Fact Check: Dianne Feinstein Says Barrett Will ‘Vote to Strip Millions of Americans of Their Health Care’ - Unlikely

[Zerge]

The Ginsberg Rule was established by then Senator Joe Biden. Democrat senators violated that rule at times in their questioning of Barrett.

Read it again.

“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.” - Ginsberg

She was not asked to provide any forecasts or hints or the specifics of any particular case! So the Ginsberg rule is not applicable. To disclose one’s generic disposition, and affirm that this disposition will not influence her decision in any particular case - that would have been the proper way to go.

 

[JonNC]

She was not asked to provide any forecasts or hints or the specifics of any particular case !

Sure she was. She was asked questions that, if answered, would give a hint of how she might rule in cases that could very well end up before the court.

So the Ginsberg rule is not applicable. To disclose one’s generic disposition, and affirm that this disposition will not influence her decision in any particular case - that would have been the proper way to go.

Of course the Ginsberg Rule applies. She stated her responsibility to apply it.

 

[Zerge]

Sure she was. She was asked questions that, if answered, would give a hint of how she might rule in cases that could very well end up before the court.

Come on. What actual, specific case was asked? Verbatim! And how “might” rule tells you nothing about how she “would” rule, if it happened.

Seems to me that you would NOT trust her to keep her word. I would trust her, but I would like to learn about her self-professed opinion. Of course if she actually CAME clean - being a good Catholic - she would have a problem to deviate from her own sworn word. If she evades the question, then she could pretend that she never actually said what she insinuated. This is a typical evasion process, . . .

 

[JonNC]

Come on. What actual, specific case was asked? Verbatim! And how “ might ” rule tells you nothing about how she “ would ” rule, if it happened.

If a case concerning, say, abortion might come up, she needs to be very careful not to project an opinion about how she might rule in that possible case. That’s the basis of Senator Biden’s Ginsberg Rule.

Seems to me that you would NOT trust her to keep her word. I would trust her , but I would like to learn about her self-professed opinion.

I trust her not to pre-judge without seeing all evidence. Her personal opus irrelevant beforehand.

If she evades the question, then she could pretend that she never actually said what she insinuated.

That’s why she should not insinuate.