Franklin’s Rule: How The Barrett Hearing Left The Democrats Holding An Empty Sack

Below is my column in the Hill on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the oddly disconnected questions during her confirmation hearing.  While I have written about the revealing moments of the hearing, the Democrats clearly elected not to focus on the nominee but the election. When they did attack the nominee, they fired wildly and missed completely in three areas.

Here is the column:

Benjamin Franklin once said, “it is hard for an empty sack to stand upright.” It took almost 300 years, but Franklin’s observation finally has been proven demonstrably true. The three-day Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for federal appellate judge and Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett can best be described as an empty-sack confirmation that simply would not stand upright.

From the outset, committee Democrats were dealing with a highly qualified nominee who has the intellect, the temperament and the background to be an exceptional justice. And that was the problem.

Democrats decided to use the hearing as a springboard for the coming election. They never intended to put anything in the sack against Barrett. Yet, to frame this effort, they advanced a number of false premises that collapsed on their own weight:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is about to be killed

Barrett was surrounded in the hearing room by photos of ill individuals who could perish without national health care. It made Barrett look like some judicial serial-killer.  However, these were not her victims. Indeed, the entire premise was false.

Senate Democrats were suggesting that the pending case of California v. Texas was just one vote shy of striking down the ACA. It left many of us watching in disbelief. While a district court struck down the whole act, an appellate court wanted to send it back to consider the elements of “severability.” The vast majority of experts believe that the striking down of one provision — the individual mandate provision — should not result in the loss of the entire act. More importantly, a clear majority of the Supreme Court appears to believe that. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both are expected to vote to uphold the rest of the act. Indeed, a Justice Barrett could well vote with them.

What is clear is that it is extremely unlikely that the ACA is teetering on destruction. Numerically, the current head-counting means that it is as likely that a unanimous court would support severability as a five justice majority would strike down the whole act.

None of that mattered, however, as Democratic committee members spun a conspiracy theory that Barrett’s nomination was all about supplying that needed fifth vote just before a Nov. 10 court hearing on the case. It was an empty sack that just laid there as Barrett explained this was a narrow question of severability and she has never ruled on the issue of severability.

Abortions are about to become illegal in America

Barrett is undeniably pro-life. She’s said so over and over. She also said she does not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent.” As such, the case is not inviolate and can be revisited.

However, even if Barrett were to supply the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe — which remains unlikely — it would not make abortion illegal. Indeed, former Vice President Joe Biden himself has explained why. He said recently that if Barrett helped overturn Roe, his “only response [would be] … [to] pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”

Put aside for the moment that forcing states to accept abortion, if it is no longer a constitutional right, could be challenging under the 10th Amendment. The broader point is still valid: Such a decision would simply return the question to the states. And the majority of states likely would continue to guarantee the right to abortion as a legislative matter. In other words, Roe might end — but it would not end the right to choose, as a matter of state law.

Ironically, Barrett is a huge defender of states’ rights and would likely defend pro-choice states in asserting such federalism powers.

Barrett is unethical because she will not recuse herself

One of the weakest arguments is that Barrett cannot be confirmed unless she agrees to recuse herself from the ACA case or future election controversies. The reason is that Democrats say there is an appearance that President Trump really wants her on the court to vote on such issues. However, that logic would seem to require not just the recusal of the other two Trump-nominated justices — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — but a host of other justices who were confirmed a year before elections in prior administrations.

There is no reason for Barrett to recuse herself under the court’s governing standards. She has no personal or financial interests in these challenges and did not work on any of the underlying litigation, including election litigation that has not occurred yet. Nonetheless, Barrett pledged to consider recusal if anyone raises the appearance of a conflict and to apply the governing standard of 28 U.S. Code § 455. That was not enough for Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who responded to her pledge by saying “the fact that you wouldn’t even bring forth the recusal process says to me that voters may decide there is an appearance of conflict.” That was as confusing legally as it was grammatically for most of us.

