ready to drop off tomorrow. I don't even have to get out of my nice, comfortable car.

 

Irrelevant. This thread is about her inability to answer known issues, like whether the president can postpone an election, or whether or not it's illegal to gather outside polling places with the intent to intimidate voters. She wouldn't answer simple questions that had nothing to do with how she would adjudicate a specific type of case.

And the pure bee es she spewed on some issues is just mind-boggling to me. When she was previously confirmed to the appeals court, she was supposed to provide specific information on past rulings as well as personal views vis-a-vis the law. That should have included the South Bend published anti-choice petition she signed, and a similar statement she signed while teaching at Notre Dame. She claimed she forgot abot those. I call BS on that. Something of that much personal import that you sign your name to is not something you ever just forget about.

She was just as disengenuous when she claimed that it wasn't until after her nomination that she heard about Trump saying that she'd been nominated specifically because he expects her to both burn the ACA on Nov. 11 and take his side when he contests the election results. Bull effing shyte.

 

She will be confirmed. Anything else is a waste of breath. Or bandwidth.

 

Not exactly. The Ginsberg Rule is refusing to comment on pending cases or cases that could come before the Court. That covers the ACA but not much else.

 

The Ginsberg Rule applies to questions on cases before the Court, not every single question. They may as well just vote and get it over with, but the Ginsberg Rule doesn't mean you can skip the hearing.

 

She was either lying or woefully unaware of written law.

She was asked if voter intimidation at the voting place was legal and didn't seem to know there was a law against it.

 

You were expecting ... what ... exactly? That she has the entirety of the US Code memorized?

 

That's false. It's not just questions on cases currently before the Court, but questions on cases that may come before the Court. Here are some quotes to help you understand:

"it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide." - RBG

"it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future." - Kagan

"I do not want to predict or commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court." - Breyer

 

Those aren't hypothetical questions. They're the law. They are question of what the law says. Nobody is asking her how she would rule on an appeal of the elections. That would be a hypothetical. They're asking if it's illegal to intimidate voters.

Read the questions I listed on the OP