Proof That Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified for the Supreme Court; Counting Ballots
'Here's proof that Amy Coney Barrett is unqualified for the Supreme Court.' Joan McCarter, Daily Kos, 9/30/20. -Ed:
- President Trump walks with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, his nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, along the West Wing Colonnade, Sept. 26, 2020, following announcement ceremonies in the Rose Garden.
Senate Republicans are likely to have a lot of meetings to rush to Wednesday morning, when reporters try to grab them for comment on Tuesday night's debate and the performance of the guy at the top of their ticket. The guy who will do anything to win again. Including naming a Supreme Court nominee who would hand the presidency over to him, whether or not his claim before the court is legitimate. He sure has found his candidate in Amy Coney Barrett. The nominee completed her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, and refused to commit to recusing herself from any 2020 election cases. In that, she proved herself unqualified for the job.
The reality is, any federal court nominee—at any level—worthy of the seat would decline the invitation from Trump right now, for any number of reasons. The number one, though, is Trump standing on a debate stage and reiterating that he has no intention of allowing for a peaceful transition of government should he lose in November. Trump has made it blindingly clear that he'll do anything to "win," and Barrett is key. He repeated it Tuesday night. Wallace asked specifically, "are you counting on the Supreme Court, including a Justice Barrett, to settle any dispute?" Trump answered "Yeah. I think I'm counting on them to look at the ballots, definitely. […] But for the ballots, I think so."
Barrett is the second of Trump's nominees to have legal experience stealing the White House. Both she and Brett Kavanaugh were on George W. Bush's legal team in Florida. When Trump says he's "counting on them to look at the ballots" think "hanging chads" in Broward County in 2000. That's bad enough. What followed was even worse, because when Wallace asked "Will you urge your supporters to stay calm during this extended period, not to engage in any civil unrest? […] And will you pledge tonight that you will not declare victory until the election has been independently certified?" Trump refused. "I'm urging my supporters to go in to the polls and watch very carefully," he said. "Because that's what has to happen. I am urging them to do it."
In her Senate questionnaire, Barrett said she would recuse herself from cases in which her husband and/or sister were involved. Yes, it's a whole family of wing-nut lawyers. She would also recuse herself from any cases involving Notre Dame University, since she has taught there, and from any cases in which she participated while on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. But she would not say she would recuse herself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election. That drew fire from Democrats before the debate.
"The underlying fault here is with the timing, which makes it a sham, but certainly she should recuse herself. In a normal world, there would be no question about it," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters. "Now? Now that Trump has put the violent white supremacist Proud Boys on "stand by" for "poll watching" this election? Now that he's said, expressly, he is "counting on" the Supreme Court to decide the election for him?"...
https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/heres-proof-that-amy-coney-barrett-is-unqualified-for-the-supreme-court/
______________
Also: 'Showing 76% of Coney Barrett Rulings Put Corporate Interests Over People, Analysis Warns Confirmation Would 'Supercharge' GOP Agenda.' https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/29/showing-76-coney-barrett-rulings-put-corporate-interests-over-people-analysis-warns
= new reply since forum marked as read
