Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!
Sen. Dick Durbin’s apparent intellectual inability to comprehend Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s otherwise well-reasoned answers during her confirmation hearings this week provoked an angry outburst from him Thursday.
During the fourth day of the judge’s hearings Thursday, the Illinois senator basically suggested she’s a know-nothing dullard who doesn’t believe in gravity.
The suggestion came as part of a rant in which he complained about those instances in which Barrett had answered politically charged questions by arguing that she’d first have to “hear arguments from the litigants” to reach a conclusion.
“Consider that here we are in a situation where Sen. Feinstein asked the nominee, can a president unilaterally delay a presidential election? She couldn’t answer it,” Durbin said, spouting his first of many, many, many complaints.
But that’s wasn’t even the question Barrett had been asked …
Listen to Durbin’s full rant below:
“Does the Constitution give the President of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?” Sen. Dianne Feinstein had asked while questioning Barrett on Tuesday.
In response, the judge had rightly noted that the decision on whether or not to allow a delay in any election would have to be based on the evidence (or lack thereof) provided by the federal government.
“Well senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants, and read briefs, and consult with my law clerks, and talk to my colleagues, and go through the opinion writing process,” she’d said.
“So, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”
Listen:
Sen. Feinstein: “Does the Constitution give the POTUS the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances, does federal law?”
Judge Barrett: “Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants.” pic.twitter.com/Pa0csTZsPj
— The Hill (@thehill) October 14, 2020
But apparently, this answer was beyond Durbin’s comprehension.
“Three express provisions in the Constitution that spell out that that is the standard for the United States of America. She can certainly have alluded to that,” he continued complaining Thursday before going on to kvetch about another question/answer.
“I asked her as a follow up, can a president unilaterally deny a woman the right to vote? 19th Amendment. Sorry, can’t answer, could be case come before me someday.”
Fact-check: FALSE. During Wednesday’s hearings he specifically asked Barrett whether the president has the authority to “unilaterally deny the right to vote” based on race.
In response, Barrett didn’t just say “sorry, can’t answer,” but rather provided a lengthy answer explaining how the U.S. Constitution “contains provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and voting.”
But again, this was beyond Durbin’s comprehension.
“It even reached the point where Sen. Kennedy asked this learned attorney, professor, and jurist, if she had any opinion on the issue of climate change, and basically she said [she] never thought about it. Don’t have any views,” he continued ranting Thursday.
“What are we dealing with here? We are not dealing with the reality of who this person is and what she believes but some kind of artifice that we have constructed between the nominee and our questions.”
But the fact is, as noted by Sen. Ted Cruz in a spiel of his own Thursday, that virtually none of the questions asked by Democrats have pertained to Barrett’s qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Instead they’ve all been political.
— Dian (@Dian5) October 15, 2020
Regardless, Durbin concluded his rant by essentially suggesting that Barrett may not believe in the otherwise widely accepted theory of gravity.
“I would be afraid to ask her about the presence of gravity on Earth. She may decline to answer because it might come up in a case, you know, it could come before a court someday,” he said.
The uncouth remark — and the entire rant itself, in fact — provoked backlash on Twitter from those (including Sen. Cruz) eager to point out that being a justice has nothing to do with gravity, climate change and other scientific matters. It’s about the law. Others were equally eager to simply call Durbin a “jerk.”
Look:
Perhaps we shouldn’t be looking to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not gravity exists. https://t.co/WUU5noMZvt
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 15, 2020
You don’t look to SCOTUS for scientific explanations of #climatechange or gravity. They’re 10X smarter than anyone in that Hearing room, especially @SenatorDurbin , but their specialty is Law, not Science,
— Hispanic CaliServative🇺🇸 (@Red1Echo) October 15, 2020
@SenatorDurbin statement on gravity. Showing your true color. You Jerk.
— Yip. (@Yip03105009) October 15, 2020
Barret could explain Gravity to Durbin but his small brain wouldn’t be able to grasp any of it.
— Joseph Prewitt (@JosephPrewitt9) October 15, 2020
I suppose Durbin thinks Gravity only exists on Earth.
— Joseph Prewitt (@JosephPrewitt9) October 15, 2020
I’ll bet Durbin doesn’t know that Gravity is the weakest force in the Universe of course not counting him.
— Joseph Prewitt (@JosephPrewitt9) October 15, 2020
Durbin’s rant comes as Democrats continue to try to portray Barrett as some radical know-nothing. Ironically, however, they appear to be making themselves look like the radical know-nothings …
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Nashville cops can’t find the leaker of trans shooter manifesto: ‘Exhausted all available investigative avenues’ - December 9, 2023
- Home Depot co-founder claims Trump’s time ‘has come and gone’, issues formal endorsement - December 9, 2023
- Spielberg announces new project focused on documenting ‘unspeakable barbarity’ of Oct 7 - December 9, 2023
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.