Who’s Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett?

Abortion activists, anti-Catholic bigots, and Obamacare apologists.

by David Catron

Amy Coney Barrett isn’t the only jurist on President Trump’s list of potential successors to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, but she is certainly the most feared by the Left. This became clear in 2017, when Trump nominated her for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During her Senate confirmation hearing, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subjected her to a de facto inquisition, complete with outrageous inquiries concerning her Catholicism. Barrett’s response was eminently judicial: “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

If her heretical views on abortion weren’t enough to disqualify her for the Court in the eyes of the Democrats, her thought crimes with regard to Obamacare certainly would.

Regrettably, Judge Barrett’s remarkable forbearance during that 2017 interrogation probably hasn’t rendered her immune from the kind of character assassination to which any jurist nominated by President Trump to replace Ginsburg will be subjected. Moreover, because Barrett views the Constitution from an originalist perspective, the Democrats, the corporate media, and the usual mélange of social justice warriors will portray her as an extremist who would render the Court so conservative that it will inevitably eradicate “reproductive rights,” impose a “theocratic legal regime,” and repudiate the “fundamental right” to free health care. This strategy will play into Trump’s hand.

First, a clear majority of Americans believe the Senate should begin holding confirmation hearings for Justice Ginsburg’s successor sooner rather than later. A new Marquette University survey completed three days before her death found that, in the event of a 2020 vacancy on the Court, substantial majorities of both parties favor hearings on a replacement nominee this year. According to the poll, 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of Independents, and 63 percent of Democrats say the process for filling the vacancy should move forward with alacrity. Only 32 percent agree with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden that the nomination of Justice Ginsburg’s successor should be delayed.

So the voters who decide the election won’t be convinced by Biden’s argument for putting off the nomination of Ginsburg’s successor and delaying confirmation: “There is no doubt — let me be clear — that the voters should pick the President, and the President should pick the justice for the Senate to consider.” Biden has evidently forgotten that the voters did “pick the president” on November 8, 2016. His term ends on January 20, 2021, by which time he will have long since “picked the justice for the Senate to consider.” As Justice Ginsburg herself put it in 2016, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” Saturday, Trump phrased it thus:

.@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!

As for the nomination hearings, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged to move forward quickly, and exhibits no sign that he will temporize:

Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.… President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

It’s a good bet that Trump will nominate Barrett sometime this week. The Democrats are already going after her through their surrogates in the media in the hope that her “controversial” views will convince the president to cull her from his list. Just how controversial are her views? According to an article published in Notre Dame Magazine, when she was a law professor Barrett led a lecture exploring the consequences of American abortion jurisprudence and “the debate over the U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘institutional capacity’ to resolve divisive questions like the legality of abortion.” In that lecture, she aired several views long ago denounced as heretical by orthodox feminists.

Barrett’s most dangerous heresy was to ask whether the abortion debate might be more efficiently resolved via the democratic process than in the courts. This implies that SCOTUS may have been out of its depth in Roe v. Wade. Such questions have also been declared verboten. Never mind that Barrett also indicated that it was “very unlikely” the court will overturn Roe, such queries have caused her to be declared anathema by abortion activists, the media, and the Democratic Party. Yet a recent Marist survey found that most Americans reject the Court’s reasoning in the 1973 ruling. Combined with the following passage from a Barrett opinion, this has the abortion industry worried:

Stare decisis [precedent] is not a hard-and-fast rule in the Court’s constitutional cases, and the Court has not been afraid to exercise its prerogative to overrule precedent.… If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.

If her heretical views on abortion weren’t enough to disqualify her for the Court in the eyes of the Democrats, her thought crimes with regard to Obamacare certainly would. In 2017, for example, she wrote that Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius was an exercise in creative writing whose sole purpose was to save the misbegotten health-care law. The text of the “Affordable Care Act” justified the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of congressional power pursuant to the Commerce clause, but five of nine justices rejected that claim. Then Chief Justice Roberts invented the absurd saving construction. The rationale for that ruling evaporated when Congress reduced the tax to zero.

