Amy Coney Barrett

Democratic Warnings That Confirming Amy Coney Barrett Would Doom Obamacare Are Implausible and Confused

There is little reason to think Barrett would vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which in any case seems legally secure.

|

During Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing today, several Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee worried that the 7th Circuit judge would vote to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Sens. Chris Coons (D–Del.), Richard Blumenthal (D–Ct.), Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii), Cory Booker (D–N.J.), and Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) all warned that such a decision would hurt Americans who depend on the law's protections for patients with pre-existing conditions and its restrictions on coverage caps. They all described constituents who benefit from those provisions.

That argument is misleading for at least three reasons. First, while the predicament of patients like those described by Coons et al. figures prominently in the public policy debate about Obamacare, it is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional. Second, there is little reason to think that Barrett would in fact vote to overturn the law. Third, even if she did, there does not seem to be a majority on the Court in favor of that outcome.

As a Notre Dame law professor, Barrett criticized Chief Justice John Roberts' controlling opinion in the 2012 case National Federal of Independent Business v. Sibelius, which implausibly construed the ACA's individual health insurance mandate as a tax. Roberts did not want to uphold the requirement that every American buy government-approved medical coverage as an exercise of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce because that position would extend the already stretched Commerce Clause into new territory. But he also did not want to overturn the mandate. So instead he treated it as an exercise of the tax power, notwithstanding all of the indications that it was meant to be a "penalty" for failing to make a legally required purchase.

"Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute," Barrett noted in her contribution to a 2017 Constitutional Commentary forum on Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett's book Our Republican Constitution. "He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

Barrett rejected Barnett's general argument that courts should be more active in overturning unconstitutional legislation, especially in the area of economic regulation. But she agreed with his criticism of Roberts' opinion, saying "Barnett is surely right that deference to a democratic majority should not supersede a judge's duty to apply clear text."

Later that year, Congress passed a tax reform bill that eliminated the penalty for failing to comply with the health insurance mandate. Since the provision no longer raises any revenue, treating it as a tax is even more problematic now than it was in 2012. Given Barrett's opinion that Roberts' interpretation was already implausible, it is reasonable to expect that she would view the now-toothless mandate as unconstitutional. But that does not mean she would vote to overturn the law in its entirety.

The main issue raised by California v. Texas, a case that the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on November 10, is whether the ACA can stand without the insurance mandate. The answer, as George Mason law professor Ilya Somin explains at The Volokh Conspiracy, depends on the Court's approach to severability, the question of what happens to a statute when part of it is deemed unconstitutional. Barrett's view of whether the individual health insurance mandate can reasonably be upheld as a tax tells us nothing about her views regarding severability.

Twenty Republican-led states, backed by the Trump administration, argue that the ACA cannot be upheld without the mandate. That position has been widely criticized by libertarian and conservative legal scholars, including Somin. "It's unlikely that Barrett has a novel view of severability so restrictive that it would require collapsing the rest of the ACA in this case," Somin says. And even if Barrett were receptive to the argument that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, he notes, at least six justices are not, judging from the positions they have taken on severability in other cases.

The predictions that confirming Barrett will doom the ACA, in short, should be viewed as Democratic fear mongering rather than realistic expectations. In any case, the fact that the ACA has benefited many Americans facing life-threatening illnesses, emphasized by one Democratic senator after another, has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate or the question of severability, both of which are issues of law. As Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) noted today, Supreme Court justices "decide cases; they don't make policy."

NEXT: How Will Reason Staffers Vote in 2020?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Read More.

    1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website………Click here

      1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…..Click here

  2. Let’s just be clear and real. If the shoe was on the other foot, aka dems holding the presidency and senate majority, they would be doing exactly the same thing occurring today. Same goes for 2016, if there would have been a Republican president and Democratic senate then, they would have never confirmed a nominee.

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>> Click here

    2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do….. Click here

  3. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job with…READ MORE

  4. Then they shouldn’t confirm her because the ACA is as immoral, unethical and downright evil as any law ever written.

    1. Ya, trying to give everyone health care is as evil as eugenics, and slavery, and segregation.

      1. Health insurance is not healthcare.

      2. Eugenics, slavery, and segregation are functions of healthcare

      3. You don’t need laws (gov-guns) to “give”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        The moral compass of the left is so *ss-backwards….

