Ending her hazing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, 48-year-old Judge Amy Coney Barrett completed her abuse at the hands of Democrats disgusted over her nomination to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Associate Supreme Court Justice. Barrett endured the indignity of listening to indulgent campaign speeches, equating her with unequalled cruelty of how’d she’d rule on the Supreme Court if confirmed. Barrett took her chill-pill and let Democrats rant-and-rave, largely calling Republicans on the Judiciary Committee led by 65-year-old Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unconstitutional for holding the hearing. Barrett of course knows that there’s nothing unconstitutional about 74-year-old President Donald Trump nominating her for the High Court, one month before the Nov. 3 presidential election. Yet Democrat senators called the confirmation illegitimate.
Facts and truth don’t matter to Democrats turning Barrett’s confirmation hearing into a political circus. Instead of using their time to get to know Barrett in a personal way, something that might have been disqualifying, Democrat Senators gave campaign stump speeches why to not vote to give Trump four more years. Democrats, led by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), used her time to slam Barrett for opposing the Affordable Care Act [ACA] AKA “Obamacare,” telling a national TV audience that Barrett wants to take away health care in a global pandemic. Harris didn’t care about facts only smearing Trump and Barrett for threatening the ACA, accusing Trump and Barrett of trying to toss 100 million Americans out of their Obamacare health insurance, something with high premiums and lousy benefits. Barrett told Harris she wouldn’t comment on how she’d vote on the ACA.
When 87-year-old ranking Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Barrett whether she supported June 26, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges, leagalizing same-sex marriage. Feinstein wanted to know whether Barrett backed the minority ruling of the late Justice Antonin Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas, both disagreed with the majority opinion. “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett told Feinstein. Barrett’s statement was pounced on by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hi.), calling Barrett’s remarks bigoted. Clearly, Barrett misspoke when she called sexual orientation “sexual preference,” referring to the LBGTQ community as voluntarily choosing sexual orientation. Instead of giving Barrett a chance to explain, they pounced on her political incorrectness.
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination [GLAAD] blasted Barrett for using the obsolete term implying that sexual orientation was a matter of choice. GLAAD president George Takai said Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” was a “dog whistle” for homophobic hate groups. Takai didn’t waste any time slamming Barrett for revealing her true colors as homophobic. “Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term and I don’t think you using it was an accident,” Hirono blasted Barrett. “Sexual orientation is a key par t of people’s lives,” Hirono said, accusing Barrett of holding prejudice against the LBGTQ community. Hirono said the LBGTQ community should be concerned about Barrett upholding Obergefell v. Hodges as settled law, rather seeking an opportunity to reverse same-sex marriage. Barrett apologized for using the term “sexual preference,” saying she misspoke.
Barrett had no problems admitting she misspoke and apologized for referring to LGBTQ as a “sexual preference.” “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. If I did, I greatly apologize for that,” Barrett said. In the “gotcha” politics Barrett certainly didn’t need to apologize for anything more that using an older term to refer to sexual orientation. No one’s that’s been alive since Obergefell v. Hodges believes that most gays, lesbians and transgenders choose their sexual orientation. While there are few exceptions, sexual orientation is determined by a complex of genetic, biological and social factors, having little to do with sexual choice and preference. Generally accepted research in biology, genetics and psychology of sex indicates that sexual orientation is not subject to behavior modification as suggested by anti-LBGTQ groups.
Hirono and Booker seized the chance to slam Barrett on anything, since the former renowned Notre Dame law professor and Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge sailed through her confirmation without a hitch. Barrett handled at times combative questioning with grace under pressure, proving why she’s 100% backed the the American Bar Assn. and every other legal group. Most Democrat senators in the confirmation hearing wasted their time making campaign speeches, rather that trying to get to know Barrett on a more personal level. Voters watching the hearing would have like to know whether or not Barrett speaks in tongues in prayer groups for her religious sect, South Bend-based People of Praise. While there was no mention of a People of Praise school discriminating against gay-and-lesbian applicants, Democrat senators avoided asking Barrett personal questions.
