Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nevilledog

(50,659 posts)
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:35 PM Oct 2020

Sen Klobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters



Tweet text: Vanita Gupta
@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.
62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sen Klobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters (Original Post) Nevilledog Oct 2020 OP
That was stunning malaise Oct 2020 #1
Hah! Klobuchar just exposed Barrett's bias. Baitball Blogger Oct 2020 #2
The question was not even a hypothetical! Dustlawyer Oct 2020 #47
Jesus Fucking Christ, Ma'am The Magistrate Oct 2020 #3
I like it when you curse. Nevilledog Oct 2020 #4
It Is Becoming Unfortunately Common Nowadays, Ma'am The Magistrate Oct 2020 #14
My autocorrect gives me some variation of "fuck" for just about every word I type. Nevilledog Oct 2020 #15
I Know Not This Auto-Correct, Ma'am The Magistrate Oct 2020 #22
You're missing out. Nevilledog Oct 2020 #24
That Does Sound Sweet.... The Magistrate Oct 2020 #25
Profanity, at times, provides relief where prayer doesn't. n/t DEbluedude Oct 2020 #28
There have been times on the potty where I've tried both. Profanity always wins. erronis Oct 2020 #46
She has been coached to give this blanket answer. joshcryer Oct 2020 #39
I Quite Agree, Sir The Magistrate Oct 2020 #40
Coached no doubt by the overlords Sheldon Whitehouse exposed. nt live love laugh Oct 2020 #62
What a friggin useless conserva-tool she is BeyondGeography Oct 2020 #5
Klobuchar: Is the law the law? DFW Oct 2020 #6
Phony Carrot........bwahahaha! Nevilledog Oct 2020 #10
Be my guest! n/t DFW Oct 2020 #13
It apparently depends on the meaning of "is." tblue37 Oct 2020 #36
Get her OUT ailsagirl Oct 2020 #45
Anothe reason to disqualify this winger who has only been a judge... brush Oct 2020 #7
I'm with you on that one, where's the experience? Thought it was less than 2 years. KS Toronado Oct 2020 #32
Justice Cleatus. Dawson Leery Oct 2020 #8
Cornyn praising her for having no notes. Maybe she shoulda had notes greenjar_01 Oct 2020 #9
This is a waste of time qazplm135 Oct 2020 #11
The weasel word dodge gratuitous Oct 2020 #12
Exactly, Sir The Magistrate Oct 2020 #17
Because she is a politician misanthrope Oct 2020 #30
I Agree It is Not About The Law, Sir The Magistrate Oct 2020 #33
Barrett thought she was being clever, but Klobuchar completely outmaneuvered her greenjar_01 Oct 2020 #16
Klobuchar is very very good at this judeling Oct 2020 #27
Translation: "I will enable GOP voter suppression and intimidation, radius777 Oct 2020 #18
Amy Klobuchar for SC Judge. Budi Oct 2020 #19
Amy Cultmember Barrett thought it was up to her to decide the question of BusyBeingBest Oct 2020 #20
They ( REPIGS) did not bdamomma Oct 2020 #21
If ever there's a large enough Democratic majority she has to be impeached. Eid Ma Clack Shaw Oct 2020 #23
To "cook something up" would be self defeating, lies usually see the light of day. KS Toronado Oct 2020 #37
Yeah, I didn't mean literally invent something Eid Ma Clack Shaw Oct 2020 #56
Kavanaugh is not going to be impeached, dware Oct 2020 #61
i think kavanaugh and thomas barbtries Oct 2020 #41
Impeached? dware Oct 2020 #52
well you never know. barbtries Oct 2020 #54
Yes, it is straight from the Constitution, dware Oct 2020 #55
well you're right then, barbtries Oct 2020 #57
So true. nt dware Oct 2020 #58
Cook something up?? dware Oct 2020 #50
WOW!! The "Good Amy"! young_at_heart Oct 2020 #26
Unfit and unqualified. dalton99a Oct 2020 #29
THIS!!! BigOleDummy Oct 2020 #31
I agree rockfordfile Oct 2020 #35
NOT only do Barrett's eyes creep me, but benld74 Oct 2020 #34
Thank you Senator Klobuchar saidsimplesimon Oct 2020 #38
Great job Amy! Only a republican nominee for SCOTUS could not answer a simple question as that! Catcar Oct 2020 #42
Go Amy Klobuchar marieo1 Oct 2020 #43
Barrett proving herself unfit to be a nominee and those supporting her as unfit for office. nt cstanleytech Oct 2020 #44
I posted on FB vapor2 Oct 2020 #48
Why Is MSNBC Covering This All Day? OhioTim Oct 2020 #49
If she refused to answer, then she's been prepped on what her purpose will be for the 2020 election. C Moon Oct 2020 #51
Way to go Amy K! geardaddy Oct 2020 #53
This Stepford Justice will be a nightmare for decades to come Yeehah Oct 2020 #59
That was not a hypothetical case. It was a question about her knowledge of the law. Lonestarblue Oct 2020 #60

Baitball Blogger

(46,570 posts)
2. Hah! Klobuchar just exposed Barrett's bias.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:38 PM
Oct 2020

She couldn't even recognize a law that is meant to eliminate voter intimidation.