We ended this hearing where we began it, with nothing from Senate Democrats relevant to the actual nomination. Instead, they gave us probing questions about Barrett’s views on global warning and how she felt about putting immigrant children in cages. No serious answers were expected by the Democrats, and no answers given.

Indeed, for much of the hearing, Barrett seemed as relevant to senators as the ficus plant in the corner of the hearing room. Speeches were made. Pictures were paraded. Voters were beckoned. Even the Houston Astros were maligned. But nobody could get that empty sack to sit upright.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

77 thoughts on “Franklin’s Rule: How The Barrett Hearing Left The Democrats Holding An Empty Sack”

  1. The founders never intended a one man one vote democracy or whatever.How true. They made sure all CITIZENS had the vote at all levels which included voting for the President and Vice President at the Republic level by voting for Electors. No vote was denied as they only included Citizens but left away for the term Citizens to be changed or expanded.

    Barret is more ethical than anyone in a party that claims to have taken an oath to uphold The Constitution but as been pointed out by no less than the current leader of Russia act just like the communist party of the USSR. She is more ethical because she refuses to bow down to that foreign ideology. The lack of ethics is not on the other foot as the other party has both feet clearly not on the body that’s marked Constitutionalism.

    The whole thing did wonders for the Constitutional Independent Citizens whose vote has still to be counted into any of the polls. Right now the actual difference is one fourth to one third for the socialist regressives and the rest for the Constitutionalists.

    Notice the rage of what’s left of the Democrats in the House of Representatives that drove Pelosi out and into hiding though she’s still sneaking around acting like something she isn’t which is a Citizen of the USA who upholds her oath of office . Instead she doesn’t qualify as citizen of the USA and near as I can tell has never upheld the oath of office as a Representative. Same as her sister Fine Slime and that brainless doofus Schiffless all I might add from California and all who have never been ethical citizens of our Constitutional Republic.

    Putin called it correctly beause he meant ‘workwith’ to have the socialists ‘work for’ world socialism . and who continue to confuse that word as descriptive of the slave party with ‘ conscious social conscience.’

    1. What is very obvious in comments here and many other sites is the complete collapse of our education systems where such a large percentage of the population does not understand our constitution or government. Our government is based on a democratic republic form of government where power is retained by the states and their citizens. That is what created congress, the House representing the people and senate, representing the states. The electoral college retains the states power in selection of the president, with the citizens of each state voting on the electors to represent their individual vote when casting the electors vote.

      In addition, the electors were a buffer between the election and the voters since some say the founders did not trust voters to not go off the deep end and vote for someone who would undo a fledgling democracy they had created.

      1. Ron P, you do not understand the constitution. The means of states selecting their electors is not proscribed there and the winner take all standard all but 2 states use was a later development. It maximizes each states impact while disenfranchising the voters in that states minority and it does nothing to mitigate any supposed impulsiveness of direct vote You would not be defending it if the GOP had actually managed to win any popular votes in the last decades.

        1. I understand the constitution! The voters vote, the electors meet and based on how the states have decided to allocate electors, they submit their vote for president. State rights allows them to decide how their electors will vote.

          If you dont like what is happening, then work with those in your state with the power to begin changing the constitution!

          As long as the constitution is followed, I am fine with that. I might not be happy, but I would not be supporting undermining the constitution with political legislation.

  2. Jonathan: Your arguments in support of Judge Barrett more resemble Ben Franklin’s “empty sack” than anything said in opposition to her nomination. On the issue of the ACA Barrett views are clear. She has written in opposition to Chief Justice Roberts’ vote to uphold the Act .It is quite possible the Court will use “severability” to strike down the individual mandate provision but uphold the rest of the Act. But it’s a presumption to say how either Roberts or Kavanaugh will vote–and particularly unwarranted to jump to the assumption Barrett will join them. That’s what you would call “facts not in evidence”.

    On the issue of Roe v. Wade Barrett’s position is quite clear. She has now admitted she signed on to two ads opposing abortion. She belongs to a small Catholic cult that strongly opposes abortion. Barrett says Roe is not “super precedent”. Could her position be any clearer? But you bizarrely claim it is “unlikely” that Barrett would supply the fifth vote to overturn Roe. Talk about counter intuitive! Can you imagine Trump’s reaction if Barrett were to uphold both the ACA and Roe? Of course Trump’s views won’t be important should he not be re-elected. But imagine how Barrett would try to explain her vote on Roe to the all male heads of her religious cult? Love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation! And you also repeat the false claim that if Roe is overturned a “majority of states likely would continue to guarantee the right to abortion…”. As I pointed out in a previous comment abortion would be legal in only 21 states. That’s not a “majority”.

    Your entire column is an attempt to sugar coat Barret’s reactionary views, an attempt to make her nomination more palatable to voters. It won’t work because most voters support Roe and the ACA and are opposed to Barrett’s nomination. But McConnell doesn’t care what voters think. On November 3rd McConnell, Trump and Republican politicians will finally have to listen to what voters think. Then we find out who really is the “empty sack”.

  3. Seriously? You can’t see the forest for the trees? You’re penny-wise and pound foolish? You caterwaul over frivolous issues while your Constitution is nullified and the Communist Manifesto is forcibly imposed? In America, Americans are persona non grata; hyphenates and dutiful sycophants only. Forget the republic, Ben, the only things that matter in America now are black lies.


    “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    Never did the American Founders intend one man, one vote democrazy.



    b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

    Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres were the vote criteria of the restricted-vote republic in the 1788 election of George Washington, which consisted of an 11.6% turnout, by design.

    “In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790, and 1795, 1798 and 1802

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof,…

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

    – Abraham Lincoln

    Yep! And thank you so much. Did you leave anything out Abe?

    Karl Marx, his most famous protege, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, Lincoln’s successors et al. commenced the ultimately total destruction of American constitutional freedom and imposed the unconstitutional principles of communism, Central Planning (Fed/Treasury/QE), Control of the Means of Production (unconstitutional regulation), Redistribution of Wealth (compulsory charity as Obamacare, public assistance, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and Social Engineering (unconstitutional “discordant” immigration, elimination of societal classes, governmentally forced “integration,” emancipation, forced busing, “Non-Discrimination,” “Fair Housing,” etc.).

    Goodnight, America.

    Americans, after the founding, became complacent, irresolute and weak.

    Sorry, Ben, America couldn’t keep the free republic you gave it.

  4. Lets Say ACA is struck down in its entirety.

    We would return to what we had before.

    While there have been a FEW winners from PPACA there have been many losers.

    Further despite the nonsense of the left ACA has had ZERO impact on life expectancy.

    Put simply it has not saved millions or hundreds or even a handful of lives.
    Nor would eliminating it do so.

    All insurance does is provide financial protection.
    There has never been any study done anywhere ever that found any form of health insurance had any impact on health outcomes.

    It has an inconsequential effect on medical bankruptcies – that is all.

    Those playing the death of ACA is the end of the world are either lying or ignorant.

    Overall ACA is not a big deal. Just as destroying it will cause no great harm – beyond the increased taxpayer cost ACA did no great good either.

    Contra Conservatives (and progressives) ACA did nothing to positively change healthcare and its negative effect was smaller than predicted.

    Why – because Government has already F’d over healthcare.

    You would have to strike down alot more than ACA to reduce prices and increase quality of care.

    1. “Lets Say ACA is struck down in its entirety.”

      The ACA is charity; alms for the poor.

      The ACA is unconstitutional and cannot exist in America.

      This is a conversation among thieves who are perpetuating the theft of the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of actual Americans.

      “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,…to…provide for the…general Welfare of the United States;…”

      No other form, fashion or type of welfare shall be taxed for; only “…general Welfare.”

      Read it. It says ALL Welfare, not individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth.

