Barrett won't say if Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional

Actual fact:

"Feinstein then proceeded to read from a brief 2015 essay by Michael Rappaport, a conservative legal scholar at the University of San Diego. Titled “The Unconstitutionality of Social Security and Medicare,” the paper argues that “these programs would have never taken their pernicious form if the Constitution’s original meaning had been followed in the first place.”

Barrett is, like Rappaport, a constitutional originalist. An originalist philosophy would be consistent with Rappaport’s conclusion that popular though they may be, New Deal and Great Society social programs — often called “entitlements” because qualified recipients are “entitled” to them by law — represent an illegitimate expansion of the administrative state.

Conservative icon Ronald Reagan got his start in politics by recording a now famous speech against Medicare when Democrats proposed it in 1961. He called it “socialized medicine,” the same phrase Republicans would use to attack the Affordable Care Act 50 years later.

Shrinking the “welfare state” has been the project of many Republicans in Congress, who almost uniformly support Barrett’s nomination to the high court. In 2017, Barrett criticized Chief Justice John Roberts — himself a judicial conservative appointed by a Republican president — because, she wrote, he “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

With that view plainly in mind, Feinstein asked Barrett if she agreed with “originalists who say that the Medicare program is unconstitutional.”

Barrett said she was “not familiar” with Rappaport’s article. Pressed by Feinstein for an opinion on the broader point about Medicare’s legitimacy, Barrett said she could not “answer that question in the abstract,” citing the so-called Ginsburg rule, an excuse frequently used by Republican-nominated judges to avoid revealing how they might rule.

“I also don’t know what the arguments would be,” she added, referring, presumably, to a case that sought to challenge Medicare’s validity. A seemingly incredulous Feinstein described Medicare as “really sacrosanct in this country.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barrett-wont-say-if-medicare-is-constitutional/ar-BB1a1KeQ?li=BBnb7Kz

This reinforces progressives' basic point; that right wingers having lost the ability to win elections absent gerrymandering, voter suppression and antidemocratic institutions are increasingly relying on conservative judges to thwart the will of the People. If a judge really won't say that these programs are constitutional more than a half century after their enactment, it's fairly obvious she harbors the way out of mainstream view that they are not.

Of course, she's entitled to her far out opinions and of course, the American People are entitled to evaluate the effect on public policy that allowing such judges to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution when they cast their votes in a few weeks.

Barrett also refused to answer whether or not the president can pardon himself. She also refused to answer if a president ignoring judgements from SCOTUS is a threat to democracy.

In other words, she's clearing the way for Trump to ignore federal judges and to pardon himself.

@vivify said
Barrett also refused to answer whether or not the president can pardon himself. She also refused to answer if a president ignoring judgements from SCOTUS is a threat to democracy.

In other words, she's clearing the way for Trump to ignore federal judges and to pardon himself.

@vivify said
Barrett also refused to answer whether or not the president can pardon himself. She also refused to answer if a president ignoring judgements from SCOTUS is a threat to democracy.

In other words, she's clearing the way for Trump to ignore federal judges and to pardon himself.

@no1marauder said
I don't care if Trump pardons himself (I doubt he will); the most likely criminal charges against him will come from State prosecutors and a Federal pardon will have no effect on them. I highly doubt the incoming Biden administration will have any interest in prosecuting the Donald; it would seem petty.

Barrett revealed herself as a far out right winger, probably more "out there" than anybody on the SCOTUS even Thomas.

@no1marauder said
Actual fact:

"Feinstein then proceeded to read from a brief 2015 essay by Michael Rappaport, a conservative legal scholar at the University of San Diego. Titled “The Unconstitutionality of Social Security and Medicare,” the paper argues that “these programs would have never taken their pernicious form if the Constitution’s original meaning had been followed in the firs ...[text shortened]... ch judges to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution when they cast their votes in a few weeks.

@metal-brain said
Tim Kaine voted for her for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and he is a democrat. He didn't seem to think she was a far out right winger back then.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-votes-to-confirm-amy-coney-barrett-to-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals

@no1marauder said
Tim Kaine is still in the Senate; think he'll vote for her now?

@no1marauder said
Tim Kaine is still in the Senate; think he'll vote for her now?

@metal-brain said
No, no democrat (that I am aware of) will because it is a political hot potato this time. She doesn't need votes from the other side this time though.

@no1marauder said
She didn't need votes "from the other side" (an interesting way to describe a judicial nominee) in 2017 to get the only judge position she has ever had.

@metal-brain said
Why do you suppose 3 democrats voted for her if she didn't need them? You said she was too far to the right. 3 democrats didn't seem to think so back then.

Apparently she couldn't remember all of the five "freedoms" mentioned in the First Amendment:

"When asked by Republican Senator Ben Sasse to name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Barrett forgot about one that’s been pretty important lately.

“Speech, religion, press, assembly… speech press religion assembly, I dunno, what am I missing?” Barrett says.

“Redress, or protest,” Sasse finishes for her."

https://god.dailydot.com/barrett-first-amendment/?fbclid=IwAR2LlDQzzFWwUzeNgM3DpJ4VjhJVMO7w6X_NlXKn23NO5k14VHV9EblFrsU

@metal-brain said
To be accurate she said it has never come up before and it would have to be studied. How else could she answer? It is not as if the constitution is specific about it. If she answered no which would satisfy you she would be asked why? If you can't point to some wording in the constitution how could you answer? She would have to admit it is mere personal opinion and nothing more. That would open up a can of worms.

@metal-brain said
To be accurate she said it has never come up before and it would have to be studied. How else could she answer? It is not as if the constitution is specific about it. If she answered no which would satisfy you she would be asked why? If you can't point to some wording in the constitution how could you answer? She would have to admit it is mere personal opinion and nothing more. That would open up a can of worms.