Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, sat for nearly 20 hours of questioning by 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over two days. At the outset of the process, Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham acknowledged that her confirmation by the panel was all but guaranteed.
“This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens. All Republicans will vote yes and all Democrats will vote no and that will be the way the breakout of the vote,” Graham said. But he added that the hearings give the American people the chance to “find out about Judge Barrett.”
On Thursday, the panel, along party lines, set Oct. 22 as the date for its vote on Barrett’s nomination. The full Senate will vote after that.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was harshly scolded over her conduct during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday.
“What do you think of all that?” a smiling Feinstein asked the somewhat confused circuit judge–before clarifying that she wanted an answer about the basic legal concept known as severability in the context of a case that many conservatives hope, and that many liberals fear, could be the end of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
To which Barrett replied:
I think the doctrine of severability as it has been described by the [Supreme] Court serves a valuable function of trying not to undo your work when you wouldn’t want a court to undo your work. Severability strives to look at a statue as a whole and say: “Would Congress have considered this provision so vital that–kind of in a Jenga game–pulling it out, Congress wouldn’t want the statute anymore?”
So, it is designed to effectuate your intent.
Severability is designed to say: “Well, would Congress still want the statute to stand even with this provision gone?”; “Would Congress still have passed the same statute without it?” So, I think insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted, it’s the [Supreme] Court and Congress working hand-in-hand.
Feinstein was visibly moved by the conservative law professor’s studied command of the rudimentary concept.
“Thank you!” she said. “That’s quite a definition. I’m really impressed. Thank you.”
But the effusive response earned Feinstein nothing but scorn from the left.
But she was caught on hot mic again disparaging Amy Coney Barrett’s religion so everything she said officially was just a lie!
Senator Feinstein did not know the video was off when she said this, “She’s been pro-life for a long time. So I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.”
Democrats no longer believe this expression of deep Christian faith is acceptable behavior for Americans in public office.
Alex D is a conservative journalist, who covers all issues of importance for conservatives. He writes for Conservative US, Red State Nation, Defiant America, and Supreme Insider. He brings attention and insight from what happens in the White House to the streets of American towns, because it all has an impact on our future, and the country left for our children. Exposing the truth is his ultimate goal, mixed with wit where it’s appropriate, and feels that journalism shouldn’t be censored. Join him & let’s spread the good word!