Ugh. Again. Stephanopoulous "The president is president for all four years."
Biden "yes, but after an election has started."
Wrong answer.
RIGHT answer: "BARACK OBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT FOR ALL 8 YEARS!"
Biden again surfaces the idea that the problem with court packing is that it will be done by the other side if they get a chance.
HOW IS THAT WORSE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW? Republicans want a 6-3 court NOW, and I'm supposed to worry about a 60-30 court in 10 years?
Can somebody PLEASE send @JoeBiden my court reform article. PLEASE. It's simple and it would help DE-politicize the court, as opposed to what we have now. #BidenTownHall
All right, I'm giving up for the night. Have a good night everybody except Diane Feinstein. You helped to CREATE Amy Coney Barrett with your ineffectual questioning for her 7th Circuit post, and have treated this week as YOUR civility redemption tour instead of a desperate fight.
This week wasn't supposed to be about you, or her, or Lindsey freaking Graham. It was supposed to be about a deeply wrong and hypocritical attack on the democracy carried out by a Republican party hell bent on ensuring minority rule against the will of the people.
I'm sure you'll sleep feeling like YOUR reputation as a "fair minded" and "civil" legislator has been redeemed. But, like Bob Mueller, Dean Baquet, and so many, many other "institutionalists," your myopic focus on your own reputation has cost us another chance to fight back.
Harris is now explaining Shelby County v Holder to Amy Coney Barrett who pretended to not know what the case was about.
OKAY, ACB is being intellectually dishonest about the holding. She's saying that the preclearance coverage formula was struck down, but "congress could pass a new formula." That's technically not a lie, but what she's not telling you...
is that Roberts struck down the preclearance formula in such a way as to make it unlikely that ANY preclearance formula could be legislated that would pass constitutional muster.
Welp, Josh Hawley actually just blew up Barrett's entire point.
Barrett argued that she couldn't give an answer on Griswold because it's an active controversy. But Hawley just had her admit to that there was no active litigation about Griswold for the past decades.
SO, WHICH ONE IS IT GOP?
Either Griswold is SETTLED and she can take a position on supporting it (if she did) OR it's a live issue and her views on whether WOMEN CAN GET BIRTH CONTROL is kind of important.
PICK A RULE, HAWLEY, but you can't have it both ways.
Honestly, if these hearings matter what @HawleyMO did was one of the DUMBEST things he could have done. I really hope one of @TheDemocrats picks up on this.
Barrett says that Griswold (the right to contraception) is "unlikely to go anywhere" and suggests that it would take a statute to take it away.
This answer is full of crap because HOBBY LOBBY HAPPENED which denied contraception to women working there.
She says Griswold involves substantive due process. That's a tell. You can defend Griswold under the right to privacy, if you believe it exists, WHICH AMY CONEY BARRETT DOESN'T
Again, this is an example of Barrett TAKING A POSITION ON A CASE, while saying that she's not.
What's weird about Grassley is that he's a person who believes in conservative legal principles in a way that exists *outside* of being a FedSoc schill. Like, he's from an era before the FedSoc completely captured the GOP and told them how to talk about the law.
It's not like Grassley *disagrees* with FedSoc. It's just that he comes to his beliefs a little differently than the FedSoc group think, and it shows in his presentation (of views I think are wrong)
It's hard to explain the daylight between a Grassley approach and a FedSoc one, but, it's a little about intellectual honesty (FedSoc purposely misleads people while Grassley really is that dumb, if you will).
And...