The Photos That Prove They Don’t Care

Today, as the Senate Judiciary Committee convened to vote to advance Judge Barrett’s nomination to the full Senate, the Democrat members of the Committee did not show up.  Instead, they placed photos in their empty chairs.

The photos were of people they had previously used as campaign props during their (laughable) questioning of Judge Barrett.    These were the photos that they used as back drops while they called Judge Barrett a liar and a threat.  These were the photos to which they pointed when they claimed that Judge Barrett, if confirmed, would somehow and seemingly singlehandedly not only deny them and all of us any health care, but also return us to some sort of Dark Ages. 

These same photos were behind the Democrats when they refused to use their time during the Barrett questioning to actually ask Judge Barrett questions relevant to her qualifications to become a Supreme Court Justice.  These were the photos that they pointed to as they recited campaign rhetoric about healthcare and abortion and civil rights.  These were the photos that the Democrats used to try to instill fear into the American people.

While claiming that they cared about the people in the photos, the Democrats pointed to them as part of their theater of fear mongering.  Do the Democrats really care about these people?  I don’t know.  What I do know is that they tend to use individual stories to prop up their own sweeping and misleading rhetoric.

What I do know is that despite the pretty and perhaps emotion invoking photos and personal stories behind them, the Democrats have contempt for the American people, for the Constitution of the United States of America, and for our form of government.

Today, the Democrat Senators had a job for which the American people elected them and for which we the taxpayers pay them.  That was to show up at the Committee meeting of the Judiciary when they are members of that Committee.  

Contrary to what they would have the American people believe, this meeting and indeed this entire nomination process is not a sham.  It is a constitutionally mandated part of our government.   The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is serious business that these Senators were elected to conduct.  Let them grandstand on their own time.

The Democrats can present all the political theater that they want.  The bottom line is that they are shirking their duties.  (And if you want to understand the facts about why this nomination is not a sham and is perfectly in line with our history, our Constitution, and the will of the people, you can read my previous 3 blog posts about the hearings)

The Democrat stunts during this nomination process present one example of the Democrat contempt for the American people and the rule of law, but, while this process displays in high definition the Democrats’ true colors, it is not by any means the only example.

If you have been reading this blog for the past three and three-fourth years you are aware of example after example of the Democrats' refusal to accept the will of the people when it is not what they want.  It began with their refusal to accept Donald Trump as the legitimate President of the United States.  That has continued throughout his presidency as they try one after another means of removing him from office and hence overturning the will of the people. 

The Democrats have shown us that they do not care about the will of the people and will not think twice about thwarting it if it stands in the way of their power.  They do not respect the institutions and offices of our government.  They are willing to ignore, indeed shred, the Constitution if that is what it takes.  They are also willing to use people and their photos as props if that is what it takes.

The Democrats have shown us that they believe that those with whom they disagree, those who do not fit their preconceived mold for women or Blacks or any of their many identity groups as well as those who hold value systems or beliefs that they disdain such as conservatives (and especially conservative people of color and women)  do not deserve our Constitutional freedoms such as speech or worship.  To Democrats it is acceptable to silence and hate those with diverse views.

If you have read my blog for the past few years you have read about various forms of governments including socialism and its failures.  You have read about how socialist programs, programs that sound laudable and may actually be intended to help one or another group, how those programs actually harm the individual by creating a dependent subclass.  Such subclasses are used by those in power as a means of retaining their own power.

You have read about how the progressive programs of the Left will actually deny us the freedoms that we hold dear.  They will severely weaken if not remove our right to think for ourselves and each determine our own destiny.  They show a disregard for the individual humanity of each of us.

The Democrats’ rhetoric about Judge Barrett and her nomination process is based on lies, misinformation, and mistruths.  This should not surprise us since that pretty much describes everything that comes from the Democrats these days. 

The Democrats build narratives on facts that are at best incomplete and more likely do not even exist.  They along with their media handmaidens suppress information and facts that are harmful to their narrative.  The list is long, beginning with the Russian hoax and its falsified FISA warrents and continuing to the present with the suppression of credible facts about Joe Biden’s use of his vice presidency for personal and family gain.  (NPR justifies not reporting the story as “not wanting to waste viewer’s time”; I still believe that viewers can and should decide for themselves what is a waste of their time.)

Politicians of course always try to make a case for their policies.  But that case should not be based on mistruth.  Yet, this approach of denying the truth about our system of government is on full display by the Democrats in the Barrett hearings. 

I suspect that the Democrats who did not show up today actually do know what their responsibilities are, that they do know that the Supreme Court is not a political branch (at least not unless/until they succeed in making it so by their Court-packing scheme). 

I suspect that the Democrats know that our form of government requires, and our freedoms depend upon a judiciary that is not political.  Justice requires the ability to put one’s personal agenda aside.  That is what the Democrat Senators should do when considering a new Justice.  Yet, their goal seems to not be justice, but rather a political ally dressed in the black robe.

