Barrett "can't remember" her work on Bush v Gore. Amy Klobuchar helps jog her memory.

[Miles Archer]

Klobuchar pointed out that Barrett would be the third justice who had worked on the Republican legal case in the Bush v. Gore decision that halted the Florida recount, joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the nominee squirmed.

“I did work on behalf of the Republican side,” Barrett said. “To be totally honest, I can’t remember exactly what piece of the case it was.”

“You understand we’re operating in a moment where the president is undermining vote by mail, even though a number of Republican governors and Republican senators are supportive of it,” Klobuchar said. “Many argue that Bush v. Gore, back to your earlier work, hurt the court’s legitimacy. If you are confirmed, the Supreme Court will have not one, not two, but three justices — you, Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, who worked on behalf of the Republican Party in matters related to the Bush v. Gore case. Do you think that that’s a coincidence?”

“Sen. Klobuchar, if you’re asking me whether I was nominated for this seat because I worked on Bush v. Gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate, that doesn’t make sense to me.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-gets-defensive-as-amy-klobuchar-brings-up-nominees-work-in-bush-v-gore/

[Laelth]

1. Senator Klobuchar wasn't expecting an answer.

She just wanted to get that particularly grating fact on the record, and she did.

Well done, Senator!



-Laelth


P.S. “If any of you Republicans are wondering why we’re gonna go nuclear on your asses next year, here’s one reason among MANY!”

[MyOwnPeace]

3. Regarding your "P.S."

Damn, you got THAT right!

[Laelth]

5. Yes. Indeed. n/t

-Laelth

[DallasNE]

11. Her Response Was Feeble

Sen. Klobuchar did not insinuate that THE reason she was nominated was for her work on Bush v. Gore. But with her being the 3rd person to be elevated to the highest court with a background of working on that case it sure looks like icing on the cake to many of Americans.

[Blue Owl]

2. K&R for Amy K!

[lettucebe]

4. What doesn't make sense to me is why this young lawyer is being considered for highest court

There must be a hundred more qualified candidates out there.

[sfstaxprep]

8. Because She's A Far Right Vote For The Next 4-5 Decades nt

[tinrobot]

16. Because we stupidly appoint justices for life.

The younger the nominee, the longer they can serve, and the longer they can advance the nominating party's agenda.

That's just ridiculous.

I really think we need to term limit justices. Give them one long term, maybe 18 years, so that two get selected each presidential term.

[Yavin4]

17. Because she has proven that she will do what she's told to do.

No independent thoughts at all.

[gratuitous]

6. Barrett can't remember what she did 20 years ago?

Does she have memory problems? Has she been evaluated for possible early onset Alzheimers or other form of dementia? Or did she think she'd skate through without anyone bringing up her past that doesn't include her husband, children, and adopted children? This looks like a classic case of bad judgment.

[GeorgeGist]

10. +1

[LuckyLib]

12. On a case that changed the course of an American election? Please.

The bullshit she's coming up with is knee-deep.

[lastlib]

14. I'd say pretty damn stoopid to be a Supreme Court justice, ain't she?......

But that's just me........

[TheBlackAdder]

7. Deceptive -- Not a good trait for someone in the judiciary deciding other people's credibility.

[ancianita]

25. +1 Exactly. She knows that the Federalist Society has ranked her, but would never say on what.

Misremembering that one case is pure deception for one who can cite all kinds of cases.

[flotsam]

9. "That doesn't make sense to me."

Would it help if I told you that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were "young associates" in the Nixon White House?

[Marius25]

13. What are the odds of the court trying to overturn a Biden win?

I'm not sure how that would even work.

[Yavin4]

18. Zero. Esp. if Biden wins big.

Trump's last gasp is to get close enough so that FLA can decide it, but that aint going to happen.

It's like throwing a Hail Mary pass in the NFL blindfolded.

[NYC Liberal]

24. Trump and the Republicans are normalizing the idea of SCOTUS being involved.

And now a lot of people just assume that of course they’ll be involved. There won’t be a reason for them to be involved if Biden wins big. They certainly have no official, constitutional role in the election process itself.

[ancianita]

26. There was absolutely no reason for SCOTUS to be involved in Bush v Gore, either. Yet here we are.

Yes, Biden has to win big. However, knowing that Trump will fight even a big win -- he has said so -- and knowing that SCOTUS changed the trajectory of this nation in 2000, it could manage that trajectory again if enough fake chaos complaints come from red states.

A lot of people assume only because it's Trump who's normalized SCOTUS involvement. People assume because they listen to Trump and know that even if, objectively, there is no reason, the count will still be the fight, and Trumpers will, by any means necessary, make any win "not big" if they can produce contradictory "evidence" of state count "chaos." We overlook that Trump plan at our peril.

It might not go to SCOTUS. It might go to Congress. Same outcome, as Bill Maher showed.

[Arazi]

15. She has trouble "remembering" her lies from 3 years ago

Boy do I miss Al today..

Link to tweet

?s=19

[Kid Berwyn]

19. Way to go, Sen. Klobuchar!

Grill, Baby, Grill!

[RANDYWILDMAN]

20. it's only the biggest most influential case she has ever been on.

But she was a lowly associate who knows nothing. My wife is an attorney and associate's do the work partners take the credit.

Funny how this little inconsequential case has dumped 3 pieces of trash on us.

Without this case Roberts would not be on the court and neither should Barrett or Kav.


This Case/Theft keep punching us, mostly below the belt....

[Ilsa]

21. Test her for Alzheimers and disqualify her. nt

[ArizonaLib]

22. When are we going to start impeaching justices who lie to congress?

Or at least censure those in contempt of congress? Shouldn't the threshold be set at a level appropriate for someone who should know better?

[bucolic_frolic]

23. It's an idea that has been floated over the last 2 years

by prominent former prosecutors. I suspect it's time will come, but not before 2024 or 2026. And even then, if we've enacted changes to make the court less political the issue might fade.