I know I supported her nomination, and I know she voted correctly to overturn Roe, but I definitely believe that there has been some bait and switch going on with Barrett.
She's been a disappointment, or simply her rulings have been. I read a good opinion piece which argued that she has been ruling in a manner consistent with her statements during her confirmation hearing. That's not especially reassuring, and I didn't sit through the hearings myself. But if we assume the piece is accurate, then there's little about which to complain. She's doing her job as she sees it.
Confirmation hearings for judges isn't as important as who doing the nominating. I don't mean the president, but who is picking those for consideration. Once a candidate gets to the hearing stage, most senators of the president's party will be inclined to rubber stamp the person, while senators of the other party will not. When a GOP president puts up a candidate for the post, the Dems make up all sorts of stupid crap block confirmation. Their recent antics with regard to Trump's cabinet picks is a great example, but one can't forget what crap they came up with to block Kavanaugh, and frankly, they weren't much more honest and mature in their behavior with regards Barrett.
In any case, if the selection is sound, party support isn't a problem because we want the best on the bench. Thus, the president's list of possibilities has to be bullet proof. From that point on, it would just be a matter of how cases are argued before them. Then, if we get rulings we don't like, it'll be because the lawyers didn't prepare, not the the justices are stupid.
If you are someone who thinks that SCOTUS judges are nominated because the president who nominates them expects a certain ideological consistency, then she's been a huge disappointment. If she's ruling consistently with her confirmation hearing answers, then whoever vetted her in the administration failed.
In her case, from the perspective of thinking that Trump nominated a "conservative", it seems clear that this experiment was a failure.
She's been a disappointment, or simply her rulings have been. I read a good opinion piece which argued that she has been ruling in a manner consistent with her statements during her confirmation hearing. That's not especially reassuring, and I didn't sit through the hearings myself. But if we assume the piece is accurate, then there's little about which to complain. She's doing her job as she sees it.
ReplyDeleteConfirmation hearings for judges isn't as important as who doing the nominating. I don't mean the president, but who is picking those for consideration. Once a candidate gets to the hearing stage, most senators of the president's party will be inclined to rubber stamp the person, while senators of the other party will not. When a GOP president puts up a candidate for the post, the Dems make up all sorts of stupid crap block confirmation. Their recent antics with regard to Trump's cabinet picks is a great example, but one can't forget what crap they came up with to block Kavanaugh, and frankly, they weren't much more honest and mature in their behavior with regards Barrett.
In any case, if the selection is sound, party support isn't a problem because we want the best on the bench. Thus, the president's list of possibilities has to be bullet proof. From that point on, it would just be a matter of how cases are argued before them. Then, if we get rulings we don't like, it'll be because the lawyers didn't prepare, not the the justices are stupid.
That's how I see it.
If you are someone who thinks that SCOTUS judges are nominated because the president who nominates them expects a certain ideological consistency, then she's been a huge disappointment. If she's ruling consistently with her confirmation hearing answers, then whoever vetted her in the administration failed.
DeleteIn her case, from the perspective of thinking that Trump nominated a "conservative", it seems clear that this experiment was a failure.