Schumer, Warren Among Democrats Who Refuse to Meet With Amy Coney Barrett
Democrats: This is all illegitimate!! Me: How do I Constitution?!
|
Listen to this article
|
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren will not meet with SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Warren would not even refer to Barrett by name. She refers to Barrett as “Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.”
I will not be meeting with Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee. We need to treat this nomination like the illegitimate power grab it is. pic.twitter.com/KwmtQ27miP
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 29, 2020
Why do you hate women, Sen. Warren?
This is not an illegitimate power grab. Trump is president until we swear in a new president in January. The Constitution, which you vowed to uphold, is pretty clear on this topic.
Schumer also used the illegitimate talking point:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that he will not meet with Barrett, becoming the most prominent Senate Democrat to spurn a meeting with Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
At a news conference in New York, Schumer said he doesn’t plan to meet with Barrett “because I believe, first, that the whole process has been illegitimate, and, second, because she has already stated that she is for overturning the ACA.”
Schumer told the ladies on The View that Barrett’s “views are so pronounced that I don’t think meeting with her would change anything.”
Then can we skip the hearings and just go straight to the vote?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal won’t meet with Barrett because she apparently wants to deny people healthcare. Oh, it’s also illegitimate.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand decided not to meet with Barrett because…can you guess? ILLEGITIMATE! Shocker, right?
Illegitimate? Article II, section ii (emphasis mine):
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Sen. Dick Durbin has a spine and decency because he said he would meet Barrett via a phone call to keep with social distancing protocols:
“I’ve met with every Supreme Court nominee since I’ve been in the Senate. I will extend that courtesy, if she requests it, for at least a socially distanced, safe meeting, perhaps over the phone,” Durbin said during an interview with ABC News’s “This Week.”
Barrett met with some Republican senators on Tuesday:
Barrett will also be visited by Senators Mike Crapo, Chuck Grassley and Mike Lee. And she’ll meet with Senator Rick Scott, Senate Majority Whip John Thune and Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
“We believe the Senate has an opportunity here for a fair and respectful consideration,” Pence told reporters ahead of his meeting with Barrett and McConnell. “We urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to take the opportunity to meet with Judge Barrett, and as the hearing goes forward to provide the kind of respectful hearing the American people expect.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
I don’t see the downside to this.
Any members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should forfeit their right to question Judge Barrett during her nomination hearing.
^ Any members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who refuse to meet with her now should forfeit their right to question Judge Barrett during her nomination hearing.
Oops, I had a momentary brain-biden.
The democrat senators refuse to meet with or vote for Barrett, so stop the “hearings” charade. Go straight to the vote.
Schumer, Warren, and Hirono refusing to meet with Judge Barrett is another example of the pathetic infantilization of our country. Adults whose action are those of children. This has been a noticeable trend is the US for at least the past 10 years.
There is no constitutional requirement to hold hearings, or in fact even to hold a vote. Back in the old days the president would walk over to Capitol Hill with a list of appointments and ask “do you provide acknowledgement and consent?”
Leave a Comment