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

Quote! Or retract!

 

Not being able to answer questions and not taking positions is two different things. Get it straight.

 

I didn't hear them ask her about a law. I heard them ask a what if question.

 

They didn't ask about any case. They are asking her about the law. The same as when they asked her if discriminating against voters because their color of their skin, which she did answer. As well as many similar questions from Republicans. Are you saying she should only answer questions by Republicans?

 

Then they should have merely asked what the constitution said.

 

If specifics are cited, she would be correct in not answering. "There are too many laws" is not a valid excuse for a Supreme Court Justice

There is a right answer: quote the law! It's completely the contrary of what you say. If they gave her a specific case, then she would be right to not answer. But asking her what the text of the law says is a completely legitimate and it's regularly asked at hearings for judges at all levels.

Nobody asked her how she would rule. True, she didn't say she didn't know (and she obviously did), but she refused to answer completely legitimate questions about the law. Same result. What basis is there for confirming her to a lifetime appointment if she doesn't answer any question?

 

I'm paying attention to what she doesn't say. And that says a lot.

I don't know if she knows this or not (I'm pretty sure she's intelligent enough to suspect it), but she was nominated by Trump because he thinks she will protect him in SCOTUS. That's what he expects of all his SCOTUS appointments. And she was chosen by the Federalist Society because big donors want the ACA repealed. Not that she "conspired" for this. But I'm sure she implicitly understands this.

 

There's the exact same basis there was for confirming Ruth "no hints, no forecasts, no previews" Ginsburg and Elena "inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court. And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases." Kagan

ETA: in the interest of collegiality, thank you for acknowledging this point:

 

Wrong!!!! That has nothing to do with any of the questions on the OP.

 

No! They are not questions about cases. They are not even about hypothetical cases. They are about what the law says. When has an appointee ever refused to answer questions that are asked simply so they quote what the law says?

As a matter of fact, if she didn't know the answer, she could be excused for a mental lapse. But if she refuses to answer... that's a different matter.

 

I think you need to go back and look at what you wrote. She was asked questions about a very specific person. She was asked about very specific issues which have been discussed as possibilities. She was not asked to quote the constitution, which I suspect she could easily do.

 

Did you find activism in her case history?

 

Reading todays testimony what's the point?

Heck webster just changed the definition of the meaning to sexual preference as offensive language

WTF is wrong with the left nowadays? It seems they are getting weirder by the second

 

Exactly! Thank you!

 

Yeah... and the article number, and clause. Because that's how exams to graduate and for the bar are done, right? As well as applicants to any position. The interviewer gives them the answer, right?

Genius!

 

Completely wrong!

I don't think you understood the OP. Neither RBG nor Keagan or... any nominees have ever refused to answer questions about the law. These are NOT questions about cases. There is no case, nor will there ever be a case that reaches the Supreme Court, for justices to rule whether or not intimidating voters is lawful, for example. Never! And if there ever is one, that would mean our institutions have gone down the drain. And then it won't matter.

RBG even answered questions about abortion. And all nominees have always answered questions that are answered by simply pointing to the law. It's like a job interview. You want to know if the applicant has the knowledge necessary to do the job

 

Yes. America is going to go all in for terrorists, bomb throwers, mass killers, and arsonists. Perhaps her answering questions without hearing arguments on both sides would fly in the face of an independent judiciary

 

Perhaps it's because the President has nothing to do with the vote. The states vote. As far as I know, Obama is the only President who didn't provide for a smooth transition, the only president to solicit the aid of our intelligence agencies, those of our allies and a spy for an enemy to interfere in our election ,,, to prevent giving up power.

Perhaps she isn't schooled like we are that Democraps accuse Republicans of crimes they have already committed.

 

Huh? Are you ok? Wink twice if somebody is holding a gun to your head.

 

Is there a point? She was asked about specific events and a specific person.

 

This is false. For example, this article does a good job of discussing the legal questions of the interplay between "voter intimidation" and free speech. An excerpt:

See, the question of whether some particular act amounts to "voter intimidation" or protected free speech is a legal one, and one which it would be unfair for soon-to-be-Justice ACB to pre-judge during her confirmation hearing. The question of "is intimidating voters lawful" depends on the fact pattern of a particular case. Some acts, which you and other leftists might well try to paint as "voter intimidation" might be perfectly legal. Others, may not. And since that matter may well come before the court, it's not proper for ACB to offer an opinion on the hypothetical.

 

That is not about voter intimidation. The question in that hypothetical is NOT if voter intimidation is legal or illegal. If it's voter intimidation it's illegal. If it's not, it's not. There is absolutely no doubt that voter intimidation is illegal. And Barlet refused to say that.

 

she is not being picked to enforce the constitution, she is being picked for her partisan beliefs

 

What are her beliefs?

 

Yep. No big conspiracy going on nor any dodging of questions as implied by the OP.

Barret is impressively credentialed and extremely intelligent. She comes highly recommended. She'll make a very fine and fair justice.