I don't think the Democrats should skip the hearings. That strikes me as too similar to McConnell's failure to even hold hearings for Judge Garland which I found repugnant. I also agree that it is dangerous to attack her religious beliefs. I do, however, find a great irony in the fact that she stated in a 2016 interview that she oppos…
I don't think the Democrats should skip the hearings. That strikes me as too similar to McConnell's failure to even hold hearings for Judge Garland which I found repugnant. I also agree that it is dangerous to attack her religious beliefs. I do, however, find a great irony in the fact that she stated in a 2016 interview that she opposed Garland's nomination because it would "dramatically shift the makeup of the Court" to replace Scalia with Garland. Garland was at least somewhat moderate. The differences between Ginsburg's and Barrett's jurisprudence differs far more dramatically, so how does she now rationalize this about face?
BUT, I'd pay money to watch Kamala Harris pose a few of these questions to Judge Barrett. She might simply refuse to comment as many of these examples could end up as actual cases before SCOTUS in the future, but it would make for an exciting exchange.
FWIW, my biggest beef with Barrett is her lack of judicial experience. Three years on the Federal Bench after 15 years of teaching in law school is not the depth of experience needed for the highest court in the land.
YES YES YES! First thing I said was 'Let Kamala Gert to this!' And I absolutely agree that she is way too inexperienced... And who knows what may be further revealed over the next week or two about Trump... how bad could it get? Could it get so bad that any action could be taken to curtail this procedure? Sorry I don't know about that, it's just all so bizarre, it makes me think that anything could happen!
I don't think the Democrats should skip the hearings. That strikes me as too similar to McConnell's failure to even hold hearings for Judge Garland which I found repugnant. I also agree that it is dangerous to attack her religious beliefs. I do, however, find a great irony in the fact that she stated in a 2016 interview that she opposed Garland's nomination because it would "dramatically shift the makeup of the Court" to replace Scalia with Garland. Garland was at least somewhat moderate. The differences between Ginsburg's and Barrett's jurisprudence differs far more dramatically, so how does she now rationalize this about face?
BUT, I'd pay money to watch Kamala Harris pose a few of these questions to Judge Barrett. She might simply refuse to comment as many of these examples could end up as actual cases before SCOTUS in the future, but it would make for an exciting exchange.
FWIW, my biggest beef with Barrett is her lack of judicial experience. Three years on the Federal Bench after 15 years of teaching in law school is not the depth of experience needed for the highest court in the land.
YES YES YES! First thing I said was 'Let Kamala Gert to this!' And I absolutely agree that she is way too inexperienced... And who knows what may be further revealed over the next week or two about Trump... how bad could it get? Could it get so bad that any action could be taken to curtail this procedure? Sorry I don't know about that, it's just all so bizarre, it makes me think that anything could happen!
sorry for the typo... let Kamala get to this...
These are terrific points and wonderful advice. I fervently hope some in a position of questioning Judge Barrett will do it!