Amy Klobuchar Questions Barrett On What Court Rulings Qualify As ‘Super Precedent’ | MSNBC

Amy Klobuchar Questions Barrett On What Court Rulings Qualify As 'Super Precedent' | MSNBC 1

 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar questioned Judge Amy Coney Barrett on why certain cases qualify as "super precedent," such as Brown v. Board of Education, and others do not, such as Roe v. Wade. Aired on 10/13/2020.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Amy Klobuchar Questions Barrett On What Court Rulings Qualify As 'Super Precedent' | MSNBC

79 Comments on "Amy Klobuchar Questions Barrett On What Court Rulings Qualify As ‘Super Precedent’ | MSNBC"

  1. Jessica Massie | October 13, 2020 at 3:35 PM | Reply

    I can’t listen to her little girl voice.

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 5:50 PM | Reply

      *BLAME BARNEY FRANK FOR THE RECESSION, NOT GEORGE BUSH*
      https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/blame-barney-frank-for-the-recession-not-george-bush/

      *The progressive Democrats in power must believe that the citizens of this country are absolute morons, either that or they haven’t read a newspaper in two years and don’t realize that George Bush is no longer president. The Democratic party plans on retaining their change message for their 2010. Their new tag line is “vote for us, or its back to the bad old economic policies of George Bush. That’s right Barack Obama and his progressive majority are going to campaign as if they were all still in kindergarten “Its not my fault….blame Bush.”*

      Not only is that approach childish, but it belies the truth. Allow me to suggest that the policies of Barney Frank had more to do with the bursting of the housing bubble, the resulting bank crisis and the “great recession,” than the policies of George Bush. Led by Frank the Democratic party brought down the banking industry by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them, then he blunted the Republican attempts to regulate the industry

      Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”

    • chameleon habitat | October 13, 2020 at 6:00 PM | Reply

      beep beep beep

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:11 PM | Reply

      *Whose Policies Led To The Credit Crisis?*
      Sept 2008 https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/

      *The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.*

      It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. After the fit hit the shan, as Michelle says, these same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs.

      The Bush administration isn’t blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.

    • Lil girl voice in a zionist shill beast.

    • @hhh eee

      And, Conservatism/islam/zion caused more blood baths.

      Putin is doing “peace” talks with isreals Authoritarian leader right now. Next, putin will go on to islams. Usa was forced under Conservatism through zion. Conservatism is an extension of zion.

      Ask yourself. Who benefits here.

      Who got the made up holy land?
      The cdc recognizes religion as an essential.
      That judge is a zionist shill.

      Conservatism/islam/zion have henchmen. Those are the nationalists

      Authoritarians played “divide n conquer”, “us vs them” games to get this upper hand.

      Authoritarians killed blacks, gays, jews, muslims etc.
      They make martyrs of the ppl their Authoritarian ideology opposes and oppresses.

      Welcome to the rise of Authoritarians.
      They are deceptive, sneaky and forceful.

      A bunch of power hungry, brainwashing psychopaths.

      Who floated in on a river of blood.

      It’s all a game for power using propaganda and force.

      -An independent..

  2. She walks, she talks, she crawls on her belly like a lizard…

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:20 PM | Reply

      *In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout*
      Aug 2010 https://eppc.org/publications/in-bush-v-obama-bush-wins-in-a-rout/

      *In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.*

      As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

      Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 — which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

      Democrats bear the majority of the blame for blocking reforms that could have mitigated the effects of the housing crisis, which in turn led to the broader financial crisis.

      The Bush administration warned as early as April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged and that their failure “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity” well beyond housing. Bush’s plan would have subjected Fannie and Freddie to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings and loans have to comply with. In addition, Republican Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) reform in 2005. And who blocked these efforts at reforming Fannie and Freddie? Democrats such as Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, along with the then-junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who backed Dodd’s threat of a filibuster (Obama was the third-largest recipient of campaign gifts from Fannie and Freddie employees in 2004).

      Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited an economy heading for recession and championed policies that made things better; upon taking office, Barack Obama inherited an economy in a deeper recession and championed policies that have made things worse. That is a key difference between the two.

