Recapping Day Two of Judge Barrett’s Hearing

Check out some of the most egregious lines of questioning (and unnecessary monologues) from Democrats

Posted on Oct 14, 2020

Today, Amy Coney Barrett appeared in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to face questions from Senators in her confirmation process. What became abundantly clear from today’s hearing is that Democrats have absolutely nothing on ACB, she remained professional and sharp when recalling prior cases, precedents, and in maintaining that her personal beliefs and convictions have no place in the courtroom. Amy Coney Barrett’s unparalleled qualifications were on full display as Senate Democrats meandered through hundreds of pages of research, struggling to find anything on her; while Judge Barrett responded to all of their inquiries intelligibly without even a notecard to refer to in front of her.

Though Coney Barrett was unshakeable, that didn’t stop Democrats who questioned her ability to rule impartially and attempted to elicit hypothetical rulings from her. She responded with dignity and grace, recalling the precedent set by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own hearing, “No hints, no previews, no forecasts” whose seat she would fill upon her confirmation.

It seems as though every radical left Senator was hoping to trip-up the judge. Check out some of the most egregious lines of questioning (and unnecessary monologues) from Democrats below:

The most popular line of the day was the assertion that Amy Coney Barrett would eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This is an absolutely absurd claim, Democrats should know better. Judge Barrett cannnot prejudge the Obamacare case currently before the Supreme Court. As the late Justice Ginsburg explained in 1993, it would be “injudicious” for a judge to preview for the Senate on how they will rule on cases in the future. Consistent with longstanding judicial ethics rules, Judge Barrett refused to make any commitments on the Obamacare case, besides her commitment to applying the law.

