Barrett Cites ‘Ginsburg Rule’ Of ‘No Hints, No Previews’ When Pressed By Dems On Hot-Button Issues

6
>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett cited the woman she could be replacing on the high court on Tuesday, when Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats pressed her for her opinion on hot-button issues.

In one exchange, Barrett invoked the “Ginsburg Rule” when Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked during Barrett’s confirmation hearing if she agrees with the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s view that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to gay marriage.

“I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I’ve been giving,” Barrett said. “Justice Ginsburg with her characteristic pithiness used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing: no hints, no previews, no forecasts. That has been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the ‘Ginsburg Rule’ because she stated it so concisely and it’s been the practice of every nominee since.”

Read more at Fox News.

{Matzav.com}

6 COMMENTS

  1. She is brilliant. May Ha-Shem bless this country by having Judge Barrett get approved for the
    US Supreme Court, so we no longer reject Halacha when it comes to social issues.

  2. It is difficult for me to agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and I don’t want Obamacare repealed. Even so she is right. Confirmation hearings should be limited to the question of the nominee having the requisite capability to be on the Supreme Court.

    Personal legal views should be irrelevant and the nominee should have no obligation to answer such questions. Unless they are known to have such controversial views that they are under suspicion of not being committed to follow the constitution

  3. I love it. The evil wicked democrats can’t touch her. She’s not twisting herself into a pretzel like many stupid Rino’s do. She’s no Romney or McCain, thank G-d.

  4. Ginsburg rule is not important. What’s important is that she should rule MORALLY unlike Ginsburg and Feinstein and their immoral laws. We need to bring morals and values back into society.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here