        Hand-Up, I’ll shoot if you don’t “give” me ___________ because [WE] and our gang of criminals are saving the world — one working mans wallet at a time.

      4. “Ya, trying to give everyone health care…”

        You misspelled “a place on the waiting list”, lefty shit.

      5. “give everyone healthcare.” who, exactly, should be doing the giving and at whose expense?

        1. Clearly, our Dear Leader does all the giving. And the expense? I am confused by that word.

        2. Great comment. The answer is the taxpayer whether he/she want it or needs it or not. The govt. has no right to force things on us as WE are the bosses, not them. We need to eliminate the “Supreme” Court as its decision making powers are usually wrong, if not plain stupid. I am a free man, and I will do what I want, and if our govt doesn’t like it they can shove it sideways.

          1. The Supreme Court didn’t give us socialism – it just allowed it. In fact they defeated it in 1934 a few times before FDR stuffed it with dis-honest liberals.

      6. I lost my Health coverage thanks to you assholes. My next best bet was over double the price for inferior coverage with a vastly higher deductible.

        You progs can go fuck yourselves. If you want to be generous, do it with your own goddamn money. Of course you never will. No one is more stingy than a progressive.

      7. Got any more idiotic lies to pull out of your ass, lefturd?

        Obamacare was nothing of the kind. It was a power grab, and pretending that it was motivated by any desire to help the sick is unmitigated bullshit.

        -jcr

      8. Trying to give everyone health care is not evil. REQUIRING THEM TO HAVE health care IS evil, and unconstitutional, that latter of which has never been a worry for Democrats as what is the Constitution compared to what Dems want???? FUCK THE ACA and those who support it.

    2. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. Heres what I’ve been doing.

      open this web Click here

  5. “…while the predicament of patients like those described by Coons et al. figures prominently in the public policy debate about Obamacare, it is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional.”

    Well it’s relevant if you want the courts to rule in favor of your particular policy.

    1. And the reason this nation is failing, “The U.S. Constitution SHOULD BE everyone’s favored policy.”

  6. Article summary; democrats lie.

    1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  7. “There is little reason to think Barrett would vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act”

    Well darn, I was a pretty big fan of hers until now.

  8. The ACA needs to die. It was a noble attempt to try to fix our health care system in a way that conservatives could support (since they came up with the idea in the first place). But it was attacked and sabotaged by Rs from day one. It was also a patchwork attempt that was doomed to still leave many with the same issues as before the ACA was passed.
    Killing the ACA is good because it will lead us even close to universal health care.

    1. “Attacked and sabotaged” by people who weren’t even allowed to know what the bill said? Maybe you should reconsider your partisanship.

    2. “universal health care”

      There’s that wish for eugenics, slavery, and segregation

    3. attacked and sabotaged…wonder if that was due to Nancy wanting to pass this legislation before reading it…..maybe cause all the promises by your god Obama claimed it would reduce premiums by $2500, you’d be able to keep your plan, keep your doctor. All LIES. Guess Republicans should have been praising and supporting ACA ehh??

    4. I always love when seminal Democratic legislation doesn’t work it is somehow because it was both a Republican idea and that Republicans didn’t support it. So classic.

      1. Yeah, that cracks me up too.

        A failed law written by democrats, passed by democrats without a single republican vote, and executed by democrats is only due to….

        Republicans.

        GTFO!

    5. The Obama administration and D’s ensured ACA mandates impacting their base or generally unpopular (i.e. “Cadillac” taxes, taxing insurance as income) were suspended/dropped. R’s pushed to eliminate the unconstitutional individual mandate.

      The Democrats have shown they don’t want universal health care – they want some animals to have more benefits than others. Sadly, there are now far too many people at the government-provided health care trough to make meaningful changes in either direction (universality or move to a free-market system).

