The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 12, 2020, 08:04:20 pm
-
Blumenthal urges Barrett to recuse from cases involving election
By Jordain Carney - 10/12/20 03:39 PM EDT
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Monday urged Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from any case involving the election that comes before the Supreme Court, as Democrats prepare to push her for such a commitment as part of her confirmation hearings.
Blumenthal, as part of his opening statement, warned that if Barrett did not recuse herself it would have negative consequences for both the Supreme Court and her own personal reputation as a judge.
"Your participation, let me be very blunt, in any case involving Donald Trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility. You must recuse yourself," Blumenthal told Barrett.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Monday urged Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from any case involving the election that comes before the Supreme Court, as Democrats prepare to push her for such a commitment as part of her confirmation hearings.
Blumenthal, as part of his opening statement, warned that if Barrett did not recuse herself it would have negative consequences for both the Supreme Court and her own personal reputation as a judge.
"Your participation, let me be very blunt, in any case involving Donald Trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility. You must recuse yourself," Blumenthal told Barrett.
"The American people are afraid and they're angry, and for good reason. It's a break the glass moment," he added.
more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/520656-blumenthal-urges-barrett-to-recuse-from-cases-involving-election
-
Stuff it, Mr. Blumenthal.
Right up your you-know-where.
-
I think the credibility and the legitimacy of the court went down the toilet with ruling on the ACA and Gay rights.
Anyone??? I've never heard of a SCOTUS justice recusing themselves.
I would hope that Trump's selection of Barrett was well thought out. His selection of people hasn't exactly been one of his strong suits.
-
Who cares what Da Nang Dick wishes?
-
Bele wrote:
"I've never heard of a SCOTUS justice recusing themselves."
I seem to recall Kagan recusing on one case she had been involved with earlier on...
-
This creep wants to expand the court and pack it with Democrats. Such a move would delegitimize the court and threaten the stability of the republic. Maybe she could allude to this, and offer to pray for his soul.
-
Lying Sack of Crap Dick should recuse himself from every vote involving the military, given his history of lying about his own military service.
-
This maggot, Blumenthal is right at the top of my list of folks I would love to see gone from the Senate. What a lying, phony, hypocrite. Frankly, I think the fact that he lied about serving in Vietnam should preclude him from holding public office. He does his state no favor whatsoever. I about barf every time I see this maggot.
-
Democrats believe if they can't stop legitimate people from public office,they can manipulaTE THEM TO NOT DO THE DUTIES THEY WERE ELECTED/APPOINTED TO engage in. Obsessive uber control mentalities of the wicked.
-
Did Kagen recuse herself from cases involving Obozo care?
-
I see no reason why she should necessarily recuse herself on matters relating to the State conduct of vote counting for this election. None of that has anything to do with the actions of Trump.
I would recommend, however, that she recuse herself from the ACA case, and say so before the vote on her nomination. Her vote isn't needed for the ACA case - it is just plain stupid on the merits and will likely be slapped down 7 - 1 or even 8- 0.
Of course if the "tax" is zero then the ACA is constitutional. Why? Because if there is no tax or penalty, then no one is being coerced to buy insurance.
-
I would recommend, however, that she recuse herself from the ACA case, and say so before the vote on her nomination. Her vote isn't needed for the ACA case - it is just plain stupid on the merits and will likely be slapped down 7 - 1 or even 8- 0.
Would that not be contrary to the "Ginsburg Rule" of no predictions or forecasts? You do understand that not one inch can be given on this, because a mile would be taken? "Well, you said you'll recuse on ACA, so why can't you make the same promise on any election challenges?"
-
Blumenthal urges Barrett to recuse from cases involving election
"Your participation, let me be very blunt, in any case involving Donald Trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility. You must recuse yourself," Blumenthal told Barrett.
Presumably the "argument" here is that because Barrett would be appointed by Trump, she should not rule on a case which involves Trump's political interests. Well then it's only fair that Sotomayor and Kagen should recuse themselves similarly from a case involving Biden's political interests since Biden was VP in the administration which appointed them both.
The democrat position reveals that they *expect* democrat-appointed justices to act as stealth legislators on the SC - favoring particular policies and protecting particular political interests. (Does anyone seriously believe that a democrat administration would ever appoint to the SC a judge who was critical of Roe, or who favored robust protection of RKBA?) That's the way they appoint judges, so they expect that Republican-appointed justices to behave similarly. Their complete corruption of the judiciary as an independent government function is laid bare every time they raise these suggestions. I'd like to see Barrett (or some other Republican nominee) ask one of the dem Senators why they would suspect hidden political motives.
-
I've seen a lot of Republicans recuse themselves at critical political times, very few Democrats, if any. Its often a political manipulation to ensure patriot Conservative loses, democrat wins. 22222frying pan
-
I don't recall Ruth Bader Ginsburg recusing herself on cases brought by the ACLU.
-
Let's hope that Trump wins by an obvious landslide and she won't be faced with this decision.
-
Bele wrote:
"I've never heard of a SCOTUS justice recusing themselves."
I seem to recall Kagan recusing on one case she had been involved with earlier on...
