President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is handling her confirmation hearings beautifully.
Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee assess the qualifications of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States has been a bewildering experience at times. That is until we realize that this is not so much as a confirmation hearing as it is an election sideshow that the Democrats on the committee are squeezing for all its political worth.
“Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different.”
Democrats—and yes, the mainstream media—had already tested the waters on framing the debate over Judge Barrett’s evangelical Catholic faith, suggesting that she was a character out of the Margaret Atwood novel “A Handmaid’s Tale.” (The novel, made popular by Bruce Miller’s ongoing TV series of the same name, features a paranoid feminist depiction of a dystopian society where women are enslaved and forced into reproductive labor by neo-Neanderthal men.)
In an infamous confrontation from September 2017, when Judge Barrett appeared before the same Senate committee to be grilled on her qualifications to be a federal judge, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) suggested Barrett’s theological disposition was inconsistent with her ability to think like a judge. “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different,” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett. “And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein continued. “And that’s of concern.”
Democrats haven’t been so unseemly or blunt during Judge Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation (likely because they didn’t want to seem dismissive of the deeply held beliefs of the majority of the electorate just weeks before election day). They opted, instead, to suggest there is something highly detestable in the Judge’s pro-life beliefs, and to criticize her willingness to share her expertise and experience with Christian students. Committee member Sen. Josh Hawley rightly assessed criticism of Barrett’s faith as a “religious test,” something that the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits.
And while soft-peddling their religious intolerance, Democrats have also focused the hearings on adjudicating the merits of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), claiming that Judge Barrett’s confirmation will somehow lead to its elimination and leave millions of Americans bereft of any healthcare. Democratic senators treated Americans viewers to a show and tell presentation that involved showing pictures of numerous first-name-only constituents who will soon be fighting for their lives if Judge Barrett is allowed to occupy a Supreme Court seat. (Let’s put aside just how ridiculous this argument is for a second—what is more insane is that Democrats now view Obamacare as the Holy Grail of healthcare, even after more than a year of its progressive wing and even presidential candidates touting Medicare for All as the answer for America. This is a party that is advocating for socialized medicine, not the partial solution offered by the ACA.)
Still, they blustered on about it, and after all the bluster, Judge Barrett addressed the accusations in a succinct statement of her intentions: “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law." she simply stated.
Over the past three days, Judge Barrett has been succinct, exact, and supremely calm—and not just in response to unhinged questioning about the ACA. She continued to contrast the Democrats’ fear-mongering and absurdism with level a performance.
In what might be the defining moment of the confirmation hearing, the Judge was asked by Sen. John Cronyn (R-TX) if she was referring to notes when she responded to the questions and accusations of the senators. The Judge showed the committee and the world an unused notepad that she said only contained the letterhead of the United States Senate.
It was a wonderful statement: an empty notepad from a judge with the intellectual capability to function brilliantly under intense pressure from empty-headed politicians reading speeches and painful questions undoubtedly prepared by their frantic staffers.ACB is well on her way to becoming a conservative folk hero—not just for gracefully facing down inane questions and vacuous lecturing by arrogant Democratic lawmakers, but for doing so while deftly providing comprehensive answers that even the mercenary mainstream media could not use against her.
[caption id="attachment_183754" align="aligncenter" width="1920"]
Amy Coney Barrett.[/caption]
UNABLE TO ASSASSINATE HER CHARACTER, DEMOCRATS GO ALL IN ON ATTACKING THE PROCEEDINGS
Clear, straightforward answers—like the one she used to parry the questions about the ACA—prompted Democrats throughout the hearing to huff and puff that they are being forced to sit through this “sham” of a confirmation process. Unable to disqualify Judge Barrett on the basis of her legal skill or expertise, the Democrats did what they always do: try and disqualify the hearings altogether. As the unusually prickly Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) declared, with most phony outrage that she could muster, “[T]his hearing is not normal. It is a sham. It is a rush to put in a Justice."
The strategy was simple: oscillate between COVID-19-alarmism and the legitimacy of holding hearings and tired rhetorical strategies to paint Judge Barrett as an arcane champion of Antebellum values.
Consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who had the gall to blame Indiana and Mississippi for Chicago’s gun violence, even as he explained to Judge Barrett how an AR-15 rifle differed from the 18th-century muskets carried during the revolution.
“I’m not going to go so far back in history, but I’m going to take you back in history for a moment, and note that when that Second Amendment was written, and you did the analysis of it, we were talking about the likelihood that a person could purchase a muzzle loading musket. We are now talking about virtual military weapons that can kill hundreds of innocent people. It is a much different circumstance. Maybe an originalist pins all their thinking to that musket, but I’ve got to bring it to the 21st century. And the 21st century has people being killed in the streets of Chicago because of the proliferation of deadly firearms.”
And what else can we make of Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), asking Judge Barrett if she was a sexual predator (“Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”), and then lecturing her on how it is “offensive and outdated” to call homosexual orientation as a “preference.” (Interestingly enough, the liberal establishment swiftly responded to Hirono’s absurd contention, with Webster’s Dictionary actually changing its definition of “preference” to suggest that when used to describe sexual orientation it is an “offensive” term. Now that’s service—even for an establishment that is increasingly a knee-jerk enabler for the left’s social agenda.)
Always a breath of fresh air, whether during a news interview or a congressional hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) reassured Judge Barrett that the American people were not fooled by the Democrats’ performance, despite their relentless attacks:
“Now, look, judge, I’m not naive. Understand this thing can turn sour real fast. We all watched the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh. It was a freak show. It looked like the cantina bar scene out of ‘Star Wars.’ And I know, for someone unaccustomed to it, that it hurts to be called a racist. It’s one of the worst things you can call an American.
I know that it hurts to be called white, colonialist, and I know it must hurt for someone of deep Christian faith like yourself to be called a religious bigot and to have it implied that because you are a devout Christian, that you are somehow unfit for public service. Before it’s over with, they may call you Rosemary’s Baby for all I know.
Take comfort in the fact that the American people—some of my colleagues disagree with this statement, they believe in government, I believe in people—the American people are not morons.”
Kennedy’s reference to Judge Kavanaugh here deserves comment. Democrats clearly believe that they went too far with their attempt to publicly execute President Donald Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee. Their half-baked campaign to depict the Justice as first a drunken and carefree college sexual predator, and ultimately, as a serial gang rapist was so threadbare, so devoir of evidence, and so mindlessly concocted, that it not only energized a furious Republican base but alienated most Americans for its caustic fury.
“Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
For, unlike their colorful imagery with regards to Americans without healthcare coverage, the Democratic senators did not resort to imagery of women having back-alley coat-hanger abortions if Judge Barrett turns back the clock on America’s abortion-on-demand culture.
The left has clearly resigned themselves to accept Barrett’s confirmation—despite their tacit opposition during the hearings, they seem to have shown some restrained in unleashing the full throttle character assassination that they and their acolytes are capable of preparing and executing. As the hearing progressed, they almost seemed cheerful at times, offering the occasional polite response to Barrett, a slight bit of encouragement here and there, a sliver of praise. Sen. Feinstein, who had previously dismissed the Judge as a dangerous religious zealot, was delightfully civil towards Barrett on Wednesday morning, actually hoping her family was “proud” of her accomplishments.
It’s almost as if they know this appointment won’t really sabotage their desire for the Judiciary to remain activist, liberal, and presumptive of its right to make policy at the expense of elected officials.
Because they think they are going to win this presidential election, believe they will retain a majority in the House and hope to take the Senate. They are almost smug in this belief. And they plan to pack the Supreme Court with their own judicial lackeys who will overrule whatever work President Trump has achieved in appointing conservative judges over the last four years. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s excruciatingly confused response on the question of court-packing can only confirm what the left-wing of the party clearly intends to enforce if Biden occupies the White House.
[caption id="attachment_183752" align="aligncenter" width="1920"]
Amy Coney Barrett.[/caption]
CONSERVATIVE WOMEN PUNCHING THROUGH A REINFORCED CONCRETE BARRIER
On Wednesday, Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) might have defined what this week has meant for conservatives, especially, as Graham said, for conservative women. “There is an effort by some in the liberal world to marginalize the contribution because you come out on a different side of an issue. Particularly, abortion.”
Graham’s sentiments were both general and specific. Specifically, Over the past three days, and as anticipated, there have been numerous questions about whether Judge Barrett will greedily grab any opportunity to overturn the landmark abortion decision of Roe v. Wade. Generally, how many times have conservatives been told that all women are in favor of abortion? How often do liberal women assume all women are liberal and say “a woman’s right to choose” when they really mean “a woman wants to choose abortion?”
But Judge Barrett is pro-life, and doesn’t apologize for it. As Senator Graham put it:
“This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology and she is going to the court. A seat at the table is waiting on you and it will be a great signal to all young women who share your view of the world that there is a seat at the table for them.”
Wow. That’s what is going on here. Make no mistake, Barrett will be nominated—not only by Republicans, but also, by reluctant but scheming Democrats who are relishing in the opportunity to overturn America’s democracy and the nominal political independence of the Supreme Court with it. In ACB, we have found a Justice that both sides of the spectrum have to concede is qualified, erudite, and knows what judicial impartiality entails.
Feminists love to talk about the “glass ceiling” that women have to break in order to be embraced as equals in the workplace and society. Graham argued on Wednesday that there was a more difficult impediment for conservative women to demolish.
“This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. You’re going to shatter that area. I have never been more proud of the nominee than I am of you. You have been candid to this body about who you are and what you believe. You’ve been reassuring in your disposition and this is history being made, folks.”
ACB has shattered that barrier.
For those not wishing to witness a left-wing revolution in their lifetimes, they can only hope that Barrett’s confirmation will energize enough common sense Americans of all political stripes to re-elect President Trump—not because it has been perfect or has offered a languid political environment, but because it offers the continuity of political sanity in a way that a staggering Joe Biden, surrounded by Green New Deal enthusiasts and socialist activists, can no longer deliver.
