Durbin just expressed confusion on "where does this notion that you would violate your oath come from?" He then pulled out another giant photo and possible victims of her voting against the ACA. jonathanturley.org/2020/10/13/the…
...The clear message is that her expected vote in the case is the key issue for confirmation. It is entirely inappropriate for Senators like Booker to say that they will vote against her on the basis of her expected vote in the case -- absent an assurance of a contrary vote.
Durbin just set up a question that resulted in one of the best moments for Barrett. Asked about what she felt in watching the George Floyd video, Barrett said it had a huge impact on her as the mother to two black children. She said that she wept with her children over the video.
"Ricky" Kanter has now gone from selling fraudulent shoe inserts to the focus of a national confirmation hearing. Durbin hit Barrett for effectively fueling gun violence while Barrett insists that she simply required a showing of dangerousness to deny the 2nd Amendment right.
This discussion of the 2019 is actually the most substantive of the day. Barrett is arguing that the categorical exclusion of any felon would cover a wide array of crimes including improper sale of pigs.
What is most striking is the attack of Democrats on a jurist who insisted that individual ex-felons deserve some pre-deprivation review or showing before losing a constitutional right as in the Kanter case.
...Durbin's dismissive comments on "Ricky" suggests that, as a former felon, he can be categorically excluded from certain constitutional rights.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
