General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSen Klobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters
Link to tweet
@vanitaguptaCR
WATCH: Senator @amyklobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls.
Barrett refused to answer. Then Klobuchar read her the law. Astonishing.
malaise
(267,784 posts)My jaw is still on the floor
Baitball Blogger
(46,570 posts)She couldn't even recognize a law that is meant to eliminate voter intimidation.
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)She was asked was it against the law to intimidate voters. That is a legal question about whether there is a law against voter intimidation. It is a easy yes answer, or at least it used to be before one Party and their President wanted to intimidate American voters.
She is a shill plain and simple!
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)Does she pause to wonder if burglary or murder is actually forbidden?
One might quibble over whether a particular act for which someone had been arrested was actually intimidation under the law forbidding intimidation, but this is something quite different, and attended by a foul stench.
Nevilledog
(50,659 posts)The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)Things are becoming outrageous.
"All men of reason are men of violence at heart."
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Nevilledog
(50,659 posts)The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)Though I understand it can provide some rum fun not always noticed by the writer before hitting send. It has never appeared on any device I use. That it is censorious does not surprise.
I confess to appreciating spell-check. Often it kindly shows me my finger only made it to the vicinity of the intended key. Sometimes I argue with it, and I would say the honors are in my favor, but just slightly.
Nevilledog
(50,659 posts)There was this smarmy prosecutor I had to deal with often. When I would type in his name, Sisneros, it would correct it to Disingenuous, which was much more accurate.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)DEbluedude
(812 posts)erronis
(14,941 posts)Maybe with a thanks to some imaginary deity after eventual relief.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)On anything that isn't qualified as something she can talk to by her conservative overlords. She openly talked about 2nd Amendment stuff, for example. The reason she's against violent felons owning guns, for example, is that it's a racist policy to keep guns out of the hands of people of color who served time. And that's a policy cue to her supporters where she is leaning.
I have to hand it to them the GOP is masterful at taking over the courts and putting in their crony judges. They realized a long time ago that because the government is run administratively, over time administrations will be filled with people who want to do the right thing, and want to fix stuff, so the only way to neuter those good meaning, well meaning, Americans, is to put in judges that weaken their power.
Example: guy works at EPA, he cares about the environment, otherwise why work there, we're not talking Presidential appointments, we're talking about the guy who went to school for environment, who knows something about biology or something about geology, or whatever, and is a lifetime policy wonk. Sure the President can put in the top level guys to replace him, and he can get those policy wonks to change administrative rules, but those policy wonks will do everything they can to resist that. But the policy wonks can't do shit if they put in a rule say protecting ground water and a judge says it's fine.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)This is rote recited parrot-talk, that is to be employed against any question touching her judicial bias. When that is employed, by an aspiring judge, asked whether a statute exists or not, it reveals either mindless obedience, resolve to attain a goal no matter what, or ignorance unbecoming a street-sweeper.
live love laugh
(12,995 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,276 posts)DFW
(54,047 posts)Judge Phony Carrot: I can't possibly say without knowing the circumstances
Klobuchar: Yes, you can. OK, I'll tell you. Yes, it is. Wanna say now?
i.e.: Judge Phony Carrot: Er, well, no, I don't.
POW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nevilledog
(50,659 posts)I am so stealing that.
DFW
(54,047 posts)tblue37
(64,979 posts)ailsagirl
(22,837 posts)brush
(53,467 posts)for 3 years.
What the hell is the Supreme Court coming to?
KS Toronado
(16,900 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)What a shit show.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)It's clear she's simply going to hide behind that wall.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)The weasel word dodge is "What action is being characterized as intimidation?" But that's not the question being asked. The question is, are you aware that there is a federal law against intimidating or threatening or coercing citizens not to vote? We can argue whether a specific action is intimidation, say, standing in the doorway of a polling place brandishing a baseball bat and demanding to see a citizen's voter registration card. (Yeah, that's intimidation. And threatening. And probably coercing.)
Once you get the concession from our learned jurist friend that there is a statute on the books, it might be useful to say, "And are there any actions would you consider to be intimidating, threatening, or coercive? If so, what might they be?"
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)This is rote recited parrot-talk, that is to be employed against any question touching her judicial bias. When that is employed, by an aspiring judge, asked whether a statute exists or not, it reveals either mindless obedience, resolve to attain a goal no matter what, or ignorance unbecoming a street-sweeper.
misanthrope
(7,405 posts)She says it is about the law but it's not. It's about her place in history.
