Image 01 Image 03

LIVE: Barrett Takes Questions From Senators on Day Two

LIVE: Barrett Takes Questions From Senators on Day Two

I wonder if we’ll see Spartacus!

We heard from the senators on Monday, which included the Democrats spewing their talking points: Barrett will end Obamacare, take away our healthcare, undo everything RBG did, etc.

The day ended with Barrett’s opening statement. But today, at 9 a.m. ET, Barrett will take questions from the senators.

***Updates will appear at the top

Stop Asking Barrett How She Would Rule on Hypothetical Cases

Sen. Blumenthal using a rape survivor to force Barrett to answer how she would rule on a hypothetical case. Disgusting.

Sen. Hawley Continues to Stick Up for Catholics

I love this.

Coons Thinks Barrett Calling Chief Justice’s Ruling as ‘Unsound’ is Chastising

No, Judge Barrett. Calling a ruling by the Chief Justice as “unsound” means you chastised him! I love watching these men telling Judge Barrett what she actually meant when she said something.

Sheldon Whitehouse

All I have to say is his name, right?

Durbin Tried a Gotcha Moment on Barrett’s Opinion on Felons and Guns

I don’t know, Durbin. Maybe read her opinion?

Durbin, Of Course, Asks About ACA

Barrett reminds Durbin that Congress makes policy, not SCOTUS.

Feinstein Concentrates on Abortion

I don’t get why they ask these questions. Each case is different so how can Barrett know how she will rule?

Day Two Set-Up

The 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats will ask Barrett questions. Each will have 30 minutes.

No doubt Obamacare and abortion will take center stage. As I noted, all the Democrats somehow already know that Barrett will strip healthcare for Americans (because somehow she has the power all by herself?). Say she does vote to end Obamacare. It might not matter:

As Law&Crime’s Elura Nanos pointed out, however, this could be a flawed argument given that six of the other justices have records that favor the principle of severability. This means that they could potentially rule that while the mandate is unconstitutional, other parts of the Affordable Care Act could survive.

A look to three years ago could also provide a glimpse at how Democrats may question Barrett. During her 2017 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals confirmation hearing, she faced questions from Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Dick Durbin, D-ill., about her religious background and beliefs.

Day One Recap


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Maybe Judge Barrett can pass out diapers to all the Dems before the inquisition starts.

All aboard the Democrat cripple train, toot toot!

Feinstein is coming across as a rambling fool.

Paul In Sweden | October 13, 2020 at 9:55 am

Judge Barrett should run the clock out. Just give very long and vapid answers to each of the annoying repetitive questions. Each of the senators only have so much time. Run the clock…

As Shapiro said, you don’t make law on the outlier. These single cases being quoting is pissing me off.

Listening to Leahy I am thinking Trump may be one of the great Presidents to take out the dementia class of Senators and Congressmen…Finstein, Leahy and a Jerry’s kid Nadler.

Does Feinstein have the vaguest understanding that Judge Coney Barrett is not applying for a political office. She keeps asking about issues like abortion and gun control like she is going to make law and pass legislation.

    Because liberal activist judges think they should legislate from the bench… so that’s obviously what a SCOTUS justice should do. That’s the “standard” being applied, I believe.

ACB is a very graceful, logical, well-spoken lady!
Good choice Mr. President.

Durbin just called predominantly-black criminal in Chicago “gangbangers” and “thugs.” Guess he didn’t get the DNC memo about how black criminals should never be called “thugs.”

The Friendly Grizzly | October 13, 2020 at 11:48 am

Given the lack of updates and comments, I take it nothing of note is going on?

    Durbin — he seems sharper than the average Dhimmi-crat Senator, I’ll give him that — blatantly mischaracterized two of Judge Barrett’s opinions (a case in which she held that a man convicted of a felony did not lose his Second Amendment rights, and, another case I believe in which a felon’s voting rights were not restored) to dishonestly claim that there was something nefarious and contradictory about the two holdings, But, Barrett explained her reasoning quite ably.

    The problem with these ambushes is that it’s hard to explain the legal nuances of constitutional cases, in a hearing setting. But, Barrett is up to the task.

The tactics of the Dem/Prog Senators are cartoonish. They are all standing around pissing away, not one aware which way the wind is blowing. Tbe female libs are just getting lower trajectories. Not a good look, but when the primary objective is killing unborn babies, don’t expect brilliance.

    guyjones in reply to Romey. | October 13, 2020 at 12:20 pm

    I find it fascinating how the GOP Senators often make numerous references to history, to the Federalist Papers, to the Founders, to the U.S. Constitution, but, the Dhimmi-crat Senators never do. Their appeals are never grounded in history, or, or founding legal document, or, the wisdom of the Founders, but, always, in histrionics, in demagoguery and in emotional appeals.

I will note that when the second amendment was written… we were talking about the likelihood that the person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket. We are now talking about virtual military weapons.

The Founding Fathers owned private artillery.

    drednicolson in reply to daniel_ream. | October 13, 2020 at 4:24 pm

    Muzzle-loading muskets WERE military weapons, just as much as modern M16s. What do they think the Continental and British armies shot at each other with?

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to daniel_ream. | October 13, 2020 at 5:34 pm

    So by your reasoning, only broadsheets physically printed in ink on paper such as were the 18th century media, are to receive the free press and free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. How quaint.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to daniel_ream. | October 13, 2020 at 9:17 pm

    I do think we should consider whether the militia clause requires that all able-bodied citizens equip themselves and train with current military small arms.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to daniel_ream. | October 13, 2020 at 9:21 pm

    They really do seem concerned that citizen might have anything like parity with the enforcers of their authoritah.

    Of course citizens don’t have anything like what Rep Nukem would deploy … to retire the people before replacing them with one more congenial.

Democrats (apparently) learned from their wretched for-the-ages performance during Kavanaugh. So far they’re better, but they still have a long way to go. Barring an earthshaking event of some sort, Judge Barrett will become Associate Judge Barrett. Knowing this, they’ve continued the Kavanaugh-hearing-like practice of making this a political event, attempting to instill fear in their constituencies; fear is their currency, dispensing it is how they operate. They ride in on political hobby horses, make grand assumptions about Barrett – ignoring both what she says to their faces and has done – and distribute to the media and their constituencies (but I repeat myself) apocalyptic horror stories about a future with a Judge Barrett on the Supreme court. They fear for victories already won and tremble at the thought of having to win others logically, rationally, and without a protection plan in the form of a compliant court…of whatever size it takes.

Impressed with Mike Lee, yesterday and today; we need to see more of him.

Note to Sen. Durbin: muzzle-loading muskets were military rifles when the Second Amendment was written.

Senator Sheldon ‘I see conspiracies everywhere…’

MoeHowardwasright | October 13, 2020 at 1:09 pm

Did anyone catch dustpan saying that near military weapons can kill hundreds at a time? Did I hear that incorrectly? Last time I looked, automatic weapons are a banned class of weapon. But then again, what would you expect from dustpan. He’s nothing but a walking pile of excrement.

    drednicolson in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | October 13, 2020 at 4:30 pm

    Civilian ownership of automatic weapons is allowed under federal law, if you jump through the NFA legal hoops and pay the ATF for the requisite tax stamp.

      ugottabekiddinme in reply to drednicolson. | October 13, 2020 at 5:36 pm

      And as I recall, fully automatic weapons were perfectly legal in private ownership, no governmental permits of any kind required, until 1933 or so.

somebody from rhode island needs to unseat whitehouse

I find this issue not talked about, Sotomayor and Kagam were both nominated and confirmed during the swine flu pandemic. the pandemic didn’t shut down the business of government then.