Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer Senate questions 95 times

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  2 weeks ago  •  15 comments

By:   Donna Provencher (The American Independent)

Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer Senate questions 95 times
Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Donna Provencher - October 15, 2020 3:25 PM599

'It's not up to me to be in the business of expressing views.'

Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.

In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process."

Here are just a few of the most noteworthy.

Was Roe v. Wade wrongly decided?


The Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein (CA), asked Barrett on the first day whether she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion that Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a constitutional right to abortion, was wrongly decided.

"I think on that question, I'm going to invoke Justice Kagan's description, which I think is perfectly put," Barrett said. "When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down."

Barrett added, "It would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI) also asked Barrett about Roe and received similar evasive responses.

Can a sitting president delay an election?


Feinstein asked Barrett another hot-button issue: "Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?"

In refusing to answer, Barrett said: "Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants, and read briefs, and consult with my law clerks, and talk to my colleagues, and go through the opinion writing process."

Does the Constitution give LGBTQ individuals the right to marry?


Feinstein and Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) questioned Barrett about the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case establishing marriage equality as the law of the land.

In every single instance, Barrett refused to answer, telling Leahy: "I'm not going to, as Justice Kagan put it, give a thumbs up or thumbs down to any particular precedent," Barrett said. "It's precedent of the Supreme Court that gives same-sex couples the right to marry."

Asked by Blumenthal about the constitutionality of Lawrence v. Texas, which held that the government cannot criminalize same-sex relationships, Barrett said she could not answer. That was also her response to Booker's question on whether businesses could legally deny services to same-sex couples.

Will you overturn the Affordable Care Act?


Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), referring to the Affordable Care Act as "essential to upholding the law" and protecting the health care of "a majority of Americans," asked Barrett to weigh in on the Supreme Court's decision upholding Obamacare.

"So just if you could, do you think the Chief Justice's ruling upholding the ACA was implausible and unsound?" Coons asked.

Barrett said while she had expressed her opinions on the statutory interpretation, the question of constitutionality was not something she could opine on.

Barrett told several senators that she had no "hostility" or "animus" towards the ACA, and was unclear as to whether she was aware, when nominated, of Donald Trump's statements that he intended to appoint a judge who would repeal Obamacare.

Barrett also declined to say whether she though Medicare was unconstitutional.

Do American citizens have the right to vote?


Questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) as to whether a president could "unilaterally" deny the right to vote to any individual based on race or gender, Barrett had no response to offer.

"I really can't say anything more than I'm not going to answer hypotheticals," Barrett said.

She also refused to answer when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked whether she agreed with Ginsburg that the Constitution empowers Congress to protect the right to vote, nor did she respond to questions about gerrymandering and voter intimidation."I can't express a view on that, as I've said, because it would be inconsistent with the judicial role," Barrett answered.

Is contraception a constitutional right?


Coons pressed Barrett on whether she thought that Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized the use of contraception, was wrongly decided and that states should be able to make the use of contraceptives.

"As I've said a number of times, I can't express a view, yes or no, A+ or F," Barrett said. She did allow that she didn't "think Griswold is in danger of going anywhere."

Is separating children from their parents wrong?


Booker asked Barrett if she felt it was wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from entering the United States.

"That's been a matter of policy debate," Barrett said. "And obviously, that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge."

But, Booker asked, does Barrett believe "as a human" that the practice is wrong?

"I think you're trying to engage me on the administration's border separation policies, and I can't express a view on that," Barrett said.

Is climate change real?


Asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) if she had "opinions" on climate change, Barrett hesitated.

"I'm certainly not a scientist," she said. "I've read things about climate change. I would not say that I have firm opinions on it."

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) later pushed Barrett further on the issue of climate change.

"Do you believe that climate change is happening and it's threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?" asked Harris.

"I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is controversial," Barrett said.

Harris thanked Barrett, saying the nominee had made her position quite clear.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR


National

Amy Coney Barrett says your right to birth control is safe. She's wrong.


National

Ted Cruz continues his bold crusade against masks


National

Here's what Amy Coney Barrett hid from the Senate


National

Republicans suddenly have plenty of free time to throw tantrums about Twitter


National

Mike Pompeo thinks now's the time to talk about Hillary's emails


National

McConnell doesn't care if Trump wants more COVID relief — it's not happening


National

Trump calls his virus response 'incredible' if you 'take New York out'


National

Trump admits he won't accept Democratic relief bill because of his 'pride'


National

Trump's back to endangering Michigan's governor after plot to kidnap her


- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS


Amy Coney Barrett says your right to birth control is safe. She's wrong.


NationalLisa Needham-October 15, 2020

Ted Cruz continues his bold crusade against masks


NationalDonna Provencher-October 15, 2020

Things just got even worse for Sen. Joni Ernst's campaign


ElectionsJosh Israel-October 15, 2020

Here's what Amy Coney Barrett hid from the Senate


NationalDonna Provencher-October 15, 2020

Republicans suddenly have plenty of free time to throw tantrums about Twitter


NationalEmily Singer-October 15, 2020


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JBB
1  seeder  JBB    2 weeks ago

If she will not answer she should not be confirmed...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1    2 weeks ago
If she will not answer she should not be confirmed...

I would bet good money your little tune was vastly different when RBG refused to answer questions during her confirmation hearings.

Of course, if one chooses to be hypocritical and demand answers from one candidate and not all candidates...............

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1    2 weeks ago

"A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process."

She superbly and brilliantly refused to answer hypothetical, loaded, or 'gotcha' questions.

She adhered to the "Ginsburg Rule"

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

It seems like they just hate it when someone else does exactly what their heroine did.

If it wasn't for double standards......................................well, you know.

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

Yet she lies about everything Ginsburg believed in!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

If she didn't answer any questions, how could she be lying?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

senators asked stupid questions. Not her fault.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 weeks ago

That is a unique perspective...

 
 
 
GregTx
3  GregTx    2 weeks ago

And yet she will be.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @3    2 weeks ago

And that fact is inescapable and will cause great angst among the left.

 
 
 
GregTx
3.1.1  GregTx  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    2 weeks ago

Indeed, it already is.

 
 
 
JBB
3.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  GregTx @3    2 weeks ago

The voters still get their say in a few days. So, please do go ahead on and piss off as many Americans as possible. Trump is already down double digits. Democratic coffers are piling up while the gop's funds are drying up. Go down in flames!

It is looking to be a bloodbath for the gop Nov. 3rd!

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

IzvAn5LmNuxfYf5l5n3SkAs4Ng4JONu4nL0JBXV0BgSYk4VfaGM9DLmZxELuqaQDYk-g=s170

The Perfect Metaphor for the Barrett Hearings

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

An awful lot of the questions were not appropriate for her to address in the way that senators wanted her to address them.

I do think prospective justices unnecessarily decline to analyze existing opinions from the Court. They should be able to handle that, although probably not to the scope that Senators would like.

What they can't do is make pronouncements about whether or not some hypothetical act is legal or illegal, or whether or not some law (real or hypothetical) is constitutional. I know that seems in conflict with what the Court does, but it's not. These hypos are inevitably incomplete. The Court doesn't declare laws to be (un)constitutional in the face of every possible challenge. They weigh the evidence and arguments presented - not some argument no one has thought of yet.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

These hearings are useless, why even bother? I am sure our senators time could be better spent... lol oh wait, they don't do shit anyhow. Never mind, carry-on with your little... whatever this is supposed to be. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online





Bob Nelson


63 visitors