Letters to the Editor: Amy Coney Barrett refuses to give basic answers that Americans deserve

Amy Coney Barrett
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett listens during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 13.
(Patrick Semansky / Associated Press)

To the editor: I read your article on how “poised” Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been during her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court and was perplexed. That’s not what I saw.

She refused to give straight answers to many questions. As an American citizen and a Democrat, I was curious to hear how Barrett would talk about Roe vs. Wade, the Affordable Care Act and climate change. Instead, I heard evasive and dismissive answers.

Poised? I don’t think so.

Joyce Jacoby, Los Angeles



To the editor: Senator: “Judge Barrett, can a president issue an executive order saying the Constitution is null and void and declaring himself president for life?”

Barrett: “If that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process.”

The question is obviously made up, but the response is boilerplate. That’s how Barrett answers any question she doesn’t want to answer.

This is, word for word, how she answered the question on whether a president can delay an election, even though the letter of the Constitution clearly does not give the president the power to do this.

Barrett is a self-proclaimed textualist. The text of the Constitution says when an election shall be without any question, yet she gave this non-answer answer, because she does not want to offend our dear leader.

Arman Afagh, Irvine



To the editor: Whatever one’s political bent, it is undeniable that Barrett is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Watching frustrated Democrats attempt to derail her is like seeing blindfolded children futilely swinging flimsy broomsticks at a concrete pinata.

Robert Souders, Hermosa Beach


To the editor: The L.A. Times clearly saw a different confirmation hearing than I did.

“Poised?” I saw a nominee who flubbed softball questions over voting and which rights are covered by the 1st Amendment. I saw someone who dodged simple questions.

“Calm”? Anyone would be calm if they were interviewing for a job they already had, thanks to the craven opportunists that make up the Republican caucus in the Senate.

Paul Giorgi, Glendale