“Can you tell us what you have consulted to answer our questions?” Asked a Republican senator during the hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court. She then showed a blank notebook. “Do you have anything written?” Asked the senator. And she replied, “The headline says United States Senate.” “Impressive,” said the senator.
Amy Barrett has an exceptional resume, worked with the respected judge Antonin Scalia, nominated for the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. She is a young, beautiful woman, mother of 7 children, two of them adopted in Haiti. By any objective criterion that can be judged, she is what feminists would call “empowered women”.
They would call, I said, but they don’t. And the reason is simple: Amy is a conservative Christian, was nominated by Trump, and that is enough to demonize her. Even with their discreet clothes, the women of the Democratic Party have already been involved!
Because she is not an abortionist, this creates distrust. Because she is not a militant activist who intends to use the Court to legislate instead of applying the Constitution, this makes her the target of “progressives”. Unable to deconstruct their unblemished reputation and their notorious legal knowledge, opponents resort to nitpicking, thereby exposing the degree of Democratic radicalism.
They do not tolerate judges in the Supreme Court, because their vision for the Judiciary is that of an extension of the Legislative power. In fact, even more: they want to rule through the Supreme Court, because that way they may even lose at the polls, but preserve power. They want someone there who will “push the story”, not respect the laws.
It is an abyss in relation to what the “founding fathers” like Hamilton wanted for the Judiciary. All the more reason for those who appreciate the rule of law to support Trump’s re-election …