I confess, I haven’t been following the hearings too closely— this whole theft of the Supreme Court, by these Republican sociopaths, is just too painful to take in but in very small doses.
But I am aware of several places where Barrett was asked questions that both could be engaged without any political downside and needed to be engaged to demonstrate any integrity about the rule of law. And — incredibly, and stupidly — Barrett side-stepped them.
She certainly could have affirmed that it is against federal law to intimidate voters, but she pretended that she needed to address the facts of some case in order to affirm that there is such a law, as she well should know as a federal judge.
She also truly needed to say that the President would be obliged to cooperate in a peaceful transfer of power if that’s what the election calls for. Else how could she be credible as a person to sit on the Supreme Court and help define what the Constitution means:
If she is willing to sell her soul, and betray the heart of the American Constitution — that elections will govern who gets power — how can we expect her to be any less willing to pervert the Constitution when she’s on the Court. Get the desired result — confirmation today, while tomorrow serving the interests that elevated her to the Court.
As well as her spiritual corruption, she also demonstrated something very different from the “brilliance” we were led to expect.
Her manifest lack of integrity was totally unnecessary. It was stupid to think that she couldn’t express strongly her commitment to all that “the peaceful transfer of power” represents.
In fact, the smart move would have been to speak boldly like it’s the 4th of July.
(She should surely know not to worry about how the President and Vice President, who refused to affirm their commitment to the peaceful transfer of power, would respond: they are hardly going to withdraw her name because — at her hearings you — she affirmed a basic American value. (Even Barr knew how to do a bit of that— at his hearings.)
Barrett likewise could have affirmed that voter intimidation was a federal crime— because it is. (And because that’s something a federal judge surely should know.) But instead she refused to affirm that everyone has a legal obligation to respect other people’s right to vote without feeling endangered.
Another needless punt: Nothing ought to have intimidated her from affirming that the President cannot unilaterally decide to delay an election. The Constitution is clear enough. But she pretends not to know. Duh?
I expected an ideologue of potential brilliance. Like Scalia, maybe. How brilliant can you be and make such an error, not being able to differentiate between traps and opportunities?
This is that brilliant legal mind we’ve heard about? This is that right-wing star of conservative, Catholic jurisprudence?
Another surprise on the downside: As for smarts, so also for her spiritual state.
I thought she’d be deep in the grip of some genuine spirituality. I didn’t expect her to be spiritually corrupt, or bankrupt, as to fail to uphold the basic spirit of the Constitution: America’s foundational document whose meaning she’ll be deciding.