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. Blumenthal shared the emotional story of a rape survivor who needed to get an abortion — and then Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether Roe was correctly decided pic.twitter.com/Rermahdboj
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) October 13, 2020
Blumenthal: What do you think of this nonsensical hypothetical that you've never taken a position on?
Barrett: I can't answer that
Blumenthal: That's troubling. My constituents are going to be very disturbed that you are going to allow this nonsensical hypothetical to occur.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 13, 2020
Sen. Hawley Continues to Stick Up for Catholics
I love this.
Senator Hawley on abortion + Catholicism: "I’m not aware of any law or provision of the Constitution that says that if you are a member of the Catholic Church and adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church..that you are therefore barred from office." pic.twitter.com/cWtrQ6La06
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) October 13, 2020
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.
Senator Coons tries to mansplain Judge Barrett's own words to her and it doesn't end well for the Senator from Delaware. pic.twitter.com/Lhx21dSQIc
— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) October 13, 2020
Pressed on her own words that Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling upholding the ACA was “unsound,” Barrett tells Sen. Coons she was “not chastising” Roberts, but “as an academic, I did express a critique,” adds that she has “no hostility” towards the ACA. https://t.co/Lo43IEtjRG pic.twitter.com/YCKKhS9GgR
— ABC News (@ABC) October 13, 2020
Sheldon Whitehouse
All I have to say is his name, right?
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says that Amy Coney Barrett's hearing is like a "puppet theater" and that "forces outside" are "pulling strings and pushing sticks." pic.twitter.com/tlwN4aaemy
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
.@SenWhitehouse: "This small hearing room and the little TV box that you're looking at…are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theatre.
And if you only look at what's going on in the puppet theatre, you're not going to understand the whole story." pic.twitter.com/qG82QXBmXu
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 13, 2020
Judge Barrett deserves unanimous confirmation just for managing to look this engaged throughout Sheldon Whitehouse's hypocritical conspiracy theory walkabout. https://t.co/KpTwoSygRA
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 13, 2020
Durbin Tried a Gotcha Moment on Barrett’s Opinion on Felons and Guns
I don’t know, Durbin. Maybe read her opinion?
Here is the 2A question. Durbin asks ACB re Kanter v. Barr which dealt with nonviolent felonies and firearm ownership. Barrett’s opinion was nuanced and quite brilliant re the basis of public threat as a litmus test for felon dispossession: https://t.co/6YQjErAkrO
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 13, 2020
Durbin is trying VERY HARD to making a point against Judge Barrett based on a misread of her actual writing.
This is such bad faith.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 13, 2020
Just an outrageous interruption from Durbin in the middle of Judge Barrett's response to mansplain about her own ruling.
I hope someone is counting these.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 13, 2020
Sen Durbin attempted to corner Judge Barrett into responding to matters involving the 2nd Amendment, voting rights and felons— Durbin failed! pic.twitter.com/PuMm2VwSOK
— beenewsdaily (@BeeNewsDaily) October 13, 2020
Sen. Durbin says "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." pic.twitter.com/gRlX4onfiu
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
Durbin, Of Course, Asks About ACA
Barrett reminds Durbin that Congress makes policy, not SCOTUS.
"I am not hostile to the ACA. I am not hostile to any statute that you pass," Barrett tells Sen. Dick Durbin.
She adds, "I apply the law, I follow the law. You make the policy." https://t.co/NN41m59TpP pic.twitter.com/V5XObVtEqV
— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 13, 2020
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?
Sen. Feinstein pushes Judge Barrett on whether she thinks that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided:
"I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come." pic.twitter.com/eyEXIAd0g3
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
BARRETT: "If I give off-the-cuff answers then I would be basically a legal pundit and I do not think we want judges to be legal pundit. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind." pic.twitter.com/Lgeogw7VnU
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
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
- Day One Live Blog
- Sen. Whitehouse Urges Republicans to ‘Stand Up’ to the Supposed ‘Big Donors’ Pushing Barrett’s Confirmation
- Sen. Hawley Unloads on Those Who Attack Barrett’s Catholic Faith: ‘That’s Bigotry’
- Durbin Parades Pictures of Kids at Barrett Hearing to Attack Republicans
- Did Kamala Harris Read Statement Remotely by Teleprompter for Barrett Hearing?
- Judge Amy Coney Barrett: ‘I Believe in the Rule of Law, Place of the Supreme Court in Our Nation’
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Maybe Judge Barrett can pass out diapers to all the Dems before the inquisition starts.
And coloring books and crayons.
I know this would be “bad optics”, but, I’d like to see her walk over to Shellie Whitehouse and hand him her high school yearbook.
All aboard the Democrat cripple train, toot toot!
Crippled?!? I thought that was “handicapped”, you able-ist!
Not “handicapped”, “handi-capable”… 😉
Feinstein is coming across as a rambling fool.
Same Feinstein, different hearing.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…’
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.
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.
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.