The empty seats this morning, the photos intended to pull on our heartstrings, the lies about Judge Barrett and the nomination processes, these all show a callous contempt and disrespect on the part of the Democrats for the American people.  Those of us who are not bamboozled by their rhetoric need to put an end to it the one way that we still can – by casting our vote on November 3.

This is an important election.  The status of our democracy and with it our individual freedoms are on the ballot.  See this morning’s photos for what they really are – a picture of the Democrat disdain for America and Americans.

***

As I have said before, I am not a member of any political party and have voted for both Republican and Democrat candidates in the past.  But this year I believe that America’s future is fully dependent on our vote and because I believe in our Constitution and our Democratic Republic, because I value our democracy and how it allows every individual to determine his or her own beliefs and values and allows each of us to speak freely those beliefs while requiring tolerance of those who hold different views, because I believe that Democrat policies will truly weaken if not destroy many of the crucial foundations of our society, for those reasons and more I am voting Republican this year, and I urge everyone who holds America dear to do the same.

 

 

Judge Barrett Hearing, Days 3 & 4

Days 3 and 4 of these hearings followed in the same mode as the previous days. 

Judge Barrett continued to display an exceptional knowledge of the law and also continued to follow both precedent and ethical requirements that she not comment on  policy or on any case or hypothetical that might come before her, either in her current position on the 7^th Circuit or if confirmed to SCOTUS.

The Democrats continued to ignore the purpose of the hearing – to determine Judge Barrett’s qualifications for justice of SCOTUS – and instead continued to present policy, fear mongering, and campaign rhetoric.  This was true for both the questioning that occurred on Day 3 and the witness presentations on Day 4. 

Day 4 began with political maneuvering by Democrats in an attempt to stop or stall the nomination proceedings.  This failed, and the committee vote is scheduled for 6 days forward (as is standard for all such nominations).  This time allows the Senators time to review all documents put into evidence (or, in the case of Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing, to seek or try to manufacture damning evidence; hopefully they will not repeat this here).

Day 4 also included presentations from outside witnesses.  First came the American Bar Association which gave Judge Barrett the highest rating possible.  This followed review of her writings, both academic and judicial on the 7^th Circuit as well as interviews with members of the legal profession and others who have some relevant information about this nomination. 

The ABA found Judge Barrett’s integrity impeccable.  I note this because of the many implications from Democrats that she is either a liar or some sinister plant by the President or by right-wing organizations.

Following the ABA's presentation, each side provided 4 witnesses  These followed the same mold as the actual senators' questioning on Days 2 and 3.  The Republicans presented legal professionals including a retired judge, a law professor, one of Judge Barrett's former law clerks, and a clerk to the Supreme Court who related her own interactions with Judge Barrett while a student a Notre Dame.  All spoke to Judge Barrett’s qualifications as a justice.  The former student, a blind woman, also spoke to Judge Barrett’s compassion.

The Democrats, in typical form, presented witnesses who did not speak to judicial qualifications but instead furthered the fear mongering of what would  allegedly happen if Judge Barrett is confirmed.  Their witnesses were activists – for expansion of Medicare, for civil rights, for abortion rights and for Obamacare.  Their consistent message was that Judge Barrett is somehow a threat to “the vulnerable.”

I would note that really no one, even a judge himself or herself, can predict how they will rule in a particular case.  Judges, at least good ones, are not partisans or activists when they put on the black robe.  Rather, they will consider the specific facts of the case before them, apply the law as it exists at the time of the dispute, and through a solid legal reasoning process will arrive at their conclusion.  Because cases that come before courts, and especially before the Supreme Court, are highly contested and policy charged, there is often more than one reasonable position, and justices with differing judicial philosophies will often arrive at the same conclusion in a particular case.

What offends me is not that the Democrats have their policy views or that they prefer an activist judiciary.  It is that they attempt to distort a hearing on the nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America into arguments about the policy and issues that the legislative body should be addressing.  The members of this committee know full well that they should be looking at the prospective judge’s judicial qualifications, not whether or not she holds their policy views.

Judge Barrett’s qualifications are impeccable.  Unattackable.  So, the Democrats are trying to present to the American people a fully false picture of her and of what a judge does.  They are campaigning. And as a taxpayer and a voter and a citizen, I am offended by this.

A few things require particular note.  First is the term “originalism” as it refers to a judicial philosophy.  Judicial philosophies range from more activist to more restrained.  These terms - various judicial philosophies - do not necessarily correspond to political philosophies such as liberal or conservative.

The Democrats would have the people believe that originalism is some sort of draconian horror.  Originalism like textualism simply means giving primary weight to the text and structure of a document – Constitution or statute; the idea is that the Constitution means no more or less than what it meant to those who originally wrote and ratified it.  With that context in mind, it will be interpreted and applied to a current situation.  

"Originalism" is not some hyperliteralism which will not recognize the evolution of society along with judicial precedent.   Despite what the Democrats might want you to believe, the term “originalism” does not signify an intent to return the country to the 18^th or 19^th or even the 20^th century.

Like the Constitution, enacted laws are general – they do not refer to a specific case but to general rules that govern our behavior.  They represent the will of the people.  A judge deals with a specific case in controversy.  That is, in simple terms, there are particular people on each side of dispute.  When the dispute comes before the judge, the judge must decide that case, and can only decide that case.  The judge does not make general policy but applies the existing law to the specific facts of the case and resolves the dispute between the existing and specific parties.

An easy example:  If a statute says it is a crime to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated, that addresses a general circumstance.   The prohibition, written by the legislature, reflects the will of the people who voted for the legislators who enacted the law.  Now assume that one day Mr. X, who is undisputedly intoxicated, is sitting in his green Subaru on the side of the freeway with his engine running.  That is a specific situation which might fall under the general law. 

If the police cite Mr. X he might come to court and argue that he was not "driving" because he was stopped on the side of the road.  The statute does not define driving, so the judge faced with this dispute will have to read the statute and determine if sitting on a roadway with a car running but not moving constitutes driving under the statute. That part of the general rule is ambiguous in this situation.  The judge must decide this to decide Mr. X’s case.  The judge however cannot rewrite the statute, cannot say  that driving intoxicated should not be illegal, or that Subaru drivers should be exempt, or that the statute also includes bicycles and Segways.    

The judge will look at the statute and its intent and apply it to this specific fact situation.  If the judge decides that these specific facts constitute driving then that will become precedent for future specific cases.  When Ms. Y is intoxicated and stopped on the side of a busy roadway in her red Mustang with the engine running, this precedent will now guide us to the conclusion that she was driving for purposes of the statute.  If the legislature does not like this decision, if they think an unmoving but running car should not be seen as driving under this statute, it is they who can amend the statute.

Judges look at the law relevant to a particular situation and apply that law to the specific facts of a specific case.  Obviously Supreme Court cases involve far more complex issues and policy concerns than the simple example above.  But the principle is the same.  A judge takes the existing law which is general in its language and applies it to specific facts involved in a specific controversy between specific people.  

Often the general language of a statute or of the Constitution must be interpreted to determine if or how a provision applies to the specific case. Different judicial philosophies will determine how a judge goes about this process. But there is a difference between interpretation and actually creating new law.  Judges should not make policy or create new law if for no other reason than that they, unlike the other two branches of government, are not elected and therefore not accountable to the people.

The Democrats also keep returning to their old saw of how this hearing is illegitimate, a sham, and somehow betraying the will of the people.  It is not.  This is just another of their histrionic scare tactics.  One more time let me explain the obvious.

In 2016 the people elected a President whose term of office began in January of 2017 and runs until January of 2021.  In 2018 (notably after the Kavanaugh hearings and his confirmation to SCOTUS) the people in the midterm elections created the current makeup of the Senate.  The current Senate is in place until January of 2021.  The current SCOTUS vacancy occurred in 2020, within these terms of office.  It is these people who are responsible to react to the vacancy and that is what they are doing. 

The Garland vacancy occurred within different circumstances but is entirely consistent with what is happening now and what has happened throughout history. The Garland nomination occurred when the Senate majority was Republican but the President was a Democrat.  Responding to their electorate, that Senate did not move forward with a nomination made by the executive of the opposing party. 

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.  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 and with the concept of the elected officials responding to the will of those who elected them. 

The Democrats don’t want Judge Barrett on the court.  That does not mean that they can cut short the legitimate term of the President and of the currently serving senators. Perhaps the people will elect Democrats for the next term (which does not begin until January 2021).  If they are elected, I suspect they will not want their terms cut short.

Elections have consequences.  This is so even if the Democrats would prefer they didn’t and even though they seem to spend most of their time trying to overturn the will of the people.

It is clear the Democrats do not like Judge Barrett’s personal beliefs,   But beyond that I find especially demeaning their repeated implications that she cannot possibly have a mind of her own but rather will simply do as told.  I don’t know if this is their view of conservatives, or of women, or of both, but whatever it is, it is certainly offensive.

Judge Barrett is imminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.  There is truly no question on that. A review of her opinions and judgements while serving on the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals reveals that she is actually quite mainstream while proving to be a deep and thorough researcher and thinker and a clear and thorough writer.  She is not the crazy person out to single handedly return us to the Dark Ages that the Democrats would have us believe she is.

The Democrats want to attach Judge Barrett’s personal conservative views with which they disagree to how she would rule as a judge. As I noted above, I don’t think anyone can begin to guess how a judge would rule.  Both originalist/textualist and more liberal justices with other judicial philosophies often come to the same conclusion in a case. But the Democrats seem to be interviewing for an activist, not a justice.

Unlike the Democrats, I don’t really care about Judge Barrett’s personal life.  What little I know of it I respect; I also suspect that while she and I would have some things in common there are also many things about which we would disagree.  But she is not nominated to be my friend just as she is not nominated to be a policy advocate. 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated to be a Justice.  While I fully anticipate that she will reach some conclusions and write some opinions with which I disagree, I also expect that her legal reasoning behind her judgments will be impeccable.  And it is just that which we all should ask for and expect from a justice.

 

 

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 8^th 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.

 

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.