    6. “It was a noble attempt to try to fix our health care system in a way that conservatives could support (since they came up with the idea in the first place). But it was attacked and sabotaged by Rs from day one.

      You misspelled “it was an attempt at buying votes though lying”, lefty shit.

    7. It was a noble attempt to try to fix our health care system

      BULLSHIT.

      -jcr

    8. The Obamacare program is not the best, but it’s the only thing we have right now. We cannot just kill it outright at the moment, because that would leave far too many with no healthcare whatsoever, which could be downright dangerous, especially for elderly, and people of all ages with underlying medical conditions of some sort or other.

      As an Independent who’s voting the Democratic Ticket next month, I believe that Single Payment with Universal Healthcare & Medicare for ALL Americans would’ve ben the best thing, because it would not have been so vulnerable to attack by the Republicans. In the event that there is a change in the ACA, it’s going to have to be implemented gradually.

      1. It amazes me how you people can turn such an ignorant blind eye to your own 3rd party gangster-guns (criminal democratic gov-guns) out STEALING anything you deem “needed for ALL”.

        “I’ll take some of that, a few of those, a chocolate cake and a Hershey bar TAKE, TAKE, TAKE without *EARNING* anything.” — Of course the word *earned* is completely out of scope for criminals and you’d all be in jail if it wasn’t for the criminal popularity contest called democracy. We know this because you don’t need gov-guns to give – using guns makes it THEFT.

        It might surprise you that healthcare doesn’t fall from the sky in such an ignorant driven delusion and gov-gun enforced SLAVERY is actually the supply source of whatever sympathetic cry/whine you can make-up. And be sure to throw on 1M excuses of “why” you had to use guns to STEAL labor, earnings and money from “those” people. As-if excuses wasn’t the #1 flappy gas of criminals.

        But let me fill in on a most certain outcome; If you keep running around stealing everything from those who *earn* by producing and creating what the world needs someday they’ll join your bandwagon of TAKE, TAKE, TAKE and then ALL THAT’S LEFT is a bandwagon full of criminals and not a single person willing to *earn* anything because they know it’ll get stolen or that it’s easier just to steal by democratic crime.

        And the whole freak-en nation will come tumbling into the liking’s of Iraq or Venezuela where everyone has guns shooting at each other over who gets to TAKE what isn’t there and no-one has anything they need.

        “But ALL Americans have a right to a Hershey bar – We don’t really care who made it or what it cost them; GIMME, GIMME, GIMME”

        “Sell your souls to [WE-TAKE] slavery” should be the Democratic slogan – and it would be right on target.

        1. #1 Demon Excuse, “[WE] robbed the people’s bank but we ‘gave’ 5% of it back so see…..; we are compassionate ‘givers'”. The famous Al Capone excuse…

          You cannot “GIVE” what you haven’t earned.

  9. Don’t worry. I know that it’s an absurd thing to attack her about, but that just shows you how little objectionable material they can find on her. It’s a good thing.

    If she were the exact same person except that she were a guy named Andy Barrett, rest assured that Andy would be accused of running rape trains in high school or whatever.

  10. Obamacare is unconstitutional.

    There is no enumerated power to force Americans to buy a product or service. None.

    Oh ObamaCare is a tax? It did not originate in the House as required for all revenue bills per the Constitution and tax bills dont require you to buy something or face a tax as punishment.

    1. Congress remedied the fault by nullifying the mandate.

    2. Was there anything King Obama ever did that was not outright unconstitutional?

  11. You’re wrong, you’re just offering your opinion about the constitutionality of the ACA. It has been ruled constitutional. You just don’t like the reasons the majority on the court ruled that way. Plenty don’t like the reasoning for Roe v. Wade. In fact, there are whiners about many SC rulings, you’re just one more. Every dissenting opinion thinks the ruling was unconstitutional.

    As far as Barrett, we will know soon, won’t we?

    1. “You just don’t like the reasons the majority on the court ruled”

      Let’s visit this topic several months from now.

      1. It’s visited every day by anyone with an opinion. Sullum seems real confident it won’t be overturned. We will know soon.

