Jump to content
270soft Forum

10 Questions I’d have for Barrett’s confirmation hearing.


Recommended Posts

If I were a US Senator and on the Judicial Committee, I’d asking the following questions:

1. Do you think it is appropriate for a SC justice to use their own personal political biases in a decision?

2. Do you believe Roe v. Wade currently is the law of the land?

3. Do you believe the same of Obamacare?

4. Do you believe it is possible that Roe v  Wade could be overturned by the SC within the next 4 years?

5. Do you believe it is possible that Obamacare could be overturned by the SC within the next 4 years?

6. Do you believe that “originalism” is the only valid doctrine for a SC justice?

7. What is your opinion of RB Ginsburg as a jurist? 

8  Considering you are being confirmed while an election has already began, with mail-in ballots already being processed, and the incumbent who appointed you on a ticket, would you recuse yourself from any cases regarding this election?

9. Do you believe a president has a right to hide their personal taxes from the public, even if federal courts seem to be signaling that the information should be released?

10. What role should one’s faith play in a Supreme Court decision?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

@Reagan04, I'm curious how you'd answer these questions as both a (former?) Catholic and person interested in the judiciary.

I'd also like to hear @Herbert Hoover and @Conservative Elector 2 since they seem interested in judicial things.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

If I were a US Senator and on the Judicial Committee, I’d asking the following questions:

1. Do you think it is appropriate for a SC justice to use their own personal political biases in a decision?

Do you think it's possible for them not to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

If I were a US Senator and on the Judicial Committee, I’d asking the following questions:

1. Do you think it is appropriate for a SC justice to use their own personal political biases in a decision?

2. Do you believe Roe v. Wade currently is the law of the land?

3. Do you believe the same of Obamacare?

4. Do you believe it is possible that Roe v  Wade could be overturned by the SC within the next 4 years?

5. Do you believe it is possible that Obamacare could be overturned by the SC within the next 4 years?

6. Do you believe that “originalism” is the only valid doctrine for a SC justice?

7. What is your opinion of RB Ginsburg as a jurist? 

8  Considering you are being confirmed while an election has already began, with mail-in ballots already being processed, and the incumbent who appointed you on a ticket, would you recuse yourself from any cases regarding this election?

9. Do you believe a president has a right to hide their personal taxes from the public, even if federal courts seem to be signaling that the information should be released?

10. What role should one’s faith play in a Supreme Court decision?

 

1. No, as a public official it would violate the judicial canon of ethics for a judge to do so.

2. Certainly Roe v. Wade is a piece of the American legal canon, but I would follow precedent and give more deference to the more recent decision passed down by the Court, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996) which superceded certain pieces of Roe.

3. The Affordable Care Act is the policy of Congress and the Executive Branch and as such is a law. It has been amended by this body and I would consider all the laws made by this body and signed by the President when considering a case regarding the ACA.

4. I don't think it would be becoming of me as a judge to speculate as to how I would rule on any specific case surrounding the issue of abortion. I think it would be even more unbecoming for me to speculate as to how my colleagues on the court would rule. Not only would I be breaking the Judicial Canon of Ethics for myself, but also for my colleagues.

5. I don't think it would be becoming of me as a judge to speculate as to how I would rule on any specific case surrounding the issue of abortion. I think it would be even more unbecoming for me to speculate as to how my colleagues on the court would rule. Not only would I be breaking the Judicial Canon of Ethics for myself, but also for my colleagues.

6. While I subscribe to originalism and would emphasize that it is a highly diverse school of thought and it would be inaccurate to ascribe originalism to a type of "legal conservatism", certainly it would be "valid" for a public official to approach the law differently from how I approach the law. I am in no position to gatekeep what methods of interpretation of law are "valid" and not. Certainly I am not in that position to gatekeep on behalf of my colleagues.

7. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an incredibly talented jurist. She was an intelligent woman, she was a hard-working woman. It's worth noting that one of Justice Ginsburg's greatest reccomenders to her position on the Court was her friend from the DC Court, Justice Antonin Scalia. While Justice Ginsburg and I may have approached the law differently at times and disagreed on certain things, there is no doubt that she both earnestly believed and intelligently concluded everything which she wrote.

8. I cannot commit to or speculate as to when I would recuse myself. Certainly, I think that when considering the canon of recusal that you would all understand that my integrity would forbid me from acting as a pawn for a politician to decide a case a certain way for them. I want to be very clear that on the issue of actual bias, there is no concern there. That being said, the canon of recusal also discusses appearance of bias. On the issue of appearance of bias, it is important to consult all the factors that judges consider when discussing the gravity of recusal. This is a question to which I can commit to considering very seriously and taking the important step of consulting with my colleagues on the Court about the appearance of bias and making my decision after those serious deliberations.

9. Well I cannot comment on a case which may come before me. I can say very generally that the President is not above the law and that a decision which is made by a Federal Court or the Supreme Court applies to the President and must be acceded to by a President just as any other private citizen.

10. None. There is no role for my personal faith and I want to be very clear that there never has been. The only thing which I would consider is what the law says and what its original public meaning was. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

1. No, as a public official it would violate the judicial canon of ethics for a judge to do so.

2. Certainly Roe v. Wade is a piece of the American legal canon, but I would follow precedent and give more deference to the more recent decision passed down by the Court, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996) which superceded certain pieces of Roe.

3. The Affordable Care Act is the policy of Congress and the Executive Branch and as such is a law. It has been amended by this body and I would consider all the laws made by this body and signed by the President when considering a case regarding the ACA.

4. I don't think it would be becoming of me as a judge to speculate as to how I would rule on any specific case surrounding the issue of abortion. I think it would be even more unbecoming for me to speculate as to how my colleagues on the court would rule. Not only would I be breaking the Judicial Canon of Ethics for myself, but also for my colleagues.

5. I don't think it would be becoming of me as a judge to speculate as to how I would rule on any specific case surrounding the issue of abortion. I think it would be even more unbecoming for me to speculate as to how my colleagues on the court would rule. Not only would I be breaking the Judicial Canon of Ethics for myself, but also for my colleagues.

6. While I subscribe to originalism and would emphasize that it is a highly diverse school of thought and it would be inaccurate to ascribe originalism to a type of "legal conservatism", certainly it would be "valid" for a public official to approach the law differently from how I approach the law. I am in no position to gatekeep what methods of interpretation of law are "valid" and not. Certainly I am not in that position to gatekeep on behalf of my colleagues.

7. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an incredibly talented jurist. She was an intelligent woman, she was a hard-working woman. It's worth noting that one of Justice Ginsburg's greatest reccomenders to her position on the Court was her friend from the DC Court, Justice Antonin Scalia. While Justice Ginsburg and I may have approached the law differently at times and disagreed on certain things, there is no doubt that she both earnestly believed and intelligently concluded everything which she wrote.

8. I cannot commit to or speculate as to when I would recuse myself. Certainly, I think that when considering the canon of recusal that you would all understand that my integrity would forbid me from acting as a pawn for a politician to decide a case a certain way for them. I want to be very clear that on the issue of actual bias, there is no concern there. That being said, the canon of recusal also discusses appearance of bias. On the issue of appearance of bias, it is important to consult all the factors that judges consider when discussing the gravity of recusal. This is a question to which I can commit to considering very seriously and taking the important step of consulting with my colleagues on the Court about the appearance of bias and making my decision after those serious deliberations.

9. Well I cannot comment on a case which may come before me. I can say very generally that the President is not above the law and that a decision which is made by a Federal Court or the Supreme Court applies to the President and must be acceded to by a President just as any other private citizen.

10. None. There is no role for my personal faith and I want to be very clear that there never has been. The only thing which I would consider is what the law says and what its original public meaning was. 

If this concluded my questioning segment, I'd probably hope that some asks versions of questions #4 and #5 in a way that allows you or compels you to answer roughly the question I asked. As it currently is, If you were nominated by Trump, who has been advocating sending the election to the SC to decide, I would be unhappy with your answer #8, as I'd want certainty that your nomination would be decisive in allow Trump to reverse an election or be the deciding factor. I would, therefore, also hope that someone follows up with that question for me. 

Basically, if Barrett answered the way you did, she'd have to agree to recuse and say some things that seem convincing that she isn't aiming to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obamacare. She'd also have to make a statement of separation of Church and State. If she did all these, I wouldn't vote against confirmation unless the voters in my state are decisively opposed to Barrett. If it is clearly mixed, I might support the confirmation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'd also like to hear @Herbert Hoover and @Conservative Elector 2 since they seem interested in judicial things.

