Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Amy Coney Barrett’

A Short History Of Democrats’ Vicious Tactics For Controlling The Judiciary


Reported by Frank Scaturro DECEMBER 4, 2020

As the courts have become hyper-politicized over the past few decades, the judicial nomination process has deteriorated. With this presidential term drawing to a close, we should note the new depths of obstruction that have become a part of the Senate Democrats’ playbook these past four years.

Origins of Obstruction

Matters were already bad when a Democratic Senate rejected Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 with such notorious vilification that “bork” was added to the dictionary as a verb denoting such unfair and harsh tactics. Four years later came personal vilification for Clarence Thomas before he squeaked by the Senate on a 52–48 vote.

Thomas nonetheless made it through a Democratic Senate that had not entirely shaken a long tradition of bipartisanship on judicial nominations. In fact, from the government’s establishment in 1789 through 2000, 97 percent of Senate-approved judges faced no recorded opposition, and 96 percent were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent as opposed to roll-call votes.

Recorded votes tended to be lopsided. When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, instead of Republicans retaliating for past treatment, the nominees were confirmed respectively by margins of 96–3 and 87–9. This was despite a number of known controversial positions Ginsburg had taken during her career that Republicans chose not to highlight.

During George W. Bush’s administration, Democrats engaged in wholesale filibusters of circuit court nominees, a tactic that resulted in the defeat of several. Previously, only one judicial nomination fell apart after coming up short on a vote on cloture — the procedure by which senators, with a supermajority vote, could end debate and force a confirmation vote. That was the fate of Justice Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon B. Johnson tried to elevate to chief justice in 1968.

Whether Fortas could garner the simple majority of senators required for confirmation was unclear. His unusual case included bipartisan opposition and ethical questions — he actually resigned from the Supreme Court the following year — and did not leave even the most strident opponents of Bork and Thomas with a sense that they had the filibuster in their procedural toolbox.

In 2005, early in Bush’s second term, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed to change the supermajority requirement for cloture on nominations (then at 60 votes) to a simple majority, an idea known as the “nuclear option,” which would have effectively ended judicial filibusters. Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid threatened to retaliate with an unprecedented level of obstructionism that would freeze most Senate business. This scenario did not play out after a compromise, engineered by the “Gang of 14,” derailed any change to cloture.

Eight years later, however, Reid was majority leader, and with the shoe on the other foot, he orchestrated by parliamentary maneuver the very rule change that had once evoked his threats of senatorial Armageddon, essentially ending the filibuster for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court in 2013.

Unprecedented Partisanship During the Trump Era

Gorsuch Filibuster

That exception for filibusters on Supreme Court nominations was quickly put to the test after Donald Trump became president in 2017 and Democrats launched a filibuster of the new president’s first judicial nominee to reach the floor, Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to Reid’s handiwork in 2013, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell garnered support for adding Supreme Court nominations to the others that were subject to simple majorities to invoke cloture.

Abuse of Cloture Motions

Although Democrats were in the minority in the Senate throughout Trump’s term, they used the tools in their arsenal more than any Senate minority before them. While the simple majority threshold made it easier than before to invoke cloture, even when a cloture motion succeeded, a confirmation vote was not immediate but subject to a limit of 30 hours of further consideration.

That time notoriously went by with little-to-no actual debate on the nomination at issue, but of course, actual deliberation was not the goal. By forcing votes on cloture, Democrats could take up more of the Senate’s time and make it that much more difficult to process nominations, not to mention other business.

This the Democratic minority did indiscriminately. All three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were subjected to cloture votes. Adding Samuel Alito (a George W. Bush appointee) to those three, four of the six sitting Republican-appointed justices have faced cloture votes, in contrast to all four of the justices nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats have also regularly forced cloture votes for even noncontroversial nominees to circuit courts, district courts, and even the non-life-tenured courts of federal claims. Eight district court nominees who had previously been nominated by Obama before Trump renominated them were subjected to cloture votes despite a lack of meaningful opposition; five of them received between 95 and 100 votes for confirmation and zero against, and another was confirmed by a voice vote.

It was only after the cloture rule was broadened in 1949, during Harry Truman’s presidency, to cover any pending matter that nominations could be subject to a cloture motion. Since then, there were a total of 136 cloture votes on judicial nominees through the end of the Obama administration. Trump’s nominees have considerably more than that entire total, at 192 and counting.

