To the Nominee

Judge Barrett, as a Supreme Court Justice, you will be asked your opinion on matters of law, precedent, and the Constitution. What happens if one branch refuses to acknowledge the Constitutional rights of the other, or in this case, the Senate refuses their obligation to “advise and consent”? Does your interpretation of “advise and consent” permit the Senate to obstruct, defy and refuse a Presidential appointment, as it did in 2016? If not, what remedy would you offer? If the basis for this refusal was the establishment of a precedent not to allow nominations in the last year of a President’s term so that the People could decide, to what extent should the Senate be held to its own established precedent?

As you are participating in a nomination process three weeks before an election to decide who should appoint the next Justice, what does this say about your own credibility and integrity if you are willing to deny the right of the People to decide who makes this appointment based solely on your own personal benefit? …or that by having in hand a remedy to redress the injustice of 2016, and to allow the People to decide in 2020, you refuse to apply this remedy? This remedy is to withdraw your nomination.