Notre Dame Professors Urge Barrett to Call for a Halt to Hearings

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,040
13,065
✟1,077,523.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
While I was reading this, the song "Voice of Truth" from Casting Crowns began sounding in my head.


The group — which does not include any instructors at Notre Dame Law School, where Barrett, 48, teaches — called on her to “take this unprecedented step” in light of three considerations.

“First, voting for the next president is already underway,” the letter read. “According to the United States Election Project, more than seven million people have already cast their ballots, and millions more are likely to vote before election day.

“Next, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was that her seat on the court remain open until a new president was installed,” the letter read. “Your nomination just days after Ginsburg’s death was unseemly and a repudiation of her legacy.

“Finally, your nomination comes at a treacherous moment in the United States. Our politics are consumed by polarization, mistrust, and fevered conspiracy theories,” they wrote. “You have the opportunity to offer an alternative to all that by demanding that your nomination be suspended until after the election.”

https://nypost.com/2020/10/13/notre-dame-colleagues-call-on-amy-coney-barrett-to-halt-confirmation/
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    upload_2020-10-14_12-32-49.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 0
Last edited:

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
None of those three reasons seem even slightly valid. Even if the Prez loses, he's still Prez for three more months from now and has the right to act as such. Justices who die don't have a 'legacy' requiring an impact on determining their successors. This country was well divided before Ginsberg died, making this more of the same hyperbole from the left.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,723.00
Faith
Non-Denom
So some of these legal minds spout off a reason why she should call a halt to being confirmed as being..... well the former judge had a dying wish....SO WHAT!

Look I believe in having expressed all the niceties of showing honour to the former judge calling her an inspiration for her generation but to suggest you cross the line with that to the point one whole political party should suspend and not make use of their rightful opportunity that circumstances have allowed them is ludicrous. People have invested time, energy, not to mention their hard earned money to support Conservative advancement just as Dems do with their causes! Would they back down from nominating and confirming if they had the Senate and the Presidency? NEVER. Everybody knows this. Truly Dems wouldn't even really respect Republicans if they did this. They'd laugh at them secretly calling them idiots.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The fact that "voting is already underway" means nothing. First, election day itself isn't until November 3rd. Changing when people can early vote has nothing to do with when a president can make decisions during his term. Otherwise, why not change it so that people can start voting for the next president right after the mid-term election ends, and then that could be used to keep a president from making judicial appointments for half of his term?
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The fact that "voting is already underway" means nothing. First, election day itself isn't until November 3rd. Changing when people can early vote has nothing to do with when a president can make decisions during his term. Otherwise, why not change it so that people can start voting for the next president right after the mid-term election ends, and then that could be used to keep a president from making judicial appointments for half of his term?

Unless that President is a Democrat of course, in which case nearly a year before the election isn’t enough time.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Unless that President is a Democrat of course, in which case nearly a year before the election isn’t enough time.

If the Senate isn't held by the party of the president, then you are correct.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If the Senate isn't held by the party of the president, then you are correct.
I still don't understand why that should matter. The President doesn't stop being the President just because his party doesn't control one house of Congress.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If the Senate isn't held by the party of the president, then you are correct.

I’m sure you’ll be equally supportive if the Democrats also start applying the letter of the law to such matters next time they have a majority.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I still don't understand why that should matter. The President doesn't stop being the President just because his party doesn't control one house of Congress.

The Party is ALL.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I still don't understand why that should matter. The President doesn't stop being the President just because his party doesn't control one house of Congress.
It's basically lots of words to rationalize the belief that Democratic presidents don't deserve to appoint federal judges.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I’m sure you’ll be equally supportive if the Democrats also start applying the letter of the law to such matters next time they have a majority.
I'm happy to see my idea of turning the Dakotas back into territories is gaining traction.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I’m sure you’ll be equally supportive if the Democrats also start applying the letter of the law to such matters next time they have a majority.
They always have. Why would anyone expect that to change in future.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
They always have. Why would anyone expect that to change in future.

The Republicans under McConnell have ripped up more Senate traditions and conventions than anyone else in modern history. So now you will soon get to discover what that feels like when the boot is on the other foot. Enjoy!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,997
19,443
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟489,034.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
If the Senate isn't held by the party of the president, then you are correct.
Do you think that a senate should never hear a supreme court nomination unless they have the same majority as the current sitting president?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
To compare the GOP's 2916 actions in blocking Obama's nominee for the best part of a year to their rush today to install Barrett exposes a gigantic hypocrisy. Senate actions both then and now are perfectly legal but expose a huge double standard by the GOP. If Barrett were to step back until after the election it would defuse the rhetoric of both parties. If Trump were re-elected then continue with the confirmation hearings but if Trump were to be defeated along with losing the Senate then the whole exercise should be halted until after the inauguration.

This entire situation clearly exposes that what is legal is not always what is just
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The group — which does not include any instructors at Notre Dame Law School, where Barrett, 48, teaches — called on her to “take this unprecedented step” in light of three considerations.

Interesting that not one of her closest colleagues signed off on the letter.

Is it because they’re her colleagues or because they teach the law?
 
Upvote 0

Skewpoint

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2019
570
803
43
USA
✟72,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
If the Senate isn't held by the party of the president, then you are correct.
Was that ever a reason that was given in 2016? I don't remember it being one, but I've certainly heard it as the reason recently. It comes off as a post hoc rationalization to not appear so blatantly hypocritical.

Is there any evidence beyond "too close to an election" that was given in 2016? This is not a rhetorical question, serious inquiry. I couldn't find anything.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I still don't understand why that should matter. The President doesn't stop being the President just because his party doesn't control one house of Congress.

But his power is diminished enough that his nominee wouldn't get the votes.
 
Upvote 0