Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!
At today’s opening session of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats are already engaging in their traditional end-of-the-world demonization of any judge nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by a Republican president. For instance, Vermont Sen. Pat Leahy, an ultra-liberal longtime member of the panel, claims that people “are scared that the clock will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace.”
In addition to the abortion issue, Leahy also threw in Obamacare (per a case pending before the high court), which has emerged as a significant part of the liberal, anti-Barrett messaging, as well as climate change, among other issues.
“Sen. Leahy says he’s worried if Judge Barrett is confirmed, we’ll go back to a time where women can be discriminated against in the workplace. Is he unaware of who he is interviewing to fill the vacant seat? A highly-successful working mom of school-age children,” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser reacted on Twitter to Leahy’s remarks about the glass-shattering jurist.
Especially given the tight time frame to move the nomination toward confirmation before Election Day, with Democrats vowing to engage in stalling tactics, the committee is wasting an entire day with the traditional grandstanding in the form prepared statements by senators (with a lot of gratuitous Trump bashing on the Democrat side).
The judge, a mom of seven with outstanding professional credentials, is required to sit there stoically and listen, apart from delivering her own relatively brief statement. In this emotionally charged setting, wearing a mask might be a plus, apart from public health regulations.
Things won’t get interesting until Tuesday when lawmakers begin the actual questioning of the “scary judge.” Based on the way Democrats have conducted themselves in prior hearings of this nature, Judge Barrett should be, and presumably is, prepared for anything, including scorn for her faith. Democrats seem to have forgotten that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits a religious test as a condition for holding public office.
Watch the Leahy clip below:
Sen. Pat Leahy says on Judge Barrett's nomination that people "are scared that the clock will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace." pic.twitter.com/tHuixC2uNa
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 12, 2020
Sen. Leahy says he's worried if Judge Barrett is confirmed, we'll go back to a time where women can be discriminated against in the workplace.
Is he unaware of who he is interviewing to fill the vacant seat?
A highly-successful working mom of school-age children.#ConfirmAmy
— MarjorieDannenfelser (@marjoriesba) October 12, 2020
Dannenfelser added that “The strategy is clear: pretend Judge Amy Barrett is not sitting in the room right in front of you. Talk about everything but her qualifications and credentials. Pretend that she is a legislator as foil. Lionize RBG as if Judge Barrett hasn’t kicked through every glass ceiling.”
The strategy is clear: pretend Judge Amy Barrett is not sitting in the room right in front of you. Talk about everything but her qualifications and credentials. Pretend that she is a legislator as foil. Lionize RBG as if Judge Barrett hasn’t kicked through every glass ceiling.
— MarjorieDannenfelser (@marjoriesba) October 12, 2020
Parenthetically, while Leahy and his other colleagues are championing the so-called popularity of Obamacare, anyone who has actually been forced to go into a plan created by the fundamentally misnamed Affordable Care Act knows full well the degree to which the coverage, premium costs, co-pays, and deductibles are unsatisfactory.
Despite the Democrats’ fear-mongering about her faith, at the 2017 confirmation hearings for her seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett testified that “I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge” and “it’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else on the law.”
She has also separately said in the past that it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned outright.
Here’s what some of the judge’s former students and court clerks have to say about her.
ACB’s former clerks & students speak out in favor of her nomination to the Supreme Court.pic.twitter.com/8e20QaNNnV
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) October 11, 2020
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Robert@bizpacreview.com
Robert Jonathan is a staff writer for BizPac Review. He is a longtime writer/editor for news aggregation websites and has also developed content in the legal and financial publishing sectors as well as for online education. He earned a Juris Doctorate from the University of Connecticut School of Law, “a law school the basketball teams can be proud of.”
- Eric Swalwell’s ‘authoritarian’ response to Tim Scott’s defense of parental rights says everything - November 10, 2022
- Law school student alleges professor humiliated her via an exam in revenge for her conservative views - November 10, 2022
- AOC blasts NY Democrat Party leadership after critical GOP wins blowup Dem supermajority - November 10, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
