Lisa Benson for October 14, 2020

She couldn’t even answer if voter intimidation is illegal. She a puppet for the hard right wing nuts.

Shouldn’t there be strings rising off her shoulders up to the balcony where here husband stands holding the hand controls?

She apparently has a prodigious memory. Which doesn’t change the fact that she IS prejudiced about quite a number of things.

Now that is the funniest cartoon Lisa has drawn in a while!

Although I think the Bible is more of a book than a document, but it’s still better than I could draw.

She is the Unwanted.

Separation of church and state, of course when you’re trying to get religious zealots to vote for you, anything goes… give them anything they want… maybe a $200 dollar cash card, too

Quite badly off target. She refused to say if the Constitution gives the President the power to postpone elections. That is an open and shut question. It gives the authority over elections to Congress. It’s like asking who has the authority to levy taxes.

Just wondering, did she have to sign an NDA to get the appointment?

Ahahahahaha! Oh wait, you’re serious, Lisa? I thought her notes were whatever her husband allowed her to have, being a proper handmaid.

ACB vs. ACA.

Also, in vitro fertilization is manslaughter. And, Roe v Wade will be overturned.

You can almost see Lisa’s smug smile when she drew this one.

Marbury vs Madison was the original “Judicial Interpretation” that “originalist” and “textualist” judges seem to forget about when they complain about “Judicial Interpretation” and cite that they will “enforce the Constitution as written”… So a judge holding up the Constitution as his/her guide bristles with hypocrisy…

SCOTUS has decided to permit the so-called administration* to end the census count early in concert with Ol’ Punkinhead’s desire to exclude as many immigrants, poor folks, native Americans, and any other potential Democrats as possible. The Constitution distinguishes between slaves, “Indians”, “Citizens” and “Persons”, and it states that the census “shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons” with exclusion for non-taxed “Indians” and 3/5ths of all other Persons. One wonders whether Barrett’s opinion on yesterday’s termination decision, which takes effect tomorrow, would concur or not.

The Constitution has little to do with her decisions. Ask her if it covers the undocumented children in cages.

They bring up the Constitution when it suits, the Bible when it suits, and they bring up a precedent when it fits. Whatever gives them the answer that they want.

Justices make rulings not on the Constitution but their interpretation.

The actual Constitution is _much- longer than that “document” Lisa has Amy holding.

In fact, it most of it appears to have been removed… even far before the Bill of Rights.

Is that Lisa’s wish?

So what does she have to do with The Constitution??

To believe that the Constitution is the literal words of the Founding Fathers and not subject to change is as dangerous as believing the same about the Bible. The men writing the Constitution were very well aware that conditions change and a nation needs to adapt to it.

We the people = white men only + christianity only. Might as well have a qanon conspiracist or tea bagg… partier on the bench. Heck, probably already do.

Amen.

She is a Acolyte of Scalia. The guy who famously said that Torture is not against the Constitution, Not because it’s cruel and unusual punishment but because it’s not PUNISHMENT.

In short Torture is not against the Constitution, only if the person hasn’t been convicted.

A handmaid’s tale…

Like all of he GOP colleagues, everything is for show.

Another lying right wing unqualified extremist.

The hypocrisy with Constitutional “originalists” like Scalia and Barrett is they do for law, exactly what the religious zealots do with the “what would Jesus do” philosophy. Which is to determine that Jesus (or the Constitution) always supports what they want to do.

She shouldn’t need to bring notes to talk from. She should take notes during questioning that help her get back to important points. Thing is, she had no important points. Imagine that being an actual job interview. I’ve sat on dozens of two-person job interview teams, and she’d have gone in the loser stack.

Barrett is intelligent and personable. Yet, her being rammed into the court at this time is a nail in the coffin lid of an apolitical Supreme Court. Even if she calls “balls and strikes”, human laws are ambiguous, and we are in for a generation of decisions by the least democratic part of the Federal government that will weigh corporate interests over democracy.

Wonder if she pays any attention to Amendments enacted after the Civil War?

[ Prepare for a return to the Gilded Age! ]

As much as I think that Lindsey Graham ought to surrender his seat in the Senate to Harrison, Lindsey would occasionally, when not running for office, be statesmanlike. He did so during the consideration of Sotomayor. He looked at her credentials, found them to be adequate for the SCOTUS position and voted for her, even though she was a nominee from a Dem WH. He earned a stiff rebuff from his Repub colleagues but he voted his mind and conscience.

It is the role and duty of the senators on the committee to check out a high court nominee to grill the person before them: make sure she has the right stuff for the position of justice on the high court. Should Barrett prove herself adequate to the position, then they should vote for her, and if not, they SHOULD vote nay. Now, I know politics is the all in all on the hill, right now, but maybe there could be a few Lindsey’s on the panel, though I know the chairman, Lindsey himself, will have a senior moment and vote his party.

Even with all that said, I’m not really all that concerned about whether the nominee is liberal or conservative. Past presidents have regularly pulled their hair out about the decisions of their nominees for the bench. Rehnquist was supposed to be a strong conservative, but became a swing voter. Likewise Roberts who now swings from side to side on a regular basis. The reason I think has to do with the way the cases are decided. It’s all about how the cases are presented to the court and the fact that, unlike the presidents that nominated them, all political hacks, swaying with the polls and saying whatever will get them elected, the members of the high court really do believe in the US Constitution.

FAKE NEWS!! Barrett didn’t display the Constitution when asked to show her notes… but she did show a notepad with Senate letterhead with implications that they and it would be her judgement tool…

Just throw out your shoes, get pregnant, and get into the kitchen, Lisa. It will save time if/when Barrett is confirmed.

It would have been nice if she actually showed her knowledge of the constitution by answering the basic questions posed to her.

Barrett’s resume as a judge is almost as blank as the notepad she held up in the Senate hearing. She’s a well regarded law professor, with two years of experience as a Federal Judge. In another era, she wouldn’t be considered ready for SCOTUS.

Conservatives pretend that originalism is a way for judges to approach Constitutional matters in a totally unbiased way. They just travel through time & put themselves in the heads of the Founders to decide what they really meant when they wrote it. No one can pretend to know what the Founders would have thought when faced with something completely unknown in their time. It’s as subjective an approach to the law as any.

I understand the bobbing and weaving when it comes to questioning, but Judge Barrett referred to two questions which were posed to give only yes or no answers as “Hypotheticals”. Sen Klobecher made one mistake when asking about the legality of "poll intimidation, instead of reading the statute herself, she should have had Ms. Barrett read it. Hard to dodge that request.

This “herd mentality” thinking is depressing, especially when the herd believe that they are being independent thinkers. They’re really gullible when told that they are when others are manipulating them. Now to raise my spirits, off to watch some clips of Mrs. Emma Peel.

She doesn’t need notes… she’s already sworn fealty to the extreme Right, and Republikans are asking hardball questions like “Why to judges wear robes,” “Do you have any hobbies,” and “Do any of your children play baseball?”

Meanwhile, she refuses to answer any substantive questions from Democrats.

Despite having previously said she agreed with all of Scalia’s positions, she wouldn’t give a straight answer on whether she agreed with Scalia’s positions.

Anyone here remember who set the current standard in which Judges and Justices refuse to answer “hypothetical” questions? Anyone? Bueller?

Does anyone here remember who created the “rule” in the Senate Judiciary Committee that allowed the above unnamed nominee to refuse to answer critical policy questions?

Makes perfect sense. Amy Barrett’s notes are written on the back of this copy of the Constitution. And it stands to reason the page is blank. She’s winging it at the hearings with her impression of Sergeant (“I know nud-theeng!”) Shultz.

Republicans refused to look into the Trump impeachment when he violated the Constitution.

Yeah, she’s reading the blank back of that document. She has no idea what’s on the other side.

That she’d write her notes on the back of the Constitution says a lot…

finally! a textualist to replace judges who vote for what they want the constitution to say instead of what it actually says.