Barrett cites ‘Ginsburg Rule’ of ‘no hints, no previews’ when pressed by Dems on hot-button issueshttps://t.co/DXEzauAtnk
— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 13, 2020
Much to the chagrin of progressives, Judge Amy Coney Barrett invoked the “Ginsburg Rule” when asked about potential hot-button issues during her confirmation hearings this week.
The rule, named after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, says it is inappropriate for a judge to answer questions about how he/she would rule on a potential case that may come before the Supreme Court, during the confirmation process.
“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process,” Ginsburg famously said during her confirmation hearings in 1993.
The Ginsburg Rule: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”pic.twitter.com/FcpzOg21in
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) October 13, 2020
Barrett echoed the same sentiments when questioned by Senators this week during her confirmation hearing. “No hints, forecasts or previews,” Barrett said repeatedly.
My Dem colleagues demand Judge #AmyConeyBarrett declare her independence from @realdonaldtrump while insisting she pre-commit to how she would rule in a particular case. If the Ginsburg rule is good enough for RBG it should be good enough for Judge Barrett. pic.twitter.com/VgM3NkA1rM
— Sen. James Lankford (@SenatorLankford) October 13, 2020
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointed out during the hearings that it is Democrats themselves who often have no qualms about expecting their nominees to vote certain ways on controversial topics, and pledging them to do so before they are nominated or confirmed.
Before moving onto #2A, @TedCruz talks about the Ginsburg rule of a nominee not commenting on possible cases: “Democrats have shown no compunction in expecting their nominees to make a promise, ‘here’s how I’m going to vote on a pending case,’ judicial ethics be damned.” (4/4) pic.twitter.com/cRN2pHzym0
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 13, 2020