I married into a family of lawyers and judges. After getting to know them for years, I don't find what they do to be noble at all. They are in it for their own egos and ambition. Every time they start pushing yard signs in election season and start acting like someone running for any other office, it sort of disgusts me.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)But about what she hopes to be in position to do with it, and to it.
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)Klobuchar knew damn well that she would go into the "Can't Answer Hypotheticals" song and dance, so she phrased her question to induce it, while at the same time having the obvious response queued up. Barrett doesn't seem the brilliant mind they're making her out to be. Even Kavanaugh (a rapist pig) would have seen that one coming.
judeling
(1,086 posts)She always generates the most pain. It is just not remembered that it was her that did it, because it is the response that was important not the question.
That was a master class in political questioning.
radius777
(3,624 posts)I believe in minoritarian rule and apartheid. My fantasy world is where ultra-conservative white men rule over all. I am a good little Handmaid and will do my job. Thank you."
Budi
(15,325 posts)I freakin love her.
BusyBeingBest
(8,049 posts)voter intimidation. Where do they come up with these people?
bdamomma
(63,650 posts)listen to us about Kavanaugh they just want this corporate plant in for a lifetime appointment. She must be stopped.
Eid Ma Clack Shaw
(490 posts)Cook something up to make it possible, I dont care. Shes a dangerous moron foisted onto the court for nefarious purposes.
KS Toronado
(16,900 posts)All we need to impeach her is one lie she told congress during her confirmation hearings. Believe that's going
to happen to our beer loving judge sitting on the court.
Eid Ma Clack Shaw
(490 posts)but there are a lot of ways to create a situation based on something that someone has said or done, even if the infraction is technically mild. Its something that Democrats need to be willing to use or theyll just cede more and more power to the GOP.
Clearly there are a lot of things shes said or refused to say today that are disqualifying; Ill bet that there are ways for them to be fashioned into something worthy of removal, unlikely as 67 seats would be in practice.
dware
(12,092 posts)even if he was, just where do you see 67 Senators voting to convict and remove?
Nope, the answer is to expand the Courts and put some balance back in our Judicial System.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)should be impeached, Kavanaugh for perjury and Thomas for corruption.
dware
(12,092 posts)Hell yeah.
The problem is that even if we win every Senate race, we still would be far short of the needed 67 votes to convict and remove.
Thomas and Kavanaugh aren't going to be impeached, period.
Thomas is old and in poor health, chances are very good that the next President, Biden, will get to appoint his successor.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)why is it 67 votes? does that come straight from the Constitution,or is it a rule that can be changed?
otherwise, more justices ASAP.
dware
(12,092 posts)2/3rds of Senators are needed to convict and remove a sitting SC Judge, as with the President.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)as long as there are any republicans left in the senate you will never get enough to agree to impeach. not even trump who was so clearly guilty. they're a cabal of ghastly ghouls.
dware
(12,092 posts)dware
(12,092 posts)Never thought I would see this on DU.
And when the "cook something up" gets exposed, then what?
young_at_heart
(3,758 posts)A law on the books for decades.
dalton99a
(81,062 posts)But she will be an extremely reliable Republican stooge on the high court
BigOleDummy
(2,260 posts)Very well said.
rockfordfile
(8,682 posts)benld74
(9,888 posts)Her voice reminds me on the Crypt Keeper!!
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I'm very proud of the way Democrats in the Senate are speaking for US.
Catcar
(1,356 posts)marieo1
(1,402 posts)You go, Girl............Amy Klobuchar is a wonderful Senator!! She needs to be on the Supreme Court, not the gal the repubs want on the court. Barrett needs to recuz herself.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)vapor2
(1,215 posts)This nominee is beyond evasive and dismissive. Senators need to get all of her records from Notre Dame
OhioTim
(256 posts)Only Fox is doing the same. We know the outcome. Keep on the pedal against Trump's transgressions.
C Moon
(12,188 posts)geardaddy
(24,924 posts)Yeehah
(4,520 posts)I hope President Biden expands the USSC.
Lonestarblue
(9,874 posts)Evidently Barrett has very little knowledge of the law since she immediately pivoted to a nonsense answer rather than cite that there is federal law preventing voter intimidation. Her answer about whether the president could legally postpone an election was equally stupefying. It is clear, and has been for decades, that Congress has the power to determine when elections are held. Barrett could not clearly answer that question either. Is it now beyond expectation that we should have a Supreme Court justice who actually has knowledge of the law?