Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer questions?

[Synthaholic]

It's perplexing why she wouldn't answer a question about WHAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!

It's right there in black and white.

What's her hidden agenda?

Tell me commie, how many different opinions are there on what's in the Constitution?

.

What part of black and white don't you understand?

So you're suddenly a textualist? You're such a liar, Roe, Obergerfel and many other decisions can't be found in the Constitution. Yet you're all for them.

.

I am. And they are all settled law. But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line. This is different. There is no interpretation. The Constitution says that Congress can move the election, not the president.

Yeah, and the Constitution also says the congress appropriates money, yet under emergency powers, the president can move money around.

.

Ok, what’s the emergency? “I’m going to lose by a landslide and Turtle Mitch won’t have power - this is an emergency!!!”

 

[Blues Man]

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?

It doesn't matter.

There is no legal precedent on which to comment.

As a Justice she is not there to question the Constitution or comment on it she is there to decide whether or not any laws violate it.

 

[Synthaholic]

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?

It doesn't matter.

There is no legal precedent on which to comment.

As a Justice she is not there to question the Constitution or comment on it she is there to decide whether or not any laws violate it.

But she wasn’t asked to decide any of that. She was asked what the words in the Constitution said, not what they meant.

 

[Blues Man]

Then there is this


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


The clause reads:

"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So we know he can't pardon himself if impeached but there is no mention of other instances.

So you see, it most likely would end up in the Supreme Court if any president tried to pardon himself from any other crimes and thus we fall back to the Ginsberg rule of no hints, previews or forecasts

 

[Blues Man]

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?

It doesn't matter.

There is no legal precedent on which to comment.

As a Justice she is not there to question the Constitution or comment on it she is there to decide whether or not any laws violate it.

But she wasn’t asked to decide any of that. She was asked what the words in the Constitution said, not what they meant.

And The Constitution says


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


The clause reads:

"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So we know he can't pardon himself if impeached but there is no mention of other instances.

So you see, it most likely would end up in the Supreme Court if any president tried to pardon himself from any other crimes and thus we fall back to the Ginsberg rule of no hints, previews or forecasts

 

[Sun Devil 92]

She was a professor at Notre Dame who taught constitutional law. Your exaggerating.

And didn't know the fifth 1st Amendment freedom. The dumbing down of Academia, eh?

Ginsburg shows up at a SOTU speech drunk.

I guess they are not perfect.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) if “the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances,” Barrett punted.

{See 2nd Aaron Rupar video below}:

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) if “the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances,” Barrett punted.

{See 2nd Aaron Rupar video below}:

 

[Grumblenuts]

Clause 4: Election day

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Congress sets a national Election Day.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, "Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?"

No.

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?

It doesn't matter.

There is no legal precedent on which to comment.

As a Justice she is not there to question the Constitution or comment on it she is there to decide whether or not any laws violate it.

But she wasn’t asked to decide any of that. She was asked what the words in the Constitution said, not what they meant.

And The Constitution says


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


The clause reads:

"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So we know he can't pardon himself if impeached but there is no mention of other instances.

So you see, it most likely would end up in the Supreme Court if any president tried to pardon himself from any other crimes and thus we fall back to the Ginsberg rule of no hints, previews or forecasts

"So you see," you've done barked up the wrong clause there fella. Bigly.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, "Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?"

No.

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?

It doesn't matter.

There is no legal precedent on which to comment.

As a Justice she is not there to question the Constitution or comment on it she is there to decide whether or not any laws violate it.

But she wasn’t asked to decide any of that. She was asked what the words in the Constitution said, not what they meant.

And The Constitution says


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


The clause reads:

"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So we know he can't pardon himself if impeached but there is no mention of other instances.

So you see, it most likely would end up in the Supreme Court if any president tried to pardon himself from any other crimes and thus we fall back to the Ginsberg rule of no hints, previews or forecasts

"So you see," you've done barked up the wrong clause there fella. Bigly.

The OP did not specify what part of the Constitution so I found a relevant clause. Which clause are you speaking of?

The pertinent one. Read up.

 

[Blues Man]

So, "Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?"

No.

No hints, no previews, no forecasts.

Of the actual words in the Constitution? I thought she was an originalist?

It doesn't matter.

There is no legal precedent on which to comment.

As a Justice she is not there to question the Constitution or comment on it she is there to decide whether or not any laws violate it.

But she wasn’t asked to decide any of that. She was asked what the words in the Constitution said, not what they meant.

And The Constitution says


Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


The clause reads:

"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So we know he can't pardon himself if impeached but there is no mention of other instances.

So you see, it most likely would end up in the Supreme Court if any president tried to pardon himself from any other crimes and thus we fall back to the Ginsberg rule of no hints, previews or forecasts

"So you see," you've done barked up the wrong clause there fella. Bigly.

The OP did not specify what part of the Constitution so I found a relevant clause. Which clause are you speaking of?

The pertinent one. Read up.

WHatever

 

[Meister]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

A vague question without content. I would imagine there would be circumstances and legitimate ones where an election would have to be delayed.

 

[Meister]

Amy Coney Barrett:

• Doesn't know the First Amendment
• Doesn't know the Constitution
• Doesn't know that voter intimidation has been against the law for decades

Amy Coney Barrett: Rightwing tool, totally unfit for the highest court in the land.

Thanks for YOUR opinion, skippy, I think anyone with more than an hour on this
site would have known that coming from you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

A vague question without content. I would imagine there would be circumstances and legitimate ones where an election would have to be delayed.

So you'd have "vague" be the new "explicitly forbidden" would you? I would imagine there would be circumstances and legitimate ones where you'd respond "No." Naturally though, that presumes some measure of integrity.

 

[OKTexas]

It's perplexing why she wouldn't answer a question about WHAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!

It's right there in black and white.

What's her hidden agenda?

Tell me commie, how many different opinions are there on what's in the Constitution?

.

What part of black and white don't you understand?

So you're suddenly a textualist? You're such a liar, Roe, Obergerfel and many other decisions can't be found in the Constitution. Yet you're all for them.

.

I am. And they are all settled law. But when they first came up they had to be measured against the Constitution, to find out if they were in line. This is different. There is no interpretation. The Constitution says that Congress can move the election, not the president.

Yeah, and the Constitution also says the congress appropriates money, yet under emergency powers, the president can move money around.

.

Ok, what’s the emergency? “I’m going to lose by a landslide and Turtle Mitch won’t have power - this is an emergency!!!”

Wow, how short you commies memories are, did you forget we're in the middle of a pandemic?

.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have to appoint her in order to learn how she would rule.

There's nothing to rule.

It's a matter of the PARTICULAR facts of the case.. YOU might think the Constitution is completely clear on the matter.. It's not.. Words like delay or postpone can have meanings that NEED interpretation depending on the case.. And SPECULATING ABOUT IT -- destroys their FUTURE credibility on rulings about "bias"..

Long precedent of judges INCLUDING RGB that have insisted on not SPECULATING about cases that might get thrown at her...

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

It is CONGRESS and the STATES that are responsible for setting times and dates anyway.. You wont ever learn that by reading flaming partisan analysis. Only date set in the Constitution is the date for the Electoral College to meet..

You dig? Not a "simple question.....

 

[Yarddog]

Amy Coney Barrett:

• Doesn't know the First Amendment
• Doesn't know the Constitution
• Doesn't know that voter intimidation has been against the law for decades

Amy Coney Barrett: Rightwing tool, totally unfit for the highest court in the land.

She was a professor at Notre Dame who taught constitutional law. Your exaggerating.

Then why doesn't she know the First Amendment?
Why doesn't she know what the Constitution says?

She stumbled a bit on one question about the 5 protections of the 1st Amendment which means even she is human and not a machine. Everyone is allowed to draw a blank from time to time, even with things that they know. It's allowed. She doesn't know what the constitution says? You know your making that up don't you.
She is a constitutional scholar and a teacher. Fact check yourself because you come off as a liar.

 

[Meister]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

A vague question without content. I would imagine there would be circumstances and legitimate ones where an election would have to be delayed.

So you'd have "vague" be the new "explicitly forbidden" would you? I would imagine there would be circumstances and legitimate ones where you'd respond "No." Naturally though, that presumes some measure of integrity.

There are exceptions to everything.
We have already twisted the Constitution and meanings. Don't be so obtuse.
But, don't think that I believe that a delay would even be considered on no more than a whim.
It would have to be something that would be catastrophic. So please don't get your panties all in a bunch.

 

[Oldestyle]

Why won't Amy Coney Barrett answer whether it's Constitutional for the president to move or delay an election when it's explicitly forbidden IN THE CONSTITUTION?

"When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3."

The Ginsburg Rule

When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten. Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical...

www.heritage.org

ACB was taking the same tack as the Justice that she will replace, Synth and what's amusing to me is that the ARCHITECT of the "rules" that got Ginsberg confirmed was none other than Joe Biden! Isn't it amazing how the things that you Democrats did in the past always come back to bite you in the ass at a later date?