The Barrett Boycott: Democrats Struggle To Get An Empty Sack To Stand Up

I recently wrote about how the Barrett confirmation hearing is proof that Benjamin Franklin was right when he wrote that “it is hard for an empty sack to stand upright.” Now that analogy is becoming reality as Democrats plan to leave actual empty seats in today’s hearing to vote on the nomination. It is all an effort to convince Democrats voters that the senators are really angry over the nomination and fighting like the dickens to stop it. It is, of course, pure theater with no real impact on the nomination but voters seem to demand little more from politicians today than visceral distractions.

The Committee rules do stipulate at least two members from the opposing party must be present for a quorum. However, committees have proceeded in the past with a majority and the Committee could simply change the rules. All sides will then be satisfied.  The Republicans will get their vote and the Democrats will get their show — and the voters will get little beyond the same low-grade performance art from “the world’s most deliberative body.”

The boycott comes after Democratic senators, and particularly Sen. Dianne Feinstein, faced rising criticism over their civility during the Barrett nomination.  Democratic voters wanted a professional wrestling match with pile drivers and chair slams.  Even though they know it is fake, they wanted the senators to at least pretend that they were trying to hurt each other. Instead, they watched a largely civil and often friendly exchange between senators. It was entirely out of sync with the demands of an age of rage.

The final outrage apparently came with the hug that Feinstein gave Chairman Lindsey Graham at the end of the hearing after saying that this was “the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.” No hug has been so lethal since Sherlock Holmes embraced Professor Moriarty before their plunge over the falls of Reichenbach. The display of collegiality sent many liberals into immediate apoplexia with some demanding that Feinstein step down as ranking member. The president of the pro-choice group NARAL, Ilyse Hogue, declared the gesture as “wildly out of step with the American people. As such, we believe the committee needs new leadership.”  It was certainly “wildly out of step” with the current American politics which demands nothing short of unhinged  and irrational rage.

In an astonishing move, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went out of his way to demean Feinstein and publicly say that he gave her a stern talking to. Other colleagues have notably failed to come to her defense — leaving her twisting in the wind rather than risk the ire of Democratic base by supporting their long-time colleague.

The Democrats are reportedly planning to bring back the pictures of people who will be victimized by Barrett if she votes against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in a case set for a November 10th argument.  I have previously written how unfair and unprecedented this display has been for a confirmation hearing. Not only are Democrats now basing their confirmation votes on the expected vote of a nominee in a pending case, but they are misleading the public on the actual case.  As I previously discussed, senators have been open about voting against Barrett unless she assures them that she will vote to preserve the Act. Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D., HI) announced recently that she would vote against Barrett because “she will vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act.” In reality, the ACA case is unlikely to be struck down. The Court may uphold the lower court in declaring the individual mandate of the original ACA to be unconstitutional, but the real issue is whether that provision can be “severed” from the rest of the statute. Most legal experts believe that the Court has a clear majority favoring severance and preserving the rest of the act. The law was originally saved by Chief Justice John Roberts who felt that the individual mandate was constitutional. Congress later nullified the mandate.  He and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are viewed as likely votes to sever. Even if the ACA were struck down however both parties are committed to the continued protection of pre-existing conditions.

None of that matters. The Democrats continue to parade these giant pictures that are designed to portray Barrett like some judicial serial killer surrounded by her victims. Now, they will not even be in the room. The pictures will be all that remains on the Democratic side, a fitting symbol of a now literal empty-sack strategy.


79 thoughts on “The Barrett Boycott: Democrats Struggle To Get An Empty Sack To Stand Up”

  1. Turley’s pretense that he cares about the court and the integrity of our judiciary is a lie. He cares about his team winning, not principles. The SC is now jungle ball – there are no rules, only power, and it does not belong to the people, it belongs to the politicians. Pretending that there is an ounce of principle or ideals in this nomination is a complete lie and whatever the Democrats do to regain the court for the majority of American voters is as fair as this charade. Game on.

  2. Empty sack? Undescended testicles is more like it. That’s what most Democrat men suffer from.
    Pardon me for being indelicate.

  3. Kompromat….got much, JT?

    Your argument is so disingenuous that somebody MUST have some form of kompromat on you.

    There seems to be no alternative explanation seeing as how your line of “reasoning” is so absurd.

    “Both sides are committed to protecting pre existing conditions”….


    Just admit that you and George (in the comments section) are one and the same.

  4. In answers to additional Senate questioins, Amy Coney Barrett declined to:
    -say whether it’s a crime to vote twice
    -say whether Article II allows Trump to “do whatever I want”

    This is a raw display of contempt for the Senate process.

    It’s not abstract or controversial to say each voter may cast no more than one vote in each election. It’s so uncontroversial that the court has used “one person, one vote” to describe the principle underlying its more abstracted equal protection and apportionment jurisprudence.

    It should not be abstract or controversial to say that the President is not above the law.

    The Associated Press: “Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly 3 years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom.”

    She should not be confirmed.