  • Senator Feinstein began this morning by complimenting Amy Coney Barrett on her beautiful family, only to bizarrely follow up with a question about abortion.
  • Senator Feinstein then went on to ask Barrett’s general personal belief on racism and when Barrett responded that all racism was “abhorrent” Feinstein’s response was patronizing, “We would all agree with that”.
  • Because Senator Leahy could not attack ACB’s merit, he resorted to quizzing her on health insurance policy statistics like how many Americans under the age of 26 are insured on their parents’ plans and the cost of insulin.
  • Leahy inappropriately asked Barrett whether or not she agreed that IVF was considered manslaughter. Also, whether or not she felt same sex marriage should be a crime. Barrett accurately maintains that it is not a judge’s role to legislate, but to uphold the law as it is written and therefore she will do so in this case, based on the gay rights precedent in Obgerfell.
  • Durbin mansplained to Judge Barrett for over 20 minutes. Judge Barrett only spoke for 9:23
  • Senator Durbin asserted that Amy Coney Barrett was “unequivocal” in her opposition to the ACA.
    • To Democrats’ dismay, while they may want to perpetuate this lie, Barrett cleared the air: “When I wrote about those decisions, I did critique the statutory interpretations. As I mentioned before, my description was consistent with the way Chief Justice Roberts described. I think your concern is that because I critique the statutory reasoning that I am hostile towards the ACA, that is, because I’m hostile that I would decide a case a particular way. I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA. I’m not hostile to any statute that you pass… you make the policies.”
  • When asking about the voting rights of felons, Senator Durbin created a false construct between Second Amendment rights and voting rights. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly contemplates restrictions on voting rights for felons. Judge Barrett did not question or opine on those restrictions. Instead, she interpreted the Second Amendment, which Hiller held protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
  • Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took viewers on a bizarre 3, 4677-word rants saying that Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing was like a “puppet theater” and that “forces outside” are “pulling strings and pushing sticks.” He then rallied against dark money groups who he accused of being conspirators of Barrett’s confirmation despite his history of accepting dark money and pushing a liberal trial lawyer for a federal judgeship after he and his wife donated $700k to Democrat politician. He gave Barrett a total of zero minutes and zero words to respond.
  • Senator Amy Klobuchar grandstanded for 24:43 minutes remarking she “wouldn’t mind being queen around here” and that one day she thought she would be in Barrett’s seat; only allowing Judge Barrett speak for 8:21. She began her remarks by stating that the Senate should be focused on coronavirus stimulus, not SCOTUS hearings despite blocking stimulus last month.
  • Klobuchar also repeated the fact-checked lie that Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice in October 1864 because “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first.
  • Klobuchar tried to press Judge Barrett on super-precedents and the issue of overturning Roe v. Wade. Barrett said that while Roe v. Wade is not classified as a “super precedent” that would never be overturned, “scholars across the spectrum say it doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled”.
  • Senator Coons interrupted Judge Barrett multiple times and only allowed her to speak for 8:15 while he spoke for over 23 minutes.
  • Senator Coons tried to explain Barrett’s own commentary on Justice Robert’s ruling on the ACA to her in an effort to assert the Democratic narrative that Barrett would campaign to eliminate protections under the ACA. This, of course, is ridiculous and Barrett cannot comment on this case; Barrett responded she was “not chastising” Roberts, but “as an academic, I did express a critique,” adds that she has “no hostility” towards the ACA.
  • Senator Richard Blumenthal said to Barrett in a potential contested election, “Your participation, let me be very blunt, in any cases involving Donald Trump’s election, would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the Court’s legitimacy and to your own credibility. You must recuse yourself.”
  • Senator Blumenthal falsely asserts that Barrett would legislate from the bench though she has indicated exactly the opposite, maintaining that a judge’s role is not to legislate but to enforce the laws as written.
    • ‘They’ve stripped the American people of their say in their process simply to confirm a justice who will strike down in court, legislate from the bench, what they can’t repeal in Congress,’
  • Blumenthal incorrectly quoted Judge Barrett’s opinion from Kanter v. Barr claiming she wrote, “It sounds kind of radical that felons can have firearms.”
  • During Dem Sen Mazie Hirono’s long-winded speech full of demsplaining, she asked Judge Barrett, “since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
  • Senator Hirono tried (ridiculously so) to call out Judge Barrett for using the supposedly outdated term, “sexual preference” when discussing Obergfell.
  • Senator Cory Booker asked Barrett if she condemns white supremacy—a fact that seems rather obvious considering she has two adopted children from Haiti.
  • Booker interrupted Barrett at least nine times in less than 20 minutes
  • Senator Booker grandstanded while attempting to ask Judge Barrett to comment on a range of politically charged issues that he knows she couldn’t answer like the peaceful transfer of power post-election, if a President should have to disclose their loan lenders, if a President has the power to pardon himself and he repeated the Abe Lincoln story which has been proven false.
    • These are not serious questions as Booker continues and claims he thinks it’s disturbing “we’re having this conversation,” a “conversation” broached by Booker pontificating the majority of the time.
  • Kamala Harris demsplained and delivered a campaign speech for 27:11 leaving Barrett just 4:04.
  • Kamala Harris tried to slam Senate Republicans for the Supreme Court confirmation hearing “rather than help those who are suffering through a public health crisis, not of their making.” But Kamala blocked the coronavirus stimulus just weeks ago.
  • Kamala Harris essentially delivered a campaign speech, accusing Barrett of being nominated and if confirmed, there with the intention of legislating from the bench by overturning the ACA. This is patently false. Barrett already and has stated that if confirmed she will once more take the oath to administer the law in an impartial manner without regard for one’s personal feelings.

Tomorrow, we can expect to see more political theater from Dems who will continue questioning with their air of self-righteousness and expect answers to hypotheticals that Barrett cannot respond to in case they were one day to come before a court. At the end of a nearly 12-hour first day of questioning, Amy Coney Barrett stands as an exemplary nominee who is undoubtedly qualified. Despite the best efforts from Democrats  Judge Barrett effectively expressed her commitment to rule of law and equal justice, and outlined her commitment to judicial independence.

When Democrats continued to try to defy precedent, Judge Barrett followed the Ginsberg standard and would not prejudge cases that could potentially come before the court and she made clear that she would continue – as she always has – to put the Constitution and rule of law above any personal interests, views, and beliefs.