A Supreme Court Justice nominee who doesn't know the Constitution?

Of course. Senator Klobuchar read it after she didn't answer.

She wouldn't have needed to recite it by heart. Saying "Yes" would have been enough. Because the question was if it was illegal to intimidate voters (something to that effect)

 

Asking about future cases is not asking about the law. They are asking how she might rule. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

 

So why ask about that particular law?

Klobuchar specified 'poll watching.' In her opinion, poll watching is voter intimidation. If she's just simply asked her if voter intimidation is illegal, then Amy would have obviously said YES.

Oh well, she'll be an activist judge replacing another activist judge. Seems fair to me.

 

They're asking her about matters which may go before the court Iike the ACA. I believe there is an ACA case set to be heard by the court.

 

Then why did you say the below?

 

She didn’t dodge any question. She made some people look like a fool. Maybe you should have actually listened to her answers instead of going on partisan motivated spin from hacks in the media.

 

Same stuff, different day but his RESEARCH!

 

What the f... hell are you talking about? If she gets into the court and she sides with the Trump administration (and she will!), ACA is gone. Period! That's what they are demanding.

Yet another right-winger who didn't know this. Unless you think that Kavanaugh or Gorsuch are going to save it. That would be a huge surprise.

 

I don't want obamacare nor trumpcare. I want the government OUT of my healthcare.

 

no she was asked if pill watchers that had milltary backgrounds would be voter intimidation. she can’t answer that question

 

the trump admin isn’t part of the lawsuit

it’s California v Texas and about 19 other states

 

Nam one Supreme Court nominee who explained how they would rule on a case before they heard it? I’ll tell you how many. Zero.

 

Aww man! I wanted to guess! No fun!

 

Well she read from US Code, not the Constitution. You said, "according to the Constitution." However, Klobuchar didn't specify according to the Constitution, she just asked if it was illegal. To which the answer is obviously YES, which Amy knows, but didn't want to answer because Klobuchar loaded the question with her own personal opinion.

Klobuchar specified 'poll watching.' In her opinion, poll watching is voter intimidation. If she just simply asked her if voter intimidation is illegal, then Amy would have obviously said YES.

 

Exactly! Finally! Sometimes it takes a big effort to get you guys to read the post you are responding to before responding.

 

Looks like you have never been to a job interview. I'm not referring to a job at McDonald's, or something like that, where they train you from zero. If you ever do you'll find out they actually ask you questions to see if you are knowledgeable enough to do the job.

I'm sure if your uncle is the owner of the company, or if you know you already have the votes to appoint you, you can refuse to answer the questions. Because the "interview bit" is just for show. But anybody else has to study hard and they better be damn prepared to answer even the most basic questions.

 

I meant "they didn't ask her about any case"

 

You have not said why you think they are asking about that particular law. Should they also ask her about 'murder' laws too?

 

Just the left nitpicking, and having a hell of a time finding anything to pick

 

So to you this is not about if Obama care is legal or not without the mandate tax, but it's about your "feelings" that it must remain in place? Well you do have precedent, because that's what they said about the illegal dream act

 

That she did. She made anybody who thinks that she's not going to be an extreme right-wing activist judge look like a fool.

 

Yeah, there's not much TO pick!

 

Sen Klobuchar: “Under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll?”
​

She can answer generally. She doesn't have to refer to any case to answer that. She's just not interested in even making an effort to answer because she knows that the special interests that nominated her are the only ones who will determine her appointment. And those are the only ones she responds to. Not the Senators, not the people....

 

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: Last week, a contractor from outside of my state of Minnesota started recruiting “poll watchers” with Special Forces experience, mm-hmm, to protect polling locations in my state. This was clear voter intimidation. Similar efforts are going on around the country, solicited by President Trump’s false claims of massive voter fraud. … So, as a result of his claims, people are trying to get “poll watchers,” Special Forces people, to go to the polls. Judge Barrett, under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls?

JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I can’t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. I can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties, on a full record, after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion. And so, I can’t answer questions like that.

It was not a general question, it was about a specific hypo about something that may or may not appear before the Court.

 

If by “right wing activist” you mean upholding the US constitution, I agree.

I don’t know why liberals have so much contempt for supporting and defending the US constitution.

Government officials at various levels , to include members of the military take an oath to do that.