Dakota Beacon

As is often the case, the hearings on confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee are revealing far more about the interrogators than about the nominee under examination.  We knew going in that this process would bring out the worst in Democrats - both in the press and in government.  Their treatment of Kavanaugh prepared us somewhat for this.  However, the behavior of these members of the Senate panel is shocking even to those of us jaded by their previous treatment of judges nominated to the Supreme Court.  

Some of them, such as Senator Hirono (D-HI) actually asked Barrett if she had been a rapist or had been accused of rape.  This is not a joke. Or maybe it is.  Others in the media dipped deeply into the grossest obscenities in attacking Barrett’s large family.   Some demanded that she disavow “white supremacy” - yes, white supremacy, an issue foreign to someone with a racially mixed family of children.  Barrett’s Catholic faith has, of course, been severely attacked.  Barrett, for her part, has been forthcoming as far as possible.  She refused several times to presume to predict how she would vote on reversing Roe v. Wade.  Repeatedly, the execrable and seemingly dense Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) pressed Barret, demanding why she would not say that Roe v. Wade was “settled forever”.  She made a clear distinction which eluded Senator Klobuchar between “settled case law” -  decisions which no longer admit of any assault, such as Brown v. Board of Education, known to us as the anti-segregation decision which found that “separate but equal” does not equal “equal” treatment under our law.  Black children were to be entitled to attend the same schools as white children (Joe Biden’s assertion that he did not want his kids in school in a “racial jungle” notwithstanding).  Obviously there is a huge difference between Roe v. Wade and Brown.  In Roe Americans have been disagreeing with this in large numbers since it was rendered.  For decades this question has been a bone of contention, year after year.  It’s nuances are discussed and are disagreed on, whereas in Brown there is no longer a question on this matter.  With the possible exception of David Duke or Joe Biden, it would be nearly impossible to find someone who would seriously argue that we should have segegated schools.  That would be an example of settled law.  In any case, a judge would be remiss in speculating, without specifics, on how any hypothetical case might be voted on.  Clearly, the question was out of line.  Asking it once should have been sufficient, but apparently, the quavering-voiced Klobuchar (did she learn this from Kamala - the woman who beat her out for the Vice Presidential nod from Biden?) had nothing, because she went on like a broken record on the matter, insultingly asking the same question as if she might get different answers, angry when she did not.  We have already seen the outrageous and disrespectful attitude of others, such as Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) toward Americans’ First Amendment rights under out Bill of Rights, and this seems to be continuing.  

We all know that if we are so unfortunate as to see Biden declared the winner (if even for a couple of months before he is replaced by the Pelosi-Harris tag-team) there will be an immediate attempt - probably successful - to pack the court.  That is, not to nominate to fill vacat seats but to add seats to the Supreme Court.  This would be to create a new unelected body to legislate - a body each member of which held a lifetime tenure and none of which is answerable to or elected by the people.  It would be there to basically enact a socialist program and be out of reach of the electorate - for life.  If this does not frighten you, you might find yourself at home in China, Cuba or perhaps Venezuela.  

For the present, however, there is precious little anyone can find to cast a shadow over the life and career of Amy Coney Barrett.  This is the reason for the obscenity, for the obnoxious badgering of a Klobuchar the insults of Feinstein and others of her ilk.  Hopefully these people will vent their spleen and it will be a finite exercise.  We can only hope that it will wrap up soon.  We are not going to hear any bombshells about Barrett.  Most of the Democrats’ time will be dedicated to showboating, to campaigning, rather than probing with any meaningful questions the attitudes of Barrett.  Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) spent their time discussing the real issues which have been and will be before the high court.  Their comments and questions provide material for a worthwhile discussion of the meaning of our Constitution and Bill of RIghts and how a good judge would weigh issues in terms of these laws of the land.  

Personally, I can’t wait for this to be over.  We need Barrett to be confirmed.  There are no grounds for not confirming her.  Democrats are just trying to run out their clock with as much venom as they can spew forth.  As with Kavanaugh’s hearings, a decent person feels dirty after hearing these people’s unbridled insults.  Of course, after a summer of “F---k the police”, etc., we should be getting used to street language.  I’m just embarrassed for them all.  I wonder what they will think if they ever cool down and listen to what came out of their mouths.  For her part, Barrett has exemplified what is meant by a judge NOT legislating from the bench, an appreication of the important role of ELECTED REPESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE in legislating, not substituting her own preferred outcome to the law as written.  This is the essence of what is required of a Supreme Court Justice.  

comments - (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)