In hearings to confirm Judge Barrett this week, senators continue to be triggered by her ability to easily navigate bad faith attacks. Apparently so are law students.
In hearings to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this week, senators continue to be triggered by her ability to easily navigate bad faith attacks. Apparently so are law students.
Law students on TikTok have been watching the hearings and are fed the fuck up. LOLOL. They’ve had it. pic.twitter.com/59hFhiM1OT
— Saeed Jones (@theferocity)
In a TikTok video, law students took to throwing out their law books in response to Barrett's saying "I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts." Apparently, this notion seemed absurd in the context of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
Law students routinely apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts, in the classroom, something Barrett would know well, as she served as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. But what happens in the classroom is a far cry from what happens during confirmation hearings for a seat on the US Supreme Court.
The TikTok law students inability to discern that difference, or their callous disregard for that difference, speaks to their distinct lack of understanding as to what objectivity in judicial practice is all about.
As Human Events editor Will Chamberlain aptly put it, "We've found the B students."
We found the B students https://t.co/v96dWSCfn6
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain)
In her responses to questions as to how she would rule on the Affordable Care Act, abortion, voting rights laws, gay marriage, and so many other hot-button topics, Barrett drew on the so-called Ginsburg rule of judicial confirmation hearings.
"Justice Ginsburg with her characteristic pithiness used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her. But everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely," Barrett said.
Ginsburg's rule, invoked by Barrett pic.twitter.com/K9g2h1RUth
— libby emmons (@libbyemmons)
The hearings for Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court revealed that Senators are capable of pontificating on their pet policies and agendas far more than they are capable of understanding the concepts of jurisprudence and objectivity.
In their continuous, blathering attempt to paint Barrett as homophobic, racist, partisan, and oppositional, the Senators seem to have forgotten entirely that it is inappropriate for a judicial nominee to state how they would rule on a case should it come before them on the court.
Law students, however, should know better.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