      Competitive free markets are ALWAYS the answer and the only answer. That’s what the Founders gave America. Karl Marx and his disciples, such as “Crazy Abe,” FDR, LBJ, Obama, are the ones who took that answer away, replacing it with forcible nationalized charity.

      The only American thesis that ever existed was: Freedom And Self-Reliance.

  5. What was missed in most all comments and article is the miss use of senate time and money in these hearings anymore. There is little actual investigating into a nominees thinking without trying to make them rule on a case before they are even confirmed. But the main problem with these hearings today is the fact they are televised and give the members free time to bloviate without ever asking a question until the very end. These hearings would be much better if they were not televised as those before SDO’s confirmation and only covered by the press to allow for some news clips of pertinent answers. And before 1980, the senators were not given too much time to question a nominee, leading to the extending B’S’ing that we witnessed in the past few nomination, especially this one given it being an election year.

  6. The hearings are an irrelevant sideshow to an illegitimate and corrupt act which will cement the broken court, and Turley has merely watched without comment on it’s destruction. His failure renders his other opinions on the court as phony pretense based on political interest, not principles.

    The court is broken in 2 ways:

    1. It is constitutionally illegitimate because what should have been a liberal majority over the last 4 years was stolen by the GOP Senate majority by it’s purposeful failure to do it’s constitutional duty of advise and consent on a presidential nomination. It was motivated not by it’s displeasure with the nominee, but by it’s wish to steal a nomination from a twice elected President who possessed a mandate to pick justices. This has never occurred before in our history and the excuse then used by the GOP was turned upside down by it’s rush to appoint a replacement now. Turley has not commented on this major blow to the court. Why should we care what else he has to say about it?

    2. It is politically illegitimate because it will soon have a majority of it’s justices appointed by Presidents who voters specifically rejected to be in the WH and specifically rejected to pick justices. In fact, Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections (the lone GOP win in 2004 was by an incumbent who should not have been an incumbent, and who had us in a war of his making) and now we have only 3 Democratic appointed justices and 6 Republicans? This is a travesty and surely not what the founders intended when they tasked the President with selecting nominees, and an accident – not a well designed check and balance – of the a-constitutional practice of all states but one of selecting electoral college delegations on a winner take all basis.

    Barret could be Dennis Rodman and it would matter nothing as to her appropriateness to be on the court. It was a political decision to nominate her with a given and predictable political outcome, and it was done with no regard for the integrity of the court. By his silence – and thus approval – on this we can fairly assume Turley has no regard for the integrity of the court either, his crocodile tears aside. The GOP muscled this through with complete hypocrisy – which Barrett shares, given her comments in 2016 on the Garland nomination – and with complete disregard of any principle, including that of party and national hero Lincoln who passed on a nomination this close to an election, and by their own words of 2016 – stated 10 months before the election, not one month and with it already underway – the seat should be the people’s to decide by who we elect in 2 weeks.

    Turley can go to hell with his phony concerns about the court.

    1. How appropriate for a progressive diatribe on a SCOTUS nomination that you would bring up the popular vote. You are the perfect example of why the Electoral College is in the Constitution.

      1. When you can come up with a substantive response smeheil, I’ll reply.

        By the way, the winner take all state contests are not in the constitution and have nothing to do with representative – therefore somehow more thoughtful – deliberations or checks and balances. It’s arbitrary, random, and adds nothing to our elections.

    2. The courts were broken when progressives saw the courts as their only means to fundamentally avoid the will of the legislature and use judicial fiat to implement their agenda against the elected will of THE PEOPLE. RBG being a prime example of an agenda driven judiciary.

      1. Alma, you describe a conservative court handing down unpopular rulings on gun control, campaign financing, and immigration and without a mandate from voters for who appointed them. The GOP sees it’s future fading with the white rural and wealthy voter demographics it represents and is trying to cement it’s power before it dies or has to reset.

