Barrett Won’t Say If She Agrees With Scalia That Voting Rights Act Led To Racial Entitlement

Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia that the Voting Rights Act was a "perpetuation of racial entitlement," but the judge did call the law a "triumph." Aired on 10/14/2020.
» 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:

Barrett Won't Say If She Agrees With Scalia That Voting Rights Act Led To Racial Entitlement

56 comments

  1. Her whole hearing was a waste of time. Every time she was asked a question , she twist and turn to deflect it. Even simple yes or no questions she chose not to answer. She’s the female version of Bill Barr!!! As usual you have the likes of Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz protecting her the whole time while condemning the Democrats. Both were utterly disgusting as always , especially Ted Cruz. It’s as if He and Amy are sleeping together.

    1. let’s keep our rejection of Judge Barrett civil. saying she is sleeping with somebody is out of the line. I would be more interested in asking would she have to follow her husband in her judicial decisions. I think yes is clearly the answer😊😣😒

    2. @Kevin Maguire Which Trump is lined up to not do.

      And please educate yourself on how polls actually work. Trump’s victory, while unlikely, was still within standard deviation.

    3. @Drake Fire I agree. However standard deviation is not dictated or controlled by time. The events of the past three years and the Democrats rediculous behavior have solidified and expanded Trump’s base.

    4. @Kevin Maguire There wasn’t a coherent assertion beyond “orange man bad”. There is no law that is being violated by the appointment, and by historical precident she is qualified.

    1. Grim Queefer Ummm yeah 😆
      When Trump is re-elected the abundance of liberal tears is going to bring such joy and happiness to the American people.
      tinyurl.com/y5khwzhr 🎶

    2. In case you haven’t been paying attention: Nutty Nancy has stop negotiating a relief package because she doesn’t want “Checks with Trump’s name on them going out…”.

    1. No, she’s right. It’s up to the questioner to fashion the questions in a way that she can respond. You are more likely to understand how she’ll act on the bench by looking at her past rather then this hearing.

    2. @incipidsigninsetup No, she’s playing legal semantics. Yes or no would be just fine. But she is playing with weasel words.

    3. Liberals are so naive and unintelligent it’s an embarrassment for humanity.
      tinyurl.com/ycp4tac4 👈😳

    4. @incipidsigninsetup No. This is the lady who claimed to “Not know” that she willing defended a group that repeatedly attempted to criminalize homosexuality.

      She doesn’t want to answer because she knows her views don’t fly in modern America.

  2. Trying to get a straight answer out of Amy Coney Barrett looks nearly impossible & I liken it to trying to get the truth out of pathological liar Donald tRump.

  3. Barrett is certainly smart and, unlike Kavanaugh, handles herself extremely well. However, she refuses to have an opinion on even the most fundamental of human rights, repeatedly returning to the, I can’t opine on that because I might have to rule on it. She is a literalist in a world where there is no literal.

    1. The fact that she might have to rule on it is inherently part of every question. She’s really saying I’m not going to answer because most of you won’t agree with what I have to say. And the only reason she can get away with it is because McConnell has told her he already has the votes.

  4. These hearings in general are a complete waste of time. Starting with Kavanaugh these hearings became raw power grabs. It doesn’t and won’t matter from now on. If you have the votes, you get to have your judge. They could give Hitler a shoutout and it literally doesn’t matter if they have the votes. This government has become a joke of itself. In the future, just push your judge threw. No need for this crap since it doesn’t make a difference. Not one person from either side will say “hmmm, I’m good with this candidate”. That time is over and dead. Hyper partisanship from here on out.

  5. This non-response disqualifies her from consideration. Her nasally twang coupled with her callous distancing from civil rights makes her candidacy a moot point.

    1. @Grim Reefer are there actually five people voting for Biden I know his rallies look like a ghost town there’s more Trump supporters yelling for more years than there is Biden supporters at a Biden rally LOL yep there’s thousands and thousands of people at Trump rallies that does say a lot it did in 2016 and it says a lot now no one is enthusiastic about Joe by no one is going to come out and vote for Joe Biden Joe Biden is toast I know you Democrats don’t like to hear that but that’s a fact so get ready to cry again for another 4 years cuz it’s coming

    2. @Billy Pardew I have already voted for Biden and Blue all the way down. I even looked up the judges! So F U!

  6. republicans support dark money in campaigns, voter suppression, and gerrymandering.
    Which begs the question: Why do they hate democracy so much? 🤔
    Not that we all don’t already know the answer there. 😉

  7. She Dodges everything question from democrats as hypothetical…. But will go into details with Republicans… Its obvious… A draft dodger like Trumpy…

  8. She’s dangerous, because she is smart and very tricky. And, btw, a lot of evil people have been or are smart. She is very adept at avoiding and obfuscating. That is a skill, to be sure, but is that the kind of person we want as a Supreme Court Justice…a master of obfuscation and a remarkably disingenuous one to boot?

    1. @Alexandria Mia Her answers are not ‘confusing’, they are frustrating. It’s clear what she is doing. It isn’t confusing. But she is very good at avoiding direct answers and giving responses that shift here and there, re-frame the subject, dance around the actual question, etc. And she is doing it in a skilled fashion, her answers hopping about in a smart (if one has a separate agenda), obfuscating way. It’s like getting into a disagreement with someone who is not interested in the issue itself, but rather just wants to win, and has the approach of continually changing what is being talked about until… it simply becomes an exercise in frustration. That is their tactic.

  9. Democrats and those who care about America must definitely come and vote for Biden and the Democrats to save the country from the Donald Trump disaster.

  10. Democrats and those who care about America must definitely come and vote for Biden and the Democrats to save the country from the Donald Trump disaster.

  11. MY WORRIES ARE HER DECISION MAKING ABILITY! SHE HAD HER KIDS SITTING NEXT TO INFECTED TRUMP’S AND STAFF! NO PROTECTION NO MASK!

  12. She is going to skirt every single question because she knows she has the votes already. What a waste.
    We are going through a health crisis and a major economic breakdown. Grow up Republicans! You are following a juvenile with a slam book and a cool kids table at lunch…Trump is basically a mean girl. Pathetic.

  13. She’s not answering a lot of questions. Questions that should easily be answered because it is YOUR opinion. She’s being too careful like she was told what to answer and not answer! 🤔😷

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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