Barrett flunks the test on a simple constitutional question that a high school student could answer
Every Republican Supreme Court nomination follows the same pattern: Nominee builds up a record of statements showing their allegiance to the most extreme positions on a set of topics dear to the far right. Federalist Society vets the nominee...
www.dailykos.com
Mark Sumner
Barrett displays all the thought she's putting into her answers
Every Republican Supreme Court nomination follows the same pattern:
- Nominee builds up a record of statements showing their allegiance to the most extreme positions on a set of topics dear to the far right.
- Federalist Society vets the nominee against strict ultraconservative checklist on the same list of topics.
- Republican senators pretend that 1. and 2. never happened, as nominee protests they couldn’t possibly speak to any of those topics. Or to anything else.
.......
Earlier in the session, Barrett had been asked if she would recuse herself on a series of cases in which she had a personal or political position. Barrett’s response on all of these was the same—she would follow the rules of the Supreme Court.
This answer has a simpler meaning. It means “no.” That’s because, unlike lower courts, there are no actual rules requiring a Supreme Court justice to step back from any case. Since there are no spare justices to substitute for a recused justice, each is given absolute personal latitude to determine if they feel they need to recuse themselves on a particular topic. No one can make a Supreme Court justice recuse themselves from a case, even if that case is ruling on something in which they have a deep personal involvement or even a fiscal interest.
That also means that every appeal to Supreme Court guidelines is nothing but a dodge. Because there’s essentially nothing to those guidelines but “whatever you think best.” Barrett repeating that she would follow these guidelines is simply a refusal to answer, nothing more.
So, when Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Barrett if she would recuse herself from any dispute over the outcome of the presidential election, her pat repetition of earlier statements was a hurricane warning for democracy. Leahy even pointed out that Donald Trump has directly told his followers that he is attempting to seat Barrett quickly expressly because he wants her in place before the election.
"I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach," said Barrett. That’s may sound like a “maybe,” but what Barrett just said is best summed up as ”No.”
However, this is far from the worst answer that Barrett gave on this topic. Here’s a very straightforward question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and an absolutely shocking reply.
There’s a difference between “being a legal pundit” and pretending to deliberate legal ignorance. Because there’s only one answer to Feinstein’s question. The fact that Barrett won’t give it should be both infuriating and terrifying.
Can Trump unilaterally delay an election? The answer is no. Absolutely no. Without a question no. That’s because Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the power to set the timing for a general election. That day was then fixed in law back in 1845. Trump has no authority to change that date, not by any mechanism provided, or even hinted at, in the Constitution.
The answer is no. Or at least that’s the case now. Until Barrett helps write the decision telling us the “originalist” meaning of the clear words of the Constitution.
TTM note: My impression of her is that she is a classic ball baby, and that should surprise nobody.