        1. I don’t know why I’m bothering but…I voted for a Republican president and republican senators and they are doing their job. So voters did ‘appoint’ these elected officials and they are doing what the constitution says they can and should do. You will see in November that the fading is actually a growing bright light now shining for more blacks, Hispanics, blue collar works and, yes, rural white voters. Your ramblings here are evidence of the desperation taking hold in the Dem party. It’s not pretty but then again, they’re facing the fact their only candidate used his son to cash in on China, Russian and the Ukraine. Too bad.

          1. smeheil, unfortunately for you, you were in a minority of voters, but fortunately for you, your minority got your candidate in based on a EC system which is almost random in it’s results. There is no higher principle of deliberation involved in winner take all contests, and that mechanism is not in the constitution. The EC could be fine if delegations were representative of the state vote for candidates.

            PS There is zero evidence of your charge against Biden, and he has produced his tax returns while the GOP candidate has not, and has WH employees in his family cashing in in countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Trump has his sons running his own personal companies and they might be cashing in on influence in foreign countries as we speak.

            1. There is empirical evidence with released email, that Biden was corrupt with China and Ukraine. Are you blind or just pretend to ignore that.

              1. He’s ignoring, as should you.

                President Donald J. Trump is a successful billionaire businessman on hiatus for temporary public service, precisely as prescribed by the Founders, while comrade Joke Biden and the incoherent and hysterical, barren ghetto ho (who slept her way through the contrived “[gl]ass ceiling”) he threw out as chum, sell influence, abuse the power of their offices for personal gain and are criminal parasites of the taxpayer, as they have never met a payroll or created a penny of wealth.

                Now you know why the American Founders restricted the vote, achieving an 11.6% turnout for the 1788 election of the Father of the Country, George Washington – I mean that was an important election done precisely as designed and intended.

                Yep. 11.6% was the engineered turnout.

                The slavering communists are inexplicably rabid over the election they have a 99% chance of winning, according to their own pollsters.

                The communist trolls are so firmly in possession of indicators of success, they are out incessantly across the spectrum of internet and media platforms spewing blather 24/7.

                If they don’t win this time, there tiny little parasite-of-the-taxpayer pinheads will explode.

                Thankfully, that event won’t involve much matter.

            2. No, fortunately for me, the founders understood the underlying problems of a popular vote as though they could see into the future. Our country would be destroyed if 3 or 4 states could negate the votes of 54 others (according to Obama). It was a hard lesson for Hillary to find out and appears to be harder still for Biden/Harris as they are going nowhere fast. As to the Biden cash cow, we shall all see whether or not there is evidence now that it’s all out in the open for at least half of the country to see despite all attempts by the MSM and techies to suppress it.

              1. smehehil, nothing in the results of recent elections substantiates your apparent position that winner take all elections for state EC delegations somehow creates a wise and deliberative outcome. The number of electors in a state are based on population, so indeed, winning bigger states could and often does dictate the winner. The randomness introduced by there mostly being winner take all contests is not somehow a moderating influence on hot headed popular votes and results in candidates ignoring states like Texas and California to focus almost exclusively on the ten or so most competitive states. It also results in the millions of republican votes cast in California and Democratic votes in Texas being ignored.

    3. You’ve been proven wrong on nearly everything while posting as Bythebook. Changing your user name to Joe Friday isn’t changing your reputation as a serial liar.

      1. When you have something of substance in reply Olly I’ll respond. I don’t waste my time on ignorant BS.

        1. When you have something of substance in reply Olly I’ll respond.

          😁 Apparently my post was substantive then. There is not one name ID you can hide under on this blog that will rehabilitate your serial lying reputation.

    4. You can go to hell as you do not believe in the Constitution and the Electoral College. You want a Democrat Democracy where the majority vote simply rules. If Biden wins with in 3 months Kam Harris will be sitting in the oval office and You Dems will live to rue that day. With the incoming Democratic Socialists Nero is fiddling .

      1. lightered, i do believe in the constitution – you don’t if you forgive the Senate GOP majority stealing a SC seat by refusing their responsibility to advise and consent..