I read the opposite. She SHOULD have recused, but did not, when she voted for Obamcare, as SHE was on of the authors on Obamcare. You don't think a gay, demon-rat, would do something honorable, do you? ****slapping
-
I see no reason why she should necessarily recuse herself on matters relating to the State conduct of vote counting for this election. None of that has anything to do with the actions of Trump.
I would recommend, however, that she recuse herself from the ACA case, and say so before the vote on her nomination. Her vote isn't needed for the ACA case - it is just plain stupid on the merits and will likely be slapped down 7 - 1 or even 8- 0.
Of course if the "tax" is zero then the ACA is constitutional. Why? Because if there is no tax or penalty, then no one is being coerced to buy insurance.
Just plain silly. Supreme Court is the highest COURT, in the land. NO RECUSING. YOU THINK ANY DEMON-RAT WOULD RECUSE ON ACA? Besides it was never about health. We never needed this baloney. It was a communist action by Obama for wealth redistribution & put in job killing regulations. ZERO ABOUT HEALTH. Even their, 'pre-existing' clause ran out of money in a few months. POTUS TRUMP has reworked it, so that some people on it, won't be hurt. We have Private Insurance. BEFORE ACA 30 million no health insurance. (MEANING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) AFTER ACA 40 million people with no heath insurance. It was a LENIN 'health' plan, with which to control people. OBAMA even hired 3,000 more IRS agents (gestapo) to enforce this communist plan.
Now, We have private insurance, Military Tri-care, VA care, Medicare, MEDICAID =WELFARE, Emergency care, no one turned away, and INDIGENT care, which homeowners pay for. We have UNION health care, like the casinos's. CULINARY, etc. PLANNED PARENTHOOD on sliding scale fee. Catholic Charities, and many other free clinics. WHY..would you think ACA is needed? Not affordable, huge deductibles, bad and denied 'health' care, as it was NEVER about 'health'.
Any questions? POTUS TRUMP is helping the people on it, otherwise, it is a piece of shyt. Like the name sake.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/68ce180ea8db13147e650568105da069/tenor.gif)
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/68ce180ea8db13147e650568105da069/tenor.gif)
ONLY...a demon-rat like Blumental would come up with an idea like that! ALL ARE PURE EVIL. I would never have even THOUGHT, of an idea like that for Supreme Court! SOTOTMAYER, KAGAN, ROBERTS....RECUSE YOURSELVES! . 888high58888
Esp. Roberts as we have proof he is corrupt and 'MADE LAW' by changing what mandated punishment fee for ACA was.
ALL DEMON-RATS ON S.C.....then should recuse themselves, if they want Barrett to do that.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/68ce180ea8db13147e650568105da069/tenor.gif)
If indeed the courts have to decide the election and she doesn't recuse herself ... she will be accused of deciding the election should she favor Trump in any way.
Again, best case scenario is if Trump wins by a landslide.
-
I've seen a lot of Republicans recuse themselves at critical political times, very few Democrats, if any. Its often a political manipulation to ensure patriot Conservative loses, democrat wins. 22222frying pan
TRUE. TIME FOR REPUBLICANS TO STOP BEING STUPID OR PAID OFF. Voting for their own demise.
:thumbsup:
-
If indeed the courts have to decide the election and she doesn't recuse herself ... she will be accused of deciding the election should she favor Trump in any way.
Again, best case scenario is if Trump wins by a landslide.
So? Tough toe nails. You think any DEMON-RAT, LEFT, LIBERAL S.C. Would recuse if obama was the issue? Are you all daff? THEN SOTOMAYER, KAGAN, AND ROBERTS....need to recuse as two were put in by Obama and that would show favoritism to OBAMA AND DEMON-RATS. Sotomayor would show favoritisms to any hispanic. GUARANTEED. KAGAN TO ANY ONE GAY. Come on!
-
So? Tough toe nails. You think any DEMON-RAT, LEFT, LIBERAL S.C. Would recuse if obama was the issue? Are you all daff? THEN SOTOMAYER, KAGAN, AND ROBERTS....need to recuse as two were put in by Obama and that would show favoritism to OBAMA AND DEMON-RATS. Sotomayor would show favoritisms to any hispanic. GUARANTEED. KAGAN TO ANY ONE GAY. Come on!
I AM all in favor of the SCOTUS justices ruling according to the Supreme Law of the Land = the Constitution of the United States of America. The justices should NOT be ruling according to their political bias.
-
If indeed the courts have to decide the election and she doesn't recuse herself ... she will be accused of deciding the election should she favor Trump in any way.
Again, best case scenario is if Trump wins by a landslide.
The Rats still blame SCOTUS for making GW Bush the "selected leader," even though the Court split 7-2 that Florida was wrong to keep recounting untul Gore won. It doesn't matter if she recuses or not, she'll be blamed for whatever happens, even if the court has the same 7-2 split.
And, if you add $5 to all the horrible, horrible blame, you can buy a small coffee at Buckstar's. It won't really hurt her in the least.
-
If indeed the courts have to decide the election and she doesn't recuse herself ... she will be accused of deciding the election should she favor Trump in any way.
Again, best case scenario is if Trump wins by a landslide.
I don't give a s--- about what the Left will accuse our side of.
-
I don't give a s--- about what the Left will accuse our side of.
Yes, the Rats pulled out all the stops to destroy Trump and all his works, so we should go for broke.