Timex
5859
Eh, her answer was pretty standard. Saying that you’d need to hear whatever arguments are made is not really a threatening answer
MikeJ
5860
It seems like completely dodging the question. That’s acceptable, and even expected when it’s a difficult controversial issue, but “Can POTUS unilaterally delay an election” doesn’t seem like it should be in that category. What about “Can POTUS shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue?” - does that need detailed legal arguments?
Timex
5861
I dunno, for decades these hearings have generally been situations where the nominees refuse to say how they will rule on anything.
If they say otherwise, then you run the risk that someone can say that their argument wasn’t even considered by the court.
The problem is when she (and others) say things like I don’t consider hypothetical cases that aren’t before me. She was a law professor, I don’t think there is any doubt that she has considered hypotheticals many, many, many times as part of that job. What is a moot court, after all?
Edit: Of course the problem starts even before then. She’s written, spoken about Roe v Wade, and I don’t know what I think of Roe v Wade is a transparent lie.
She is by all accounts an excellent lawyer, but she was also a law professor. The law professor side should have explained what the constitution says. “Congress specifies when elections are held”, followed by the normal legal disclaimer. Nobody, not even Mitch McConnell or Sen. Graham supported Trump’s call for postponing the election, she should show a tiny bit of independence from the President.
Lol, just calling balls and strikes.
… which means that this shitshow of an administration will be able to not count undocumented immigrants, in clear violation of the constitutional language requiring a count of “all persons.”
Since rules don’t matter declare the census void and do a new one in 2021.
That could work, but Republicans would move to stop it in the courts, and I’m not sure if the SCOTUS wouldn’t side with them again.
Well you do it after you pack the courts, obviously. :)
vyshka
5870
Has that not come up in the hearings? wtf
Your workplace was already hostile and abusive so who cares
Alstein
5874
Then ignore the court, saying its doing politics not interpreting the law, and say if Republicans don’t like it, try to impeach.
ShivaX
5875
Sometimes I need to be reminded of why I think Thomas is a hack and full of shit.
rowe33
5876
Don’t forget to vote on Wednesday, Nov 11th!
Does Barrett always look terrified by the way?
Just a side effect of the Ludovico Technique aversion therapy the pro-life grooming groups put Barrett through.
