A Supreme Court Justice nominee who doesn't know the Constitution?

None of the questions I listed on the OP have to do with prejudging.

 

I voted Wednesday last week. Checked online Monday, and it was received and counted.

 

That is question that could come up with the supreme court. She should not make a predetermination. It is unlikely it would come up, but possible. If you believe it could not come up, then the whole question is meaningless.

That is also a question that could come up with the supreme court.

And they are both hypothetical.

 

Considering you are a poster that thought the Preamble of the Constitution was law.....well...

Nothing in the Constitution says the President can't move election day....nothing....so the question is stupid...it depends on the facts of the case brought before the Court

 

Just wow. Its amazing just how much the left doesn't know about a Justice on the court. She never said she didn't know the answer. She said she could be ruling on such and she can't comment on those as to how she would rule.

The only thing fake is how the left thinks they can convince anyone that Barret doesn't know the answers when she sat there for two days quoting the constitution and dozens of rulings and descents throughout history without a single note in front of her.

But then you have idiots on the left asking her is she ever raped someone. Dumbest people on the planet. As per usual the left was way out of there league against Barret.

She will be confirmed so you should just get used to it.

 

There are many laws, thousands of them, not sure how you expect her to answer questions in which specifics aren't cited. Cases are individual things, these questions of 'law' are based on the enormous body of law that encompasses items not up for discussion. These 'questions' are a trap, there is no right answer without having the specific case and evidence at hand...

 

It depends on the facts before here..

I know this bothers a lot of leftist.....they don't like an independent judicial branch

 

I did. I found your OP deeply dishonest. It completely misrepresented ACB's answers. She didn't say "she didn't know", she has consistently said that it would be inappropriate for a judicial nominee to indicate how she would rule on issues that may come before their court. Saying it's inappropriate to pre-judge a case during her confirmation hearing is different than saying "I don't know". You know this, but went for a dishonest cheap shot anyways. Shame on you.

 

The Poster has a long history of misrepresenting what people say.

 

Oh, You think No hints, no previews, no forecasts only means about existing cases and not cases that could come before the court.

Now I get why you don't understand how it works. Justices don't give ANY comments on how they would rule on ANYTHING EVER. It would forecast how they would rule in the future and open them up to politicians trying to legislate with the SCOTUS.

But that would be way way over the head of the left.

 

Not even close, but cool story bro.

Not the left. I'm about as left as John McCain was, or Dick Bryan, or GHW Bush.

Post #20. You'll find it just above #21. You know, the one you're quoting. My desire to not have to repeat myself supersedes your inability to follow the thread.

 

The Ginsberg Rule doesn't just apply to questions on cases before the Court. It applies to any questions on how a justice might rule on existing or future cases.

 

Post #20. Hello...

 

Gosh, clutch your pearls hon... Good times ahead....

 

No, it couldn't. From the 28th congress, circa 1845:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the electors of Presi- Election day
dent and Vice President shall be appointed in each State on the Tues- fixed.
day next after the first Monday in the month of November of the year
in which they are to be appointed..."

The SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. Only Congress can delay an election, but it would require agreement both by the Democrats who control the House and the Republicans who control the Senate. Good luck with that!

Barret was asked about this law, not how she would process a case based on this law. Same with the voter intimidation law. Either she didn't know, or she dodged the question. She did that so often yesterday, using nearly the exact same words each time, that I strongly suspect she was prepped by the Federalist Society that nominated her, and of which she is a member.

 

It could still come up in the supreme court, if challenged.

 

She was asked a question as to what the Constitution says. Not how she would rule as to whether a party’s case violates that .

She also didn’t seem to know that voter intimidation was illegal.

So is she unqualified or is she signaling how she’s going to vote...

 

As did Ruth Bader Ginsburg before her, Barrett invoked the Biden Rule.
Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court.

https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule

 

Oh I thought this thread was going to be about Ginsburg forgetting the 14th amendment.

https://prepforthat.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-forgets-constitution/

 

So, I think the vote is tomorrow, and Trump will appoint tomorrow as well? Maybe Friday? Democrats just figured out that being eunuchs for their party wasn't such a cool thing....

 

Ginsburg was talking about particular cases

not whether something was or was not law

 

She wouldn't answer that question, and properly so. You probably want judges who don't have to listen to the litigators, read the briefs, and read the laws before ruling, but most fair-minded people don't.

 

She wouldn’t even acknowledge the law in several instances

 

Nonsense. They're not asking her about any case. They are asking her about the law.