General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow to question Judge Barrett -- it's brilliant
This appeared on my FB feed --
"Dont know who this came from, but its bloody brilliant! (Reported to have come from Bill Svelmoe on FB.)
If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?
Then turn to the Hatch Act. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?
Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a perfect phone call? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?
Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.
Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.
And finally: "Judge, why did you bring your seven unmasked children to a superspreader event in the Rose Garden?
Taking this approach does a number of things:
1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.
2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.
3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.
Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.
Iwasthere
(3,159 posts)Can someone forward it?
katmondoo
(6,457 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,753 posts)If Trump sees her on TV taking the "wrong" view, he may even pull the nomination.
It was reported he nearly pulled the plug on Kavanaugh over some petty discrepancy.
Blue Owl
(50,356 posts)Boogiemack
(1,406 posts)stopwastingmymoney
(2,041 posts)Deacon Blue
(252 posts)Somehow John and Ted probably wont take me up on this. And Ted holds himself out as a Serious Constitutional Scholar...
LAS14
(13,783 posts)BigOleDummy
(2,270 posts)Well thought out.... I love it! Make this happen
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)And yes, I could see VP Harris asking every one of those questions!!!!!
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)I am not on twitter otherwise I would
vlyons
(10,252 posts)nt
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)lamp_shade
(14,831 posts)JHB
(37,160 posts)And to the Facebook Group "Progressive Veterans and Military Families"
***
onethatcares
(16,167 posts)or she can just withdraw as a nominee. Either way it's a win for America.
Mr.Bill
(24,284 posts)Or for that matter, not allowing any questions at all? Sort of like not allowing any witnesses at a Senate impeachment trial. I have no doubt he would do that if he could.
allnews
(244 posts)They really should do something like that
MRDAWG
(501 posts)And mail in voting.
NJCher
(35,662 posts)can't she say she is unable to comment because it's presently in litigation/under investigation?
I like the strategy as it has an upside, but wonder if she might worm out of the questions citing the above.
Grins
(7,217 posts)Because, as you wrote, None of these questions are hypothetical. They are cases that very likely WILL come before the court. And she will say, like every R nominee before, she cant comment.
But it would be hats n horns to hear and watch her squirm and have her expound on the Biden Rule...!! And if it has no basis under the Constitution, could a judge be forced to step down.
firstwife
(115 posts)Bill Svelmoe, associate professor of history at Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame has thoughts on the Senate confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)DemUnleashed
(633 posts)Excellent, Excellent, Excellent!!! And having the public hear these questions will really hit home as to how corrupt this administration really is!!
FBaggins
(26,732 posts)They don't just dodge "hypothetical" questions. The so-called "Ginsburg Rule" is that they won't answer questions about topics that could reasonably be expected to come before them as a judge. If you have a list of things that the Trump administration has done that you think are illegal... but haven't already been adjudicated by SCOTUS... she'll decline to opine
The clearest lines for questioning are her actual rulings/dissents from the last three years. Particularly if any of them were overturned or (if a dissent) were upheld by a SCOTUS majority.
FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)Just by asking the questions, in detail, the Democratic Senators have the chance to lay out many of the sins of Chump and his staff. Whether Judge Barrett answers or not, it's clear what this Administration is guilty of, and so many voters will be listening. For all we know, Chump may withdraw her name as a candidate after that.
This is a brilliant strategy.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)Republicans in the Senate will conform no matter what comes out in the hearings. So its theatre, and its theatre that our side should use to show how venal and hypocritical the repthugican side is.
OneBlueSky
(18,536 posts)and as part of the confirmation hearings, it'll be in the written record forever . . . do it! . . .
I hope the senators are reading.
Why ask hypotheticals, that she will only either lie about or avoid answering.
This IS BRILLIANT! They have the power to install Satan if they so chose. At least we can expose their corruption and her future hypocrisy.😈
Firestorm49
(4,032 posts)Mustellus
(328 posts)... what did you do to try to stop the mass rape of children by Catholic Priests....
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)Sending this to all Democratic Senators.
SweepPicker
(266 posts)I hope they make it so!
OhioTim
(259 posts)She won't answer, but.."As an attorney, does it bother you to be nominated by a criminal".
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)It was held in her honor, and she could have said that she was not okay with an event where there were no precautions.
dchill
(38,484 posts)...to the Rose Garden stew-in.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Judge Barrett, what is your understanding of "depraved-heart murder," sometimes called depraved indifference murder? Would you agree that depraved heart murder is a form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues as is the express intent to kill itself? Would you agree that telling people that the Covid-19 virus is a hoax constitutes depraved indifference, when one knows that it is highly airborn contagious and potentially lethal?
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Did you know you were shedding covid-19 when you went to the Rose Garden party?
Bettie
(16,100 posts)At best she won't give any answers at all.
But these people have no problem lying about anything and everything in order to do the bidding of their masters.
FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)It's possible she doesn't even know how Chump's administration has damaged this country. But if she doesn't know, how does that make her qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?