Just how badly will Senate Democrats conduct themselves when interrogating Judge Amy Coney Barrett during the confirmation process for her Supreme Court nomination?
Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) remembers a certain questioning tradition that was started under the leadership of then-senator Joe Biden.
While we are appropriately celebrating the life of Justice Ginsburg, we should also recall what as been called the Ginsburg Rule for judicial confirmation hearings, dating back to her own confirmation hearing in 1993, presided over by then-Chairman Joe Biden:
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 27, 2020
The Ginsburg Rule basically holds that questioners don’t ask for declarations about specific cases.
“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 27, 2020
Cornyn shows that the rule is not an unfounded judicial principle.
Likewise, Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5 states: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 27, 2020
Again the question, how will Democrats conduct themselves?
Will the Senate Judiciary Committee apply the Ginsburg Rule to the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett or will our Democrat colleagues apply a different, double standard? #ACB
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 27, 2020
After all, the Senate’s role in the process is to “advise and consent.”
Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a Senate vote of 93-3
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 27, 2020
But if the most recent SCOTUS confirmations are any indication, one party seems to believe the Senate’s function is to demand and control.
***
RELATED:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member