Democrats Reveal Their Initial Line of Attack Against Amy Coney Barrett, and It’s Pathetic
They’ve got nothing. Really, the Democrats have absolutely nothing with which to attack Amy Coney Barrett. For proof of that, take a look at this pathetic strategy they apparently intend to unleash during Barrett’s upcoming hearings in October.
Let me offer an answer for that: How about no?
Congrats to Barrett on her confirmation, because if this is the best the Democrats can come up with, she’s going to fly through the confirmation process with flying colors. She might even pick up a few Democrat votes (Joe Manchin perhaps) along the way.
This also happens to not be the way any of this works. Justices do not recuse themselves from cases just because political hacks want them to. If Barrett is confirmed as expected, she will be as legally bound to execute her duties as any of her other colleagues. That includes casting a vote on any cases relating to the election.
Of course, this has been a conspiracy theory pushed by the left since Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the court. The Democrats are convinced that anyone nominated by Donald Trump is really just a secret agent for him to exact his will on the election processes. I guess they think the conservative wing of the court can just say “Trump is president” and have it happen or something? In reality, any case that would come before them would be decided based on the applicable law because conservative Justices actually have integrity and don’t just take orders from the rabid corners of the left-wing.
Barrett’s nomination capstones Trump’s first term as an unquestionable success for the conservative movement. While there is still work to be done (Alito and Thomas are both in their 70s), the country should be relatively safe from liberal court activism for at least the next decade. That’s why the Democrats have become so animated in their disapproval. They understand how big this battle was and that they’ve lost it. I suspect they’ll get more desperate as the hearings begin and that they’ll have a few more cards up their sleeve. But for now, if all they’ve got is unsupported demands of recusal, then good luck with that.
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/27/democrats-reveal-their-initial-line-of-attack-against-amy-coney-barrett-and-its-pathetic/ By: Bonchie September 27, 2020
(feature photo credit Judge Amy Coney Barrett listens as President Donald Trump announces Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court, in the Rose Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Comment: My questions are very different from the media and not directly related to Amy Coney Barrett’s qualifications. Nor, the hit piece recently written by Ibram Kendi a Boston University Professor. Ibram managed to stir up the Social Media sites Saturday evening by suggesting some of the following talking points……
- Ibram Kendi, founder and director of Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, sparked outrage on social media on Saturday
- He suggested whites adopt black kids to shield them from charges of racism
- Kendi was commenting on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s two Haitian children
- His tweets about Trump’s Supreme Court nominee prompted calls for his firing
- Democrats were criticized for questioning the legitimacy of her adoptions
- Barrett has five biological children and two adopted children for Haiti
- Republicans rushed to her defense and called the comments ‘disgusting’
- Trump announced Barrett as his Supreme Court nomination on Saturday
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8779469/Amy-Coney-Barrett-white-colonizer-adopting-two-black-children-Haiti-professor-says.html
Comment Number 2 – No, my questions are very different. And conveniently the Left/DNC Media has managed to open Pandora’s Box as it relates to Haiti. Many of these items were long since swept under the rug. Where did the monies ($2.5 billion) collected by the Clinton Foundation & Red Cross+ for Haiti relief go? Why did then, President Bill Clinton pardon Laura Silsby (charged with child trafficking in Haiti, not once, but twice)? Why did Hillary’s brother Dean Rodham simultaneously decide to start a gold mine? What Child Adoption agencies are legal in Haiti? Haiti was another haunt for the famous Epstein group – why?
And I note that Maria Bartiroma indicates no indictments prior to the election; as the DoJ does not want to influence the outcome. Or is it more likely that the DoJ would prefer to postpone the truth from the public prior to election?
The HAITI corruption is massive, IMHO
See Also: The Best Video You’ll Watch All Day