20201013: Day 2 Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing For SCOTUS

What do senators with sense think about this whole process and the entire grandstanding affair that really isn’t necessary according the president.

And just to set the mood:

https://youtu.be/Lfy5Esue_ls

On Sunday, the opening statement Mrs. Barrett read yesterday was published at Fox News.

Monday, October 12, 2020

Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.

I thank Senator Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.

I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.

As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.

My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve. 

Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.

My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.

My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.

I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.

My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.

Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now. I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.

In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.

When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed—requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.

I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.

And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)

Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).

Today’s links:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
107 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

GA/FL

Thanks, DP!
RSBN is also carrying the hearing today!
Live now:

Deplorable Patriot

Thanks. Didn’t see that one when I searched.

GA/FL

I usually check RSBN first now – in order to avoid the negative propaganda – which even CSPAN spews.

trackback

[…] Posted By: Deplorable Patriot 0 View 0 Comment KAG, MEGA, MIGA 6ViewsShareTweetMail […]

GA/FL

GRAHAM IS AT HIS BEST AGAIN THIS MORNING!!! He’s dissecting the left’s pathos and drama yesterday about Øbamacare!

GA/FL

Graham is dissecting the abortion and other issues. He’s going to force the leftists’ hands – make them defend 3rd term murder of unborn infants!

Deplorable Patriot
🦋🤸‍♀️🦋bflyjesusgrl🦋🤸‍♀️🦋

NO DiChiFi, for the 4th time and any future times you ask, I’m NOT TELLING YOU how I would rule on abortion OR ANY OTHER DAMN CASE!!!!
For the love of God, STOP F’ING ASKING!!!!🙄🤨🥱

kalbokalbs

Guessing, “asked and answered” won’t go over well. Although nicely saves time.

wheatietoo

GA/FL

Here comes the ‘marriage equality’ sewage…. muting.

wheatietoo

wheatietoo

wheatietoo

wheatietoo

kalbokalbs

d-Rats are an embarrassment. Leahy is nauseating.
it is good Amy is young. i’d be playing tic tac toe on the scratch pad.

ddanna16

Great — ACB is not wearing a mask today!

Dora
wheatietoo

https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/1316026959093063681?s=20

GA/FL

Muting Durbin – insufferable Democrats!!!

kalbokalbs

ACB did a GREAT job defending taking away Rights should not be an absolute. Specific case was 2A. She was dissenting vote where a felon lost his 2A Rights.
Follow on question revealed, it IS unusual for Judges to parse when denying Rights is appropriate. Simply a felon, is not a reason.
IMO, it is insane, the willingness of so many to deny Americans their Rights.

Concerned Virginian

It appears that Judge Barrett’s BS Detection Meter is running at about 40 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Deplorable Patriot

She’s a mom. They tend to have that pretty honed.

bakocarl

Good rant by Se Lee . . . Have we (politicians) created this monster? Why, yes. Yes, you have. There are those in the House and Senate that want their political agenda so strongly, that they are willing to subvert the boundaries between the Legislative and the Judicial, so that Judicial candidates are approved by their political leanings and sitting judges are bound to decide matters of law by their political preferences.
DemonRats! SPIT!

Dora

I don’t always agree with Sen. Lee, but I thought he was great today!

piper567

carl, you nailed it…bigly…with so few words.
well done!

phoenixrising37

JERRY DUNLEAVY@JerryDunleavy
·
1h
Cornyn: “Most of us have multiple notebooks & notes & books & things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what youve been referring to in answering our questions?”
ACB:
Cornyn: “Is there anything on it?”
ACB: “The letterhead that says US Senate.”

phoenixrising37

https://twitter.com/BuzzPatterson/status/1316023249969397761?s=20
Who’s Gonna Be Lucky Indicted #2? – Brian Cates Retweeted
Buzz Patterson for Congress (CA-7)@BuzzPatterson
·
1h
US House candidate, CA-7
Sheer genius right here.
Quote Tweet
Trish Turner@caphilltrish
· 3h
Judge Barrett is using no notes.

