Getting her turn up to the plate at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation of 48-year-old Judge Amy Comey Barrett, 55-year-old Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took her time to deliver a campaign speech to fence-sitting voters on national TV. Kamala rambled about the Affordable Care Act, essentially warning Barrett in dramatic fashion that if she ruled against it millions of struggling Americans would lose their health cares. Going in all-or-none, Kamala misled the public to believe that any upcoming decision would strike down Obamacare in its entirely. Kamal talked a lot while Barrett was very precise not only saying that she wouldn’t commit to ruling one way or another before analyzing the facts in the case but, more importantly, about the severability, namely, as Barrett put it, whether a narrow part of the ACA could be excised, leaving the massive health care legislation intact.
No, for Kamala she had a bigger audience than at any time in her campaign schedule, with the possible exception of the Oct. 7 vice presidential debate with Vice President Mike Pence. Kamala wanted the limelight again because most people, other than the most partisan Democrats, thought Pence won the debate. Kamala tried to get Barrett to admit she knew Trump’s position on Obamacare, asking her a yes-or-no question. “Prior your nomination, were you aware of President Trump’s statements committing to nominate judges who will strike down the Affordable Care Act?” Harris asked Barrett. “As I’m sitting here, I don’t recall seeing those statements, but I . . . let’s see, I don’t recall seeing or hearing those statements . . . “ Barrett said, not giving Harris her yes-or-no answer. Whether she read Trump’s tweets or not, Barrett clearly knew Trump’s position on Obamacare.
Kamala thought she had her “gocha” moment but she really got nothing more from Barrett than, “I don’t recall.” Harris would have been far shrewder had she asked Barrett whether she knew Trump’s position on the ACA, not whether she saw or heard his comments directly. Barrett might have said, “I don’t know,” but it would have been much more difficult to deny the obvious. Above all else, Harris, like other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, heard Barrett say she was following the “Ginsburg Rule,” not saying how she would rule on anything pending or not pending case before the Supreme Court. Kamala gave the Democrat’s second major campaign talking points on national TV that Trump would try to end the ACA. Harris knows that Trump would not repeal Obama without replacing it in a seamless way with a more affordable plan with better benefits, guaranteeing pre-existing conditions.
Kamala shows her flair for the dramatic presenting Barrett’s role a doing the president’s bidding, an insult to any accomplished judge who has mind of her own when she rules from the bench. When it comes to the ACA or Roe v. Wade, Barrett made it clear that she would rule based on the law, legal precedent and a careful analysis of the facts of the case. To 77-year-old former Vice President Joe Biden, he’s hammering Democrats’ two main 2020 talking points. One, Trump has botched the Covid-19 crisis and two, Trump’s trying to end Obamacare. Harris did her campaign duty well but failed to interview with any substance her role in Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Harris did nothing to impeach Barrett’s credibility before what’s expected to be a routine confirmation. Harris should thank former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) for changing the Senate rules, going it a simple majority vote.
Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for changing the Senate rules of judicial confirmations Nov. 21, 2013. Reid managed to get more of Obama’s judges confirmed but set Democrats up for the inevitable, unable to stop the simple majority vote to confirm Barrett. If Harris had used her time more wisely to impeach Barrett’s credibility on her judicial rulings in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals or questioning her involvement in a cult-like religious group she might have persuaded some Republicans in the Judiciary Committee or the Senate to vote against her. Whatever Barrett’s views on the ACA or Roe v. Wade, they’re fairly conventional arguments for Democrats against GOP nominees. Harris was too busy grandstanding with campaign talking points to see the real opportunity to expose Barret’s real weakness, her participation in a quasi-religious cult.
Making the black-or-white case about Obamacare, Harris left a golden opportunity to deal with more substantive issues. Most Judiciary Committee Republicans spent their time doing the same thing. Had Harris asked Barrett if she speaks in tongues, yes-or-no, that would have been the most impeachable thing possible to the otherwise buttoned-up nominee. Barrett showed a high level of judicial knowledge and precision, exposing for all to see that she’s eminently qualified for Associate Supreme Court Justice. But now matter how uncomfortable, not one Democrat on the Judiciary Committee asked some basic questions about Barrett’s religious practices in South Bend-based “People of Praise,” something that might have persuaded more secular-minded Senators to withdraw their support. Harris acts like the tough prosecutor but spent her time grandstanding.