  5. More Money For Dreadnoughts:
    Sorry about the clowns we have here in America.

    Steve Kim:
    Most of Americans do not know about the true history of the Democratic Party. From KKK to the Eugenics Movement led by Democrats.

    Weeko Winona
    Thank You. This Democrats are clearly opportunist as always.

    1. That is Ms. Obianuju Ekeocha, Founder & President of Culture of Life Africa, well known international African speaker. She is stunningly beautiful and articulate. Her video spread like a fire on the internet, pleading for her rich African traditions and ancestors to not be enslaved by American Democrats. Not surprisingly the Dems ignored her pleas. Typical

      1. Love “Friday” and Anonymous arguments: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…..
        These two nitwits, with both brains combined, make no sense whatsoever.

      2. That would take too long, Joe, but I will give you this much.

        Turley writes: “None of that matters. The Democrats continue to parade these giant pictures that are designed to portray Barrett like some judicial serial killer surrounded by her victims. Now, they will not even be in the room. The pictures will be all that remains on the Democratic side, a fitting symbol of a now literal empty-sack strategy.”

        One does not have to agree with Mr. Turley to acknowledge the brilliance of his closing imagery.

          1. I am listening to all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee make statements against ACB right now. But these are not statements for the Senate record, are they? Does their boycott make them more right than a party-line no-vote with explanations of vote for the Senate record?

        1. So Jonathan, you judge this travesty as performance art and Turley’s comments as poetry? Pretty nihilistic in my opinion this is about our nations institutions and the future of our democracy. The more the court becomes a continuation of partisan warfare, the more respect it loses – and should lose – from the people it supposedly serves.

          You understand I hope that the GOP stole a seat from a twice popularly elected president and handed it to one specifically rejected by American voters. This resulted in what should have been a liberal majority over the last 4 years into a conservative majority. With Barrett’s confirmation the court will have a majority of it’s justices appointed by presidents specifically rejected by American voters. 4 of them will have that distinction based on a random and accidental result from a mostly winner take all Electoral College system (winnertake all state contests are not in the constitution nor were they the 1st versions of the EC). There was no conspiracy involved in that except for the SC Bush v Gore ruling which the court specifically stated was not be taken as precedent since the majority wanted to pretend they were guided by “originalist” principle, not power politics.. But one of those 5 seats was the result of a clear conspiracy involving a dereliction of the Senate’s duty as clearly spelled out in the constitution, and a betrayal of the wishes of most American voters . Turley washes over this but it is not clean. It’s dirty and stinks to hell. and the process cannot be cleaned up by pretending business as usual. The court is broken and Turley couldn’t care less.

          1. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a nonsense meme, it’s still a nonsense meme. Tell your controller at Correct-the-Record to send better talking points.

        2. Jonathan, that was a very good choice of a quote and a good closing statement by you.

          You answered a silly question extremely well.

  6. Turley, you keep acting like Barrett wasn’t chosen expressly by what her expected votes will be on the ACA and election. Your teeing off on the Democratic response to this episode of theater is monumentally idiotic and shows a true degree of hack factor 10 on your part.

  7. Let’s face it Turley you don’t want to accept it your boys are focusing on the destroying the country and packing the court. Merrick Garland didn’t even get a vote. I’m sick of apologists like you.

    “Both parties are committed to protection pre existing conditions“? That is so transparently false it’s offensive. Turley what has happened to you.

    1. “you don’t want to accept it your boys are focusing on the destroying the country and packing the court.”

      Who are his “boys”?

      And apparently you you don’t understand what “packing the court” actually means.

      All you are capable of is us versus them binary thinking. Instead of giving you participation trophies for winning nothing, they should have focused on teaching you basic critical thinking skills.

    2. Uh, filling a vacancy on the court is not “packing”. Please reference the constitution and enlighten me, ideoloque.

        1. They declined to confirm him, which is their prerogative. He was treated courteously. The last Democratic nominee raked over the coals was Abe Fortas. Fortas resigned from the Court in 1969 rather than face impeachment proceedings and a possible indictment of his wife.

          1. The GOP Senators did not treat him at all and did not advise and consent as is their constitutional duty. There were no hearings and none or most of them refused to meet with him, though they had eagerley voted to approve him to the circuit court only a few years earlier. The GOP stole the seat from the majority of American voters who elected Obama twice, and gave it to a president who was rejected by American voters.

        1. Republicans called it “court packing” when Obama filled empty seats.

          Who? And why is it relevant that someone else misused a term?

          1. Arty, are you too lazy to click on the link to see who? It’s even called the Stop Court-Packing Act.
            The Republican editors of the National Review called it “Court Packing by Another Name”.
            Republican Senator Cornyn speaking in favor of Gorsuch’s nomination in 2017 referred to Obama nominating judges to fill existing vacancies on the DC Circuit as court packing, and there are more examples like that.

            As for why it’s relevant, if you can’t follow a conversation to see how it’s relevant to Craig Nichol’s comment, that’s your problem.

Leave a Reply