Concerned Virginian

OMG OMG OMG
I can’t stop reading down the tweet thread on this!
Judge Barrett OWNED Sen. Cornyn AND the DEMCOMS on the committee!
Cornyn’s response of “Uh, … that’s impressive” IS PRICELESS!

cthulhu

The only thing that would have been funnier is if she had written, “Murder is illegal.”

GA/FL

OMG!!!
Maria Bartiromo@MariaBartiromo
· 4h
Happening now: @ChuckGrassley just told me @CIA head Gina Haspell May also be part of the plot to take down @POTUS @realDonaldTrump & the coverup of #russiahoax @MorningsMaria @FoxBusiness
https://twitter.com/cjtruth/status/1316023085015863297

kalbokalbs

I believe!
What role remains to be seen. But, part of the coup.

GA/FL

Chilling. PDJT has spine and balls of titanium + heart of gold!

Deplorable Patriot

You know what, Queue did post a FlyGinaFly once, IIRC. Usually it would be the Rothschilds getting that treatment.
I’ll have to look and see if my memory is serving me well on that.

phoenixrising37

Gina was Station Head, London office … when Page and Strzok visited London
we’ve know this for some time… at least Techno Fog and Dawson Field and others have known

gil00

Well so why the white hat outfit? Deception or troll?
She can go to gitmo too.

phoenixrising37

The Library

Twitter
Will Chamberlain
There’s smart, and then there’s scary smart ACB is scary smart
194views
Harold Wren
,
10:13

phoenixrising37

The Library
She is a power house.

Twitter
Josh Holmes
There is something so incredibly striking about ACB sitting with no notes, hands in her lap. Just an intellectual power move if there ever was one.
191views
Harold Wren
,
10:00

ddanna16

She is being truthful and straight forward! You don’t need notes to remind you for that!

phoenixrising37

Some very truthful people need notes to remind them of court cases, etc.
Amy needs NOTHING. She remembers it ALL.

ddanna16

She is a smart lady, that’s for sure!

TheseTruths

Sheldon Whitehouse…I haven’t been able to listen to everything he says, but it seems completely inappropriate in this setting. If he wants to reform the system, do it in Congress. This hearing is about ACB’s qualifications, but he’s droning on and on and not asking her any questions. And it’s all skewed with a Leftist point of view. Insufferable.

Cuppa Covfefe

He’s more Whorehouse than Whitehouse…

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

Or more outhouse.

phoenixrising37

TheseTruths,
Mollie has a number of tweets about him this a.m.

Mollie@MZHemingway
·
23m
“Sheldon Whitehouse’s Dark Money Hypocrisy”
Mollie@MZHemingway
Sheldon Whitehouse is attacking the Federalist Society now. So did NeverTrump’s Michael Gerson today, in the Washington Post.
Mollie@MZHemingway
·
16m
Whitehouse is creepily obsessed with my amazing and awesome co-author @JCNSeverino. She’s pretty awesome and you should read our #1 national best-seller on the Kavanaugh hearings.
Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court
amazon.com
Mollie@MZHemingway
·
7m
Reminder that Whitehouse was the senator who explicitly threatened the Supreme Court to rule against the
Constitution’s 2nd amendment lest he push to … pack the court.
Mollie@MZHemingway
·
2m
Lindsay Graham seems to be enforcing no time constraints on the Democratic senators as they unspool their theories. Whitehouse just stopped himself after rambling like a crazy man for a half hour or so without asking a single question.
Tim Carney@TPCarney
America is getting to see Sheldon Whitehouse for who he is.

patfrederick

SERIOUSLY? NO TIME LIMITS?
liberals love to hear themselves spew!!

phoenixrising37

They usually hang themselves in their own spew…

phoenixrising37

Mollie Retweeted
Jonathan Turley@JonathanTurley
·
28m
Whitehouse is omitting groups like Article III Project, Fix Our Senate, and other groups which are spending considerable amounts to oppose this confirmation. He is also omitting liberal groups funding briefs in these cases.
The Barrett Hearing — Questions and Answers
I will be doing a running commentary today on the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court of the United States.
jonathanturley.org

TheseTruths

I respect Turley as someone who strives to be nonpartisan.

phoenixrising37

me too TheseTruths… he respects the Constitution…

kalbokalbs

So grateful my TV was muted while Whitehouse was yammering. Saw him all animated and pointed at chart after chart. Certified scumbucket D-rat.

bakocarl

Whitehouse’s rant boils down to two thoughts to me –
1. If you don’t like the rules about how money is donated to support issues and candidates, senator, then legislate some changes, and
2. Judge Barrett will continue to make decisions bases on codified law, not by who donates money for what.

