“the question of recusal is a threshold question of law that must be addressed in the context of the facts of each case.”
What she said which is the correct answer.
Hardly what you state.
In response to several questions on climate, Barrett gave responses including “The Supreme Court has described ‘climate change’ as a ‘controversial subject’ and ‘sensitive political topic.’ ’’
“As a sitting judge, it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in further on the matter,” she added.
As your idol stated:
“As Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg described the process that Supreme Court justices go through in deciding whether to recuse, it involves reading the statute, reviewing precedents, and consulting with colleagues. As a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals. Such questions can only be answered through the judicial process,” she added.
Barrett called climate change ‘a contentious matter’ and declined to acknowledge the existence of the scientifically established phenomenon during the third day of her confirmation hearing.
Her refusal is also correct as any case would need to be judged on the facts and merit of the case.
The insistence of the left to read something into nothing is amazing and Carnac the Magnificent would be envious.