I'll do that tomorrow. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

If this concluded my questioning segment, I'd probably hope that some asks versions of questions #4 and #5 in a way that allows you or compels you to answer roughly the question I asked. As it currently is, If you were nominated by Trump, who has been advocating sending the election to the SC to decide, I would be unhappy with your answer #8, as I'd want certainty that your nomination would be decisive in allow Trump to reverse an election or be the deciding factor. I would, therefore, also hope that someone follows up with that question for me. 

Basically, if Barrett answered the way you did, she'd have to agree to recuse and say some things that seem convincing that she isn't aiming to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obamacare. She'd also have to make a statement of separation of Church and State. If she did all these, I wouldn't vote against confirmation unless the voters in my state are decisively opposed to Barrett. If it is clearly mixed, I might support the confirmation. 

Well, if I were appointed to the court I'd probably have some legal background. I'd also want to state that there is a long history of judicial independence both on the Supreme Court and lower courts. There are many moments of precedent that when a Justice believes that the President who appointed them is in the wrong, or the law does not support their positions, they rule against that President. I would have to consult with my colleagues about a possible recusal but in all circumstances there is never a binding requirement for a judge to always uphold the position of the President who nominated them.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of asking about Roe, I would ask about Lawrence v Texas. Because Roe is associated with abortion, but Lawrence's ruling came from the same mindset of Roe: the right to privacy. I would ask do you agree with the ruling in Lawrence v Texas  in regards to  the right to privacy, and how expansive is this right to privacy?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/13/2020 at 7:25 PM, vcczar said:

If I were a US Senator and on the Judicial Committee, I’d asking the following questions:

1. Do you think it is appropriate for a SC justice to use their own personal political biases in a decision?

2. Do you believe Roe v. Wade currently is the law of the land?

3. Do you believe the same of Obamacare?

4. Do you believe it is possible that Roe v  Wade could be overturned by the SC within the next 4 years?

5. Do you believe it is possible that Obamacare could be overturned by the SC within the next 4 years?

6. Do you believe that “originalism” is the only valid doctrine for a SC justice?

7. What is your opinion of RB Ginsburg as a jurist? 

8  Considering you are being confirmed while an election has already began, with mail-in ballots already being processed, and the incumbent who appointed you on a ticket, would you recuse yourself from any cases regarding this election?

9. Do you believe a president has a right to hide their personal taxes from the public, even if federal courts seem to be signaling that the information should be released?

10. What role should one’s faith play in a Supreme Court decision?

 

AHH finally I have thought about doing this...

1. I think a judge holds a certain judicial philosophy which provides all the tools needed to decide a case. If you ask me Senator, if I will do any party's bidding, I can assure you I am not going to be someone's puppet controlled by special interests. We have to apply legal standards and the law equally in all cases put forward to us.

2. As Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, I certainly think it's the current law in effect.

3. Yes, Obamacare wasn't overturned so it remains in effect.

4. I am not in a position to say whether a law will be overturned or not. All I can say is, if I am a justice and a certain case is put forward to me, I will consider all arguments made and make a decision on this very issue at that time. 

5. Again Senator, I can't speculate about the docket ahead of us. 

6. No, it is not the only valid philosophy to apply the law. There are other judicial philosophies as well and Originalism is not the exclusive interpretation to use.

7. Justice Ginsburg was a great jurist and an inspiration for many young people hoping to become active in the judicial sector. I am in fact glad that her status allowed more people becoming educated on the very necessity and existence of the Supreme Court. 

8. Taking a certain office means accepting a duty to me. Under no circumstances I'd recuse myself from any vote because if you vote to confirm me to the court, I'll have taken a sacred duty. I am inclined to serve the United States and not turning a blind eye to the country which nourishes us, just because some difficulties arise on the horizon. The fact who the president is, is not relevant to me to continue my duty and therefore I don't see a reason to jump off. Even if the times couldn't be any more challenging to our beloved country, I am definitely inclined to going down with the ship. 

9. I cannot comment on this issue, as it may come up to be decided by the Supreme Court.

10. If you ask me whether I am a person of faith or not, I have to tell you I am and I am proud to be. If you want to know if I'll do any congregation's bidding I can assure you I won't. As a jurist I am professionalistic enough to not be influenced by any people, organziations or congregations. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...