        By the way, I’ve got 2 lightered stumps next to my garage for fire starting this winter. I know they’ll burn brighter than you.

  7. The whole Democrat fearmongering operation against Barrett was for fundraising, pure and simple. Look at how much money they brought in, in the last two weeks alone.

  8. Well done article, Mr. Turley. But I wonder how stiff the sack feels to the Republican Senators up for re-election right now. Especially in Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina.

    I also wonder if you aren’t being a touch too hard on the Democrats to qualify as independent. Senator Harris landed a glove in her final round of questioning about climate change: “You think it’s a debatable point.” For Greens and most Democrats, that was probably the knockout punch. For Libertarians and most Republicans, it was barely a contact: what in science is not debatable, ACB is not a scientist, ACB should not telegraph a position on climate change, it humanized ACB, ACB avoided the Harris climate change trap, etc.

    But for independents?

    1. Jonathan, despite your impressive graph link, science is not settled on this. There is an entire industry around the human-causes-climate-change thesis, including “neutral” science publications, government entities, media organizations, etc. Imagine if this were the flat-earthers industry. We’re seeing the same thing now with Covid–an entire industry as well as a lockdown/shutdown cabal–and once its tentacles get into the government funding/study trough, objectivity and presentation of opposing and creative POV are limited or suppressed. The suppression and censorship of opposing POVs don’t belong in science, especially when “solutions” entail oppressive taxes and measures that aren’t agreed to by those people who can’t afford multiple large mansions and private jets. I don’t care what Barrett thinks about climate change and am glad that she doesn’t try to drive outside her lane.

      1. Good overall point, DV. But here I have some cause to push back:

        “I don’t care what Barrett thinks about climate change and am glad that she doesn’t try to drive outside her lane.”

        Why isn’t it driving outside her lane to acknowledge that Covid-19 infectiousness “is something to take judicial notice of, it’s an obvious fact,” and then say same about the cancer risks of smoking, but not say the same with respect to NASA’s position on the climate change consensus? Or the EPA’s?

        1. Jonathan, at this point what difference does it make? Knock out punch for whom? ACB will be confirmed regardless of her stance/thoughts on global warming or about COVID for that matter. This was a hearing to determine her qualifications and capabilities to be a Supreme Court judge. As to NASA or any other government position on climate change, if you haven’t learned that it’s a fool’s errand to take the Deep State’s word on anything, then you haven’t been listening the last 4 or more years. I remember, or maybe it was just fake news, that Obama directed NASA leadership to use their platform for political purposes outside their normal realm. And then there were Sustainable Communities – using the ‘shovel ready jobs’ cash to promote regionalism through the EPA, DOT and HUD. Another political boondoggle and cash cow.

          The last climate predictions I saw about changes in land mass, etc. were projections out 50 years. I won’t be here to know if they’re accurate but I can assure you they aren’t.

          1. Smehiel:

            “Jonathan, at this point what difference does it make? Knock out punch for whom? ACB will be confirmed regardless of her stance/thoughts on global warming or about COVID for that matter.”

            It certainly looks like a party-line confirmation, but there may still be more play in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, than a no-vote from Collins R-ME.

            Knock-out punch in the eyes of the Democratic base, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Schumer and Senate Minority Whip Durbin – all of whom are keeping long-term score, refining strategy and mobilizing arguments ahead of the confirmation debate in the full Senate. Then there is the Biden campaign team’s calculation and its influence on Biden’s post-confirmation vote court packing announcement. And of course Senate GOP leadership is also keeping score. If Democrats don’t feel they have established a strong enough case against the ACB nomination process (and the candidate) moving forward, it limits their hand on a number of fronts.


            1. Again, what difference does it make. It was always going to be a strictly party line vote. If you think any of this will change one vote in November, you really don’t get it. And any articles from the MSM, particularly NBC is laughable. You probably also believe the polls. Do you really think someone who was planning on voting for Trump up until now will change their mind because of the ACB confirmation? As to Democrat “long term strategy” from the looks of the Dem leadership, their strategy should be the goal of staying up right for the next few years. Biden isn’t the only one whose been in DC for over 40 years.

