Barrett "Open Minded" About Trump Unilaterally Delaying An Election

[bigtree]

Ben Meiselas @meiselasb
Horrifying: When ask her view whether Trump could unilaterally delay an election, Amy Barrett says she would approach a case on this issue “with an open mind.”

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://govtrackinsider.com/amid-trump-suggestion-to-postpone-election-house-resolution-would-express-support-for-the-current-c9c0aae05cdb

[Autumn]

1. Someone should ask her if she will be open minded if President Biden decides to unilaterally delay

an election.

[BSdetect]

18. She has obviously had a talk about that with drumpf. Recuse yourself.

[Nevilledog]

19. Or how about unilaterally removing a Supreme Court Justice.....

...who's apparently never read the constitution?

[Iliyah]

2. That is why Biden/Harris needs to win bigly . . .

[still_one]

3. WTF. That alone should disqualify her. The Constitution is very clear on this matter. That is

up to Congress NOT the executive branch

[PTWB]

4. She's not saying that.

She’s essentially saying Judges should approach all cases thoughtfully and with an open mind. It is a generic non-answer.

[qazplm135]

8. It's a crutch

to avoid any position on abortion and extended to any other controversial cases to get through the "process."

It's why I don't bother watching anymore. It's all a charade.

[BKDem]

9. I'm not approaching her answer with an open mind.

I believe may “lying for the lord” as some religious zealots have been known to do.

[bigtree]

10. a courtroom page could answer this, it's not case law it's in the Constitution

...Trump cannot unilaterally postpone the election. Period.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the date for voting.

[The Magistrate]

11. Bullshit

It is not a non-answer, it is a clear statement of willingness to go along with a coup, if only tickled properly.

It is pretty close to declaring she would keep an open mind about whether burglary is a crime if someone tried to claim in court he had a perfect right to enter someone's home and help himself to their belongings.

[PTWB]

21. No, it is a non-answer.

I appreciate that you and others may not have paid much attention to Supreme Court nomination hearings over the years but this is standard practice. Senators grandstand about their own personal constitutional interpretations with minimal effort on actually pinning a nominee down on their own stance. Nominees are allowed to give non-answers to any hot button issue and they've been doing it for decades.

Future Justice Elena Kagan wrote in 1995 that the nomination hearings had "taken on an air of vacuity and farce" - to suggest that this is somehow a new phenomenon shows a complete lack of familiarity with the process.

[The Magistrate]

23. I Will Not Bother To Repeat Myself, Sir

I do appreciate your attempt to amuse me by suggesting ignorance on my part of political developments over the previous several decades, though. Always nice to be able to crack a grin early in the morning....

[PTWB]

24. Ignorance can be deliberate.

Amy Coney Barrett is a terrible nominee and will make a terrible Justice. Feigning surprise at her non-answers to hot button issues when nominees have been dodging hot button issues for decades does what, exactly?

There are two explanations here:

1. You've not been paying attention to nomination hearings in recent decades.
2. You have been paying attention but are being disingenuous.

[Johonny]

15. She's saying Yes, if it's a Republicans. No, if a Democrat.

That's her open mind.

[dalton99a]

5. This is horrifying

but not unexpected

[Mossfern]

6. She refuses to recuse herself

without "consultation" with other Justices.
It was an easy question to answer - and she punted.
Acts as if she never heard what Trump was saying about her appointment and the election results.

She doesn't commit to anything.

Now her opinion about Obama's nomination that was blocked.

[BComplex]

22. So I assume she would only be "consulting" with the male justices, given her religious beliefs?

After all, she's in a cult, and she'll do as her husband directs her to do.

[gratuitous]

27. Any questions about recusal are useless

The only person that can recuse a Supreme Court Justice is that justice, and they don't hafta if they don't wanna. Certainly Justice Thomas has sat on and ruled on a lot of cases in which he had an interest, either personally or through his wife's political activities. I've not seen an analysis of the Supreme Court rulings that touch on Thomas's interests, but I would not be surprised if he sided with his own interests every time. The only remedy for a corrupt Supreme Court Justice is impeachment, and we haven't done that in more than 200 years.

[lagomorph777]

7. Open mind or empty head?

[Mossfern]

12. As an aside

those who are joining the hearing remotely should make sure that they are not in a live room (sound). There's too much echo in Leahy's questions.

[Mossfern]

13. Uh oh

she signed the petition (right to life) on her way out of church and wasn't paying attention to the next page.

[Walleye]

14. I'm glad Senator Leahy asked her about in vitro fertilization

That’s one hypocrisy that the right to lifers never have explained.

[BComplex]

16. It needs to be made law, and not just a norm, that the president is elected by the people.

We need to get rid of the electoral college once and for all.

[Shipwack]

17. So much for being an "originalist"....

Then again, consistency is not a conservative strong point....

[RobinA]

20. My Thoughts Exactly

Although I probably wouldn't believe her no matter what she said on this subject.

[malthaussen]

25. Or, in other words: "I'd have to inspect the Constitution thoroughly...

... to find a way to make up the claim that he has that authority."

-- Mal

[bigtree]

26. tha answer should have been simple

Link to tweet

[murielm99]

28. This won't happen.

The election is going on right now. Don' fall for republican gaslighting.

[Roland99]

29. But she wouldn't comment AT ALL on the question about intimidation at a polling place!!