      On his worst day, the economic decisions by Obama’s predecessor were better, more responsible, and more enlightened that anything President Obama has done.

    • Doug Eisenberg | October 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM | Reply

      Another POS Useless Democrat Spews again

    • @HOME TEAM

      Amy Commie is a zionist shill.

    • @Michael Wuj

      Trump lost. The majority don’t want him.

      Btw, You trolls prove youre worried with these desperate posts.

    • @Doug Eisenberg

      You are another zionist shill.

  3. Questions should be the pure interpretation of the Constitution and leave the ideological values out of the rhetoric. A true judge does not bring their own values into their rulings, instead they interpret the Constitution and make sure that laws are aligned with it and nothing else. There is a reason why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

    • She literally just presented a detailed argument of what you are describing. She is saying that it is not up to her nor her subjective opinions which cases are super-precedents; because that is an objective scholarly term requiring specific criteria of a case whose landmark ruling was accepted from the beginning by everyone and has not been continuously challenged after its ruling. It is not a necessarily a classification based on a cases merit which is why she stated that roe vs wade not being a super- precedent doesnt mean it should be overturned.

      Klobuchar of course knows this and knows the extremely short list of cases which are characterized by scholars as super-precedents (again this is not just a merit based distinction) but she is hunting for a “gotcha/setup” moment that can be cut into a sound byte and presented to liberals who she knows wont go back and watch the entire exchange.

    • @▂▃Zaggnut▃▂ Not at all, a judges job is to interpret the Constitution to verify a new law’s legal validity. The Republicans are not packing the court, there are still 9 judges, it just so happens that there were three openings this session. If the Democrats were in power, there would have been 3 liberal judges appointed. It’s how American politics has function for 244 years. Packing the courts is adding new judges, which the Repubs are not.

    • I think you are correct.

    • Language is *inherently* ideological. You and I do not share the exact same definition for every or event most words or combination of words. The Constitution is BOTH rhetorical AND ideological. To argue for some “pure interpretation” of the Constitution is to claim sovereignty over the definitions of reality, to claim sovereignty for one’s own interpretation OVER anyone else’s — and such a claim is, I hate to break it to you, inherently fascistic.

      If I claim to hold the the “pure interpretation” of the Constitution, what possible room do I leave my opponents to argue against me, except by making the same exact claim? An endless double bind that leads to the obsolescence of complexity — creating an environment in which, you guessed it, only fascism can thrive.

      Interpreting the Constitution must always be about JUSTICE — not the preservation of some predetermined — and yes, ideological — notion of “reality.”

      I recommend Jason Stanley’s “How Fascism Works,” for a broadening of one’s understanding of fascism such that its ubiquity in America’s very essence from the outset loses its insidious hold by being exposed to the light.

    • ▂▃Zaggnut▃▂ Have you seen the documentary “Dark Money”? Wow — can’t believe how long this corporate coup has been going on and how long the GOP has been doing its bidding. We are well past the point of no return now, sadly… I think it’s beyond containment. (PS Trump/McConnell’s district/supreme court packing was part of a plan DECADES in the making).

  4. James Ellenberger | October 13, 2020 at 3:39 PM | Reply

    I cannot listen to her speak…..

    • Keith Johnson - Shelby GT500 | October 13, 2020 at 6:20 PM | Reply

      *In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout*
      Aug 2010 https://eppc.org/publications/in-bush-v-obama-bush-wins-in-a-rout/

      *In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.*

      As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

      Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 — which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

      Democrats bear the majority of the blame for blocking reforms that could have mitigated the effects of the housing crisis, which in turn led to the broader financial crisis.

      The Bush administration warned as early as April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged and that their failure “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity” well beyond housing. Bush’s plan would have subjected Fannie and Freddie to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings and loans have to comply with. In addition, Republican Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) reform in 2005. And who blocked these efforts at reforming Fannie and Freddie? Democrats such as Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, along with the then-junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who backed Dodd’s threat of a filibuster (Obama was the third-largest recipient of campaign gifts from Fannie and Freddie employees in 2004).

      Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited an economy heading for recession and championed policies that made things better; upon taking office, Barack Obama inherited an economy in a deeper recession and championed policies that have made things worse. That is a key difference between the two.

      On his worst day, the economic decisions by Obama’s predecessor were better, more responsible, and more enlightened that anything President Obama has done.

    • @Jeffrey Meade

      Id rather see zionism disappear.

      All of the death zion has caused. And, why.

      The only thing zionists are chosen for is an example of what never to become.

      Disgusting insane ppl

    • Why, because she sounds exactly like a less whiny Ballsy Ford?

    • @Drake Fire Yes, that’s how a two tiered justice system works.

    • I suggest you stick ice picks in your ears. Problem solved.

  5. I think that they should be asking her if she considers corporations as people. I think that’s important as well.

    • Go to any great big corporation — not a human in sight. Just soulless, malevolent, disembodies forces wreaking ruin upon the earth.

    • @Melissa Sullivan to counter balance the power of UNIONS

    • knowledgetracker | October 13, 2020 at 11:08 PM | Reply

      Corporations are legal entities. So, what’s your point?

    • knowledgetracker | October 13, 2020 at 11:10 PM | Reply

      @Melissa Sullivan – because Business 101 defines a corporation as a legal entity unto itself. If you didn’t define it that way, all employers and stockholders would be involved in litigation every time a corporation was sued or did anything for that matter.

    • knowledgetracker | October 13, 2020 at 11:12 PM | Reply

      @sunrize601 – it would help if you gained some basic education on what a corporation is, who they employ and what the laws are before you comment. You’re speaking out of ignorance and you need to at least start from a place of understanding before you can discuss or debate it.

  6. Orlando Garcia | October 13, 2020 at 3:41 PM | Reply

    Seems to me barret needs to be broke off some Puerto ricon D.1k thats just my opinion roe & wade …🇵🇷

  7. Here, have some more fundamentalism. I mean, looking at history, what could possibly go wrong?

    • Thomas Moeller | October 13, 2020 at 6:03 PM | Reply

      If “Judge” Barrett is a strict constitutionalist, then she should decline her nomination. The woman’s place is in the home according to the Constitution not granting them personhood and the Woman’s right to vote amendment is therefore in-itself unconstitutional.

    • There is no fundamentalism at play here. Klobuchar is trying to play with language knowing that the term “super-precedent” sounds subjective to liberals at home BUT IT ISNT. It is a scholarly term with specific criteria which only a couple of cases meet. IT IS NOT a subjective, nor merit based, nor emotionally based distinction. Asking barret over and over which cases are super precedents is like asking someone over and over which numbers are prime numbers. Klobuchar is hunting for a soundbyte that can be nicely packaged for msnbc/cnn etc but she came up short.

    • @yelena k yes that was a brilliant answer. She made Klobuchar look foolish.

    • @Thomas Moeller what part of the constitution says that?

    • @Thomas Moeller Amendments are constitutional, it’s in the constitution.
      JFC

  8. Bryant Bartlett | October 13, 2020 at 3:56 PM | Reply

    Why has no one asked her about her comments on the Merrick Garland nomination swinging the court out of balance?

  9. Amy Barlett on Democrats questions: “I’m not going to answer that question”
    Any Barlett on Republicans questions: Goes into great detail and answers questions.

    • Tùng trương | October 13, 2020 at 4:04 PM | Reply

      Jordan

      republican question: “What is your thoughts about what you have done?”
      Democrat question: “What is your thought about this person”. “What is your opinion on Rode v Wade?” :))))) Asking question like that and then want a straight answer :)))).

    • @Tùng trương The Democrats have also been asking questions related to the constutition and the law and Obamacare. That’s not asking her opinion about someone.

  10. Patricia Orwig | October 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM | Reply

    Now lets get rid of darkness once for all

    • Doug Eisenberg | October 13, 2020 at 6:30 PM | Reply

      Yes VOTE out every POS Terrorist Democrat NOW

    • @Doug Eisenberg the fact that you think democrats are the terrorists is laughable

    • @Krista L

      Putin is doing “peace” talks with isreals Authoritarian leader right now. Next, putin will go on to islams. Usa was forced under Conservatism through zion. Conservatism is an extension of zion.

