•   
  •   
  •   

Politics Democrats declare Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination 'illegitimate' but can’t say why

21:11  28 september  2020
21:11  28 september  2020 Source:   washingtonexaminer.com

Republicans have said they want to confirm Amy Coney Barrett before Election Day. Here's how long other confirmations took

  Republicans have said they want to confirm Amy Coney Barrett before Election Day. Here's how long other confirmations took Now that Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barret to the Supreme Court, the issue becomes whether the GOP-led Senate can confirm her before Election Day. Amy Coney Barrett named President Trump's third Supreme Court nominee USA TODAY See more videos SHARE SHARE TWEET SHARE EMAIL What to watch next Hear Amy Coney Barrett's tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg CNN Amy Coney Barrett speaks after Trump announces her nomination for Supreme Court CNBC Trump announces Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme Court nominee The Washington Post ‘A great Ameri

There is no good legal argument against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. There is nothing unconstitutional or unprecedented about it.

Richard Blumenthal wearing a suit and tie © Provided by Washington Examiner

Yet some Senate Democrats insist anyway that Barrett’s nomination is “illegitimate.” Those using this word have not yet explained what, exactly, is “illegitimate” about it. They just keep saying it in the hope that the public will accept it as truth.

Amy Coney Barrett pays homage to conservative mentor Antonin Scalia — 'His judicial philosophy is mine too'

  Amy Coney Barrett pays homage to conservative mentor Antonin Scalia — 'His judicial philosophy is mine too' Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor, drew clear comparisons between her legal philosophy and Scalia's, saying "his judicial philosophy is mine too."Barrett paid homage to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who led the conservative wing of the high court before his death in 2016, describing him as her mentor.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, for example, on Sunday said he will not meet with Barrett. “I believe, first, that the whole process has been illegitimate,” he said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said likewise, “I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes."

He added, "I refuse to treat this process as legitimate and will not meet with Judge Barrett."

Funny enough, when challenged this weekend by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to explain what he means by “illegitimate,” a seemingly unprepared Blumenthal conceded, “It may not violate the Constitution.” Also, while we are on the topic, it was Blumenthal who said in 2016 that the U.S. Senate has a “constitutional obligation” to fill “a Supreme Court vacancy,” so that must be out the window.

Bio highlights of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's high court pick

  Bio highlights of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's high court pick WASHINGTON (AP) — Here’s a bio box on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Amy Coney Barrett, age 48 - A judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominated by President Donald Trump in 2017 and considered once before by Trump for a high court seat; her three-year judicial record shows a clear and consistent conservative bent. - A graduate of the University of Notre Dame Law School and Rhodes College who has taught law at Notre Dame, worked for a Washington law firm and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.- A devout Catholic mother of seven and Louisiana native born in 1972, she would be the youngest justice on the current court if confirmed.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, warned that Barrett’s confirmation would mean a loss of legitimacy, saying, “My Republican colleagues must remember that the legitimacy of the Senate and our judiciary are on the line.”

“I will not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. “This nomination process is illegitimate. I refuse to participate in the further degradation of our democracy and our judiciary.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon called it an “illegitimate nomination,” adding that he has “no intention” of meeting with Barrett.

“This entire process is illegitimate,” he added again for good measure.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said, “The name of Trump's illegitimate Supreme Court nominee in many ways doesn’t matter. We know exactly what that person is being picked to do: complete a decades-long assault on our judiciary by billionaires and giant corporations to tilt the courts for the rich and powerful.”

Previewing acrimonious confirmation, Democrats coalesce around Amy Coney Barrett opposition

  Previewing acrimonious confirmation, Democrats coalesce around Amy Coney Barrett opposition Democrats objected to both process and the views of Trump's Supreme Court pick, with one senator saying he won't meet with her.One Democratic senator — Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee — said he would not meet with Barrett, as is customary for members of the committee, in protest of Trump’s decision to rush ahead with the nomination so close to an election.

Of the aforementioned senators, only Blumenthal has been called upon to explain his meaning. He did not exactly stick the landing.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the basics of U.S. civics knows that nothing that has transpired so far has been unlawful or illicit. As I wrote earlier today:

The president has the authority to nominate, at any time during his presidency, a candidate to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate has the authority to give advice and consent on the nomination. Barrett is qualified for the job. There is nothing unconstitutional about this.

There is nothing unusual about election-year nominations and confirmations. There is nothing rushed about Barrett’s nomination. No precedent is being broken; no norm is being slashed.

That sitting U.S. Senators, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are pretending there is something “illegitimate” about the Barrett nomination is as laughable as it is damnable.

Their feigned outrage is worse even than the people who say Barrett has disqualified herself by accepting the nomination “under these circumstances.” At least with the stupid “circumstances” talking point, they don't try to create the illusion there there is legal weight to their argument.

Amy Coney Barrett: Talented judge, popular professor brings solid conservative credentials

  Amy Coney Barrett: Talented judge, popular professor brings solid conservative credentials Her nomination to the seat held for 27 years by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes Barrett's nomination the most contentious in decades.HHS secretary spotted without mask at Rose Garden event

Tags: Opinion, Beltway Confidential, Richard Blumenthal, Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, 2020 Elections, Mazie Hirono, Chuck Schumer

Original Author: Becket Adams

Original Location: Democrats declare Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination 'illegitimate' but can’t say why

Republicans push Barrett confirmation as Democrats criticize timing .
Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday. Overwhelmingly, Republicans called Amy Coney Barrett a well-qualified candidate and pushed for a confirmation in the upcoming weeks. Democrats continued to criticize the timing, with some outright saying they wouldn't meet with the nominee.

usr: 1
This is interesting!