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
47. The question was not even a hypothetical!
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:46 PM
Oct 2020

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)
3. Jesus Fucking Christ, Ma'am
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:42 PM
Oct 2020

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.

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
14. It Is Becoming Unfortunately Common Nowadays, Ma'am
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:51 PM
Oct 2020

Things are becoming outrageous.


"All men of reason are men of violence at heart."


"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
22. I Know Not This Auto-Correct, Ma'am
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:09 PM
Oct 2020

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)
24. You're missing out.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:15 PM
Oct 2020

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.

erronis

(14,941 posts)
46. There have been times on the potty where I've tried both. Profanity always wins.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:46 PM
Oct 2020

Maybe with a thanks to some imaginary deity after eventual relief.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
39. She has been coached to give this blanket answer.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:22 PM
Oct 2020

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)
40. I Quite Agree, Sir
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:24 PM
Oct 2020

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.

DFW

(54,047 posts)
6. Klobuchar: Is the law the law?
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:48 PM
Oct 2020

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!!!!!!!!!!!!

brush

(53,467 posts)
7. Anothe reason to disqualify this winger who has only been a judge...
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:48 PM
Oct 2020

for 3 years.

What the hell is the Supreme Court coming to?

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
12. The weasel word dodge
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:51 PM
Oct 2020

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)
17. Exactly, Sir
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:58 PM
Oct 2020

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)
30. Because she is a politician
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:58 PM
Oct 2020

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)
33. I Agree It is Not About The Law, Sir
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:03 PM
Oct 2020

But about what she hopes to be in position to do with it, and to it.

 

greenjar_01

(6,477 posts)
16. Barrett thought she was being clever, but Klobuchar completely outmaneuvered her
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:56 PM
Oct 2020

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)
27. Klobuchar is very very good at this
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:42 PM
Oct 2020

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)
18. Translation: "I will enable GOP voter suppression and intimidation,
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 02:58 PM
Oct 2020

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."

BusyBeingBest

(8,049 posts)
20. Amy Cultmember Barrett thought it was up to her to decide the question of
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:07 PM
Oct 2020

voter intimidation. Where do they come up with these people?

bdamomma

(63,650 posts)
21. They ( REPIGS) did not
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:09 PM
Oct 2020

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)
23. If ever there's a large enough Democratic majority she has to be impeached.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 03:15 PM
Oct 2020

Cook something up to make it possible, I don’t care. She’s a dangerous moron foisted onto the court for nefarious purposes.

KS Toronado

(16,900 posts)
37. To "cook something up" would be self defeating, lies usually see the light of day.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:15 PM
Oct 2020

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)
56. Yeah, I didn't mean literally invent something
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:32 PM
Oct 2020

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. It’s something that Democrats need to be willing to use or they’ll just cede more and more power to the GOP.

Clearly there are a lot of things she’s said or refused to say today that are disqualifying; I’ll 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)
61. Kavanaugh is not going to be impeached,
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 06:16 PM
Oct 2020

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.

dware

(12,092 posts)
52. Impeached?
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:19 PM
Oct 2020

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)
54. well you never know.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:30 PM
Oct 2020

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)
55. Yes, it is straight from the Constitution,
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:32 PM
Oct 2020

2/3rds of Senators are needed to convict and remove a sitting SC Judge, as with the President.

barbtries

(28,702 posts)
57. well you're right then,
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:36 PM
Oct 2020

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)
50. Cook something up??
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:14 PM
Oct 2020

Never thought I would see this on DU.

And when the "cook something up" gets exposed, then what?

marieo1

(1,402 posts)
43. Go Amy Klobuchar
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:36 PM
Oct 2020

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.

vapor2

(1,215 posts)
48. I posted on FB
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 04:58 PM
Oct 2020

This nominee is beyond evasive and dismissive. Senators need to get all of her records from Notre Dame

OhioTim

(256 posts)
49. Why Is MSNBC Covering This All Day?
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:08 PM
Oct 2020

Only Fox is doing the same. We know the outcome. Keep on the pedal against Trump's transgressions.

C Moon

(12,188 posts)
51. If she refused to answer, then she's been prepped on what her purpose will be for the 2020 election.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:15 PM
Oct 2020

Yeehah

(4,520 posts)
59. This Stepford Justice will be a nightmare for decades to come
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:39 PM
Oct 2020

I hope President Biden expands the USSC.

Lonestarblue

(9,874 posts)
60. That was not a hypothetical case. It was a question about her knowledge of the law.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:44 PM
Oct 2020

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?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sen Klobuchar just asked ...