The name of this blog is Pink’s Politics. The name comes from my high school nick-name “Pink” which was based on my then last name. That is the only significance of the word “pink” here and anyone who attempts to add further or political meaning to it is just plain wrong.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett Hearing, Day 2

Not much new at today’s hearing.  Mostly it was just a more of the same waste of time.

We learned, many times over, that Judge Barrett will follow the law and the Constitution as written, meaning she will interpret and apply but not rewrite or make policy or decide cases based on her personal beliefs.  We learned a bit more about the Constitution and our 3 branches of government – things we should have learned in 8th grade civics.   We learned that Judge Barrett is incredibly knowledgeable about the Constitution and the role of the judiciary and of individual judges.

I think that 30 minutes per senator was far too long.  The Republicans, who seemed to be the only ones asking questions relevant to whether or not Judge Barrett was qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, could complete their questioning in about 15 minutes (the remainder of their time was usually used to correct misstatements from across the aisle).  The Democrats, who sometimes asked not even one question, used their 30 minutes to continue their stump speeches and fear mongering from the day before. 

As a member of the legal profession I am appalled by the Democrats’ attempts to mislead the public about the role of the judiciary and the place of our courts in our judicial system.   As a woman I was insulted by the Democrats’ apparent belief that Judge Barrett is incapable of having independent thoughts and judgement.

Just a few of the more disturbing Democrat presentations.  First, they refused to acknowledge the fact that no judge may comment on cases that are or may come before them.  When Judge Barrett followed the rule and refused to comment, they tried to twist this into something sinister.

Democrats also refused to accept the fact that the judicial branch of our government is not a policy or law-making body.  Perhaps they just don’t understand.  But their repeated attempts to engage Judge Barrett in policy discussions were properly met by her assertion and reassertion that it would be against the canons of judicial behavior for her to so engage.  Again, they tried to turn these very appropriate answers into something sinister, to make her out as some tool of Trump who was just evading and lying about her real agenda.

Another misconception repeatedly put forth by the Democrats is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be replaced with a judge holding Ginsburg’s same more activist judicial philosophy, that it would be inappropriate to replace her with a conservative justice.  Do they not understand that we do not have liberal and conservative seats on the Court?  Judges, because they do not engage in policy, do not merit political labels.

The Democrats revealed that they still do not understand what Court packing is.  They argue that filling an existing vacancy is Court packing.  Using a typical Democrat tactic, they accuse the Republicans of doing that which in reality the Democrats are doing or are threatening.  It is a Democrat proposal to pack the Court with new positions geared to turn the Court into a policy making body that would rubber stamp their policies without any accountability to the people.  Nominating Judge Barret to fill an existing position is not Court packing.

Similarly, the Democrats continue to assert this whole nomination and confirmation process is illegal.  The President and the Senate are doing what they can, indeed what they are required to do when a SCOTUS vacancy occurs.  Yet the Democrats continue to call the process illegitimate.

The Democrats continually tried to twist and muddy Judge Barrett’s words.  At one point Republican Hawley had to read Judge Barrett’s actual words from the Cantor v. Barr opinion to reveal the many distortions that had been put forward by the Democrats in their speeches and questions. 

The Democrats regularly and seemingly intentionally distorted law and Judge Barrett’s words in an attempt to convey a picture of someone who would single handedly destroy healthcare, women’s rights, gun control, and whatever else they might have on their mind. 

The Democrats revealed either an unacceptable lack of knowledge about judicial processes for individuals sitting on the judiciary committee or, what is more likely, they intentionally muddled policy and emotion to create a misleading picture of how the courts function and the actual duties and powers of a sitting justice. 

They also continued their milk carton presentations in which they used pictures of folks from their districts with one or another hardship.  They would use these to attempt to stimulate some emotional response while lecturing Judge Barrett that if she did not understand and rule as they saw fit that she would destroy these people.  And some further implied that such destruction was Judge Barrett's actual goal.

Several Democrats refused to believe that Judge Barrett was capable of thinking for herself rather than just parroting her mentor Justice Scalia.   Others implied or even called her a liar, not because there was any suggestion whatsoever that she was lying, but rather because she was simply not giving the Democrats the answers that they wanted.  They don’t want someone to apply the law as written, they want someone who will do as they say.  And Judge Barrett’s honest and judicially appropriate answers were deflating their parade of the horribles that they were claiming she would bring upon us.  So, they just called her a liar.

Perhaps the worst was Sen. Whitehouse who presented a series of charts to prove “The Scheme” (that was actually the wording of one of his posters) in which he presented an entire conspiracy theory of how Judge Barrett is just some tool of some Republican deep state, deep money.  This 30-minute attack on Judge Barrett was not based on anything relevant to her, but simply a made-up slur against her because he did not like her or her opinions.  And, again, it took a Republican to get things back on track as Sen. Cruz returned us from Whitehouse’s focus on "fancy conspiracy charts" back to “just the facts.”

The Democrats do not like that Donald Trump happens to be President when Justice Ginsburg’s death created a SCOTUS opening.  But he is.  And he nominated a highly qualified judge.  The Democrats don’t like that either.  They can’t attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications, so they seek to distort her role and fear monger emotions to turn public opinion not only against her but against the President and entire Republican party.  They have no case so they turn to their standard tactics of misinformation and hate.

And there will be another day of it tomorrow.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment