Opening statements of the confirmation hearing Of Judge Barrett

[f6john]

I didn’t here all of them but they were very predictable as we all could have guessed. The questioning part will be the real show I suspect. I think she will make a fine justice whether I agree with all her positions or not.

[f6gal]

I didn’t here all of them but they were very predictable as we all could have guessed. The questioning part will be the real show I suspect. I think she will make a fine justice whether I agree with all her positions or not.

Her positions are irrelevant.  Her job is not to legislate; it is to interpret current law as written.  If congress wants laws changed, they need to do their job and quit counting on the court to do it for them.  

[f6john]

I didn’t here all of them but they were very predictable as we all could have guessed. The questioning part will be the real show I suspect. I think she will make a fine justice whether I agree with all her positions or not.

Her positions are irrelevant.  Her job not to legislate; it is to interpret current law as written.  If congress wants laws changed, they need to do their job and quit counting on the court to do it for them. 

Just to clarify, I meant the positions she will take on cases brought before her.

[f6gal]

I didn’t here all of them but they were very predictable as we all could have guessed. The questioning part will be the real show I suspect. I think she will make a fine justice whether I agree with all her positions or not.

Her positions are irrelevant.  Her job not to legislate; it is to interpret current law as written.  If congress wants laws changed, they need to do their job and quit counting on the court to do it for them. 

Just to clarify, I meant the positions she will take on cases brought before her.

Again, her positions are irrelevant.  Her job is to interpret current law, regardless of whether or not she agrees with the law.

[vanavyman]

Yes and the left has always wanted the courts to side them them.  Easier than to compromise.  System is setup for Congress to compromise on laws.  Not ram stuff through and hope the Courts bail them out.  If the left had allowed compromise in 2008 and added cost reductions and Tort reform to the ACA it would be a lot better today and wouldn't need the courts to save it.

[f6john]

I didn’t here all of them but they were very predictable as we all could have guessed. The questioning part will be the real show I suspect. I think she will make a fine justice whether I agree with all her positions or not.

Her positions are irrelevant.  Her job not to legislate; it is to interpret current law as written.  If congress wants laws changed, they need to do their job and quit counting on the court to do it for them. 

Just to clarify, I meant the positions she will take on cases brought before her.

Again, her positions are irrelevant.  Her job is to interpret current law, regardless of whether or not she agrees with the law.

Ok, let’s try this. I think she will make a superb Supreme Court Justice whether I agree or disagree with all her decisions/dissents on cases brought before her.

[Jess from VA]

The irony in any of these confirmation hearings is.... it is just flat unethical and wrong for any judge to give some kind of forecast on how they would vote or rule in hypothetical situations posed by the interrogating legislators (nee HACKS).  They are not supposed to do it, they should not do it, and the interrogators know this, but still play to the cameras.... So, you're refusing to answer my simple question?

No quickie hypothetical can ever come close to the amount of evidence and issues that actually exists in any real case.

No potential judge who says he will always vote for or against this or that should be a judge.

Except you can always say, I will carefully consider all the admissible evidence, the complete record before me, all applicable laws and regulations, and prior case law, and the constitution, and then I'll make my decision.  But that answer always makes heads explode (if only that were true).

The other thing that is always interesting is that most any judge nominated to SCOTUS is like 10 times smarter than the average legislator (but they are always coached not to rub it in or antagonize the legislators or fight back, no matter how badly they deserve it). 

[scooperhsd]

I be thinking with the current situation regarding politics, the nominee ought to take every chance they are presented with to utterly destroy the questioners  !!!!! At least the ones asking the totally stupid, "what would you vote in ..." situations. Right now, with the D's - you're never going to win any of them over any way - show them what they are dealing with !

[Rams]

I be thinking with the current situation regarding politics, the nominee ought to take every chance they are presented with to utterly destroy the questioners  !!!!! At least the ones asking the totally stupid, "what would you vote in ..." situations. Right now, with the D's - you're never going to win any of them over any way - show them what they are dealing with !

I think we all know this isn't about the nominee and doing as you suggest is likely to tick off some independents who may not be leaning one way or another although I doubt there are many of them out there.  It's all about making DJY look bad and the Dems are trying to make this all about Health Care. She's obligated to sit there and take it to a certain point.   With Kavanaugh, it went way past that point and he responded.   He was abused beyond anything I've ever seen and it's a good thing he doesn't possess my demeanor.   There would be a price to pay some where, some time.   Yeah, I wouldn't make a good SCOTUS nominee or Justice.  

Rams

[Jess from VA]

Good Judge Kavanaugh would have been fully justified in challenging several senators to an old fashioned duel, with seconds, at dawn.

Except that's pretty much illegal everywhere.  

Even vice president Aaron Burr (a better man than Hamilton) had to flee the jurisdiction (after serving out his term).  

[Willow]

... Aaron Burr (a better man than Hamilton) ... 

Your information on the historicity of the event is either incorrect or incomplete.  As gentlemen we must meet on the New Jersey shores to resolve this offense to the character of an honorable man.   

[scooperhsd]

Sen Graham is currently questioning Barrett. A very interesting exchange. I think I could like having Graham as President.

His questions / her answers are fair and should be educational for those not in the legal profession.

[Jess from VA]

... Aaron Burr (a better man than Hamilton) ... 

Your information on the historicity of the event is either incorrect or incomplete.  As gentlemen we must meet on the New Jersey shores to resolve this offense to the character of an honorable man.   

Of course, this is my opinion on the character of both men.

Have fun in New Jersey.  I once found myself riding my Valk in NJ by accident (armed) and I got out of there just as fast as I could (scrupulously obeying the speed laws of course).

[Serk]

I once found myself riding my Valk in NJ by accident (armed) and I got out of there just as fast as I could (scrupulously obeying the speed laws of course).

Same thing happened to me with Mexico once.... Talk about a high pucker factor ride, I'd rather do Deal's Gap during an ice storm than THAT ride again!

[Jess from VA]

I once found myself riding my Valk in NJ by accident (armed) and I got out of there just as fast as I could (scrupulously obeying the speed laws of course).

Same thing happened to me with Mexico once.... Talk about a high pucker factor ride, I'd rather do Deal's Gap during an ice storm than THAT ride again!

I felt better in Mexico than I did in Jersey.  Course, Mexico was TJ and Ensenada in the (reasonably good) 1980's, and I was not armed (beyond a good folder). 

Funny thing though, my wife had an immigration visa (to the US) and had applied for US citizenship (pending), but I forgot to take that documentation with us, and reentering the US would have been fine until she spoke with her foreign accent.  And then the immigration agent threatened to make her stay in TJ, until I could come back with it.  I showed active duty military ID and did some begging, and he let her through.  Afterward, I thought it was funny, but the wife was very unhappy with me. 

Lawyers are supposed to know better husband.  And of course, she was right.

A year earlier, in Ankara Turkey, the US embassy treated her very badly (getting her immigration visa) by assuming she was an Iranian hooker (who were fleeing to Turkey in droves to save their lives following the Ayatollah takeover; and who could blame them).  They shamed and embarrassed her and made her cry.  I called the Chief Consular officer from my USAF legal office and threatened him with a serious ass kicking if it ever happened again.  Not being used to such behavior in their fat and sassy State Department jobs, he made a formal compliant thru channels to get me in trouble.  After my Col got the whole story, he called the guy back and told him Capt J meant business, and he'd better take care of his Turkish wife next time or there was no telling what his good Capt might do to him.  This was one of the good Cols.