Democrats are trying to discredit Amy Coney Barrett this week as she bids to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court. They have been unsuccessful for a number of reasons. Two of the most important ones are that ACB is very well qualified and her demeanor is ideal for a Supreme Court Justice.
Listening to ACB lecture the left-wing senators was bittersweet. On the one hand, she established that she is an expert on constitutional law. On the other hand, a number of Democratic senators showed the nation that they haven’t a clue about what it takes to be a jurist and writing opinions. Yet these senators are deciding ACB’s fate.
Watching ACB was like being in a classroom at law school. She defined legal terms. She informed the uninformed how SCOTUS operates and what rules the members are bound by. It was great for all those who tuned in.
Unfortunately, the Dems showed that, in spite of their membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee, they do not understand the nitty gritty of jurisprudence at the highest level. The Constitution requires that the Senate advise and consent on all nominees to the Supreme Court. If this was not the case, the current group of liberal senators would be dismissed for incompetence with few exceptions.
And why did the Dems go toe to toe with ACB? She is highly experienced, well written, eloquent as a judge and as qualified as any recently confirmed justice. She made her attackers look foolish. She is far more knowledgeable than any opponents who were grilling her.
Everyone knows that if the tables were turned, Democrats would be doing exactly what the Republicans are doing, pushing for their nominee. First of all, if a party nominating a judge to SCOTUS holds the presidency and the Senate, a confirmation hearing should not be contentious unless the opposition uncovers untoward behavior on the part of the nominee.
I should remind Dems, Trump is president, Republicans control the Senate and ACB is lauded by almost everyone who has come into contact with her, including fellow judges, mentors, mentees, students and virtually every professional organization that rates judges. She may not opine on legal issues the way you want her to, but she is always prepared, professional and diligent.
The Dems didn’t give any credence to this moment in history. A woman, who has been highly successful in every aspect of her life was vying for the position of an equally great woman, RCB. It’s pretty obvious that ACB is a superstar mother and person, and her religious beliefs have helped her live a righteous life.
The confirmation process for judges and justices leaves a lot to be do desired. Why does it need to be so confrontational? Why did Dems portray ACB as a person who will destroy America’s value system? This perspective is utter nonsense. The judge is an originalist. Her objective is to opine about the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.
SCOTUS does not create laws. It’s a responsive arm of our government. If a law is deemed to be in tune with the text of the Constitution, justices should support it regardless of their personal feelings. ACB swore never to change laws that have been endorsed by earlier courts unless there is a serious issue. In other words, she will respect precedent (known as stare decisis). This means that ownership of guns and a woman’s right to choose, in the absolute, will be protected in perpetuity.
Many Dems suggested that ACB will be the deciding vote regarding ACA (Obamacare). She said numerous times that SCOTUS was not deciding whether ACA is a good law, only whether the law makes since without the mandate that supports the law (Is the mandate to tax/penalize citizens severable?). If ACA is viable without said mandate, SCOTUS should support the continuation of the law. In this regard, ACB said at least 100 times that SCOTUS is not a group that should be making law. It is supposed to ensure laws are constitutional. SCOTUS justices are not supposed to be activists or policy makers.
Finally, Democrats repeatedly asked ACB about specific issues that my come up if she is confirmed. The justice responded that she could not discuss these situations per the code of conduct (she may have to opine on them in the future). This happens at virtually every SCOTUS confirmation and should end to save time and aggravation for all.
Everything about ACB leads me to believe she will be an outstanding justice. True, the Court will tilt to the right because she will replace a more liberal justice. This is all a function of when judges step down or pass away, who is president and which party controls the Senate. Confirmation of a judge should not be open warfare. The party in power decides who will be considered, so conservative presidents and lawmakers will nominate conservative judges and liberal presidents and lawmakers will nominate liberal judges. The power to change the mix in of the Court ultimately lies with voters who vote for presidents and lawmakers of our country.