Democratic Senators Could Have Neutralized Barrett's Use of the Ginsburg Rule -- Easily

 

From the perspective of basic logic, the Democrats could've done a much better job questioning Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court Seat.  Her main defense was a simple 'I won't say' when it came to hot-button topics. 

The adoption of the mis-named 'Ginsburg rule' has become a typical and annoying tactic in SCOTUS nominee hearings.  The underlying dodge is this:  if something is likely to come before the court, a justice can't, in advance, give an opinion.

At times, though, it is utterly obvious that you should give an opinion in your nomination hearing.  Otherwise you look like a party tool or, worse, someone willing to shred the Constitution.

The issue of whether a President can self-pardon came up in Barrett's hearings.  Barrett did the 'I won't say thing'.  This is what she said:

That question may or may not arise but it’s one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. So because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-barrett/trumps-court-pick-barrett-calls-presidential-self-pardon-an-open-question-idUSKBN26Z1BP 

Here is what any Senator, Dem or Rep, all of them oath-bound to protect the Constitution, should have said to her, based on simple logic:

"Justice Barrett, if a President can self-pardon, what is to keep them from committing treason?  A self-pardoning President could commit a treasonous act, couldn't they, and then turn around and grant themself immunity from repercussion?

"Suppose President Trump self-pardons himself, under the aegis of a favorable SCOTUS ruling that allows such a thing.  Let's suppose Congress tries to punish him for his misdeed.  Couldn't Trump then have the members of Congress arrested, then pardon those who did the arresting?  And again, pardon himself, for neutralizing Congress?

"In fact, a rogue President could have any dissenting voice jailed.  All with the wave of a magical executive wand!

"Do you have any way to counter this simple logical conclusion, Justice Barrett?

"If the States themselves tried to enforce their Criminal statues against a rogue President, couldn't that President, again, have the governors and the attorneys arrested?  Or killed?  Again, such a rogue Executive could pardon themself, and also their lackeys. 

"Shall I remind you that President Trump has expressed a right to do whatever he wants, by misrepresenting Article II of the Constitution?  If he can self-pardon, he can flout the Constitution at will.

"As our founders warned--emphatically--monarchic overreach is always a threat to our democratic republic.  Justices and legislators should be ever vigilant.  So, I ask you again, should a President be allowed to self-pardon? 

"Frankly, Justice Barrett, any answer besides 'No' shows an unwillingness to stand up for the essential framework of our Constitution.  There is no feasible way to assert that a President can self-pardon, while, at the same time, safeguarding our nation's principles.

"Simple logic, then, insists that, as a nominee for the Supreme Court, you stand up at this perilous juncture in the history of the United States.  So, I will give you another chance to say what is logically and ethically necessary.

"What will it be?  Will you bow down, as so many have done already, before the looming specter of tyranny?  Indeed, I ask you this question before God.  As I am sure you know, God is watching.  And the only wise and reasonable answer is very clear.

"Justice Barrett, Will you allow a President to self-pardon?"

...

I think such a line of questioning would have seriously challenged Barrett's rushed nomination.  But not a single Senator went this way.  Sad.

There are other examples, too, of situations where a nominee can be seriously called out for using 'I won't say,' using simple logic.  However, tempus fugit.  

==========