The Disintegration of Bipartisanship

The bipartisanship that used to attend most judicial nominations is also falling apart. According to the Heritage Foundation, more confirmed judges received more than 30 percent opposition votes during the Trump administration than during all previous administrations combined, from George Washington to Obama. Moreover, the majority of negative votes cast against judicial nominees in American history were against Trump nominees.

The three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices were confirmed with almost total Democratic opposition. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, one to confirm Kavanaugh, and none to confirm Barrett, making her the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without any votes from a major minority party since 1869.

In Kavanaugh’s case, Democrats employed kitchen-sink tactics of obstruction that included repeated interruptions during his hearings and deluging him with more written questions for the record than the combined number of such questions to prior Supreme Court nominees in American history. All other tactics were eclipsed by the disgraceful last-minute attempt to destroy Kavanaugh, when Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault allegation, after being buried for six weeks by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was sprung on the committee after the initial hearings, a desperate tactic that flouted the process for handling sensitive matters.

Weaponization of the Blue Slip

On top of everything else, Democrats tried, in the words of long-serving Senate Judiciary Committee member (and former chairman) Orrin Hatch, to “weaponize the blue slip” tradition for circuit and district courts. That was the courtesy established in approximately 1917 in which a nominee’s home-state senators receive blue pieces of paper on which they could express their views about the nomination to the committee. It was a tradition (as opposed to a rule) intended to encourage pre-nomination consultation, but Democrats during this administration routinely withheld positive blue slips, especially for circuit nominees, as a workaround in the absence of a true filibuster.

“Today, Democrats are trying to turn the blue-slip process into a de facto filibuster,” Hatch charged in 2017. “They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chaired the committee during the first two years of the Trump administration, noted that only two of 19 Judiciary Committee chairmen who served over the span of a century treated the blue slip as a strict veto that would preclude a hearing in the absence of two positive blue slips, and he was not going to allow Democratic obstructionism to prevent him from proceeding with hearings for circuit nominees. Still, the blue slip has impeded the advancement of district court nominations through committee, and many trial court judgeships in states with Democratic senators remain vacant due to the withholding of blue slips or the threat of doing so.

It is thanks to current Republican leadership in the Senate and specifically the Judiciary Committee that so many nominees have been processed and made their way to confirmation. As the repeated operation of the 30-hour rule took its toll on nominations, McConnell garnered a majority to reduce the post-cloture clock to two hours for district court nominations.

To date, the Senate has confirmed 229 Article III (life-tenured) judges nominated by Trump. That total includes 53 circuit court judges, which ranks second among all four-year presidential terms to that of Jimmy Carter, who, boosted by the creation of 35 new seats on the courts of appeals in 1978, holds the record at 56. For several months this year, there was no room for Trump to increase his appointments to the courts of appeals because every vacancy had been filled.

Historical Support for Lame-Duck Confirmations

There are now two more appellate nominees, Thomas L. Kirsch II for Barrett’s former seat on the Seventh Circuit and Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach to fill the First Circuit vacancy created by the death of Juan Torruella on Oct. 26. There is no reason they cannot be confirmed before Inauguration Day. Kirsch already had his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, as have 11 pending nominees to district or federal claims courts.

While any nomination that is not processed by Jan. 3, the end of the current congressional term and beginning of the next, is automatically returned to the president, it can be resubmitted and processed without the need for a new hearing. There is ample precedent for lame-duck judicial confirmations, from John Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as chief justice after his re-election defeat, to Carter’s appointment of Breyer to the First Circuit after his loss to Ronald Reagan.

There is an unmistakable dissonance between Joe Biden’s calls for national unity and his party’s judicial obstructionism over the past four years. As a Judiciary Committee chairman, Biden helped to lay much of the groundwork for this sorry state of affairs. For his Democratic successors in the Senate, obstructionism is an ongoing project that seems to find no limit.

Consider the exception that proved the rule: When leftist interest groups criticized Feinstein after she praised Graham’s handling of Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings and gave the chairman a hug — never mind that every Democrat voted against the nominee — Feinstein’s party compelled her to step down as the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat. Is there any level of malevolence toward judicial nominations that would satisfy today’s Democratic leadership?

Frank Scaturro served as counsel for the Constitution on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee between 2005 and 2009, in which capacity he worked on the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit. He is the author of, among other titles, “The Supreme Court’s Retreat from Reconstruction” (Greenwood Press, 2000). Follow him on Twitter at @FrankScaturro.

Barrett’s Speech After Swearing In: ‘I Will Do My Job Without Any Fear Or Favor’


Reported By  Hank Berrien  | DailyWire.com

Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, right, administers the judicial oath to Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, during a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C.,
Ken Cedeno/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday night amid whoops and cheers from the audience on the White House lawn. After President Trump opened the proceedings with a speech, Justice Thomas swore Barrett in, and Barrett followed with a speech in which she vowed, “I will do my job without any fear or favor,” adding, “I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it.”

President Trump began, “This is a momentous day for America, the United States Constitution, and for the fair and impartial rule of law. The Constitution is the ultimate defense of American liberty; the faithful application of the law is the cornerstone of the Republic. That is why, as president, I have no more solemn obligation and no greater honor than to appoint Supreme Court Justices.”

He said of Barrett, “She is one of our nation’s most brilliant legal scholars and she will make an outstanding Justice on the highest court in our land. Justice Barrett’s oath will be administered by the Court’s longest serving member currently on the bench; a man whose allegiance to the law has earned him the respect and the gratitude of all Americans: Justice Clarence Thomas.”

After thanking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham, GOP senators, Vice President Pence and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump drew a laugh from Barrett when he acknowledged her seven children, asserting, “They’ve become very popular in this nation.”

Trump also stated, “But I speak to everyone when I say that the Barrett family has captured America’s heart; it is highly fitting that Justice Barrett fills the seat of a true pioneer for women: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Trump noted that Barrett was the first Justice in American history to serve on the court as a mother with school-age children. He noted, in a statement that was a tribute to conservatism, “Justice Barrett made clear she will issue rulings based solely upon a faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written, not legislate from the bench.”

After Barrett took the oath from Justice Thomas, she gave a prepared speech:

Thank you. Thank you so very much. Thank you all for being here tonight, and thank you, President Trump, for selecting me to serve as an Associate Justice at the United States Supreme Court. It’s a privilege to be asked to serve my country in this office. I stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. Thanks also to the Senate for giving its consent to my appointment. I am grateful for the confidence you have expressed in me and I pledge to you and the American people that I will discharge my duties to the very best of my ability.

This was a vigorous confirmation process, and I thank all of you; especially Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham for helping to navigate it. My heartfelt thanks go out to the members of the White House Staff and Department of Justice, who worked tirelessly to help to support me through this process. Your stamina has been remarkable and I have been the beneficiary of it. Jesse and I are also so grateful to the many people who have supported our family over these last several weeks. Through ways both tangible and intangible, you have made this day possible. Jesse and I have been truly awestruck by your generosity.

I have spent a good amount of time over the last month at the Senate; both in meetings with individual senators and in days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The confirmation process has made ever-clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate, and perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences; in fact, it would be a dereliction of duty to put policy goals aside.

By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences.  It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give in to them. Federal judges don’t stand for election, thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty; the rule of law must always control.

My fellow Americans, even though we judges don’t face elections, we still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it., The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independent of both the political branches and my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it. Thank you.

Schumer Promises That ‘Generations Yet Unborn Will Suffer’ From Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation


Reported by MARY MARGARET OLOHAN | SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER | October 26, 202010:34 PM ET

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/schumer-promises-that-generations-yet-unborn-will-suffer-from-amy-coney-barretts-confirmation-2648508062.html/

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer predicted Monday night that “generations yet unborn will suffer” from confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Schumer spoke Monday night on the Senate floor where he condemned Barrett’s confirmation, saying that his colleagues “may regret this for a lot longer than they think.” 

“Here at this late hour, at the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate, the history of the Supreme Court, my deepest and greatest sadness is for the American people,” Schumer said.

“Generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination,” he continued, “as the globe gets warmer, as workers continue to fall behind, as unlimited dark money floods our politics, as reactionary state legislatures curtail a woman’s right to choose, gerrymandered districts and limit the rights of minorities to vote, my deepest, greatest, and most abiding sadness tonight is for the American people and what this nomination will mean for their lives, their freedoms, their fundamental rights.”

