Notes from Amy Coney Barrett Hearing Day 1

 It’s like watching two separate events.  The Republicans are talking about the nominee, the role of a justice, and the Constitution.  The Democrats are talking about health care, fear mongering, and giving stump speeches.

If you want to understand the purpose of the hearing, listen to Ted Cruz’s opening remarks LINK.  If you want to understand the Constitutional and historical why, listen to Ben Sasse’s opening remarks LINK.

Following are a few other important notes covered by these and other Republicans, but worth repeating because of the incorrect presentations by Democrats and media, reflecting either an unacceptable misunderstanding of our country and its history or an intentional effort to mislead the public.

Historically there have been 29 SCOTUS openings in an election year.  Of those, 19 were when the President and the Senate were of the same party.  Of those 19, 17 were confirmed.  The other 10 openings occurred when the President and Senate were of differing parties.  Of those 10, only 2 were confirmed.  (Ted Cruz and Mike Crapo reiterated these statistics in their remarks). 

What this tells us is that both the failure of the Garland nomination to move forward and the holding of the Coney Barrett hearings this week are consistent with the mainstream of our nation’s history.  It is not hypocritical.  It is not some anti-Constitutional move. 

Indeed, in both instances the Senate carried out the will of the people.  The people voted in 2016 and 2018 and will vote again by 11/3 of this year.  The terms of those people currently in office do not expire before their possible replacements are elected and confirmed.  (As Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, A president is elected for 4 years, not less)

The current Senate and the President were elected by the people and are expected to carry out their jobs.  That is what they are doing and that is also what they did in 2016 when Garland was appointed. 

The Supreme Court is not a political body.  It is a check on our other two political bodies – the Executive and the Legislative branches.  It is those bodies that are elected by and answer to the people – they carry out the will of the people.  In our system of checks and balances, the Congress legislates, and the Executive enforces those laws. 

The Court, on the other hand, does not answer to the people.  It answers to the Constitution and the Law as it holds the other two branches in check. 

The Court decides actual cases before it; while the decision on a particular case creates precedent, the Court’s decision itself cannot go beyond the specific issues presented by the case before it. 

The court does not legislate or create policy.  That is not its job.  Its job is to interpret and apply existing law, not to create it.  While justices are appointed and confirmed by political bodies, their duties on the Court are apolitical.  It is a distortion of reality when the Democrats try to create a view of the Court as a necessarily political body.

This leads to some thoughts on Court-packing, something threatened by the Democrats as punishment if the Senate goes through with its constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent on the President’s nomination to fill an existing vacancy on the Court.

Court packing is decidedly political and would destroy the Supreme Court as we know and with that our separation of three branches of government that is an essential part of the government that we hold so dear and which is a shining beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

Court packing is when a political party puts additional justices on the bench to ensure that the Court will act as a rubber stamp to the policies put forward by that party.  Essentially the court becomes a super legislator but one with no checks and one that is not responsible or accountable to the people.  Rather, its constituency becomes the political party.

It is also important to understand that filling an open vacancy is not Court packing.  The elected President appoints, the Senate confirms.  The President and Senate were put into their roles by the voters.  The voters knew that when they voted for a Republican they were likely to see judicial appointments of individuals with a more conservative judicial philosophy and that is exactly what we have seen as President Trump has filled a number of vacancies throughout the federal court system. 

Democrats are more likely to appoint individuals with a more liberal judicial philosophy.  That is one of the differences between parties that we the people consider before we vote.  But this vacancy occurred when we had duly elected Republicans in the Executive and Senate.  They are carrying out the will of the people by moving forward with this nomination.

The upcoming election has nothing to do with this nomination.  Whoever is in office after the winners of the November election are installed into their offices will have the right to handle whatever vacancies occur during the full term of their office.  Not before.  Not after.  During.  The Amy Coney Barret nomination along with the vacancy she is nominated to fill occurred during the term of Trump and this Senate.  It is not court packing to fill that vacancy 

It seems that the Democrat strategy for this hearing (today at least) is to talk about health care which has nothing to do with the judge’s qualifications.  They are appealing to emotions and fear.  Why?  Because they know this judge is fully qualified (the American Bar Association ranked her “well qualified” based on her integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament).  But the Democrats seem to think it will be effective to convince the American people that Judge Barrett is out to somehow kill us all. 

Democrats would have you believe that a justice is an activist who can and does change laws and make laws.  They may think that is true, they may want that to be true, they may try to make that true by packing the court, but that is not what a judge properly does.

Let’s be clear about what a judge does.  She decides actual cases and controversies before her based on the law and the constitution.  That’s what a good judge does.  The decision might or might not agree with a judge’s personal views.  That is as it should be under our Constitution.

A judge may not comment on an actual case that might or will appear before her.  The questions to and comments about a judicial nominee should focus on her judicial philosophy, her understanding of the Constitution and a justice’s role in it. 

While the Democrats’ stories may be emotionally compelling, they have nothing to do with the qualifications of Judge Barret to be a justice on the Supreme Court.  They are nothing more than a political stunt.  But, then, that’s all they have – they can’t attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications. 

Sadly, the Democrat speeches sound the same as all their speeches for the past 4 years – fear mongering, distortions, and misstatements of fact.  No substance, no responsiveness to their obligations to the American people and the Constitution.  Just stonewalling against any legitimate actions taken by a President whom they despise.