Supreme Court

Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearings Were a Master Class in Political Posturing

Americans likely learned very little about her judicial philosophy.

|

"I think it's good for the country to have this," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) on Monday, the first day of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearing. "I doubt it's going to change any minds in terms of how we vote. But I like the idea that a lifetime nominee to the Supreme Court can be challenged, can be tested, and can be understood by the public."

As the fourth and final session came to a close Thursday, it was hard to believe that the Senate Judiciary Committee met those standards in the way Graham intended.

Barrett was challenged, yes, but mostly by Democrats who pushed her to stake out positions on political questions and feigned outrage when she responded that a good judge does not make decisions based on her own opinions: "My personal views don't have anything to do with how I would decide cases," she said. Even so, Barrett's patience was almost certainly tested by a series of lectures from Democrats on her purported views and by monologues from Republicans on why Democrats are bad. 

After a week of hearings, it's very unlikely that the public understands Barrett better now than they did on Monday, considering that the committee spent more time posturing than probing the judge's judicial philosophy. Grandstanding may be an effective political strategy, but it didn't tell us anything useful or significant about Barrett, and it won't affect the outcome of her confirmation vote. 

The format for the hearings went something like this: Several Democrats began their allotted time slots, reserved for questioning the nominee, with complaints of procedural unfairness, invoking the COVID-19 pandemic and harkening back to the GOP's unwillingness to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court during former President Barack Obama's last year in office. The word "unprecedented" was thrown around a lot. 

Senators would typically then transition into a speech—emphasis on speech, it was often question-free—about politically-charged issues to which they posit Barrett is a threat: the Affordable Care Act, abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, and climate change. On day three, we actually heard some questions, but they usually pertained to how Barrett feels about hot-button political topics and corresponding legal precedents—questions that would be unprofessional and unwise to answer given that her feelings are irrelevant. Good jurists should cast aside personal policy preferences when scrutinizing the law, a point Barrett reminded the committee of repeatedly.

Here's a representative exchange from Wednesday on Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.): Think of how you would feel as a gay or lesbian American, to hear that you can't answer whether the government can make it a crime for them to have that relationship. Whether the government can enable people who are happily married to continue that relationship. Think of how you would feel.

Barrett: Well, Senator, implying that I'm poised to say that I want to cast a vote to overrule Obergefell, and I assure you I don't have any agenda. And I'm not even expressing a view in disagreement of Obergefell. You're pushing me to try to violate the judicial canons of ethics and to offer advisory opinions, and I won't do that.

Such was the common thread that tied the hearings together. Barrett's judicial philosophy was mentioned on occasion—she considers herself an originalist—though not often in a way that would help the American public better understand that strain of legal thought. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) mentioned it, for instance, in commenting on the parallels between Barrett and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked. But Klobuchar's comments implied that a conservative or originalist approach somehow disqualifies Barrett for the position.

"You said you consider Justice Scalia one of the most conservative judges in our nation's history as a mentor," Klobuchar said Wednesday. "So, to me, these tracks lead us to one place. And that is that you will have the polar opposite judicial philosophy of Justice Ginsburg. And, to me, that would change the balance of this court, which is already 5-4 and known as very conservative when you look back through history to 6-3. 6-3. And that would have great repercussions for the American people." It's worth mentioning that, though Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an accomplished woman and jurist, she did not own her Supreme Court seat. The American people do.

Other senators preferred to actively campaign. Consider the speech Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) gave on Tuesday: "After President Trump was elected, Washington Republicans spent nearly a year trying to repeal the ACA [Affordable Care Act], but I will always remember the thousands of Americans from all over our country in all walks of life, who crowded into the halls of the United States Capitol to require that lawmakers see their faces and understand how they would be hurt if there was a repeal of the Affordable Care Act," Harris said. "Together, with many of my colleagues, I joined civil rights and community leaders to speak to the thousands of people who gathered outside the Capitol, as they pleaded, as they begged with lawmakers to do the right thing." 

Graham wasn't above this approach. In response to the complaints he heard on Monday, he opened Tuesday's hearings with the opposite pitch: "From my point of view, Obamacare has been a disaster for the state of South Carolina," he said. "All of you over there want to impose Obamacare on South Carolina. We don't want it. We want something better. We want something different. You know what we want in South Carolina? South Carolina care, not Obamacare."

The ACA was a popular topic throughout the hearings, and Democratic senators treated Barrett as if she were running to be a senator herself, with the power to make laws rather than evaluate their constitutionality. As Reason's Jacob Sullum writes,  the idea that Barrett will overturn the ACA is based on fear, not fact. But such an approach is par for the course for the modern U.S. Congress, which has offloaded much of its legislative duties to the judiciary and the executive branch. 

Nowhere was that mindset more relevant than in Wednesday's discussions on climate change. Another exchange between Blumenthal and Barrett is instructive:

Blumenthal: You believe that human beings cause global warming?

Barrett: Well, Senator Blumenthal, I don't think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not.

Blumenthal: We all have views on it. I'm asking for your opinion.

Barrett: I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge, nor do I feel like I have views that are informed enough, and I haven't studied scientific data. I'm not really in a position to offer any kind of informed opinion on what I think causes global-

Blumenthal: Do you agree with the President on his views of climate change?

Barrett: I don't know that I have seen the President's expression of his views on climate change.

Though there were some exceptions—Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) comes to mind—most Republican Senators spent their time railing at their colleagues across the aisle. Sometimes it felt appropriate, as when senators tried to counteract what they saw as unfair characterizations of Barrett's opinions on the 7th Circuit. Other times, not so much.

"I think it speaks volumes that collectively, they've had very few questions for you," began Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) on Tuesday. He then lobbed two softball questions before launching into a 25-minute speech that appeared more appropriate for a campaign stop.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) used a chunk of his time Wednesday to cover Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, antitrust, and economic concentration, which are now his pet issues in the Senate. And while he stopped short of probing her opinion, he may as well have: "Whether it's Section 230 or the antitrust laws, one effect of this is to see growing concentrations of power in this country economically that I think are very significant threats to the ongoing operation of our democracy, to the basic ability of the people to control the levers, both of the economy and of culture and of government," he said. "So I won't ask for your view on this because these are cases, these are issues, that you very may well be called upon to weigh in on. I hope that you are. But I hope that you will give these issues consideration."

For her part, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.) used both her Tuesday and Wednesday slots to talk about the left's "attack machine" against conservative women. "Women can have it all," she said, addressing Barrett, who is a mother of seven children, "just not at the same time." Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.) asked Barrett who does the laundry in her household.

Much has been made about a return to normalcy in politics, and this week provided a preview of that. "I just want to thank you," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) to Graham. "This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." Graham expressed similar sentiments. The hearings were generally civil and a far cry from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's hearings in September 2018. But they're also a reminder of why congressional business-as-usual doesn't serve the American people.

Advertisement

NEXT: Judge Barrett on the Lochner Era and the "Switch in Time"

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. I learned that she has absolutely ZERO class, and if I’m being honest really bad hair… umm helloooo she ever heard of a conditioning mask? How can we trust someone with that kind of judgement?

    -Dr. Brian L., PhD
    (Stephen’s husband)

    1. Keep your pitiful attempts at humor to yourself.

      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…AMs 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 $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined NOW 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

        1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and Snm I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page….… Click here

          1. 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. This is what I do….. .Visit Here

            1. ●▬▬▬▬ PART TIME JOBS ▬▬▬▬▬●
              Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions…..

              what I do..Copy Here══════►►► Click here

              1. 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

    2. That’s a fail.

    3. “-Dr. Brian L., PhD
      (Stephen’s husband)”
      Oh, aren’t you both precious and a self-important piece of lefty shit!
      Care to tell us in what major the doctorate was awarded?
      And why is it that those who, in my experience, have doctorates which actually mean something, prefer to be addressed as Joe, or Sam, or most anything other than Doctor?
      As a lefty pile of shit, I’m sure you can explain; let’s hear it.

    4. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was Abe out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started……Visit Here

    5. 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 JOQ i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do….. MORE INFOR

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Abc I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do………………………………Visit Here

    6. I quit working at shop rite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the eashiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details………………Visit Here

    7. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Sdf I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it
      what I do………Visit Here

  2. But I already knew her philosophy before Orange Hitler even picked her — she’s a theocratic extremist who literally wants to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. Just like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

    #StopBarrett

    1. PS — She’s also a terrible person because by accepting the nomination she’s violating RBG’s DYING WISH. I don’t know what crappy law school she graduated from, but it must be pretty bad if they never taught the DYING WISH PRINCIPLE for replacing justices who pass away in their mid to late 80s.

      1. This x10000000

        1. It’s just socks all the way down.

          1. I think there are a couple of pairs of pantyhose in there too.

      2. Well, I would have to say that it’s even worse that the GOP is illegitimately and unconstitutionally giving RGB’s (PBUH) seat to someone who isn’t just like her. As Klobuchar said, appointing Barrett to this position changes the character of the Court and such a thing is simply unthinkable. But, you know Trump, just going around smashing all the norms of democracy that have ruled this country for over 10 years.

        1. … norms of democracy that have ruled this country for over 10 years.
          I laughed.

      3. When you’re good, you’re good, OBL This one got a sincere laugh.

    2. Then you must agree that it’s a good idea to have at least one handmaiden among the justices.

    3. Typed the stupidest person on Reason.com

  3. You learned a lot about her judicial philosophy. You learned nothing about how she’d rule on particular cases because that’s not her place to opine on cases she hasn’t heard yet.

    It’s called being a good judge.

    1. I don’t think the target audience for Binion’s articles are people who are knowledgeable, capable of critical thinking, or people who take these things seriously. It’s like a vanilla sitcom on broadcast television. We’re not supposed to think about it.

      1. P.S. Sullum has been writing an article a day on the hearings and ACB’s judicial philosophy.

        Today’s was on ACB’s stance on qualified immunity.

        Yesterday’s was on ACB’s stance on the Second Amendment.

        The day before that, it was on ACB and the implications for free speech and civil liberties.

        The day before that, Sullum wrote about ACB and how her judicial philosophy might impact ObamaCare.

        Now Binion is telling us that there is’t much to learn about her judicial philosophy from the hearings? In related news, I heard they’re thinking about rebooting Broke Girls.

        1. Binion is made for Huffpo.

          1. This *isn’t* HuffPo?

        2. 2 Broke Girls would work so much better if it included hardcore porn.

          1. Everything goes better with porn.

          2. Kat Dennings. Mmmmmmm.

            1. Her jugs have an extraordinarily high utility value.

      2. Well said, sir.

  4. The entire intertube is blowing up because Twitter is going ban-hammer crazy, and we had 3 hours of nothing followed by ANOTHER ACB article?

    What a waste of potential page views, guys.

    Anyway, as I said over at Glibs, I would really love to see what is going on inside Twitter right now. My gut tells me that there is an uprising going on. All the young, non-engineer, ops folks (like moderators) are brimming with pride that Their Moment ™ is upon them. For years, their SJW nonsense has been coddled, such that they think this is their time to strike hard and fast.

    But the fact that the Trump Campaign was locked then opened less than 2 hours later tells me that management is trying to reign shit in. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the company, and alienating half their potential user base, while getting hauled in front of the Senate to answer for “Election Interference”, seems pretty counter productive to that end.

    I’m not here to argue the propriety/impropriety of this or the government reaction. I am just morbidly fascinating with seeing how this company spins out of control.

    1. The unlocking Trump campaign probably has less to do with managements responsibility (the CEO’s 100% on board with this), and probably a lot more to do with their lawyers placing panicked calls that they’re about to taken to court.

      1. I have been living in these Silicon Valley companies for 20 years now. This pernicious SJW, uber leftist stuff has been simmering for years, but it is only in the last 4 or 5 years that it has gotten so, erm, overt.

        Most of these CEOs are absolutely crazy liberals, but they still know they have to run a business. This is happening for two reasons. 1) As noted, they are liberals and they have a blind spot. 2) The Silicon Valley job market was getting so tight, that companies have been using SJW bonafides to try and attract and retain talent.

        These companies gave people a cause to rally around, which can be important for morale, retention and productivity. But like Paul Muad’Dib’s jihad, at a certain point, it is bigger than one person can control.

      2. There are reports that Twitter is pulling back on locking ‘major’ righty accounts, and targetting the ‘minor’ righty accounts that retweet. Broad based reports of small right-leaning users being inhibiting from posting, having posts disappeared, and locked out for hours at a time due to ‘technical’ difficulties.
        Twitter is going all-in for the left.

    2. It might be a legit problem, but when I just checked my home feed was “unavailable”, as were my notifications.

      1. Everyone who is ‘minor’ on the right on Twitter is being blacked out. ‘Twitter is overloaded.’ ‘Sorry, we can’t post this right now.’ Etc.

        I think that Twitter realized it couldn’t kill the big accounts without legal blowback so it’s trying to cut off the oxygen by killing the retweeters.

        1. “Oops, we accidentally activated January’s test server. Please ignore.”

  5. “Good jurists should cast aside personal policy preferences when scrutinizing the law”

    I don’t think Ginsburg agreed with that premise. She cultivated an image as a proponent of gender equality.

    https://www.history.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-landmark-opinions-womens-rights-supreme-court

  6. Blumenthal … the fuck is wrong with Vermont?

    1. Don’t you dare criticize Blumenthal! That man is a hero for what he did in Vietnam, that he even yet suffers PTSD for what he went through makes it even more heroic.

      1. Kinda sad to think that Fonda spent more time in Vietnam than Blumenthal.

      2. Vietnam Vet just like the native American that tried to intimidate the Covington Catholic kid.

    2. Sanders is VT. Lurch is from Connecticut. Yale law, ex-AG, married the Empire State Bldg heiress and they brought the kids up in Greenwich. He’s no ex-public defender from Hartford or Bridgeport, now is he?

      1. thanks … Blumenthal … the fuck is wrong with Connecticut?

        1. It’s where elitists who are too good for midtown Manhattan live.

        2. Connecticut: New Jersey with a nicer car.

          1. Connecticut: Vermont with banks

  7. Democrats spent the entire hearing being shocked – just shocked – that a conservative justice would have conservative views. They deserve zero sympathy if their legal fictions unravel in a conservative court. The Constitution has endured enough violence at their hands.

  8. We did learn one thing about ACB, she never raped anybody.

    1. Senator Hirono is quite possibly the dumbest member of the senate and a horrible person.

      1. they can forever say “and Justice Amy Coney Barrett was questioned about past sexual assaults at her hearing” and it will be true

      2. From Hawaii, so of course she’s a horrible person.

        1. Tulsi isn’t so bad. But yeah, all the islands should be granted independence.

          1. Independence will lead to an utter collapse of the economy and return to a third world, poverty laden ‘paradise’

            1. Haiti, in other words.

      3. It takes a lot of stupid to out-stupid Patty Murray.

    2. You just can’t make that shit up.

  9. I seriously hope this continues. Trump re-elected and the senate in republicans hands. That way the dems are left raging while congress is divided and incapable of passing laws and the court gets ever more conservative.

    1. You’ve expressed my deepest hopes and dreams.

      I wonder what it would be like to actually live in a constitutional republic?

  10. I think we learned she’s a lot smarter than the senators questioning her.

    1. So is the lint in my pockets.

    2. Except for maybe Ted Cruz. Prof. Alan Dershowitz has state Cruz was his best student ever. Same thing that one of ACB’s prof’s have said.

  11. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.): Think of how you would feel…

    Feelings…Nothing more than feelings…

    1. Ahhh the offspring. How I miss them

      1. They were pretty fly.

  12. Blumenthal: Think of how you would feel as an animal sexual preference American…

    Hirono: Senator Blumenthal, it’s an orientation, not a preference. That’s very offensive.

  13. Perhaps the Dems are marking time until (a) someone comes forward to courageously accuse Barrett of molesting sheep or whatever, or (b) they have a chance to pack the court, or (c) both.

  14. The lesson learned is to just do it. Expand the court. And then a blow a kiss to our Republican friends. They’re such good friends surely they won’t mind since we care so much.

    1. I think it would go down in trolling history if trump wins and says he agrees with the dems that the Supreme Court should be expanded and he will try to do it his second term.

      1. If? Y’all have been rattling the cage for four fucking years. Elections have consequences. You’re gonna hear that alot.

      2. And there’s really nothing you can threaten Democrats with. Y’all have already packed the court. If we adjust it all you could ever do is change it back. Y’all are up against the law of nature. It doesn’t matter what anyone says today. The reality of a 6-3 court and the way they came by it is going to cause a backlash.

        1. Y’all have already packed the court.

          No. They haven’t.

          1. Republicans say winning the Senate entitled them to block all judicial nominations from Democrats. Republicans say wining the Senate and presidency entitled them to appoint whomever they like no matter the circumstance. Well, what’s the prize for winning the Senate, the House and the presidency?

            1. If the Ds take over all three, the countries in the toilet and you get flushed like everybody else.

              1. It would make my prediction about what will have to happen to stop them a reality.

              2. Stroozele thinks he’s going to be the one manning the guillotine after the coup because he’s a loyal prog, but he doesn’t figure in another Robespierre.
                His fate is the same as Lev Kamenev or 1984’s Tom Parsons.

              3. Jesus fucking christ Sevo you even realize how insane you sound? Read enough Qanon today you retarded mongoloid birthday clown?

                1. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
                  Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

                  1. Copypasta? You really couldn’t think of a new reply? Jesus I knew you were fucking stupid but I didn’t realize you were this fucking stupid.

                    1. Piss off, anger boy.

                      Don’t you have a child to strangle or something?

                    2. Wtf is anger boy?

                    3. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
                      Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

                    4. He doesn’t need one. You’re still a child raping pedophile.

                2. QAnon was banned by YouTube today

        2. This wholesale pivot about the meaning of the term ‘pack the court’ is so obvious and so absurd, that I don’t think it helps your cause the way you seem to think it does.

          1. No, mfer, I know exactly what it means. It synonymous with not playing by the rules. Well, the rules have been changed. Packing the court is now playing by the rules. It can only happen with unified govt so that gives it illegitimacy more legitimacy then the process by which people become judges.

            1. “more legitimacy” then the process of nominating and confirming judges.

            2. “No, mfer, I know exactly what it means. It synonymous with not playing by the rules. Well, the rules have been changed….”

              No, motherfucker, the rules haven’t changed and it lefty shits like you pack the court, why, just like the filibuster, the next time the Rs take over, get ready for rusty chain-saw enema.

              1. Whoa, filibuster? chainsaw (no hyphen necessary)? enema? I honestly had no idea you knew this many words. Credit where credit is due, maybe your IQ really is in the double digits.

                1. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
                  Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

                  1. 5th times a charm? Oh sweet Simple Sevo, you will always be my favorite.

                    1. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
                      Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

                    2. You’re a pedophile. Kill yourself. No one could ever possibly love you.

    2. Because their last nefarious plan (dropping the filibuster for judicial appointments) worked out so well for them.

      1. And you’re making my point. The Republicans made them pay. I agree.

        1. College boy here actually thought he was outsmarting you. How cute.

          1. You’re a pedophile, by your own admission in these forums.

            You are the perfect example of a progressive.

          2. Got your GED yet?

            1. Lose your virginity yet?

              1. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
                Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

  15. “…And that is that you will have the polar opposite judicial philosophy of Justice Ginsburg…”

    What cheering words!

    1. I know basic words and concepts don’t always make sense to you Simple Sevo, but you could at least tryto keep up… on second thought, don’t you might hurt yourself.

      1. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
        Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

  16. Classic wingnut circle jerk-off session over some Skeletor-looking tranny who adopted two unfortunate haitian children doing god knows what to them. Sad but not surprising that you losers have been reduced to this.
    Meanwhile the Orange Retard is adding another 3+ TRILLION in debt. Funny watching the Peanuts try to maintain some semblance of dignity whilst gagging on the Tangerine Rapist’s misshapen mushroom stipe. MOS LIBARTURIAN PERSUDENT EVARRRR gargle gargle garlge. You don’t even realize how ridiculous you guys look.

    1. Good. Good! Let the butthurt flow through you.

      Your fury is my delight.

      1. You’re an idiot. You do realize the Con Man is at the end of his rope, and your favorite new tranny judge is going to be joined by several far more competent and probably more attractive judges who will make your life a living hell? It’s merely a waiting game at this point.

        1. Fuck off and die, turd. Make your family proud, your dog happy and the world a better place.
          Lefty shits are bad enough, but lefty pedos are lower than whale shit.

    2. If Barrett was a tranny you’d be screaming for her confirmation.

  17. “………some Skeletor-looking tranny who adopted two unfortunate haitian children doing god knows what to them”

    I’m sure you’re excited at the thought of seeing video of such things you kiddie raping piece of shit.

  18. I guess Binion was checking his #Resistance twitter feed during the part of the hearing where ACB explained what “originalism” is.
    Amid the political posturing and grandstanding most SC confirmation hearings contain an AP class worth of civics and introductory constitutional law.

  19. Seemed to be an average hearing. They’re always political. We learned a lot about ACB. And our senators. We learned a lot about how both view the law and Constitution. And the degree of respect all hold for their responsibilities. And she simply walked in and kicked ass. The senators did not.

    She’s “replacing” Vader (not a typo), an absolute piece of shit that had no business being in that position. Who also should have gotten over herself and retired during the Obama presidency. But she wasn’t smart enough or in touch enough to see that the Obama administration paved the way for anyone not Democrat to win.

    Just point out Democrat absurdities and lies. Or that 1/3rd of US presidents have made election-year appointments, some in the final month. That’s a lot given the rarity of appointments for lifelong positions. Adams did so after losing the election. It’s getting the Senate on board that matters. Obama couldn’t, as expected. Same for Trump and a Democrat majority Senate, but we don’t have one. We just have Democrats that are too weak to direct their rage at the guilty party: R. Vader G.

    Or do something libertarian and dig up the antifederalist concerns about the unchecked judicial branch. Spend time pointing out what those problems are and the possible reasons why they went unaddressed. They’ve always been a big deal. Somehow, ACB managed to present herself as the least dangerous candidate in ages. How ironic given the liberal foundations of America and widespread fear of and opposition to Catholicism until recent times. She seems most likely to stand against the actual threats to our system. That’s likely the only common ground I could possibly find with her. And it’s the absolute only common ground any of us should find with a Supreme Court judge.

    So it seems to me she displayed the only important qualities and positions a Supreme Court judge should have. Anything else is looking for, hoping for, or demanding the capacity to be controlled or manipulated, which is what our senators were seeking.

  20. Democrats never asked and they don’t care about that nor her qualifications. She is Catholic as was Kavanaugh, her church opposes abortion therefore she needs to be disqualified as they tried with Kavanaugh.
    For democrats we know have a religious test and a single issue to determine whom should be appointed to the Supreme Court.

  21. It’s simply a bad day for progressives; having constitutional originalists on the SCOTUS means it will be that much more difficult [impossible?] to push their agendas and inflict the concomitant regulation on the populace.

    Now we just have the yelling and screaming, as is so evident in the preceding posts. Almost as good as watching Rachel Madcow cry.

  22. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More  

  23. I just find it interesting the DNA is overtly anti-Catholic.

    Also. Harris can’t even hold a cup of coffee for ACB she’s so out of he league. My God is she an insufferable middling fool.

    And Klobuchar is fit to staple paper for ACB.

    Painful to listen to mediocrity make such asses of themselves.

  24. All judges have to same “judicial philosophy”. It’s called “threaten people with violence so they will obey”.

  25. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More  

  26. I think that this is mostly just the logic of representative democracy coming up against the norms of justice. Prospective Judges are not supposed to comment on how they might rule on future cases, that would damage their credibility. Same with commenting on politics. So they can really only answer questions about past cases. But politicians, their constituents, and their donors do not care about the past. They care about the future. So there are not any questions that prospective judges can answer that politicians care to ask. Plus, we know that there is going to be a party line vote where Barrett is confirmed. So what is the point in trying to gather new facts? This is just a formality.

  27. ★I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working on the web and I’m a full time understudy. Im utilizing an online business opportunity I caught wind of and I’AM profited. It’s truly easy to understand and I’m simply so cheerful that I got some answers concerning it. Here what I do,.for more data essentially open this connection thank you….. Read More  

  28. I learned Barrett thinks Police Reform is a race issue. Since only liberals on The Left and The Right fall for that, I can conclude she is a liberal. How she will rule is anyone’s guess but it will not be consistently Constitutionalist

Please to post comments