The senator concluded by predicting that this day would go down “as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.” 

His comments on the unborn come amidst Democratic anxieties that Barrett’s confirmation will result in overturning Roe v. Wade. Liberal groups, Democrats and abortion advocates also predicted that appointing Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would result in dangerous limits on abortion access and other prominent political issues.

WATCH:

 

Ann Coulter OPED: Ask Ann Anything! ACB Edition


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 14, 2020 5:20 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Ask Ann Anything! ACB Edition

Judge Amy Coney Barrett / Source: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

With the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in full swing this week, my mailbox has been overflowing with questions from absolutely no readers! Here, I will deliver the answers that no one asked for.

Q: How can you say it’s fair to fill the seat of a constitutional giant like Ruth Bader Ginsburg with this far-right, anti-choice, conservative woman?

A: You’re right, RBG had patience, will — and almost no black law clerks. One (1) black law clerk out of 160, to be precise. To borrow from my journalist colleagues, “Are you a white supremacist?”

Q: So you think it’s OK to just ignore her dying wish?

A: Touche! But you’ve forgotten that the Dying Wish clause of the Constitution is trumped by the Retire When a Democrat Is President clause. RBG was fully entitled to have a Democrat choose her replacement by retiring in 2014 when Obama was president and she was 81 years old, had already survived two bouts of cancer, two falls that broke her ribs and a heart operation. She chose not to.

Q: You’re seriously going to claim that ACB is the most qualified Supreme Court nominee?

A: Of course! Much like being a police chief in modern America, apparently the No. 1 qualification for this job is: being a woman. I don’t know when my party signed onto identity politics, but I’m not happy about it either. At least we didn’t end up with America’s leading “Karen,” Kamala Harris.

Q: So you think women shouldn’t run for president or sit on the Supreme Court?

A: Of course they should. But the way we should find them is not to decide Hey, let’s get a woman for this job! Anybody know one? Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir didn’t become the leaders of their nations because someone said, Let’s find a woman!

Ironically, the Democrats’ best candidate for president this year actually was a woman, but unfortunately, Sen. Amy Klobuchar was not a woman of color. So now the Democrats are saddled with the smirking insufferableness of Kamala as their backup candidate to a guy with senile dementia.

Q: What are you talking about, Ann? Kamala is the best! She’s hip, she’s cool, she’s brilliant.

A: Yes, and she called Joe Biden a racist.

Q: She’s explained that! On Stephen Colbert’s show, she laughed it off, saying: “It was a debate!

A: Glad to get this on the record. So the official position of the Democratic Party is that it’s fine to falsely accuse a person of racism as long as it’s done to score political points. At least you guys don’t take racism accusations lightly.

Q: I’m a conservative, and I thought ACB was terrific at the hearings!

A: If there were an Olympic sport called “Keeping a Straight Face While Being Lectured by Morons,” ACB would take the gold. Though I might recommend that after repeatedly refusing to answer absurd hypotheticals by claiming, “I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” maybe Barrett should not have prejudged a pending case by saying she cried when she saw the George Floyd video and citing it as an example of “hatred” and “racism.”

Instead of the George Washington and the Cherry Tree myth, I guess our new patriotic fable is the George Floyd Was Killed by a Racist Cop myth.

Q: My grandpa is in a relationship with a California hipster, and no one in the family knows what to do about it.

A: This isn’t really that kind of advice column, but at least we’re back to Kamala Harris.

Q: You Republicans are just terrified by a strong woman of color. Mike Pence constantly interrupted her at the vice presidential debate and Harris’ Republican colleagues in the Senate interrupt her all the time. There’s been gobs of press about it, including an article in The New York Times, “The Universal Phenomenon of Men Interrupting Women.”

A: My imaginary interlocutors are really obnoxious today.

1) According to ABC News’ Rick Klein, Harris had slightly more speaking time than Pence at the debate.

2) But I loved how the Biden-Harris campaign had “I’m still speaking!” T-shirts available for sale immediately following the debate. That didn’t look at all pre-planned.

3) As for senators interrupting Harris, try looking at the videos that are longer than one minute. Invariably, the reason she’s being interrupted is that she is rudely badgering a witness and not allowing him to answer. Yes or no! Yes or no! Please allow me to paint you into a corner by accepting all the ridiculous constraints of my question without further comment or explanation.

