We had enough of that.
Posted on 10/13/2020 11:04:51 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is vowing to bring no “agenda” to the court, batting back senators’ questions Tuesday on abortion, gun rights and the November election, insisting she would take a conservative approach to the law but decide cases as they come.
“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett said at the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate.
The 48-year-old appellate court judge, nominated by President Donald Trump and on track for quick confirmation before the Nov. 3 election, also declined to commit to recusing herself from any cases arising from that election.
“I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process,” she said.
Barrett was on Capitol Hill for a second day of hearings, the mood quickly shifting to a more confrontational tone from opening day. She was grilled in 30-minute segments by Democrats strongly opposed to Trump’s nominee, yet virtually powerless to stop her. Republicans are rushing her to confirmation before Election Day.
Trump has said he wants the ninth member on the court to handle any cases that may arise. But Barrett said it would be a “gross violation” of judicial independence to make a commitment on how she’d rule. She insisted she has not spoken to the president or his team about how she would handle such cases.
Earlier, a frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat, on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Why should she?
She’d better not commit to recusing.
We don’t need Amy Coney Sessions on SCOTUS.
Recuse herself from
HER JOB !!!!?!?!
Typical
DemCommie irresponsibility
From a house that has done nothing but piss all over itself and the country for 4 years.
Spit
No judge would, or should, commit to recusing themselves in advance from judging on any particular case - let alone a theoretical case. This question (or demand, as the case may be) is about as stupid as saying that nominating and confirming ACB is unconstitutional, or that the Republicans are “packing the Court” by filling seat #9 - which is to say, it is world-class stupid.
We had enough of that.
Why should she?
And one Froll to post it and other like it (OldEconomyBuyer) and his fellow travelers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.