        1. Let’s see, a tax originating in the Senate?
          Yep, lefty shits will turn inside out trying to justify that pile of crap, O-care. And that lying POS who got it named after him.
          Hey, jackass, still waiting to hear the magic formula where saying a prayer will make those nasty wild-fires go away!
          Cat got your tongue, you lying piece of lefty shit?

          1. Meh. We don’t want SCOTUS ruling on the procedures of congress.

            1. We do, when the Constitution specifically lays out how the Congress shall proceed.

    2. The SC majority offered up partisan judges NOT Constitutional judgements…. Any 5-year old could tell everyone that; but everyone wanted to play ignorant.

      1. Is the ACA the law of the land? Yep. Did the SC have the chance to say it shouldn’t be? Yep. Did the SC say it was constitutional? Yep.

        And thus have we been governed since John Marshall, regardless of any childish whining from Sullum. And you, I guess.

        1. …And that level of “judgement” is what the people can expect from electing liberals.

          Citizen, “The police just shot my dog and raped my wife…”
          Liberals judges, “Well, do the police enforce the law? Then end of story.”
          Citizen, “But there is a law against that! Any 5-year old could tell you that.”
          Liberal judges, “End of story……………”

        2. Wow, way to prove your ignorance. USSC has ruled on multiple pieces of ACA. Some of been struck down, others have been upheld. They have never ruled on ACA in its entirety.

          Man some of you are dumb.

          1. They have never ruled on ACA in its entirety.
            Which is something the Supreme Court should do, as the first order of business, for any law brought before it, instead of ruling on whatever word manages to get moved through the “system”.

        3. SCOTUS also gave us Dred Scott and Korematsu and Plessy v. Ferguson. They don’t always get it right. Precedent should not be overturned lightly, but we should all be grateful that sometimes SCOTUS reverses itself.

          Just because the Court found a previous iteration of the law Constitutional doesn’t mean it continues to be so in perpetuity. The question before the Court in this instance is different since there is no longer any way to justify the mandate as a tax. Perhaps they will formally remove the mandate without deeming the entire law unconstitutional.

  12. This article doesn’t go far enough in describing Roberts’ machinations to get to where he wanted to go on the ACA. After all, if the ACA penalty is a tax, with no further qualifications, any time Congress wanted to force you to buy something it could levy a “tax.” But that would have pushed the commerce clause beyond what Roberts wanted. So he deemed the ACA tax as too small to constitute a penalty, but left open the possibility that more onerous taxes would in fact be penalties. And of course there was no definition as to what is too onerous.

  13. “But, if the ACA saves even 1 life….”

  14. I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. Even if Democrats’ argument is wrong, it’s a clean hit and a good political argument.

    What this article is essentially saying is:

    “ACB is a serious jurist. The argument urged by 22 states and the President, accepted by a Republican-appointed district court judge, is *so* frivolous that there is no chance five conservative Justices would accept it.”

    If it’s so stupid, why is the White House still making it? I tend to agree with the article’s substantive argument, because I suspect the severance is indeed so frivolous that not even a partisan SCOTUS would accept it. But PLEASE… spare me the pearl-clutching about Democratic “fear-mongering.”

    The plaintiffs could drop this frivolous argument tomorrow and end the Democratic talking point. But they won’t, presumably because they think they have some chance of success.

    1. They don’t need to think they have a chance of success.

      They keep it going because it plays well with the base and when they fail they’ll shrug and point to the people on the blue side of the aisle and say ‘its their fault you’re getting reamed dry’.

      1. Oh, I agree. My point is that it’s a legitimate political argument on the Democratic side and a bad-faith argument on the Republican side.

  15. Why would anyone think that her being on SCOTUS would make that happen?

    The mandate is gone. So there’s no issue of ‘is it a tax or a penalty’. The rest of the law, shitty as it is, is to my IANAL eyes legally sound. After all, it was Robert’s contortions to read the penalty as a tax that saved it because the issue was ‘could the government make you buy something’. And technically they’re not. They’re just taxing you if you don’t.

    That’s gone now and what is both good and sad about the conservative side of the court is that if they can’t find a constitutional way to block bad law then they admit that and let it go.

