Yesterday I was arguing with someone about the fact that Barrett is clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. The other person complained that Barrett refused to answer specific questions about her personal beliefs and how she would rule on future issues brought before the SCOTUS. Of course, I educated the person about the judicial canon that actually precludes a judge from discussing how he/she might rule on a future case. Then, I hit the person with the following passage written in 2005:
“When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees.
Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.
Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3.“
I guess the Democratic Senators who questioned Barrett for the last three days didn't think Barrett was entitled to the same protections that the current Democratic Presidential nominee (Biden) afforded to one of the most radical justices to ever take the bench (Ginsburg).
The person was literally speechless.
Irony is so much fun.
