news-queue:

On day two of her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett held up a blank notepad for the senators to see the notes she was working from. At the beginning of the hearing, many saw the blank piece of paper as a powerful symbol of how smart and prepared Judge Barrett was, their perfect nominee who didn’t need any prepared material to survive the grilling she was sure to encounter by hostile Democrats.

However, by the end of the four days of hearings, the blank notepad was a perfect symbol of something else — just how empty and vacuous the hearing was, and how little Judge Barrett was willing to say about virtually anything relevant to the job of being a Supreme Court justice. In short, the notepad had nothing on it because Judge Barrett said nothing.

Consider her nothingburger of a performance from the perspective of the ultimate purpose of what was happening in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. In essence, Judge Barrett was interviewing for a lifetime job as one of the most powerful judges on the planet, a job that, because she is only 48, she could hold for four decades. Senators, the people who get the final say in hiring her, spent their time asking her all sorts of questions related to how she would perform that job. And what did she say in response? Zilch.

Just imagine any other job interview. Interviewing to be a cashier at a grocery store? Imagine answering a question about how you would deal with two angry customers who both claim that they got to the front of the line at the same time with this actual quote from Judge Barrett — “I can’t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can’t [say what I’d do] to a hypothetical set of facts.” Or maybe you’re interviewing for a sales position, and your potential employer wants to know your thoughts on two different approaches to closing a deal. Imagine answering by saying that you can’t express an opinion on that because to do so would be to prejudge the matter.

No one would get a job if they didn’t tell the people interviewing them their thoughts on how they were going to actually perform in that role…except a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Anyone who has watched a recent confirmation hearing knows that expecting anything much of substance from the nominee is foolish. Faced with questions about some of the most pressing legal issues of the day, issues they will surely face in their role as Justice, nominees regularly dodge and weave, saying anything they can to avoid answering the question.

Amy Coney Barrett was no exception. In fact, she took this game of saying nothing to a whole new level. She agreed that Supreme Court decisions ending segregation in schools and banning laws against interracial marriage were correctly decided, but beyond that, she wouldn’t commit. Was the Supreme Court right in finding a ban on contraception unconstitutional? Wouldn’t say. Roe v. Wade? Nope. Whether the Constitution requires a peaceful transfer of power? Refuses to say. Is voter intimidation illegal? Don’t know. Is there discrimination in voting? Can’t say. Can the president unilaterally change Election Day? Who could possibly know such a thing (even though the Constitution says only Congress can)? Is climate change real? No idea.

Read More