Thus, Obamacare has yet another rendezvous with SCOTUS next year. This time, with a Justice Barrett on the Court, the “reform” law is in real danger. On the health-care “reform” law and abortion, Amy Coney Barrett is the Left’s worst nightmare and consequently the perfect SCOTUS nominee at this crucial point in President Trump’s reelection campaign. By nominating her, he will further energize an already enthusiastic Republican base, wreck the Democratic strategy for beating him in November, and leave his bumbling Democratic challenger even more befuddled than ever.

https://spectator.org/whos-afr...f-amy-coney-barrett/

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Ya gotta see Graham for what he is. He's a huge opportunist above all else, hence the grandstanding during the Kavanaugh debacle and now this confirmation presents him with a chance to be a part of history, and he's not going to let it get away.

Is there any political event you can't see the darker side of? Who cares why, if he gets it done?

Dude you're way too smart for that dumb ass comment. Every single person on this board knows Graham, not unlike most politicians, is unreliable at best when it comes to doing the right thing. Our ace in the hole giving us assurance he'll "do the right thing" in this particular instance is his opportunity to go down in history as one of the key people who shifted the court to a conservative majority. If we were talking about a regular federal bench confirmation, I'd have little faith in him to involve himself much in the process. But because this process will put him in front of a camera almost 24/7, will substantially broaden his political significance in Washington, and will give him a place in history, you can bet your ass he's going to take full advantage of this opportunity which all but assures we get what we want out of the process.

And as to me seeing the dark side in almost everything that occurs in Washington, its because virtually none of these people give two shits about you and me on any level. When they start actually doing the jobs they were sent to Washington to do, maybe then I'll look for something other than dark motives.

I see what bigdeal sees. It's not the darker side of things. It's just the majority of politicians have failed Americans for many years now. Even when they do something that benefits Americans, you can be assured they did it to benefit themselves first whether it was a kickback or for reelection.

There is very little selfless service these days in politics.

Whatever help Graham may lend to Trump will be because he's trying to slither his way into another Senate term.

Graham's support here in SC is lukewarm. I'm a staunch conservative and I loathe him. I pray for the day a real conservative beats him in the primary. The last two times he has run, I didn't vote in that race; I may have to vote for him this year to keep Harrison out of office.

Cheesegrits:

Please vote, and vote for him. I can tell you that I have only been happy to vote for one politician in my life, and I'm 54. I'm almost always voting against the other guy in the general.

I vote for who I want in the primary, perhaps I'm happy for that vote, but in the general, it's always a vote against the other ass, not a vote for my ass.

I have come to realize that political power is a team sport, and that perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Until a tier if dedicated, conservative, public servants puts themselves forward, and acquire the funding necessary to be competitive, I fear we will all be in somewhat uncomfortable positions.

However, in this election, holding the Senate is arguably more important than keeping Trump. The dems will almost certainly keep the house this round. I think Trump will win, but it could be uncomfortably close. If he goes down to defeat, we will need every Senator we can find, as the legislative filibuster will likely follow the judicial filibuster into the trashcan of history if the pricks win.

We need to maintain a voice in government, and Ol' Lindsay is critical to that, even if he is a bit of a disappointment.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
President Trump stated he will make the announcement this Saturday of who he has chosen.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...urday-at-white-house

Imagine, if you will, the next Supreme Court Justice voted in before the first debate on 29 Sept.

I think they should limit debate to not more than 10 hours and then call for a vote.

Also no rabbit holes or fishing expeditions. No side shows tolerated. Cut the dems off at the neck.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I think they should limit debate to not more than 10 hours and then call for a vote.

Also no rabbit holes or fishing expeditions. No side shows tolerated. Cut the dems off at the neck.

Too long.

26 Sept (Saturday): Trump makes nomination

27 Sept: Swamp creatures go live on Sunday shows to extol nominee's virtues as a justice or; explains why the nominee is a spawn of the devil and how the orange man is REALLY going to jail now for even giving a nominee's name.

28 Sept, from 0800 to 1200: Senate holds debates with a mandatory 60 minute break from 0930 to 1030.

28 Sept, from 1200 to 1300 (that's 1:00 pm for you heathens ): take the vote.

1400 (2:00 pm): Senate announces new SCOTUS Justice.

