After Two Days Of Questions, Americans Now Know Why Judge Amy Coney Barrett Will Be A Great Supreme Court Justice
AS THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS CONTINUED ON WEDNESDAY, PEOPLE FROM ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AGREED THAT JUDGE BARRETT IS “AN EXEMPLARY NOMINEE”
- Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) pronounced herself “really impressed” with Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s explanation of the doctrine of severability during her confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
- CBS News’ Kathryn Watson: “Barrett sees some increase in support for her confirmation hearing across the political spectrum.”
- Fox News’ John Roberts: “Amy Coney Barrett is repeatedly recounting details of past cases and historical references off the top of her head - without notes - in response to long, scripted questions.”
- The Views’ Sara Haines: “I was impressed with her legal prowess,” even though “I disagree fundamentally with Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial philosophy.”
- The National Review’s Rich Lowry: Judge Barrett “handled herself brilliantly, she is an exemplary nominee.”
- Former United States Solicitor General Ken Starr: Judge Amy Coney Barrett gets “high marks… A+” for her performance during her second day of confirmation hearings.
- George Washington University Law Professor Johnathan Turley: Judge Barrett is “very skillful,” has “deep understanding of jurisprudence.”
- Fox News’ Martha MacCallum: Judge Barrett’s nomination is “significant,” an inspiration to “all of young women.”
- The Washington Post Day 3 takeaways: Barrett will “end up on the Supreme Court.”
IN HER SECOND DAY OF QUESTIONING, JUDGE BARRETT VOWED THAT SHE WOULD NOT DISCUSS LEGAL HYPOTHETICALS AND WOULD NOT LET POLITICS OR PERSONAL PREFRENCE INFLUENCE HER RULINGS
- In her second day of questioning, Judge Barrett said she would not discuss “legal hypotheticals’ whether they are easy or hard questions”
- When pressured how she would rule in certain cases, Judge Barrett held her ground and reassured Democrats that she has no agenda and she will not express her personal view as it would “violate the judicial canons of ethics.”
- Doug Sovern: “‘I have no animus to or agenda on the #AffordableCareAct,’ #ACB says again, in contentious exchange with @amyklobuchar.”
WHILE JUDGE BARRETT CONTINUED TO IMPRESS, DEMOCRATS DREW CRITICISM FOR POLITICIZING THE PROCESS AND MISREPRESENTING THE NOMINEE
- After being pressed on questions if she would be exactly like Justice Scalia, Judge Barrett said to Democrat Senator Chris Coons (D-DE): “I hope that you aren’t suggesting that I don’t have my own mind.”
- After Democrats suggested that there are Republican and Democrat Judges; Barrett corrected the record by saying that “they are just judges,” and they are not associated by a political entity.
- The National Review’s John McCormack: Barrett has been able to answer tough questions masterfully and has handled herself well even when Democrats “interrupt her to stop her from offering her answer.”
- The Federalist’s Chad Felix Greene: “Democrats are showing themselves to be remarkably easy to manipulate and transparently opportunistic in their desperate efforts to attack Barrett.”
- The National Review’s John McCormack criticized Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) for “mansplaning” during his questioning.
- The National Review's David Harsanyi: “Durbin is concerned. Also, doesn't understand what originalism means.”
- George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley: “Barrett just landed a haymaker. Durbin said that her answer ‘stains originalism’: Barrett responded that it would ‘strain the canons of [judicial] conduct . . . it would strain Article III’ to answer such questions.”
- Americans For Public Trust: “What @SenWhitehouse failed to mention is how millions of dollars have been funneled through the liberal Sixteen Thirty Fund into the Supreme Court battle..."
VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE KAMALA HARRIS’ MISLEADING AND INACCURATE QUESTIONING WAS MORE OF A CAMPAIGN SPEECH THAN SENATE PROCEEDING
- The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin noted Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) “unintentionally makes the case for an originalist interpretation,” a philosophy Judge Barrett has continued to back.
- McLaughlin: Harris is “obviously framing her “questions specially to get Barrett to not answer them.”
- Mediaite’s Sarah Rumpf: “This line of questioning by @KamalaHarris is misleading. Just because one side is an employee & the other side an employer, doesn't mean the employee is always right. Without knowing the facts & relevant law, it's inaccurate to claim a ruling for the employer is obviously unfair.”
- Radio Host Hugh Hewitt noted that Harris’ questioning appears to show that she had “not been closely following the hearing in which is participating in.”
- Business Insider’s Grace Panetta applauded Judge Barrett’s exchange with Harris, as the Judge corrected Harris’ claim that the Court in the Shelby County struck down Section 5’s preclearance rule.
- CBS’ Ramesh Ponnuru: “Harris says these hearings lack legitimacy in the eyes of the American people who want to wait on confirmation. Meanwhile: Americans are showing overwhelming support of Judge Barrett.”
White House SCOTUS Read more research
