Here is the money shot of the entire hearing so far:
KLOBUCHAR: Is Roe a super-precedent?
BARRETT: How would you define “super-precedent”?
KLOBUCHAR: I actually might have thought someday I’d be sitting in that chair. I’m not. I’m up here. So I’m asking you.
BARRETT: Okay, well, people use super-precedent differently.
KLOBUCHAR: Okay.
BARRETT: The way that it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. But descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling. I don’t —
KLOBUCHAR: So here’s what’s interesting to me: You said that Brown [v. Board of Education] is ... is a super-precedent. That’s something the Supreme Court has not even said, but you have said that. So if you say that, why won’t you say that about Roe v. Wade — a case that the court’s controlling opinion, in that Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, has described as a super-precedent? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
BARRETT: Well, senator, I can just give you the same answer that I just did. I’m using a term in that article that is from the scholarly literature. It’s actually one that was developed by scholars who are, you know, certainly not conservative scholars — who take a more progressive approach to the Constitution. And again, you know, as Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled; it just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. the Board that no one questions anymore.
As Bongino described it, it was brilliant. Indicates Barrett holds a 40 IQ points or greater advantage over her questioners in general, and Klobuchar in particular.
Klobuchar was trying to bait her into saying something about abortion, and she used the term "super precedent", and...Barrett asked her to define her terms, something Conservatives too often fail to do with Leftists.
Once Barrett made Klobuchar agree to the definition of "Super Precedent" by defining it and getting the dimwit Klobuchar to commit to accept the same definition, it was like baiting a trap and just waiting for Klobuchar to innocently walk right into it.
Klobuchar did just that.
Klobuchar tried to take that definition and force Barrett to admit that, like Brown [v. Board of Education], Roe v. Wade was a "Super Precedent" and couldn't be touched.
Barrett then grabbed the logical club out of Klobuchar's hands (that she had intended to bludgeon Barrett with) and clocked Klobuchar over the head with it by stating that, if it were actually a "Super Precedent" they wouldn't be talking about it.
Heh, the simple fact that they were talking about it proved beyond all question that...it was NOT a "Super Precedent" case and could be reviewed.
She just proved that it was eligible to be overturned. And she never even had to come out and say it. Hahaha...no video for Leftist commercials with her saying "I will consider overturning Roe v. Wade."
She just took that wet, stinking leftist fish, and dropped it on the table in front of her. A "Fish Drop" moment if there ever was one.
Now...I'll be the first to say, I don't know if she baited that trap, or if she simply let the flow of the discussion take it to that point, but...either way...
THAT was impressive.
And here are the doodlings on her notepad...because she sure didn't have a need to write notes:
