Barrett Hearing Day Four LIVE: Democrats Will Appeal to Emotions With Witnesses on Abortion, Obamacare
The Democrats are really convinced Barrett will get rid of Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and violate all the voting and civil rights, aren’t they?
The fourth and final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing includes witnesses brought in by the Democrats to appeal to emotions instead of law and the Constitution and Republicans to explain Barrett’s dedication to the law and Constitution.
But as the Democrats have proven (sarcasm), Barrett will throw Roe v. Wade and Obamacare into the trash can on her first day on the bench.
Laura Wolk
Walk was a student of Barrett. She is completely blind and due to glitches, she didn’t have the right technology.
But Barrett helped her to get the technology. She also said, “Laura, this is no longer your problem, it is my problem.”
Judge Barrett’s former student describes her as “one of the kindest individuals I have ever known”https://t.co/0SAShVcVlX pic.twitter.com/tIqRFz2Dey
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 15, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett advocating for Laura Wolk when she needed help is real women’s empowerment.
— Students for Life Action (@SFLaction) October 15, 2020
Laura Wolk, a former student of Barrett at Notre Dame and the first blind Supreme Court clerk, testifying now that the judge was compassionate to her needs as a disabled woman. pic.twitter.com/zqeXqgZEvr
— Megan Mineiro (@meganmineiro) October 15, 2020
Amanda Rauh-Bieri
She clerked for Barrett in her first year on the bench.
Rauh-Bieri confirmed Barrett approaches each case with an open mind and often sought opinions from her clerks.
Former law clerk to Judge Barrett: Judge Barrett is “a person of the highest character”https://t.co/o8TCOTsiJK pic.twitter.com/ZDYhNy9JV2
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 15, 2020
The testimony from Amanda Rauh-Bieri, one of Judge Barrett’s first law clerks, speaks volumes about her character: “Judge Barrett leads with conviction, generosity, and courage.” #ConfirmACB #ConfirmAmy
— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) October 15, 2020
Stacy Staggs
Staggs want them to vote against Barrett because a vote for her would mean a vote to overturn Obamacare.
Staggs is telling the story of how Obamacare helped her premature twins with an RBG figurine behind her.
Witness Stacy Staggs testifies at Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing with a Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg statue behind her. pic.twitter.com/U6ehh4Sf3q
— Todd Ruger (@ToddRuger) October 15, 2020
https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1316774406472060928
Crystal Good
Good said she is only where she is because she had an abortion at 16. She got pregnant by having sex with her boyfriend, not rape or incest.
Law Professor Saikrishna Prakash
Saikrishna Prakash, a University of Virginia law school professor serving as a witness supporting Amy Coney Barrett: "She cares deeply about America. She does not want to burn the whole place down." https://t.co/3uGpHvyvMV pic.twitter.com/uqBcM2dpTx
— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 15, 2020
Prof. Prakash said that Barrett wasn’t rated higher because one could not go higher. She can break down “complex subjects,” “doesn’t want to burn the whole place down.”
Prakash also said it was appropriate for Barrett not to comment on hypothetical cases.
He also knows that Barrett won’t use her conservative and religious beliefs to make decisions.
Kristen Clarke
Clarke said “Barrett’s views are far outside the mainstream.” It troubled her that “Barrett would not say whether voter intimidation was illegal.”
Clarke also didn’t like that Barrett wouldn’t take a stance on hypothetical cases.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law President @KristenClarkeJD
blatantly lies about Judge Amy Coney Barrett's position.In Kanter v. Barr, Judge Barrett never suggested "the right to vote deserves less protection than the right to own a gun." pic.twitter.com/2HcJS4FDYl
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 15, 2020
Kristen Clarke "lawyers committee for civil rights under law pres” is either a really bad lawyer or a really unethical one. Or not a lawyer at all.
She can't grasp that a judge cannot predetermine or give an indication that she's predetermined a case before hearing it.
— Arleta (@Youngaejy) October 15, 2020
Judge Thomas Griffith
Griffith is testifying for Barrett.
Judge Griffith, friend of Barrett, says she is extremely well-qualified for #SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/x0GdDUiZXr
— The Ghost of Dr Carl Jensen (@Cecalli_Helper) October 15, 2020
Judge Thomas Griffith, who retired from the DC Circuit last month, up now telling senators he served with Carter to Trump judges and there's no party affiliation on the federal bench.
— Megan Mineiro (@meganmineiro) October 15, 2020
Dr. Farhan Bhatti
Bhatti is testifying about the consequences of overturning Obamacare.
https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1316768098326925315
Randal D. Noel and Pamela Roberts
Pamela Roberts said, “It is the opinion of the ABA standing committee that Judge Barrett is well qualified.”
Roberts also said that Barrett was “the smartest student I’ve ever taught.”
ABA witness on Judge Barrett – says they heard "many, many laudatory" compliments. "We conclude she possesses the integrity for a well-qualified rating." They talked to lawyers, academics and her judicial peers. "Whip smart" "Brilliant writer and thinker" "Intellectual giant"
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 15, 2020
ABA witnesses say they talked to hundreds of people regarding Judge Barrett and didn't get "even a hint" of concern. #SCOTUS
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 15, 2020
Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC: "Would both of you feel comfortable going before Judge Barrett?"
Mr. Robert D. Noell and Ms. Pamela J. Roberts: "Absolutely." pic.twitter.com/sGkRQos9cR
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 15, 2020
"Judge Barrett meets the highest standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament." pic.twitter.com/LKyHOLdHMS
— America Rising Squared (@ARSquared) October 15, 2020
Witnesses
Emotions and feels have no place in the courts. It’s about the law and the Constitution.
But that doesn’t matter to the left because feels and emotions is all that they have in the book.
These are the ones obviously brought in by the Democrats:
Crystal Good: Feinstein is bringing her in because she fought to have the “right to obtain an abortion at age 16.” Feinstein’s office said Good “will speak about the importance of reproductive rights and justice.” (Um, reproductive justice?)
Stacy Staggs: Democrats will use feels with this witness, too, because she has “7-year-old twins who each have pre-existing conditions because of their premature birth and rely on protections from” Obamacare.
Dr. Farhan Bhatti: CEO of Care Free Medical who will probably “discuss the harm overturning the ACA would have on his patients.”
Kristen Clarke: President and Executive Director of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. She will talk “about voting rights and other civil rights protected by the Constitution and federal law.”
Witnesses brought in by Republicans:
Randal D. Noel and Pamela Roberts
Randall D. Noel of the Memphis, Tenn.-based Butler Snow, LLP and Pamela Roberts of the Columbia, S.C.-based Bowman and Brooke LLP represent the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Noel wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that the American Bar Association, the largest lawyers’ group in the U.S., rated Barrett as “well qualified.”
Thomas Griffith
The Honorable Thomas Griffith is a retired judge who sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit until September. Griffith is widely expected to speak on the role of Article III courts, which much of his academic work has focused on off the bench.
Professor Saikrishna Prakash
Saikrishna Prakash is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law where he focuses on the separation of powers and executive power. A supporter of Barrett’s nomination, Prakash is a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas as well as Barrett’s former boss on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Laurence Silberman.
Amanda Rauh-Bieri
Amanda Rauh-Bieri was one of Barrett’s first law clerks on the Seventh Circuit and now an associate at the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone. Rauh-Bieri previously told the National Law Journal that Barrett was “a person who cares quite a bit about different backgrounds and perspectives. I would expect that that is something that’s important to her.”
Laura Wolk
Laura Wolk was a clerk for Justice Thomas and student of Barrett when was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. At a Heritage Foundation panel earlier this month, Wolk said Barrett “had one unspoken rule in her class … that rule was you better come to class prepared and you better have good reasons to believe in the arguments you are making. She did not tolerate soft ideas and she did not tolerate sloppy reasoning.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Dhimmi-crats’ bringing in witnesses is a self-serving political stunt and is utterly inappropriate.
As I’ve already noted, here, these ridiculous stunts reveal the Dhimmi-crats’ utterly warped, ignorant and mistaken view of how court cases should be decided. The Dhimmi-crats be.ieve that cases should be decided based upon appeals to emotion and sentiment, and, by the fact that a party may be deserving of sympathy, for his/her plight. Everyone else knows and understands that cases should be decided exclusively based upon evidence, facts, statutes and caselaw.
I would dearly love to see a GOP senator ask Judge Barrett whether it is ever appropriate for a judge to decide cases based upon the sympathetic plight of a party, and, the sympathy that a judge may feel for that party. Just to drive the point home, that sympathy for a party should never enter into the equation, in deciding cases.
“…bringing in witnesses…”
Isn’t that how Feinstein used a ‘dead tree’ witness (letter) to turn the confirmation hearing into a kangaroo court?
premature birth and rely on protections from” Obamacare.
*********************************************
first question. what is your deductible, what is your per visit co-pay?
One can only hope. But serious pundits on our side are warning us not to get our hopes too high.
I don’t believe a 9-0 conservative SC will over turn Roe. Nibble the edges maybe but overturn, the social furor will be off the charts. So Roe, I believe will be left alone. ACA, maybe a piece of it will be “severed” but the entire thing stricken? With Roberts sitting right there and looking, I doubt the Justices will in effect call him down and kill it directly.
My question is why *I* must be responsible for someone else’s health care, especially “reproductive health”? I include not just abortions, but fertility treatments.
As for “voting rights”, virtually everyone has the “right” to get up off their dead behinds, and go to the registrar of voters to register to vote. They also have the “right” to get their government picture ID, which they already have anyway.
“As for “voting rights”, virtually everyone has the “right” to get up off their dead behinds,”
Especially after they are dead!
There was a lot of talk in yesterday’s hearing about some county in Texas that has one ballot drop box. No one said how many mailboxes are in that county–or how many polling locations.
The purpose of the one ballot box per county was to reduce voter fraud. multiple votes, etc.
In big cities, only one box can be a problem
In texas, there are a lot of counties with less than 20k of population. Loving county only has 160 total residents
Nominating judges is like a box of chocolates, you don’t always know what you’re really going to get. So, choose wisely. ACB is indeed impressive and a terrific choice, tho it’s almost certain at least some of her SCOTUS votes will disappoint now and then. Maybe legislation needed to be better crafted….
“Nominating judges is like a box of chocolates, you don’t always know what you’re really going to get. So, choose wisely. ACB is indeed impressive and a terrific choice, tho it’s almost certain at least some of her SCOTUS votes will disappoint now and then. ”
Good point – Gorsuch has been extremely solid with the exception of Bostock v. Clayton County .
Unlike Sotomayer, ginsgurg, Kagan and Breyer where preferred policy takes the front seat.
Nominating judges is also like mixing a bunch of chemicals together and then applying a litmus test to see what you’ve got. Ginsburg comes out 0 or 1 whereas ACB comes out 7 or above.
But still you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that legislation needs to be better crafted.
“…violate all the voting and civil rights…”
If the Democrats can’t cheat, it’ll much more difficult to win. Voting and civil rights in California have really spoiled the socialists…
My question is why *I* must be responsible for someone else’s health care, especially “reproductive health”? I include not just abortions, but fertility treatments.
____________________________________________________________
precisely–is one thing if a person is genuinely incapable of caring for themselves due to illness/disease/legitimate disability/injury/military service, etc.–is another matter entirely for long-term gamers of the system
the idea that producers/contributors MUST bear or provide payment to those with fraudulent/questionable “disabilities”
is absurd
An idiot that runs on about Obamacare and has never read it I have ZERO respect for. It was authored to fail whether there was intervention or not.
Does Feinstein expect ACB to distort or contort the law because some 16 year old got knocked up? What is the point of her dog and pony show?
The point is for her to dive in front of cameras and to Be Seen.
Appeal to emotion…isn’t that the way Socialism is always sold?
The lamentions of the em-pathetic, and the proclamations/dictates of mortal god and goddess philosophers, a forced consensus under threat of protests and cancellation.
Was in a discussion with a Democratic campaign worked. Healthcare came up and she asked why I was against ACA. Told her I didn’t want ANY government involved in my healthcare decisions. It’s my body my choice. Pretty much ended the conversation
So your not going to be taking Medicare when you turn 65?
I have Medicare and I can tell you I am happy, but I am not so dumb to think if we have Medicare for all it will look anything like it is
It will be destroyed as we know it and the elderly and most needy will suffer greatly.
CAT scan for cancer and your 70, probably 6 month wait in hopes you die before it’s performed
We have seen how GB demanded an infant to die, wouldn’t let the parents take him out of the hospital and be flown to the US for treatment… under penalty of imprisonment… and the baby did die, just as they wanted.
Couldn’t have expensive treatment save him…
Monsters, just monsters
The world needs to rise up, all the governments are corrupt as
No, she won’t, and with good cause. Unlike the Communists’ one-child, the Progressives’ selective-child (wicked solution) has been normalized. Unless we are prepared to go through with Civil War 2.0, when in Civil War 1.0 only a minority were, in fact, slavers and diversitists, then we can only mitigate the progress of abortion rites, abortion chambers, cannibal clinics, and tear down the walls through religious/moral/ethical reform. Baby steps.
Wolk said Barrett “had one unspoken rule in her class … that rule was you better come to class prepared and you better have good reasons to believe in the arguments you are making.”
That’s two rules.
Fewer lawyer types and more math majors in our judiciary might not be a bad thing.
ms. wolk was a very impressive young lady, may she have a very long career in law.
Screaming D’s make quite the case that they should maybe take up amendments addressing federal health care, privacy penumbras n similar.
It seems to me that the last time the fundamental scope of US Federal govt was changed, The R Party led expanding the charter, plus “…and do it, dammit.” to subordinate govts. (Authority for federal intervention vs. Jim Crow, and The Civil Rights Act flow from those amendments.)
The last time the tinkering utopian D’s got an amendment, it was pure nanny-stating, so ineffective n egregious in its consequences it got removed, but only afternfueling organized crime n culture-wide disregard for law n govt.
Nanny-stating that creates grift-parasite cancers seems to be their thing. Shockingly, not everyone votes for such stuff all the time.