Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

[James_Gale]

They have pointed out in 2016 and now that if the Senate has the power to block a Supreme Court confirmation until after the election in an election year, then they are right in doing so.  If the White House and Senate are of the same party in an election year, then they are right to proceed with a confirmation.

The problem with that argument is that logic would seem to require one to extend the "no confirmation" argument back two whole years--maybe even four. What's so hallowed about an "in an election year"? If there's a Republican president but the Democrats take the Senate in the midterm elections, couldn't they reasonably say, the very day after the election, "Well, the people have spoken; they've elected a Democratic Senate, and so we're not confirming anybody until after the next election when they have a chance to speak again"?

Of course. And in the current environment, Democrats probably would do and say this. The cycle will likely stop only if a party pays what it seems to be too high a price at the ballot box.

[Steven W Bohler]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

Exactly. While I would prefer a different nominee, I think Barrett is an eminently qualified and reasonable choice for a Republican president, and there's no reason a nomination cannot be made in the last months of a term. My objection continues to be to the Republicans' refusal to act on the Garland nomination--and the hypocrisy (of both sides).

One could see the refusal to proceed with the process as being a form of acting on the nomination.  A pocket veto, so to speak.

[David Garner]

They have pointed out in 2016 and now that if the Senate has the power to block a Supreme Court confirmation until after the election in an election year, then they are right in doing so.  If the White House and Senate are of the same party in an election year, then they are right to proceed with a confirmation.

The problem with that argument is that logic would seem to require one to extend the "no confirmation" argument back two whole years--maybe even four. What's so hallowed about an "in an election year"? If there's a Republican president but the Democrats take the Senate in the midterm elections, couldn't they reasonably say, the very day after the election, "Well, the people have spoken; they've elected a Democratic Senate, and so we're not confirming anybody until after the next election when they have a chance to speak again"?

Of course. And in the current environment, Democrats probably would do and say this. The cycle will likely stop only if a party pays what it seems to be too high a price at the ballot box.

It's worse.  One party will have to be willing to pay too high a price at the ballot box by doing the right thing.  Their members will be primaries in favor of wingnuts, and they will lose to said wingnuts, a significant portion of whom will then go on to lose to their opponents in the other party.

The way to stop this is to hit the reset button and say "fine, we're sorry about Bork (or Garland, if we're going to wait another decade or three) -- we'll vote to confirm and stop trying to block your nominees." 

The Democrats undisputedly started this.  Republicans were undisputedly late to the party, but when both parties finally play the same hardball, the only way to end it is by calling a truce.  A truce requires trust.  Trust is earned.  And trust may not be rewarded (that is, say the Democrats agree to play fair -- that is no guarantee the Republicans will).

About the only good news in all of this is we have at least 5 members of the Court who are conscious of their role as judges, the limited judiciary, etc.  So maybe the Court will become less of an issue by osmosis as the Court moves toward a more Constitutional role.

I'm hopeful, but not optimistic. 

[James_Gale]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

Exactly. While I would prefer a different nominee, I think Barrett is an eminently qualified and reasonable choice for a Republican president, and there's no reason a nomination cannot be made in the last months of a term. My objection continues to be to the Republicans' refusal to act on the Garland nomination--and the hypocrisy (of both sides).

One could see the refusal to proceed with the process as being a form of acting on the nomination.  A pocket veto, so to speak.

You're right, of course.  But if the Senate majority exercises its "pocket veto" over every nominee proposed by a president of the opposite party, we'll have a mess that likely will compound and will rob the courts of the legitimacy that they need to play their Constitutionally appointed role.


It's not hard to imagine that by the end of January the president and Senate majority will be from different parties.  We certainly don't want the Senate simply to stop considering judicial nominees.  But that could happen. 

[FrPeters]

It did not begin with the conservative right but with liberal and progressive forces against Judge Bork who was eminently qualified.  Don't forget that Sen. Harry Reid also contributed to the breakdown with the so-called nuclear option.  Republicans may not have behaved well but they are no worse than those who set the stage for this process to devolve into mudslinging and the worst kind of partisan politics.

[Richard Johnson]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

Exactly. While I would prefer a different nominee, I think Barrett is an eminently qualified and reasonable choice for a Republican president, and there's no reason a nomination cannot be made in the last months of a term. My objection continues to be to the Republicans' refusal to act on the Garland nomination--and the hypocrisy (of both sides).

One could see the refusal to proceed with the process as being a form of acting on the nomination.  A pocket veto, so to speak.

By that logic, the Senate should never vote on anything. After all, if the majority party has the votes, why bother to debate? Just bring a list of bills the Majority Leader wants, have a pro forma session where they approve it all en bloc. The Senators could instead spend all their time back home campaigning.

[Steven W Bohler]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

Exactly. While I would prefer a different nominee, I think Barrett is an eminently qualified and reasonable choice for a Republican president, and there's no reason a nomination cannot be made in the last months of a term. My objection continues to be to the Republicans' refusal to act on the Garland nomination--and the hypocrisy (of both sides).

One could see the refusal to proceed with the process as being a form of acting on the nomination.  A pocket veto, so to speak.

By that logic, the Senate should never vote on anything. After all, if the majority party has the votes, why bother to debate? Just bring a list of bills the Majority Leader wants, have a pro forma session where they approve it all en bloc. The Senators could instead spend all their time back home campaigning.