    1. There was a 0% chance RBG would side with the plaintiffs and a non-0% chance ACB would. I can’t see Roberts voting with the plaintiffs, so the odds of the ACA lawsuit succeeding go from close to 0% to… higher than that with ACB on the Court.

  16. Nothing confusing. Coney Barrett has written against the ACA.

  17. Why does this entire nomination now hinge on the ACA? The mandate was unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. That’s why the present issue is severability – i.e. can we declare the mandate unconstitutional but allow the rest of the law to stand, or does that element invalidate the entire law?

    Just because it is bad law does not mean it is unconstitutional. As noted here, the law isn’t likely to be struck down – with or without ACB. We should be looking at her approach to judicial review more broadly, not focusing on one case. I expect the problem is (as it was with Kavanaugh) that there is nothing particularly problematic in her jurisprudence or application of constitutional principles.

    Remy has done some great work, but this one never stops being relevant: https://youtu.be/eXWhbUUE4ko

    1. The Democrats are convinced that they won the mid terms because of their successful fear mongering on the ACA specifically pre existing conditions. They see it as a winning strategy and they will be hitting it hard in any context available until the election. They don’t really believe that they can stop the confirmation. It’s just cheap advertising.

    2. Where do you get the idea that the rest of the law is not unconstitutional?
      The problem with “the system” is that “the courts” don’t grant “standing” to any one of “We The People” to say “Hey, those shitgibbons in DC are doing something that the Constitution doesn’t grant them the power to do” – like setting up a nationwide health insurance scheme.

    3. “Just because it is bad law does not mean it is unconstitutional”

      The conptrapositive holds, as well, “Just because it is constitutional does not mean it is good law.”

    4. Now that the mandate has no teeth–i.e., it’s neither a tax nor a penalty–how can it be a mandate at all? And if it’s not a mandate, then how can it be unconstitutional? Looked at another way, since the mandate has been turned into a polite request from the wise men and women on Capitol Hill, how does it matter whether it’s severable or not? Cutting it out of the statute has the same practical effect as leaving it in.

  18. She wasn’t bred and cultivated by the GOP and Heritage Foundation to have independent thoughts. She exists to overturn progressive legislation. She is an absolute radical who doesn’t believe most of the modern civilized state is constitutional.

    1. Yes, killing unborn babies is soooooo civilized.

      1. ..like un-wet water?

      2. Take a look at a map of the world that charts abortion laws. As they get more restrictive, the countries look more like shitholes. Abortion restriction and shithole status go together. Get your evil, sadistic, nonsense sky-grandpa crap off my body.

        1. Of course, abortion is illegal in a lot of Islamic countries, which tend to be shitholes, too. Wonder which direction the causality goes?

          1. It’s safe to say that religiosity and shitholeness are highly correlated.

    2. Right – because “progressive legislation” is supported WHERE in the Constitution???

      1. If you as a Republican want to eliminate Social Security, don’t you think you should have to explain to the people you are going to put in poverty why it’s absolutely necessary?

        1. Where did Judge Barrett say that she believes social security is unconstitutional, or that she wants to eliminate it?

          1. For that matter, where did Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh say that *they* think social security is unconstitutional, or that they want to eliminate it? And if they believe it’s unconstitutional, why do we still have it?

        2. If a Republican legislator is arguing that Social Security should be eliminated, then yes he/she should explain.

          If a Supreme Court judge rules that it’s unconstitutional, then the only explanation required is “the Constitution does not authorize this”. Determining whether a law is “good” or “bad” is not a judge’s job.

          1. That’s a nice story you tell yourself.

        3. explanation, “The USA isn’t communist …. and sorry we -progressives- stole all your money and put you in poverty.”

    3. Tony, please spare us your snotty little “handmaid’s tale” fantasies.

      She is an absolute radical who doesn’t believe most of the modern civilized state is constitutional.

      Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn’t “civilized”, you brain-dead dolt.

      -jcr

      1. And cliches aren’t the same as thoughts.

        1. and reality isn’t just a cliche.