      Ask yourself. Who benefits here.

      Who got the made up holy land?
      The cdc recognizes religion as an essential.
      That judge is a zionist shill.

      Conservatism/islam/zion have henchmen. Those are the nationalists

      Authoritarians played “divide n conquer”, “us vs them” games to get this upper hand.

      Authoritarians killed blacks, gays, jews, muslims etc.
      They make martyrs of the ppl their Authoritarian ideology opposes and oppresses.

      Welcome to the rise of Authoritarians.
      They are deceptive, sneaky and forceful.

      A bunch of power hungry, brainwashing psychopaths.

      Who floated in on a river of blood.

      It’s all a game for power using propaganda and force.

    • @Krista L The fact that you don’t is scary.

  11. The only reason you are answering questions about roe is becuase trump promised to appoint justices that would overturn. Its only not decided by conservatives and thier culture war.

  12. Get her let her know she is not getting in

  13. The Neanderthals weren’t mentioned in the Bible, where they frond aponed??

  14. Geeee seems like a real honest person for the supreme court, she sounds like a politician

    • Sharon Matthews | October 13, 2020 at 6:08 PM | Reply

      She sounds like she’s full of…..her voice sounds despicable, and so is her answers.

    • @Sharon Matthews That voice doesn’t sound the least bit familiar to you? Listen to her and add a little whine to it, tell me what face pops into your head.

  15. Thomas Moeller | October 13, 2020 at 5:59 PM | Reply

    “Judge” Barrett is saying “Brown v Board of Education is Super Precedent because it’s not being challenged. However, since Roe v Wade is being challenged it does not qualify as Super Precedent.” So even though the ACA has been upheld by the SCOTUS on many occasions, it also does not qualify as Super Precedent as there is a challenge to it now too. So even decision is a Super Precedent until until it is isn’t.

    • Yes “Super Precedent” is an absurd and fungible term. And I have no faith that this current GOP won’t find a way to “challenge” just about anything that doesn’t serve their corporate masters, including whatever decisions Ms. Barrett now considers “super.” Give them 4 more years of Trump at the helm and Brown v. Board will be back on the table.

    • usssanjacinto1 | October 13, 2020 at 7:05 PM | Reply

      The concept was developed by progressive scholars

    • I’m left with the interpretation – “Huh? So we’re into rankings for precedents now?”

      What’s next – a numbering system? A decision should be ranked from 1 to 10 based inversely on the number of cases challenging it?

    • Jason Chambers | October 13, 2020 at 10:07 PM | Reply

      @CommaCam First, the decision for Brown v. Board has been accepted unanimously by every judge that puts on a robe. Second, the term itself is a scholarly term that is used to present that any case that is presented before a judge that would attempt to challenge such ruling would be denied based on the universal precedent set by every judge that puts on a robe.

      The ACA has been hotly contested and has had many 5 – 4 decisions on the Supreme Court, which would indicate that not every judge that puts on a robe considers it to be 100 percent truth by precedent. She made the statement that Roe v. Wade is obviously not a Super Precedent on the grounds that she had to answer multiple questions from multiple Democrats on what her decision would be.

      Finally, there are multiple things that impact a decision by a judge. She has made it clear that precedent, case law, statute, the Constitution, the litigants arguments, and judicial collaboration all play a role in judgement decisions. Yet every liberal on the planet wants to argue that she should be giving answers that do not include any of these things. Every liberal on the planet wants her to establish a policy on how she will judge, when her job has nothing to do with policy. I hear a lot about how Democrats and liberals are exceptionally tolerant, caring and considerate. I have not seen that throughout this process or pretty much any process.

  16. There are so few people who are ready could handle Klobuchar adequately.

  17. Does she actually expect everyone to believe that “no one” still thinks that racial segregation is a good idea? She’s literally contradicting her own definition.

  18. Even klobuchars staff can’t stand her.

  19. I didn’t like her tone ( Barrett’s ) . Too defensive.

  20. Moonflower Tarot | October 13, 2020 at 10:38 PM | Reply

    That overly *defensive* Karen stance.. is not professional

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.