Posted on 09/27/2020 4:57:21 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
“I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, and the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine, too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold…I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.” – Judge Amy Coney Barrett yesterday.
That 100 word statement describes in a nutshell why Democrats and their America-hating toadies in the corrupt news media hate Judge Amy Coney Barrett and will do anything they can come up with to smear and slander her. The Constitution, and a strict interpretation of its actual words, has been anathema to the Democrat Party since Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912. It is in fact a bane on that Party’s very existence.
With Senate Democrats lining up to announce they will not only oppose her nomination, but that they will also refuse to even meet with her when she makes the traditional courtesy visits to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and other key senators, Lindsey Graham announced on Saturday that his committee hearings on Judge Barrett’s nomination will start on October 12. If Graham is saying that publicly, then that means he has the sign-off from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to proceed with those hearings.
My only question is, why? Why are Senate Republicans agreeing to hold committee hearings at all on a nomination whose ultimate outcome is a fait accompli? No Democrat will support Barrett’s confirmation. Joe Manchin will make noises about doing that, but he will ultimately allow Chuck Schumer to bully him one more time into marching along with the rest of the Democrat Senate fascists, because that is what Joe Manchin does.
Sunday News Roundup: Antifa Goes to Sturgis and Portland Cops Suddenly Fight Back VDO.AI Meanwhile, with Lisa Murkowski now coming around in the face of a primary threat from Sara Palin, only one Republican Senator, Susan Collins (of course), is even implying she might not support Barrett’s confirmation before Election Day. Mitt Romney may ultimately fink out and cast his wormy lot with the Democrats just as he did in their impeachment scam, but that won’t be enough.
Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday. That would be the logical thing to do in this case since the Court convenes for its 2020-21 session on the first Monday in October, just 8 days from now. The goal of the U.S. Senate should always be that it acts as expeditiously as possible to ensure the Court always has its full compliment of 9 justices.
But what about the vetting process? Good lord, Judge Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just three years ago, and was thoroughly vetted at that time. She even received the confirmation votes of 3 Democrats – along with every Senate Republican, including Collins and Murkowski (Romney was not in the Senate in 2017) – for that high profile appointment. There is literally no valid reason at all for the Judiciary Committee to go through that process all over again.
The Democrats desperately want these hearings for the sole reason that they would then be able to create the same sort of character assassination circus that they did with Brett Kavanaugh and, to a slightly lesser extent, Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first two nominees. McConnell has exactly zero obligation or duty to provide the Democrats that platform.
Many Republicans argue that the creation of another confirmation hearing slander circus would be bad for the Democrats politically, and that’s probably true. But this is a woman’s life we are talking about here. Politics should not be the main consideration. Judge Barrett is a wife and mother of 7 children, children who should not be subjected to the kind of abuse and smearing the Democrats and their activists will throw at them and their mother in the lead-up to and conduct of such hearings.
Judge Barrett is an extremely well-qualified jurist who has led an exemplary American life. There are no valid arguments to make otherwise. She also has already very recently been vetted and confirmed to a seat on a U.S. Appellate Court by the U.S. Senate.
The Judiciary Committee hearing should be cancelled. Judge Barrett should be confirmed this week and seated on the Court when it convenes on the First Monday in October.
That is all.
Month long free campaign ads for base.
I think the expectation is that the Democrats will overreach and say things that will offend a lot of voters, including voters on the fence. Catholics and suburban mothers may be key groups,
The Republicans know they have the votes and they have full control over events. The final vote will probably occur in the last days of October and the swearing in will likely be Monday, Nov 2 - the day before the election.
This effectively keeps Biden/Kamala on ice for the duration of the campaign.
CONFIRM NOW! Don’t put her though this torture. She is going to be Borked.
cSrew this. CONFORM NOW Take the win and move on. If you could ask Gen Lee what delaying then losing Big Round top on day one of the battle of Gettysburg cost him...
Or let’s not play the double jeopardy game. If an area was addressed in 2017, it’s done with...anything new since then could be addressed. One day of questioning and then the full vote. No delays.
Dem strategy will be to run out the clock and get the confirmation tied up till after the election. Then if Dems win the Senate, then she may not get approved before January.
GOP has 2 big reasons to get this done that should win the day. Senators up for election lose if they don’t get this done and for the sake of the country we need 9 judges in place before the Election was new up in their lap like Bush v Gore did. Can’t have a 4-4 tie and with Roberts ring a waffle GOP loses big.
Many Republicans argue that the creation of another confirmation hearing slander circus would be bad for the Democrats politically, and that’s probably true. But this is a woman’s life we are talking about here. Politics should not be the main consideration. Judge Barrett is a wife and mother of 7 children, children who should not be subjected to the kind of abuse and smearing the Democrats and their activists will throw at them and their mother in the lead-up to and conduct of such hearings.
Granted that there is no actual reason to hold hearings in this matter, Chairman Graham has one other option which he should seriously consider and which Judge Barrett herself could raise as an issue. The hearings can only be a “circus” if televised.Chairman Graham could simply pull the plug on the TV cameras. Judge Barrett could point out a point of law: While it is true that the Constitution does not permit any punishment for slander by a Senator speaking within the Congress, if the hearings are televised any such slander would be heard outside the Congress - televising of slander, even if committed within Congress, becomes libel when the general public hears it.
I do not suggest that Judge Barrett could threaten to sue a senator - but I do suggest that she could threaten to sue the television networks who disseminate slander. And she wouldn’t have to sue Fox if she sued the others.
Now, such a suit would challenge the Warren Court’s unanimous 1964 New York Times Co v. Sullivan decision - but then, Thomas (and the late Scalia) are on record as believing that Sullivan is bad law. Sullivan stands or falls on the assertion of Justice Brennan et. al. that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”. . . but the claim that 1A affects libel law was novel in 1964 for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights was not an offensive but a politically defensive set of actions. It did not intend to change any rights but only to assure America that the Constitution did not change any rights.Thus, pornography law survived the ratification of 1A - and until the Warren Court, libel law survived unchanged, too.
Trump got his other two picks through. I trust him on this one. He knows what he’s doing and he has a proven record.
Linda Graham wants her moment in the sun. She will not cancel it.
I think it’s criminal to subject this woman to a Democratic Inquisition. Shameful.
I’m not sure what Linda Graham was thinking other than his own publicity. Like they say, “Politics is show business for the ugly.”
Plus 1! Spot on.
True - but the Democrats’ behavior threatens not only to throw the result of the presidential election up in the air, but to possibly do the same to the House (and Senate, as well). Suppose the House cannot organize itself due to too much controversy over too many Representatives? Ditto the Senate. Simultaneous civil unrest in D.C. by Democrats would constitute, de facto, an outright insurrection.
Bingo! Not only that; he's in a tough reelection fight in his home state. He needs the free publicity because his dem opponent has far more money than he does.Wealthy leftists have been donating in the hopes of getting Graham out.
As they say in Hollyweird; all publicity is good publicity if it gets your name and face in the news.
But that is a political consideration. It is not in the public interest that anyone be libeled - and televising slander is never in the public interest. That is libel and, pace the New York times v. Sullivan decision, properly is actionable by its victim.
Why the Senate Should Confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett This Week”
We know the rats would get this done by the end of the week. We know it is stupid to wait leaving no room for rat shenanigan’s. We also know no matter how much we bitch Linda and Mitch not going to budge. We need the 5-4 right now to rule on the BS the rats in the swing states are pulling. We will be lucky if these fools get this done by election day.
“Linda Graham wants her moment in the sun. She will not cancel it.”
Right on, the hearings are nothing more than Linda putting on a show for her voters, a desperate attempt to make up for all the lies she told and her failure to do anything during the last three years.
I only hope that she doesn’t blow it.
Judge Pirro last night asked Linda what she would do if the dems get out of hand and as usual Linda didn’t answer directly, she spewed out her usual nonsense and then said “ The American people won’t stand for it”. So in other words Linda won’t do a thing.
There is a very good chance that Linda will blow it.
Why start hearings Oct 12th? Why not Oct 5th?
Isnt Amy a public figure?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.