  19. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website………Visit here to earn thousands of dollars
    All copyrights Reserved ©

  20. Start making cash right n0w…. Get m0re t!me with your family by d0ing j0bs that 0nly require for y0u t0 have a computer and an internet access and y0u can have that at y0ur h0me. Start bringing up t0 $8668 a m0nth. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and n0w I am sharing it with y0u, s0 y0u can try it t00. Y0u can check it 0ut here…

    ==========================➤ReadMore.

  21. Lying and fearmongering are the basic tools of politics, along with impossible to fulfill promises. The only real question is how stupid are voters?

  22. ‘Every time in 45 years that a Republican president has nominated someone to the Supreme Court, the exact same set of clichéd horror stories are wheeled out of storage, dusted off, and paraded past the American people.’

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivered the following remarks today [09.24.20] on the Senate floor regarding the Supreme Court vacancy:

    “President Trump has stated he will announce his nominee to the Supreme Court the day after tomorrow.

    “We do not yet know which legal all-star from his list he will nominate.

    “But strangely enough, we already do know exactly what the far left will start shouting the instant she or he is introduced.

    “Isn’t that a little curious, when you stop to think about it?

    “A confirmation process is ostensibly about the qualifications and credentials of the nominee.

    “So why is it that practically any citizen could sit down at their kitchen table right now, days before the nomination, and write down in advance the list of ludicrous accusations the far left is guaranteed to be screaming by Saturday night?

    “It’s because year after year, decade after decade, the far left’s playbook stays exactly the same.

    “To them, the nominee makes no difference. Every time in 45 years that a Republican president has nominated someone to the Supreme Court, the exact same set of clichéd horror stories are wheeled out of storage, dusted off, and paraded past the American people.

    “In 1975, President Gerald Ford put forward a nominee whom the left blasted for his, quote, ‘consistent opposition to women’s rights’ and, quote, ‘an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the problems women face.’

    “Who was this far-right ideologue who was going to turn back the clock? Why, the late Justice John Paul Stevens, who went on to lead the Court’s liberal wing for decades

    “In 1987, it was time for an encore performance. A nominee from President Reagan was absolutely savaged by liberal groups. The president of one left-wing group insisted he was a ‘sexist’ and ‘a disaster for women.’

    “That would be Justice Anthony Kennedy. Once again, the sky did not fall.

    “In fact, when Justice Kennedy retired in 2018, the new head of the exact same liberal organization stated they were ‘saddened and alarmed by [his] retirement.’

    “The exact same liberal outfit said the sky was falling in the 1980s because Justice Kennedy had been nominated and that the sky was falling in 2018 because he was retiring.

    “In 1990, they got the band back together yet again. This time, the sky was falling for sure.

    “President Bush had picked someone whose record was ‘very troubling’…

    “Whose jurisprudence would surely, quote, ‘threaten to undo the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups’…

    “Whose confirmation would mean, quote, ‘ending freedom for women in this country.’

    “Talk about wearing out the volume knob.

    “Oh, that was future Justice David Souter, by the way. One slogan simply said ‘Stop Souter Or Women Will Die.’

    “He, too, would go on to become a favorite Justice of many of these very same groups.

    “But it has still never occurred to them to get their crystal balls checked. The same unhinged attacks pour out every time. The same absurd scare tactics. Every single time.

    “These people are the left-wing version of that broadcaster who spent 20 years predicting different dates for the end of the world, raising money, and just inventing a new date every time he was wrong.

    “Justice Scalia was unfit. Justice Thomas hated the rule of law. Justice Alito was ‘hostile to the rights of women.’

    “It’s all one big scam directed at the American people.

    “In 2005, one left-wing outfit cut a television ad that tried to link our now-Chief Justice of the United States with a violent bombing of an abortion clinic.

    “How despicable can you get?

    “Before this disgusting ad was pulled off the air, it said a future Justice John Roberts would, quote, ‘excuse violence against other Americans.’

    “Every single time. No matter how upstanding, no matter how qualified. No matter their views, no matter their record. Every nominee gets the same insane treatment so long as the president who nominated them is not a Democrat.

    “When Democratic presidents nominate people, none of this happens. When we confirmed Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, I don’t recall angry mobs stalking Senators. When we confirmed Justice Sotomayor, I don’t recall weeks of character assassination. When we confirmed Justice Kagan, I don’t recall the mainstream media declaring the death of democracy.

    “For half a century, we’ve seen this double-standard. When a Democratic president makes a nomination, it’s a non-event by comparison. The coastal political class and their friends in the media allow our national life to go on like normal.

    “But whenever a Republican dares to nominate someone, the same people declare it a state of emergency.

    “So, sadly, we already know what reaction we will see on Saturday. Fill-in-the-blank opposition.

    “Remember, in 2017, we saw literal fill-in-the-blank opposition.

    “Demonstrators wanted to assemble outside the Court before they even knew who President Trump would name. So they literally brought stacks of signs that said: ‘Oppose ___(blank)___!’ And they brought markers, so they could scribble in a name during the President’s remarks, before the TV cameras cut to them.

    “In 2018, moments after the President announced now-Justice Kavanaugh, one left-wing group published a typically absurd statement declaring ‘Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence’ and, quote, ‘white patriarchal supremacists… now have free reign.’

    “But the actual nominee was so irrelevant to their scam that they literally forgot to fill in the blank.

    “The very first line of their press release condemned, quote, ‘Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court.’

    “So it’s safe to say the American people could start writing their Bingo cards now. We already know every outlandish claim and unhinged attack we’re going to hear.

    “In fact, former Vice President Biden has already cut to the front of the line. Just yesterday he offered the following assessment, prior to learning who he is assessing. Quote: ‘Women’s rights as it relates to everything from medical health care is going to be gone.’

    “Good luck deciphering what he’s trying to say. It sounds like more of the same old junk.

    “Perhaps the nation will soon watch this man in his late 70s condescend to explain women’s healthcare to one of the brilliant women whom President Trump indicates he is considering.

    “Fortunately, the far-left scam artists do not get a vote. The special interest groups’ fundraising appeals do not get a vote. The fate of this nomination will be determined by the United States Senators whom the American people elected to do this job.

    “A fair hearing, a fair process, and fair vote on the actual nominee. Forget about fill-in-the-blank.”

    1. McConnell’s still an asshole for trying to scuttle Rand Paul’s election, but when he’s right, he’s right.

      I’m sure the lefturds are checking all their seat cushions as we speak to try to find some liar to cook up a lurid smear against her. One of those scumbags already tried to claim she’s a racist because she adopted two black kids.

      -jcr

      1. Not just that, but that she adopted the kids to avoid charges of racism. Or worse, some implied that she adopted them illegally as part of child sex trafficking plot.

        One user, Dana Houle, an adoptive parent who supports Democrats wrote on Twitter, “Does the press even investigate details of Barrett’s adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if press learned they were unethical & maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it? Or not bc it involves her children.”

        Though House later deleted the tweet, she wrote, “I shouldn’t have tweeted this…Not because it is smearing someone as engaging in child sex trafficking, but because I didn’t realise all the rubes out there would take offence to it.”

  23. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●my co-employee’s ex-wife makes seventy one dollars every hour at the pc. she’s been unemployed for 4 months.. remaining month her take a look at became $13213 operating on the laptop for four hours each day.. take a look at….. Usa Online Jobs

  24. Mr.Sullum,
    There is currently an opinion piece (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/10/opinions/amy-coney-barrett-federalist-society-begala/index.html) that seems to me to be particularly unhinged regarding the Federalist Society and Judge Barrett’s nomination. Not being an expert on either the Federalist Society or Judge Barrett, but knowing that the former is frequently cited positively in the pages of Reason, I was wondering if Reason would consider either a response to the piece, or a more in-depth look at the Federalist Society targeted at the general reader?
    Thanks for your time.

  25. Joe will raise your taxes and institute all kinds of gov’t regulations for fairness, racism whatever

    He’ll also follow the “science” and do stuff to end Covid. Thanks Gog I mean just what we need right? Some idiot in DC shutting down the entire country

Please to post comments