  9. Gee, to bad the democrats couldn’t make this go for another 3 years like Russia, Russia, Russia.

  10. It is clear Trump uses the court constantly for his own personal matters – like his tax returns. The fact that he is going to place 1/3 of the court there matters.

      1. If you seek to deepen your walk with the Lord, think about whether He’d want you to respond with more love and less insult.

        1. Is this your #4,5,6 or 7 username? Too scared to take off your mask? And my Lord walked into the Temple and turned over the tables of the money changers. Nowhere does he tell me to submit to anyone but Himself. By your attack on my faith, I put you in the category of people not worth ever communicating with again.

  11. What we saw at the “hearing” was an unqualified candidate who Was bored, irritated and slightly amused that anyone thought the hearing meant anything. It was clear she was tolerating the entire process but knew she was a shoe in. She was disinterested and unprepared. A law student that dismissive would have been asked to leave but this individual will now be sitting on the highest court in the land”. Perhaps then she will check out the First Amendment.

    1. “an unqualified candidate”

      Try to back up your claim that she is “unqualified”.

      JT has already clearly enumerated why she is qualified. So that allows you an easy opportunity to provide a counter argument.

      Of course, you have nothing, and will produce nothing, because you’re just another partisan hack with severe PTS.

      But give it a try.

    2. Really Justice Holmes,, really? What’s this “we.” As Scott Adams might say, we see two different movies on the same screen.
      I saw a qualified candidate who was bored, irritated and slightly amused. She is a “shoo-in” indeed and no doubt knew it. When it came to specific rulings in her past she was so prepared no notes were needed.
      I, too, was bored and mildly irritated when the clown circus (oops, Senate committee) member asked no question but instead speechified.
      “Objection, presumes facts not in evidence!” — Repeats of known hoaxes. Truly Apocalyptic projections. Even if everyone “lost” employer-provided health insurance (but, instead, enough more for you to afford the same private plan (with a 1-time preexisting condition wavier)), no employee would be harmed. Even if everyone “lost” the ACA they would not be denied health care benefits by any sensible Congress. Perhaps pay them what the ACA would have cost and let them spend it as they will, health care included.

    3. Holmes, I understand Progressives often have unconventional definitions for terms. You said Barrett is an unqualified candidate. If we agree that by candidate, you are referring to a nominee for associate justice to SCOTUS, then by what measure have you determined her to be unqualified?

    4. What we saw at the “hearing” was an unqualified candidate who Was bored, i

      Chuckles. She’s a federal appellate judge with 15 years under her belt as a law professor and time in law practice prior to that. She was also a clerk for a Supreme Court justice and had a stellar academic record in law school. Did your handlers at Correct-the-Record tell you to utter bald lies or do you just know nothing about anything?

      1. A.D., She should have been bored. All these televised hearings have become nothing but a forum for senators to bloviate for 18 minutes and then ask a question that they know the nominee cant answer given the possibility a likely case will come before the court.

        1. Well, Ben Sasse is less than efficient as an examiner. The one segment I saw with him incorporated one paragraph after another of unnecessary verbiage.

    5. . She was disinterested and unprepared.

      She has a prodigious command of her trade and did not need notes.

      1. She had a little trouble recalling the 1st Amendment, which is pretty basic for someone with “a prodigious command of her trade.”

  12. I said this about Justice O’Connor, and I’ll say it again now: No woman wants to go down in history as having overturned Roe v Wade.

    1. No woman wants to go down in history as having overturned Roe v Wade.

      If she has a tincture of integrity, any woman in her position will be happy to nuke Roe v. Wade. And Barrett isn’t the sort to harbor the delusion that the ‘right’ to kill a child in vitro is a franchise anyone should have.

Leave a Reply