Watching the Grifter-in-Chief and his Senate minions jamming a new Supreme Court Justice down America’s collective throat has had me thinking that Senate Democrats should just boycott the whole confirmation hearing charade.
Until today.
With the first 2020 Presidential debate mere hours away, and
the future of our nation very much at stake, I’m now thinking that there is perhaps
a better approach for Democrats to take in terms of the equally-pivotal Supreme Court confirmation process.
Let’s start by ruling out hearing tactics that might try to sully
her character or damage her integrity. And don’t question her Catholic faith or her “People of Praise” membership. Indeed, Dems should acknowledge that, by all or
most accounts, she’s a fine human being and a legal scholar.
So, how about plumbing her jurisprudential knowledge; seek
her guidance on interpretation of various elements of the Constitution; tap her wisdom related to actual legal definitions, or her opinions on already-public
matters and cases? The American people will be watching and learning.
For instance, perhaps ask her to explain the emoluments clause
in the Constitution.
Once she has, keeping things matter-of-fact, ask for her legal opinion regarding a real-life situation, such as: If a president refused to divest herself of her properties and, in fact, steered hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to her properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?
Drill a little deeper perhaps: Putting aside the obvious compromise of national security, ask: If a President declined to detach herself from a
global business empire – leaving her deeply commercially-engaged with foreign governments,
including with clear financial gain – would that violate the clause?
The emoluments violations list is endless, but it’s
always good to mix things up, so…
Perhaps Barrett could be asked to explain the Hatch
Act. You know, the 1939 law that “prohibits
civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government,
except the president and vice president, from engaging in some forms of
political activity.”
After she does, maybe remind her of the multiple, flagrant
violations of Hatch during the recent Republican Convention and seek her legal
opinion on these myriad infractions and the impact to the most basic
foundation of our democracy - the rule of law – if such violations go
unpunished.
Keep mixing it up.
Ask her if she might detail the Constitutionally-defined duties
of the U.S. Congress to oversee the executive branch. Again, presuming the
hearings will be broadcast live, such a request for Constitutional
clarification will be valuable to Americans assessing the Judge’s bona
fides.
Then seek the Judge’s legal opinion on the Trump
administration’s repeated refusal to respond to subpoenas from the Congress. Does she think such refusals by the executive
amount to obstructions of Congressional oversight? Obstructions of justice? If not, why not?
Shift gears.
Why not touch on the impeachment? Ask Barrett to explain collusion. Then, borrow
from the recent GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee report that lists the
contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the 2016 election
and ask her opinion whether such amount to collusion.
And so on.
Again, as noted above, by all or most accounts, the Judge is a good
person. The questions above are not hypothetical. They're all related to real-world happenings, and, well, they’re all pretty blatant examples of breaking one law or another or multiple laws.
So, if Barrett answer dishonestly, she’ll expose herself as
just another Trump stooge. If she answers honestly, as a person or her
purported character should, then we will all get to watch Trump and his corrupt
administration publicly excoriated by his own chosen Supreme Court Justice nominee.
Fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment