Why the Senate Should Confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett This Week

“I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, and the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine, too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold…I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.” – Judge Amy Coney Barrett yesterday.

That 100 word statement describes in a nutshell why Democrats and their America-hating toadies in the corrupt news media hate Judge Amy Coney Barrett and will do anything they can come up with to smear and slander her. The Constitution, and a strict interpretation of its actual words, has been anathema to the Democrat Party since Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912. It is in fact a bane on that Party’s very existence.

With Senate Democrats lining up to announce they will not only oppose her nomination, but that they will also refuse to even meet with her when she makes the traditional courtesy visits to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and other key senators, Lindsey Graham announced on Saturday that his committee hearings on Judge Barrett’s nomination will start on October 12. If Graham is saying that publicly, then that means he has the sign-off from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to proceed with those hearings.

My only question is, why? Why are Senate Republicans agreeing to hold committee hearings at all on a nomination whose ultimate outcome is a fait accompli? No Democrat will support Barrett’s confirmation. Joe Manchin will make noises about doing that, but he will ultimately allow Chuck Schumer to bully him one more time into marching along with the rest of the Democrat Senate fascists, because that is what Joe Manchin does.

Meanwhile, with Lisa Murkowski now coming around in the face of a primary threat from Sara Palin, only one Republican Senator, Susan Collins (of course), is even implying she might not support Barrett’s confirmation before Election Day. Mitt Romney may ultimately fink out and cast his wormy lot with the Democrats just as he did in their impeachment scam, but that won’t be enough.

Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday. That would be the logical thing to do in this case since the Court convenes for its 2020-21 session on the first Monday in October, just 8 days from now. The goal of the U.S. Senate should always be that it acts as expeditiously as possible to ensure the Court always has its full compliment of 9 justices.

But what about the vetting process? Good lord, Judge Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just three years ago, and was thoroughly vetted at that time. She even received the confirmation votes of 3 Democrats – along with every Senate Republican, including Collins and Murkowski (Romney was not in the Senate in 2017) – for that high profile appointment. There is literally no valid reason at all for the Judiciary Committee to go through that process all over again.

The Democrats desperately want these hearings for the sole reason that they would then be able to create the same sort of character assassination circus that they did with Brett Kavanaugh and, to a slightly lesser extent, Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first two nominees. McConnell has exactly zero obligation or duty to provide the Democrats that platform.

Many Republicans argue that the creation of another confirmation hearing slander circus would be bad for the Democrats politically, and that’s probably true. But this is a woman’s life we are talking about here. Politics should not be the main consideration. Judge Barrett is a wife and mother of 7 children, children who should not be subjected to the kind of abuse and smearing the Democrats and their activists will throw at them and their mother in the lead-up to and conduct of such hearings.

Judge Barrett is an extremely well-qualified jurist who has led an exemplary American life. There are no valid arguments to make otherwise. She also has already very recently been vetted and confirmed to a seat on a U.S. Appellate Court by the U.S. Senate.

The Judiciary Committee hearing should be cancelled. Judge Barrett should be confirmed this week and seated on the Court when it convenes on the First Monday in October.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is the only real conservative alternative to Drudge, and deserves to become everyone’s go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
18 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kate

Most likely the hearings will make great fund raisers for each side, it is what they say “follow the money”.

Jimmy MacAfee

That is a very good point! Barrett needs to emphasize her commitment to personal liberties, and should be prepared to refuse to answer questions that involve predeterminations on how she’s going to rule. This is something most nominees have done to avoid projecting their vote.

Unfortunately, Kagan was not refused because of her work on Obamacare (legal work) but lawyers work for whomever pays them and she could have squirmed on that. That having been said, she should have recused her self on the Obamacare issue, as she was seriously and obviously (obvious to non-legal minds like myself) conflicted. She showed her lack of ethics and cannot take that failure back. Kagan is a schlemiel.

Petunia5700

I have tried to enter a comment twice & it won’t take. No bad words. Any ideas why?

Jimmy MacAfee

I save every comment before I post. When I get that “posting too quickly” screen, most of the time, when I push the website’s “back” button, and it automatically reposts what I’ve written. If not, I paste what I’ve saved and re-enter. Editing is of no value, because they arbitrarily declare you to be “posting too quickly.”

So you have two options, but in either case, saving what you’ve written saves you having to rewrite every thing you’ve already written.

Gregg

Petunia5700,

Sometimes when I’m on a roll and get told I’m commenting too quickly or too often for the censors they flash up “slow down you are posting too quickly” message and dump my post. It seems quite random when this happens. More often than not, it seems to flash that message when I post a lengthy 500+ word comment regardless of how many or how quickly I post when I’m on a roll.

Before I post any comment, I right click and select all and then click copy when the whole comment is highlighted. Then I now have to reenter my emal address and name EVERY time, and then click post.

When I get the too often message it doesnt post. When I try to repost the same comment I’m told it is a duplicate. I get around this by adding or changing a sentence. So far, that has always allowed my comment to post.

Hope this helps.

Petunia5700

The only reason there will be a hearing is so Lindsey Graham can get TV face time. It would behoove McConnell to have a little talk with him–either discharge her from the committee (as Hatch did) or shorten hearing drastically.

Jimmy MacAfee

It’s one thing to oppose a nominee on the basis of viewpoint. For instance, I would disagree with Barrett on her support of the lockdown – but I also didn’t like future-present-and-future President Trump’s position on Eminent Domain (in specific cases.) Those differences are minor blips on the radar, with the cross section the size of a pigeon. Let Rand Paul ask her those kinds of questions, because he’s not a hostile inquisitor.

The late Justice Ginsberg was not treated with anything resembling hostility, though her positions should have been vetted by the Senate; she had some absolutely bizarre notions that needed exposure. Same with Barack Obama, as two Presidential opponents failed to articulate his past dealings and background.

Seems as if the only hostility toward candidates – both political and judicial – have been from Leftist/Liberal hacks. It’s one thing to argue positions on Constitutional theory (which Ginsberg failed miserably, as she was not the bright star many have claimed,) but quite another to smear (and tar and feather) those who are up for office..

To all those Critical Race Theory idiots and their Democrapic toadies: where is the equality you claim to champion? Seems as if you have two sets of standards. That being the case, kindly piss off and STFU. I say this as kindly as I am able.

Stuartswede

Guys, (and gals)
Here is a little shorter one I put up a couple of days ago. She was NOT supporting lockdowns.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/25/barrett-did-not-affirm-the-illinois-lockdown-order/

Jimmy MacAfee

Barnes’ view on the case is probably wrong – and mine, too, in my ignorance. Barrett seems to be arguing FOR civil liberties, espicially pertaining to religious civil liberties. Barnes seems hostile to religious liberties, and that is sad. IF she were in favor of the lockdown as it subverts civil liberties – (and it is apparent from both articles that this is an unfair characterization) – then she would be, in my opinion, unfit for the high court. But with their explanation of what actually transpired, I have to side with Barrett and not with Barnes.

I do agree with Barnes (and I don’t always) on the tone of the attacks on Barrett; in my own summary of what he appears to be saying in a live chat currently underway:

The Left is not going to do a full-frontal attack on her religion and her personal issues (and those attacks are mostly fraudulent.) They will attack her on issues related to her support of Establishment Republican (read: Romney) issues. She is clearly not a Trumpite populist, which I have some difficulty with. This is also why Romney is likely to vote for her, rather than against. But in most ways, she is a solid Conservative who supports the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, they can be easily demolished on all of the above, because it was DEMOCRATS who want the lockdown (mostly) and DEMOCRATS who have put themselves into bed with anti-Populist types like Big Tech and Pig Pharma and Big Insurance (which prostituted itself to Obamacare instead of opposing it effectively.) In short, the presumption among Republicans is that the attacks will be personal, venal and like the ones against Kavanaugh. Barnes thinks the attacks will be on her rulings, and she and her defenders need to be ready to defend on that account.

Barnes may be right, and whether or not he is, the Senate Republicans need to be prepared to fight both sides, personal and Constitutional. Which is why I suggested that Rand Paul ask her the questions – or do enough research to thwart unfair questions – on lockdown issues. Senator Paul has a way of distilling information that makes it understandable. I don’t expect him to attack her, but to help clarify the attack that Barnes has predicted.

And again, the Party of the Establishment, the party of the rich-against-the-poor (and working poor) is now the Democrats. The Dems are less Populist – their version of “populism” is Soviet Totalitarianism. They have taken money from Elite Totalitarian Feudalists, and are against the Ordinary American. So the Dems don’t have a legal argument against Barrett, unless they can prove she was for the lockdown – and since Cuomo and Pritzker and the Democrat governor of Michigan (among others) are the authors of the lockdown of their own states, they have no point to make.

Petunia5700

absolutely agree. The only reason we’re having a hearing is so Lindsey Graham can get air time. It would behoove Mitch to put pressure on him to discharge, or at least shorten question time. No reason at all to wait a week after the committee vote to send to the floor.

D3F1ANT

The hearings are an unnecessary gaff on the Right. No reason to have them and it will be our undoing. Sometimes it seems like the Right are our own worst enemy. You can almost count on the GOP to screw things up.

Stan Webb

There is no law requiring a hearing. Deny Feinstein, Hirono and Harris their clown show and put the nomination on the floor of the Senate Monday morning. The worst that Chuck U,Schumer can do is demain 30 hours of debate.

kaga2020

From your lips to God’s ears. But that would require McConnell and Graham to grow a spine this weekend.

No One

Senate should not wait until Oct.12, they should start Monday 9/28/2020 and swear Barrett in on Friday Oct.2nd, 2020. Barrett was vetted in 2017 when she was made Judge, there is no reason it should take weeks to vet this person.

Jumper Bones

I agree with everything you said, but leftists are already smearing her. Social media (which is filled with evil folk) are saying awful stuff about her kids already, including the adopted ones. I blame 0bama for this 100 percent: he weaponized the left to be unruly and unprincipled. Change my mind.

Gregg

October 12?

Why are we wasting two precious weeks? Especially if the Dem senators are going to refuse to meet with Judge Amy Coney-Barrett in the “meet and greet”.

Why not Monday October 5, or, better yet, tomorrow, Monday, September 28?

Let the hearings come in the midst of the supposed Trump – btfsplk debate.

Please Sara Palin, please primary Murcowski in 2022.

***

Between the CV-19 fraud with the Blue states and cities continued lockdown, the Dem sponsored Riots, the annointing of both Joe Figurehead, and the extremely unpopular Karma Roundheels, the Mail-in voting fraud, the RBG death and subsequent partisan smearing of this fine and already vetted jurist, and 84% media disapproval, I hope the left has finally overplayed their very weak hand.

I was very disappointed two years ago when the travesty of the Kavanaugh hearings didn’t cost the Dems at least a half dozen more senate seats; we should have kept AZ and NV, and won OH, PA, MT, and WV outright and flipped a couple of other states like NJ, MI, VA, and WI. Then again, we shouldn’t have lost the house and so many governorships either.

If what is bound to happen to ACB in the next month doesn’t create a landslide of epic proportions (and overcome up to 10% voter fraud) and sweep every competitive congressional and state and local race, we may as well pack it in, admit defeat, and just try our best to enjoy what is left of the failed American experiment of self-governance.

The next forty or so days will decide the fate of America as we know it.

Stuartswede

Totally agree, confirm this week. And then take up emergency consideration of all the issues with the mail in fiasco.

Scroll to top