They kinda do that.  How much do you think senators actually debate bills (let alone issues)?  My goodness, many of those bills are so long that senators and representatives never even read them (remember Speaker Pelosi's infamous "we have to pass it to know what's in it")!  And they pretty much know which way they are to vote before they even show up.  And when there IS debate, it's all a show for the cameras.  To influence voters back home.  Because THAT is the real work of politicians.  It is their staff that do the researching and writing of bills. 

[James J Eivan]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

Exactly. While I would prefer a different nominee, I think Barrett is an eminently qualified and reasonable choice for a Republican president, and there's no reason a nomination cannot be made in the last months of a term. My objection continues to be to the Republicans' refusal to act on the Garland nomination--and the hypocrisy (of both sides).

One could see the refusal to proceed with the process as being a form of acting on the nomination.  A pocket veto, so to speak.

By that logic, the Senate should never vote on anything. After all, if the majority party has the votes, why bother to debate? Just bring a list of bills the Majority Leader wants, have a pro forma session where they approve it all en bloc. The Senators could instead spend all their time back home campaigning.

They kinda do that.  How much do you think senators actually debate bills (let alone issues)?  My goodness, many of those bills are so long that senators and representatives never even read them (remember Speaker Pelosi's infamous "we have to pass it to know what's in it")!  And they pretty much know which way they are to vote before they even show up.  And when there IS debate, it's all a show for the cameras.  To influence voters back home.  Because THAT is the real work of politicians.  It is their staff that do the researching and writing of bills. 

Why else would Senator Schumer continue with the half truths about the McConnell doctrine on replacing supreme court justice seats… Without being honest that in 2016 he fully favored the replacement in an election year? Posturing Virtue Signaling ... that far too many forum participants fall for and continually re elect the relic.☹️🤬

[Charles Austin]

A factual (cases cited, evidence and quotations from Barrett given) and fascinating analysis of the Barrett answers. And you have to read the whole story to get the full picture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-what-we-learned.html

[Jim Butler]

A factual (cases cited, evidence and quotations from Barrett given) and fascinating analysis of the Barrett answers. And you have to read the whole story to get the full picture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-what-we-learned.html

Your opinion of "fascinating" and mine are quite different. I thought the story was rather bland. Instead finding out what we "learned about ACB at the confirmation hearings" we get the opinion of some political prof at UMass, Amherst. I did, however, like Liptak's remark, "Her demeanor, by turns patient and prickly, was that of a professor unlucky enough to find herself teaching a seminar to a particularly dim set of students." Although, I preferred one pundit who likened her to a mom gently dealing with a group of children.

Since Liptak brought it up, I am at a loss as to what Judge Barrett's view on climate change has to do with anything. It is not her job to deal with policy; it is her job to decide if what Congress (or, more likely the EPA) wants to do about it is constitutional.

[peter_speckhard]

A factual (cases cited, evidence and quotations from Barrett given) and fascinating analysis of the Barrett answers. And you have to read the whole story to get the full picture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-what-we-learned.html

Your opinion of "fascinating" and mine are quite different. I thought the story was rather bland. Instead finding out what we "learned about ACB at the confirmation hearings" we get the opinion of some political prof at UMass, Amherst. I did, however, like Liptak's remark, "Her demeanor, by turns patient and prickly, was that of a professor unlucky enough to find herself teaching a seminar to a particularly dim set of students." Although, I preferred one pundit who likened her to a mom gently dealing with a group of children.

Since Liptak brought it up, I am at a loss as to what Judge Barrett's view on climate change has to do with anything. It is not her job to deal with policy; it is her job to decide if what Congress (or, more likely the EPA) wants to do about it is constitutional.

I think some of the Dem questioners were trying to showcase Science and Reliance of Experts not so much to draw a contrast with Barrett's religion, which has no problem with science or experts, but to forward the political narrative concerning the election, the pandemic, and the supposed disparity between how progressives and conservatives view science and experts. I think Harris pushed that line of questioning, and I wish Barrett had simply made the point that cases that make it up the chain of courts generally have experts weighing in on both sides. Harris, as a former prosecutor, has no doubt (Barrett might have gently reminded her) marshalled expert witnesses carefully chosen to favor her case, and encountered defense attorney with their own expert witnesses. So it isn't a matter of whether a judge respects science and experts in making a ruling. It is always a matter of which scientists and experts make a more compelling case to the jury or judge tasked with deciding. Nobody ever ruled against the experts as though the losing and winning sides didn't both have experts in their corner. 

[Julio]

A factual (cases cited, evidence and quotations from Barrett given) and fascinating analysis of the Barrett answers. And you have to read the whole story to get the full picture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-what-we-learned.html

Yes ... especially this....

“ Judge Barrett, by contrast, was a largely undiluted product of the legal academy until she joined the federal appeals court in Chicago three years ago. As such, she may lack an element of political savvy, and the lines she drew may have reflected excessive caution.”

These are the facts worth discussing.

[mj4]

It is their staff that do the researching and writing of bills.

…with the assistance of the lobbyists on K Street who represent the same people who fund the campaigns.

[Steven W Bohler]

It is their staff that do the researching and writing of bills.

…with the assistance of the lobbyists on K Street who represent the same people who fund the campaigns.

Bingo.

[JEdwards]

Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.

Now he just used the phrase "liturgical act." The man is just stud, plain and simple.

I, too, appreciate Senator Sasse’s intelligence, principle, and candor. What do you think of his unvarnished opinion of President Trump?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/exclusive-gop-sen-sasse-says-trump-kisses-dictators-butts-mocks-evangelicals