October 07, 2020
By Larry Keane
Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court has undoubtedly moved the idea of the nation’s top court operating as an originalist judiciary from a conservative dream to an anticipated reality. A court where the majority interprets the law as written, as opposed to legislating from the bench, has massive implications for many issues, and especially positive ones for America’s Second Amendment rights.
Judge Barrett’s obstacle in her confirmation battle this month, however, is not about her esteemed judicial philosophy, but rather with the U.S. Senate Democrats’ vitriolic opposition to anyone that President Donald Trump nominates. The radical leftists in the Senate are opposed to anyone who will not legislate liberal policies from the bench.
Look no further for proof than the statements by prominent Senate Democrats that were publicized well before Judge Barrett was even the official nominee. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), upon hearing of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, decided to skip over any kind of condolences and instead opted for an immediate tweet saying “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” He did this ignoring in his haste the “Biden rule,” created by and named for his party’s nominee for president when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, does not apply since the president and the Senate are both controlled by the same party.
Likewise, before Judge Barrett had even been named, Senate Democrats like Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) clarified that Sen. Schumer’s threats included the possibility that Democrats would “abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” Even Presidential candidate Joe Biden “signaled he would be open to the senate ending (the) practice” of the filibuster. When asked about it in his first presidential head-to-head debate, Biden dodged the question in order to avoid the truth that he, and other Democrats, will do anything to squeeze the polices they want out of the nation’s highest court.
Pre-planned Talking Points
The campaign to oppose whomever Trump nominated to the court is not, and was not, limited to just Democrats in Congress, however. A document leaked late last week before Trump announced his SCOTUS nomination, authored by leftist activism groups such as MoveOn and NARAL Pro-Choice America, showed a comprehensive “response action guide” that outlined the many ways in which liberal activists across the country can protest Trump’s nomination to the court.
This template offered a litany of slogans, social media content, talking points and organizational tips for in-person protests, all with a convenient blank space where one was instructed to insert the name of the person whom Trump chose to nominate. It was strangely similar to when the organizers of the Women’s March published a press release opposing Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, but forgot to insert his name over the “XX” placeholder. In both cases, they oppose before they know.
Now with Judge Amy Coney Barrett officially nominated, the zealots who take orders from the authors of the opposition document are springing into action to oppose a judge who shares the same judicial philosophy as the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
The very existence of this template combined with the opportunistic statements of senators like Sen. Schumer after Justice Ginsburg’s death lay bare sad truths. The fact is that Democrats had no intention of supporting any Trump SCOTUS nomination, no matter how qualified the nominee would be. They only see the Supreme Court as a political weapon that they cannot currently operate but for which they are desperate to get the launch codes.
Compared to Judge Barrett’s contentious confirmation to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit, the confirmation process to the Supreme Court will be much more combative, with vehement but insincere opposition from Senate Democrats including notably the most junior member of the Committee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). The nominee, the Constitution, the Court and our nation all deserve more respect.