Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday sent more documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee after CNN's KFile reported earlier this week that at least seven public talks had not been included in her questionnaire to the committee.
These are worth watching.
Klobuchar has now questioned three Trump nominees to the Supreme Court as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.www.minnpost.com
It is a foregone conclusion that Amy Coney Barrett will be seated on the Supreme Court before the Nov. 3 presidential election. As soon as her first day, Justice Barrett may face the most momentous and difficult decision of her promised tenure of decades: whether to recuse herself from cases that could determine the outcome of that presidential election.
At her confirmation hearings this past week, Barrett rightly deflected Democratic senators’ demands that she commit in advance to recusal, wisely promising instead to seriously consider the question should it arise. Barrett herself almost certainly does not know whether recusal is required and will not know until she is actually confronted with the question.
But as Barrett must already understand, her decision was made exponentially more difficult by Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., an inartful and mischievous 5-to-4 case decided more than a decade ago by the court she will soon join. The ruling would seem to apply squarely to Barrett’s recusal decision and could well require, or at least counsel, her recusal.
Caperton involved a litigant who spent $3 million to help elect a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals justice, who then voted to reverse a $50 million damage award against his benefactor. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the judge should have recused himself. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that recusal may be constitutionally required even where a judge is not actually biased, if there is a “serious risk of actual bias.”
Based on its appraisal of the “psychological tendencies and human weakness” of all of us, the majority concluded that the campaign spending had “significant[ly] and disproportionate[ly]” influenced the judge’s election while the case was pending or imminent, resulting in a perceived serious risk that the judge was biased in favor of his contributor. “Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the other parties’ consent — a man chooses the judge in his own cause,” the court said.
I don’t know how the questions work, but didn’t she say she refused to answer because it didn’t fall within the scope of the questions they could ask. I really don’t know if they can or can’t ask anything and she might just have said that to deflect more.we already know she's biased.
Did you hear her not answer questions at her appointment hearings.
I know of no rule that prevented her from answering.I don’t know how the questions work, but didn’t she say she refused to answer because it didn’t fall within the scope of the questions they could ask. I really don’t know if they can or can’t ask anything and she might just have said that to deflect more.