TheseTruths

Ted Cruz to the rescue. He’s tearing up the Left with all the details Whitehouse left out.

phoenixrising37

Mollie@MZHemingway
Video of Democrats and Supreme Court Justices all agreeing that nominees should not say how they’ll rule on cases before hearing those cases.
Ginsburg Rule

phoenixrising37

Gallup Poll: Voters Do Not Support Claims Of A “Packed” Supreme Court

phoenixrising37

Margot Cleveland@ProfMJCleveland
·
30m
Sorry, but Senator Whitehouse lost all credibility when he passed on the fake rape-on-a-boat story to FBI.

Deplorable Patriot

As good and needed as Ted Cruz’s words are, isn’t this supposed to be about hearing Mrs. Barrett’s judicial philosophy?

bakocarl

I’m not generally a Ted Cruz fan, but he’s taking to the DemonRats BIGLY!

phoenixrising37

Thank goodness she tossed the mask today…

Sean Davis Retweeted
The Federalist@FDRLST
·
23m
MSNBC Analyst Compares Amy Coney Barrett In Mask To Sex Slave In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’
MSNBC Analyst Compares Amy Coney Barrett In Mask To Sex Slave In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’
Maxwell compared a photo of Barrett at her confirmation hearing wearing a mask to images from “The Handmaid’s Tale” television series.
thefederalist.com

TheseTruths

Yet they mandate masks.

Sadie Slays

Predictive programming.

phoenixrising37

Sean Davis Retweeted
Denny Burk@DennyBurk
·
2h
This answer from Amy Coney Barrett about how it feels to be nominated to the Supreme Court is incredible. It’s very sad and weighty, but also incredible. What a patriot and public servant. Outstanding.

Gudthots

Well spoken!

Aubergine

I LOVE HER.
She’s “that guy.”

bakocarl

When I see 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, I often speculate what if that decision went the way of the 4 dissenters, almost always the 4 DemonRats on the Court. Frightening!

phoenixrising37

Sean Davis @seanmdav
·
3h
Pretty good argument here, courtesy of @SenatorLeahy, for increasing the voting age to at least 26. Letting children vote seems like a bad idea.
Quote Tweet
Sean Davis@seanmdav
· 3h
“Children under the age of 26” is a phrase just uttered by a Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

phoenixrising37

Mollie@MZHemingway
Why Does The Washington Post Hate Supreme Court Nominees’ Children So Much?
One WaPo headline falsely suggested the Coney Barrett children spread COVID-19 at their school. Another Post writer critiqued Coney Barrett’s hearing as “child-obsessed.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/13/why-does-the-washington-post-hate-supreme-court-nominees-children-so-much/#.X4Xo_EqpBpo.twitter

phoenixrising37

Sean Davis Retweeted
Washington Examiner@dcexaminer
·
Oct 12
“Judge Amy Coney Barrett has the potential not simply to be another originalist voice, or a vote for conservative (if not always libertarian) outcomes, but to be an intellectual leader on the Supreme Court,” writes @ishapiro
The brilliance lives loudly within her
Amy Coney Barrett has the potential to be an intellectual leader on the Supreme Court.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-brilliance-lives-loudly-within-her

phoenixrising37

I wonder what her IQ is? Bet you could add up the IQs of all the DIM senators in the hearing, and it would NOT rise to ACB’s………….
Add in her calm, eloquent demeanor and you have not simply a Justice of SCOTUS… you have a CHIEF JUSTICE to be… probably the best in all history.
Go pound sand DIMs… you’re looking like the fools you are.

GA/FL

Muted mean salad comb lady.

phoenixrising37

the one with the fake emotions yesterday? sociopaths have to watch for social cues from those around them… they lack empathy… and often common sense.

Deplorable Patriot

https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1316008244666564609..
Shannon Bream
@ShannonBream
Judge Barrett says: We knew our family would be attacked. We knew our faith would be attacked. Why should I say no and expect someone else to do the hard work?
9:29 AM · Oct 13, 2020

Deplorable Patriot

phoenixrising37

JJ Sefton at Ace of Spades has some wonderful, colorful comments this a.m. wrt to this ‘Hearing’ …
… “Even as seemingly far gone, from a cultural and societal standpoint, as the nation appears to be, a clear (if not overwhelming) majority of Americans would still never support the majority of the Leftist-Democrat agenda. From the so-called “social issues” to issues central to the Bill of Rights, in all but the bluest of blue states, Democrats could never win an election by openly and honestly running on that platform. They rely on both the unelected fourth branch of government – the bureaucracy – to issue regulations that have the force of law and when ultimately challenged in the court, a cadre of judges to carve them in stone for all time, no matter how blatantly unconstitutional they might be.
Judge Barrett herself stated as such, though much more eloquently than I just did:

“Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in the public life.”
Also…
“The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”
Those two statements right there were like dropping 50,000 gallons of holy water from an aerial firefighting supertanker on Pazuzu. And considering that the Left are indeed G-dless heathens, that’s not just a metaphor.
Link for JJ’s complete column this a.m. http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=390768

phoenixrising37

Sean Davis Retweeted
Randy Barnett@RandyEBarnett
·
1h
Nice counter by @SenTedCruz to Senator Whitehouse’s dark money screws by discussing Arabella Advisors. Unusual for Republicans to respond so promptly and effectively to this charge.
https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1316068101641863174?s=20

para59r

Cruz put a great deal of our angst with democrats in a nice neat deplorable basket and shoved it in there face. Done succinctly and with style.

para59r

*their

phoenixrising37

Agree

Deplorable Patriot

Ben Sasse is ripping the Dems and not naming them.

kalbokalbs

ACB IS brilliant… Even slow guy understands per points and they both make sense and commonly for me, educational.

kalbokalbs

With Coons, “asked and answered” is appropriate. Coons is openly hostile to ACB.

Deplorable Patriot

I went to the grocery store. Saved $15 on $35 worth of red meat.
(That’s my version of a trophy. It’s in the freezer.)

Deplorable Patriot

Oh, Dickie, knock off the grandstanding, please.

bakocarl

D’Rats love to take a person’s situation in life and then extrapolate their evaluation of that person’s situation to various circumstances, either to that person’s detriment or benefit, whichever way they want to focus.
For example, if you were raised in a traditional white, Christian family and environment, D’Rats may judge you lacking in life experiences and having prejudices that would impede your performance as a judge.
And, conversely, as we saw with Justice Sotomayor, they value her life experiences that she would bring to the court as a “wise Latina”.
Judge Barrett, when asked about the effect of her experiences in a multiracial family, brought up that she also had a son with a disability and immediately added that although those experiences may have benefited her as a person, they had absolutely no bearing on how she would interpret the laws set before her.
That’s what I want to see on the Supreme Court.

Deplorable Patriot

ACB “I’m testing my eye sight.” I feel your pain, sweetheart.

Deplorable Patriot

“What I hear you saying is….” DeNang Dick.
Oh, if I had $5 for every time I’ve heard that from a certain persuasion of people.

Deplorable Patriot
Deplorable Patriot
Deplorable Patriot

The swamp creature from my native Missouri has spoken.

Deplorable Patriot

Crazy Maisie. 🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢

Linda

GA/FL

BULLETIN from MARINE ONE!

gil00

And hes a gay predator.

bakocarl

Well, my evaluation of HUH is changing . . . I think PTrump needs her as part of his administration . . . so he can send her as permanent envoy to Novaya Zemlya.

Gudthots

TOP URL is Babylon Bee’s #ACB fun!comment image

Elizabeth Carter

I was impressed with Senator Kennedy and Marsha Blackburn in the last segment for today.
Amy Barrett handled herself very well. To answer questions and expound on topics that were basically thrown at her to trip her up in such a calm, measured and forthright manner were beyond my expectations. She had no notes and no one to consult with. She comes across as totally authentic. She knows her job and she knows herself.
We will be very blessed and honored to have her as a conservative Supreme Court Justice.

GA/FL

Imagine how wonderfully and thoroughly she will mentor generations of clerks in the right methods/tactics of handling the law and Constitution!!!

GA/FL

JUST A REMINDER President Trump’s AMERICA FIRST HEALTHCARE PLAN….
THREE PILLARS:
1. Greater Choice.
– More Plan and Doctor Choices.
2. Lower Cost.
– Price Transparency – Openly Post Prices
– True Competition
– Lower prices for drugs – equal price for Americans.
– Savings for Seniors.
3. Better Care.
– Protect pre-existing conditions
– Protect Medicare and Social Security
– Right to Try
VIDEO –

It’s going to be far better than Øbamacare!!!

cthulhu

One Senator — I didn’t catch who — went off on some extended riff about a hypothetical uninformed person with no life experience, values, or principles — “like Bluto in Animal House” — wouldn’t be a good candidate for SCOTUS.
And it struck me, in the credits at the end…..doesn’t Bluto end up as a Senator?

Deplorable Patriot

Yep.

GA/FL

Wonder what ever happened to Bluto on the blog?

gil00

He commented a while then stopped. He lives somewhere local to me. After the ban I did see him ot again. Dunno now.

Elizabeth Carter

That was Senator Kennedy. He was actually speaking in support of Amy Barrett. He was making the point that she has training and values and the Dems were saying that is a bad thing. He was very good.

cthulhu

It didn’t seem hostile. I was just struck by how ironic it was to be hearing this from a sitting Senator.
One thing that I didn’t hear/see enough of (IMHO) was that judges don’t judge principles, or values, or issues — and, most of the time, even laws. They judge cases. Cases have two parties* — prosecutor and defense, or plaintiff and respondent. Most of the time, both parties agree on what the applicable laws are — you very seldom have counsel for an alleged murderer saying, “no, the applicable law should be that of petty larceny.” And you have a set of facts to be applied within the template of the law.
Now, some laws are so poorly written or ill-considered that they defy common sense, rational thought, and the greater body of law — those are the times the laws themselves are judged and may be deemed “unconstitutional”. Most Appellate and SCOTUS cases do not go that route.
And that is why asking hypothetical “would you overturn Roe” questions is stupid. The original decision came down in 1973. Roe is now dead. That case cannot be relitigated. And if a similar case would arise, the world is a far different place than the world of 1973.
To take one tiny corner of the case — there was this big deal about sorting abortions into trimesters, which was based on the medical knowledge of the time. Not surprisingly, there have been a lot of medical advances in the ensuing 50 years. The fact pattern of 1973 could not be fully replicated today. Airlines were deregulated in the later 70s and air-fares to distant cities became far less expensive.
And this is not because of conservatives or liberals; evangelicals or feminazis; eugenicists or baby-lovers…..it’s because the world has changed and the case will be different because of it.
But all sides want to cling to the glories of their pasts, and so it is never addressed.
*Except, of course, in Sullivan’s court….

bakocarl

Just think, of the few people that are still sane but undecided (can there even be one?), they got a really good, up close and personal look at the thinking processes of all of the D’Rats assigned to a very important Senate committee.

cthulhu

Just as an aside…..I have a great level of respect for ACB in a professional context and believe that she’d be a great asset to SCOTUS and probable Chief Justice once Roberts’ conflicted and perverted path catches up to him. But today was the first time I’ve heard her speaking voice.
I was expecting “Friends, Romans, Countrymen — lend me your ears!” — with maybe a little echo. After all, she’s got a gang of seven to round up and head out and has been teaching. Instead, I thought her voice was a bit thin and reedy and unexpectedly high-pitched. Mind you, that has nothing to do with her intellect or abilities — which certainly do call for a Cecil B. DeMille presentation. And it certainly didn’t stop her from making KH look like an idiot. It was just odd.

gil00

I can appreciate your comment. Voices frequently dont match the personality. But since she is more cerebral and this is a special circumstance, perhaps comparing her voice to a casual relaxed tone if theres one out there would help.