See the slightly longer videos here and here.

Q: But if ACB is confirmed, women will be forced into back-alley abortions!

A: Let me assure you that even if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, in California, New York and other liberal states, you will still enjoy a right to abortion right up to birth (at least), and if the baby somehow still survives, you’ll be allowed to bash in his head in with an oxygen tank.

I don’t know what Democrats are so worried about, anyway. According to them, Americans LOVE Roe! Amy Klobuchar said at one of the Democratic debates this year, “The people are with us. Over 70% of the people support Roe v. Wade.”

Oddly, when I tried to locate this statistic on Google, I found endless polls claiming 70% of Americans support every left-wing policy — the entire Democratic agenda: legalizing pot; Medicare for all; amnesty for illegals, Black Lives Matter and on and on. All have 70% support!

So I’ve got good news for liberals: If these polls are accurate, you don’t need left-wing judicial activists concocting imaginary “constitutional rights” to get your way. Just pass laws, like in a democracy. On the other hand, the hysteria over RBG’s death and ACB’s nomination tells me that liberals don’t believe their own polls.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Higher Loyalty

Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation will help liberal activists on the court from destroying the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett HearingPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating


The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating. Monday is the start of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings.

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is “well qualified” for a position on the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, DC Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy shared the letter on Twitter, writing, “The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is ‘Well Qualified’ on the eve of the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.”

A portion of the letter reads, “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by the President to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

“As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” the letter continues. “A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is ‘Well Qualified,’ and a minority is of the opinion that she is ‘Qualified’ to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The letter concludes, “The majority rating represents the Standing Committee’s official rating.”

As noted by the Daily Wire, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2001 referred to the American Bar Association’s judicial ratings as the “gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.”

On Sunday night, Barrett released the opening statement she plans to issue on Monday morning.

A portion of her remarks read:

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

You can read the remarks in their entirety here and below.

Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing greeted by rival protests outside Supreme Court

They held up signs supporting the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats believe is in jeopardy if she is on the highest bench, and one protester held up a sign of a clothes hanger with the phrase “Never Again,” a nod to Roe v. Wade, the prevailing law on abortion. Democrats are fearful that Barrett, who is pro-life, could swing the court the other direction if the case comes in front of the court again.

They left the Supreme Court and began marching toward the Hart Senate Office Building when they briefly encountered a larger group of pro-life protesters who want Amy to “fill the seat.”

“No confirmation until inauguration!” the anti-Trump group chanted as they passed by the pro-life organizers. Most protesters in both groups were wearing masks, but neither was actively trying to keep six feet between themselves and others.

The group in favor of Barrett’s confirmation, which included many young adults, walked around the Hart Senate Office, and they congregated outside one of the entrances to the building. With protesters holding up Barrett versions of Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, and others waving signs reading, “I am the pro-life generation,” they chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go!”

Barrett’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee will go on until Thursday. The senators on the committee and Barrett herself are set to testify on Monday, while lawmakers will then question her on Tuesday and Wednesday with outside witnesses both in her favor and against her speaking on Thursday.

Senate Republican leadership plan to get Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court before Election Day.

‘In a category of excellence’: Graham praises Barrett and warns Democrats against Kavanaugh repeat

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, described Barrett as “in a category of excellence” that should make the nation proud but warned that the confirmation will take place in an election year.

“My Democratic colleagues will say, ‘This has never been done,’” he said, countering, “The Senate is doing its duty, constitutionally,” even though no justice has been confirmed so close to an election.

Graham said there have been 19 justices confirmed in an election year, 17 of them when the White House and Senate parties were aligned.

Monday’s hearing will be composed of opening statements by senators and Barrett, who is now a court of appeals judge for the 7th Circuit, having been confirmed to that bench by the Senate in 2017. Senators will question Barrett on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Graham said the hearing is not about “persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens,” but said it would give Democrats a chance to “dig deep into her philosophy” and serve the same purpose for the GOP.

“Most importantly, it gives you, the American people, the chance to find out about Judge Barrett,” Graham said. “Find out for yourself.”

Graham warned Democrats that Barrett “doesn’t deserve” the treatment of Kavanaugh, who was scrutinized in an additional hearing to air accusations by a former high school acquaintance who said he sexually assaulted her.

“Let’s remember — the world is watching,” Graham said.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: