Asked to opine on subjects like Roe v. Wade or the Affordable Care Act, Democrats accused 48-year-old Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett of evasion, for not stating how she’d rule in hypothetical cases before the court. “Justice Ginsburg with her characteristic pithiness used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself t a hearing, no hints, no previews, no forecasts. That has been the practice of nominees before her. But everybody call it’s the “Ginsburg Rule” because she stated it so concisely,” Barrett told Democrat and Republicans senators on the Judiciary committee trying to probe where she stands on controversial topics. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), 87, pressed Barrett on whether she though her mentor Anthony Scalia was correct saying Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. “I can’t express view on cases or pre-commit,” Barrett told Feinstein.
Democrats, of course, view Barrett’s confirmation as illegitimate regardless of her views on controversial topics, including 1973 Rove v. Wade or 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage. Democrat practically accused Barrett of seeking to toss some 130 million Americans out of health care. When checking the facts, only about 12 million Americans are enrolled in Obamacares. Democrats conflate the amount of poor citizens on Medicaid, estimated at 75 million. Where Democrats get the figure of Obamacare ending insurance for 130 million citizens is anyone’s guess. No one in the Trump administration has talked about ending Medicaid. When it comes to Obamacare, Trump has only talked about covering people with preexisting conditions with a better insurance plan in ending Obamacare. Democrats insist as a campaign talking point that Trump wants to end Medicaid.
When it comes to Barrett, Democrats spent their time in front of cameras giving campaign stump speeches, telling voters why they should voter for 77-year-old former Vice President Joe Biden. Democrats hammered Barrett for her views on abortion, also getting no commitments either for-or-against. “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,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Republicans. Democrats know that no matter what Barrett’s personal views, she’s a meticulous, conscientious, superb jurist with compassion for people that disagree with her personal views. Barrett made it clear, as did her backers that spoke at her hearing, that she’s a compassionate human being and won’t do anything that harms anyone disagreeing with her views.
So much of Barrett’s hearing was about political grandstanding, not getting to know Barrett as a brilliant jurist and quality human being, the exact type of person you’d want on the Supreme Court. “This hearing has been more about Obamacare than about you,” Graham said, pointing to the contentious political atmosphere two weeks from the Nov. 3 election. Instead of interviewing Barrett to determine her fitness for a lifetime appointment on the High Court, Democrat spent their time speculating over how Barrett would rule on Obamacare and right-to-life issues. Graham tried to tell Barrett to not take the hazing to heart because of the intense political atmosphere surrounding her nomination. Democrats assumed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would follow his own advice, telling former President Barack Obama in 2016 that he wouldn’t consider his nominee to the Supreme Court.
Democrats tried to pin Barrett down on her views of “systemic racism,” something she refused to speculate about. On another matter, Democrats tried to get Barrett to say whether she believes in man-made climate change, as if that were relevant for a Supreme Court nominee. Barrett called the matter a “very contentious matter of public debate,” not something she feels comfortable talking about. Democrat Vice President nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked Barrett if she believed in man made climate change. Barrett again demurred, leaving Harris unable to get her to crack under cross examination.. When Democrats got done interrogating Barrett, it was clear it had little to do with her credentials and more to do with making political statements, insinuating Barrett would rule to end Roe v. Wade and Obamacare, something based on no facts just pure conjecture.
When you consider that Amy Coney Barrett is a member of a fringe religious group that has some questionable practices, not one senator on the Judiciary, Democrat or Republican, would touch the subject. Even Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who questioned her intensely in 2017 when Barrett won approval for the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, avoided any of Barrett’s fringe religious practices. Her religious sect in South Bend-based People of Praise routinely speaks in tongues, something far from mainstream Roman Catholicism. Democrats criticized Barrett for invoking the “Ginsburg Rule” yet did nothing to help expose her peculiar religious practices. Calling her a Roman Catholic doesn’t jibe with its Holy Spirit emphasis more akin to the charismatic Pentecostal faith, practicing faith healing, prayer language, speaking in tongues, biblical prophecy, ecstatic experience and religious miracles.