29 Sept: Trump/Biden debate where it is explained, repeatedly, Biden cannot fire a SCOTUS Justice because he (Biden) used to be the VP..

Kayleigh is ripping right now and not mincing words. Trump WILL nominate and fill RGB's seat. Love it!

SHOCKER, Romney even said today that Trump should nominate RBGs replacement. Maybe the people of Utah finally got load enough for mittens to hear them.

Listening to Rush today and the big debate is to whether or not to even have the hearings. They are not called for in the constitution so "in theory" they could just bring it to a vote....

Not sure if this makes sense or not......I supose if the candidate just went through a hearing a year or so ago Mitch might just say "fuck it...we're doing it live"

But there seems to be a consensus that they have the votes.

I think the dems will show their ass in a hearing, so I would like to see an abbreviated one. Just long enough for them to sicken independents.

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
SHOCKER, Romney even said today that Trump should nominate RBGs replacement. Maybe the people of Utah finally got load enough for mittens to hear them.

Listening to Rush today and the big debate is to whether or not to even have the hearings. They are not called for in the constitution so "in theory" they could just bring it to a vote....

Not sure if this makes sense or not......I supose if the candidate just went through a hearing a year or so ago Mitch might just say "fuck it...we're doing it live"

But there seems to be a consensus that they have the votes.

Rush is right that saying it will only be a 3 day hearing is great, but what happens when the Dems pull their bull? If you give them 3 days they will keep finding reasons to ask for more. I get both sides, but the goal is to get her on the bench fast and they have the votes. Take the sure win and move on. That's just me. I doubt there are many swing voters left, but if any get upset about that they will quickly forget when they see the liberals in the street flipping out.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Something I just heard on Rush:
Trump is encouraging to have a floor vote without any hearings.
I have heard that the hearing is not required and THAT would be the Ultimate Liberal Head Exploder (ULHE).

I love it!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Something I just heard on Rush:
Trump is encouraging to have a floor vote without any hearings.
I have heard that the hearing is not required and THAT would be the Ultimate Liberal Head Exploder (ULHE).

The goal shouldn't be to make liberal heads explode. It should be to act as responsible Senators in fulfilling a constitutional duty for the good of the country.

In my view, the process should proceed as it always has to at least maintain the appearance of preservation of norms. If. (when?) the Dems pull any stunts to delay, stall or obstruct, Mitch and Lindsey can respond by sending the nominee immediately to a floor vote. Then they can blame it on the Democrats' behavior.

IMO Senator Grassley gave far too much leeway to the Dems after Feinstein produced that late lying letter by CB Ford. I am hoping that Graham will burn their asses if they try to dawdle around with the Judiciary hearings.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
SHOCKER, Romney even said today that Trump should nominate RBGs replacement. Maybe the people of Utah finally got load enough for mittens to hear them.

Listening to Rush today and the big debate is to whether or not to even have the hearings. They are not called for in the constitution so "in theory" they could just bring it to a vote....

Not sure if this makes sense or not......I supose if the candidate just went through a hearing a year or so ago Mitch might just say "fuck it...we're doing it live"

But there seems to be a consensus that they have the votes.

Rush is right that saying it will only be a 3 day hearing is great, but what happens when the Dems pull their bull? If you give them 3 days they will keep finding reasons to ask for more. I get both sides, but the goal is to get her on the bench fast and they have the votes. Take the sure win and move on. That's just me. I doubt there are many swing voters left, but if any get upset about that they will quickly forget when they see the liberals in the street flipping out.

Agreed but the progs showing their asses might be a good thing.....especially attacking a women with 2 adopted Haitian children or is a cuban immigrant...

I can see both sides....but I would prefer to just slam in the vote and see the progs heads explode

I kind of want to give the democrats a full five days to show their asses and hold the vote at the close of business on October 2nd.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Biden's list has been leaked:
...

Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha
Awesome!



.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Biden's list has been leaked:

Dom Irrera

Joe Biden

Bathroom Break

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Dog Face Pony Soldier

Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Social Distancing

HA!! Unbelievably so, but completely accurate.