Throughout The Second Day Of Hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s “Terrific” Performance Has Clearly Demonstrated That She Will Be An Excellent Addition To The Supreme Court
DURING THE SECOND DAY OF CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT VOWED TO ADHERE TO THE RULE OF LAW AND NOT LET HER POLITICS OR PERSONAL PREFERENCES INFLUENCE HER RULINGS
- During the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Democrats pressed the Judge on politics, while she reassured them that she will continue “to stick to the rule of law.”
- Judge Barrett said that she interprets “the Constitution as a law,” and “that meaning doesn’t change over time” and it’s not up to her to change it.
- Judge Barrett: “I have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law as the law.”
- Judge Barrett: "My policy views, my moral convictions, my religious beliefs do not bear on how I decide cases, nor should they."
- After being pressured to answer Democrats’ politically biased questions, Judge Barrett explained that it would be wrong to express her view as similar cases could come before the Supreme Court.
- Judge Barrett committed to following the Ginsburg rule and not answer any hypothetical cases, just as all Supreme Court nominees since Ginsburg have.
- Judge Barrett was clear that she has never made any pre-commitments to anyone, and has never been asked to, as it would be inconsistent with judicial independence.
- When asked if President Trump asked her to commit to knocking down the Affordable Care Act, Judge Barrett said “absolutely not. I was never asked, and if I had been, that would have been a short conversation.”
- Throughout the hearing, Judge Barrett stated that she has no 'hostility' toward Affordable Care Act.
EXPERTS AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR JUDGE BARRETT TO PRE-JUDGE CASES DURING HER CONFIRMATION HEARING
- David French: “Thereby doing exactly the right thing. It's improper to pre-judge cases, which come to the court with different facts, different procedural postures, and different relevant (and sometimes competing) precedents. Pre-judging cases means recusing from cases.”
- Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University: “Senators have finally broken free from any pretense of principle in reviewing the qualifications of a nominee. Indeed, many are about to create a new rule, the Barrett Rule, allowing conditional confirmation voting.”
PRAISE ROLLED IN DURING THE SECOND DAY OF HEARINGS, WITH PUNDITS ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM PRAISING HER “IMPRESSIVE” PERFORMANCE
- Rich Lowery, Editor of National Review: “Amy Coney Barrett has been terrific—composed, knowledgeable, sure-footed, clear, and patient. She has made no mistakes, easily swatted away dubious arguments and avoided traps, while maintaining her even, friendly demeanor throughout.”
- The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis: “An incredibly impressive performance by ACB this morning. I don’t see how she (or anyone) could have done any better.”
- Lewis: “[Judge Barrett] is demonstrating she is super smart and knowledgeable—without sounding condescending or elitist.”
- Fox News’ Bret Baier: Judge Barrett “is obviously a very accomplished judge, someone who knows her brief very well.”
- CNN’s Dana Bash: Judge Barrett is showing she is incredibly “impressive,” “smart,” and “confident.”
- CNN’s Dana Bash: Amy Coney Barrett’s preparation for hearing “will impress both Democrats and Republican.
- CNN’s John King: “In another age... Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be getting 70 votes or more.”
- King: Judge Barrett “has a pretty compelling story” she is telling the American people.
- CNN Reports: Even Democrats think Judge Barrett has been “very impressive.”
- American radio host, Hugh Hewitt: “Judge Barrett is clear, precise, polite and concise and her grasp of the law is the equal of any nominee I’ve watched since law school. A remarkable intellect.”
- NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell: Judge Barrett was relatable, "very accessible, and touching to me.”
- The Washington Post: Judge Barrett’s background “may resonate with Americans.”
- Judge Barrett is “doing exactly what she needs to do” to unite support for putting her on the Supreme Court.
JUDGE BARRETT REMAINED “UNSCATHED” BY TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM DEMOCRATS, ANSWERING THEM WITHOUT HAVING ANY NOTES IN FRONT OF HER
- The Chicago Tribune: Barrett’s question and answer session with Senators was “serious, disciplined, and mostly uninterrupted.”
- The Washington Post: “Barrett is not prone to being flustered or flubbing her arguments.”
- Sophia A. Nelson, CNN Political and Legal Pundit, highlighted that Judge Barrett was able to answer difficult questions and spoke about “stare decisis and super precedents’ like Brown V BOE. saying they should not be overturned.”
- The Associated Press: “Barrett unscathed by tough Democratic confirmation probing.”
- Erik Rosales, Correspondent for EWTN News Nightly: “What is so amazing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett is testifying with only a small note pad and a pencil. She is a former law professor who is often correcting Senators on the details of the cases headed to the Supreme Court. She is schooling lawmakers.
- The Hill’s Joe Concha: “Sen. Booker reading almost entirely from notes to Coney Barrett- who has now gone 8+ hours without them.”
- The New York Times: Barrett delivered her “hours long testimony, including detailed legal references, without any notes.”
WHILE JUDGE BARRETT WAS PRAISED FOR HANDLING DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, DEMOCRATS WERE CRITICIZED FOR BEING MISLEADING AND TALKING DOWN TO THE NOMINEE
- While Judge Barrett has continued to handle tough questions, pundits and reporters noted that Democrats talked down to the Judge and continued to be misleading.
- The National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis: “Democrats are having a tough time villainizing Amy Barrett because in every interaction we’ve seen so far from her, she’s come across as a normal human being — and a highly intelligent and deeply compassionate one at that.”
- Carrie Severino, Judicial Network President: “@SenBlumenthal is wrong. The word ‘radical’ does not appear in Judge Barrett's opinion in Kanter v. Barr.”
- The Washington Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy: “Klobuchar repeatedly & unconvincingly misrepresenting ACB’s words & stances. Pretty shameless.”
- Lanhee J. Chen, Fellow at the Hoover Institute: “Democrats are misleading Americans on what a Justice Amy Coney Barrett would mean to the future of Obamacare.”
- Rich Lowery, Editor of National Review: Democrats shouldn’t be criticizing Barrett on her knowledge of health care policy “because that’s not her job.”
- The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, criticized Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) as she started to suggest that Judge Barrett is responsible for “policy considerations.”
- Jonathan Turley: “Hirono is demanding ‘precedent’ based on ‘real-life impacts.’ That is not a legal analysis but simply upholding laws based on your agreement with the policy. She has called the distinction between policy and law as a "fiction." That certainly makes this hearing simpler.”
- Alexandra Desanctis: “Cory Booker just cited the open letter from Notre Dame faculty calling on Barrett to withdraw her nomination. As I said earlier, not one of those faculty members is a colleague of Barrett’s in Notre Dame’s law school.”
- Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay: “This will probably have the opposite of its intended effect. They couldn't find *one* law school faculty member to sign?”
- Commentary’s Noah Rothman: “I don't know what rank-and-file Democrats expected from their Judiciary members, but this clear inability to land a single blow to her confirmability in these ponderous lines of questioning isn't it.”
INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES, DEMOCRATS LIKE SENATOR WHITEHOUSE USED HIS TIME FOR A POLITICAL SPEECH AND REFUSED TO HAVE COMMENTARY WITH JUDGE BARRETT
- The Wall Street Journal: “The confirmation hearing has been transformed into a debating platform, with the senators now using their 30 minutes largely to speechify instead of to ask Judge Amy Coney Barrett questions.”
- CNN’s Manu Raju: Senator Whitehouse just delivered a “30-minutes speech about dark money without asking a question to Barrett.”
- Guy Benson, Fox News Contributor: highlighted that there was no exchange at all with the nominee.
- The National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, called Whitehouse’s speech political malpractice as he didn’t allow an exchange with Judge Barrett.
- Good Morning America’s T.J. Holmes admitted that he had a hard time following Senator Whitehouse “and his 150 props.”
- Politico’s Jake Sherman, suggested that speeches like Whitehouses’ should be banned during confirmation hearings
- Morning Consult’s Eli Yokley praised Judge Barrett, as she was able to sit with “poise” and no reaction during Whitehouse’s long monologue.
- CBS News’ Grace Segers criticized Whitehouse as Americans should have this opportunity “to hear directly from the nominee.”
- The Washington Post’s Seung Min Kim, reacted to Whitehouse not asking questions, stating that Senators “owe it to the public to ask good, probing questions that shed light on a nominee’s philosophy.”
VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE KAMALA HARRIS’ QUESTIONS WERE WIDELY PANNED AS A POLITICAL STUNT AND “SURPRISINGLY BAD”
- The National Review’s John McCormack: “For a former prosecutor, Harris is surprisingly bad at interrogating someone.”
- The Wall Street Journal’s Tarini Parti: “Harris, who is known for her tough questioning of Trump admin nominees” is instead using “her time today to talk about the Affordable Care Act instead of asking Barrett Questions.
- The Hill’s Joe Concha: “So does Barrett get to speak during this “questioning” by Harris reading entirely off pre-prepared remarks for minutes on end or... nah?”
- Concha: “Harris now repeatedly interrupting Barrett. The practice was condemned last week during the VP debate.”
- Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: “Wow. @KamalaHarris embarrasses herself two weeks in a row. #ConfirmAmy.”
White House SCOTUS Read more research
