Amy Coney Barrett Punts on Trump Refusing Peaceful Transfer

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  36 comments

By:   Reed Richardson (Mediaite)

Amy Coney Barrett Punts on Trump Refusing Peaceful Transfer
Pressed by Sen. Cory Booker, Judge Amy Coney Barrett declines to say whether Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power, has the right to self-pardon

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Reed RichardsonOct 13th, 2020, 6:36 pm

During her Senate Judiciary hearing, Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett declined to answer two direct, back-to-back questions from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) about a president's ability to self-pardon or refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Booker's questions, which came on the second day of Barrett's Senate nomination hearing, were not-so-subtly targeting President Donald Trump, who sparked bipartisan outrage — and a unanimous Senate resolution effectively rebuking him — when he stubbornly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he were to lose the 2020 election. In addition, Trump, during the height of the Mueller probe in 2018, asserted that he had the "absolute right to pardon" himself. And a key lieutenant from Mueller's teams warned over this past weekend that Trump is likely to try such a move if he fails in winning re-election.

"So judge, I appreciate what you've said about respecting our founding fathers and originalism," Booker began. "I'm asking you, in light of our founding fathers, in light of our traditions, in light that everyone who serves in that office has sworn an oath with a quote swear to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I'm just asking you, should a president commit themselves like our founding fathers, I think they have a clear intention, like the grace that George Washington showed, to the peaceful transfer of power. Is that something that presidents should be able to do?"

"Well one of the beauties of America from the beginning of the republic is that we have had peaceful transfers of power. And that disappointed voters have accepted the new leaders that come into office and that is not true in every country," Barrett said. "I think it is part of the genius of our Constitution and the good faith and goodwill of the American people that we haven't had the situations that have arisen in so many other countries where there have been, where those issues have been present."

After that response, which never directly addressed a president's public commitment to that tradition, Booker turned to the question of a president abusing the office's clemency powers for a get-out-of-jail-free card.

"Do you think the president has the power to pardon himself for any past or future crimes he may have committed against the United States of America?"

"Senator Booker, that would be a legal question, that would be a constitutional question," Barrett quickly replied, teeing up another punt. "So, in keeping with my obligation not to give hints, previews, or forecasts of how I would resolve the case, that's not one that I could answer.

"Well I think I agree with you," Booker said in a rapid follow-up, trying to highlight how Trump's egregious norm-breaking raises grave constitutional questions. "That it is an issue right now. Something I never thought would be an issue before."

Watch the video above, via MSNBC.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:


Amy Coney BarrettCory BookerDonald TrumpJudiciary Committeepeaceful transfer of powerself-pardonSenate hearingsSupreme Court Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
Pressed by Sen. Cory Booker, Judge Amy Coney Barrett declines to say whether Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power, has the right to self-pardon

That was a really bad look for her. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
That was a really bad look for her.

Not pre deciding a case that might come before her is a bad look?

Man, you guys are desperate. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    2 weeks ago

"Peaceful transfer of power" does not refer to a court case, it refers to admitting you lost and co-operating with the transition. 

Barrett also "punted' on the issue of whether or not on- site voter intimidation is illegal. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    2 weeks ago

Trump is so desperate he won't commit to a peaceful transfer of power and thinks he has the right to self-pardon.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Barrett also "punted' on the issue of whether or not on- site voter intimidation is illegal.

and remained in "Ginsberg mode" even after Klobuchar read the federal statute out loud... not a good decision on Barrett's behalf.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Let’s say Trump refuses to surrender power and holds on by  Millitary force. Do you imagine Supreme Court justices will stop it?  That’s not a legal question . That’s rebellion .

how many divisions do the justices command again?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

her answer:


“I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts," Barrett responded. "I can only decide cases as they come to me, litigated by parties on full record after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion. And so I can't answer questions like that."”

is the only appropriate answer. Do you want her to confirm the statute exists? You can’t possibly expect a prospective justice to declare a person guilty based on a couple sentence summary Of a supposed actual controversy without a hearing, do you? 

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

If Trump refuses to surrender power his only supporting force would be neo-fascist militias, not American military.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Whatever. The point is the same.   Sotomayor isn’t attacking a militia and forcing Trump out at gun point.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
is the only appropriate answer. Do you want her to confirm the statute exists? You can’t possibly expect a prospective justice to declare a person guilty based on a couple sentence summary Of a supposed actual controversy without a hearing, do you? 

For goodness sake, man! How can you bring common sense into this??? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

She was asked  a yes or no question Sean.

Not how she would vote on a hypothetical.

Yes or no.

Pretty simple.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

she doesn't need to answer bullshit questions from petulant Senators

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

I believe that the Senators doing the advise and consent part of their duty feel otherwise.

It's not helpful if she doesn't know the basics, or is acting like a bot for some other reason.

Your opinion is that the Senators are petulant is just that, your opinion.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation

So her answer is that she won't answer any question other name, rank, and serial number?

Otherwise it is rather strange (and telling) that she answers some hypothetical questions but not others.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
Pretty simple.

It really is. You seem to be the only person not to understand this.  Spend two minutes applying this to other situations and you'll see how silly the question was. 

She asked a question based on an ongoing controversy and wanted a legal ruling on it. How do you not understand how wrong that is?

Do you really think if a Senator from Wisconsin offered a two sentence summary of the Rittenhouse shooting and asked her to decide if he's guilty of murder or not it would be appropriate? 

Imagine thinking Supreme court justices should opine on whether someone committed a local. crime before a trial ...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
So her answer is that she won't answer any question other name, rank, and serial number?

No, of course not. Have you been paying attention to the hearings?  She's answering questions about her philosophy in great detial.  She isn't pronouncing guilt or innocence based on two sentence summaries on every local crime that happens in a Senator's state. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.14    2 weeks ago
She's answering questions about her philosophy in great detial.

Those are not hypotheticals.  Did you not read your own statement???

She isn't pronouncing guilt or innocence based on two sentence summaries on every local crime that happens in a Senator's state.

Nobody is asking her to, they're trying to determine her thinking processes in order to determine if she has already made her determinations BEFORE any court arguments.

She has already stated (previously) her opposition to abortions and desire to overturn Roe v Wade, before any court arguments.  But for some reason refuses to stand by her earlier statements.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

We're wasting our time Ozzwald.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

She punted on the majority of issues:  gay marriage, abortion, health care, election laws.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.13    2 weeks ago
You seem to be the only person not to understand this.

It was a simple question, "Is voter intimidation illegal"?

No mention of any other cases or by some miracle, one that we are all tuned in to.

Yes, voter intimidation is illegal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
I believe that the Senators doing the advise and consent part of their duty feel otherwise.

It's not helpful if she doesn't know the basics, or is acting like a bot for some other reason.

Your opinion is that the Senators are petulant is just that, your opinion.

I didn't claim it was anything other than opinion--just like your post is.

What is your point?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
But for some reason refuses to stand by her earlier statements.

As a private citizen she can say what she  wants. As a proposed SCOTUS justice, she can't or shouldn't have any preconceived ideas without the evidence/arguments.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.18    2 weeks ago
was a simple question, "Is voter intimidation illegal"

IF you actually were familiar with her questioning, you know she prefaced it by referencing specific acts in Minnesota .  Klobacher (not the Court system or anyone  else) declared those acts "voter intimidation" as  the preface to her question and then wanted to know if voter intimidation was illegal.  Do you think Klobacher is an idiot who throws random sentences together that bear no relation to each other, or is she a functioning adult? 

Since those specific  acts may vey well be the basis for legal action in the near future, she can't offer an opinion on them. Do you understand now?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
Did you not read your own statement???

Did you read not yours? You said she was only sticking to name, rank and serial number, which  is clearly false. 

Nobody is asking her to, t

That's exactly what Klobacher did. 

o determine her thinking processes in order to determine if she has already made her determinations BEFORE any court arguments

And she's been very candid about her philosophy. Have you not watcher her testify , when the Democrats let her talk, that is?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.23  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

So sorry to waste your time Sean.

Of course I am impressed enough with ABC's credentials to realize that this coronation was inevitable and not a terrible thing in the least.

That said, I admit that I have not wasted a minute watching the hearings live.

What I observed on Fox and MSNBC was civil enough to cause me to fall asleep.

Yay ACB.

May she live long and prosper.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

So sorry to have awoken you.

It must be the optimist in me.

LOL, have a nice day.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.25  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
As a proposed SCOTUS justice, she can't or shouldn't have any preconceived ideas without the evidence/arguments.

So you feel that she shouldn't a SCOTUS because she has already stated her bias against abortions.  I agree.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed 2006 anti-abortion ad in Tribune

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

John, although it's a rare occasion that I would agree with Sean on anything, I agree with him that it would be totally wrong for her to indicate what she might decide if the question would ever have the occasion of reaching the SCOTUS in the event she is confirmed.  Such a decision has to be made upon the evidence for that matter being provided to the court. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    2 weeks ago

What evidence do you think would justify denying a peaceful transfer of power ? The transition occurs once the people who certify the election tell you you lost. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

It's just a hypothetical possibility responded to accordingly, and not worth taking it any further.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
That was a really bad look for her.

It's actually a really good look for anyone who is going to be a Supreme Court justice. The issues can be very complicated - a lot more complicated than lay people think - and making absolute pronouncements intended to resemble the force of law in response to hypotheticals would be extremely irresponsible.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

so what? we all know dems are going to do what they can (nothing, really) to stop her but they just are incapable.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Many of these senators have been to law school and they should all know better than to try to get the judge to basically make some kind of legal finding based on a hypothetical. It would be legally dishonest to then try to use such a finding as some kind of binding ruling - which is obviously exactly what they intend.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago

how soon they forget RBG's sterling example

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Barrett's opinions are inconsequential.  When Trump and Trumpism crashes and burns everything he touched will become cinders.  Trump is a coward.  He will not fall alone, taking as many with him as he can.  The 'deplorables' will be 'the expendables' as Trump saves himself. 

Barrett is a fool--about to learn what it is to become a 'Sucker and a Loser'.  Fetuses?  Trump won't know em'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 weeks ago

she will be sitting on SCOTUS soon. Democrats can't stop it.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




bugsy


58 visitors