Judge Amy Coney Barrett brilliantly used the words of late associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while keeping Democrats at arm’s length during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing.

Senate Democrats are foaming at the mouth to use any and every method to discredit Barrett.

Unfortunately for them, they showed all of their cards in 2018 when they subjected then-high court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a public and humiliating witch hunt.

This time around, the Democrats have been reduced to using a more subtle approach, attacking Barrett with veiled swipes disguised as harmless and relevant inquiries.

Look at this disgusting display from Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.

For the most part, though, attacks on Barrett and her faith have been tame, and there haven’t been any high school yearbook references.

But Democrats are desperate as they seek to diminish Barrett in the eyes of the public.

Thus far, they seem unable to mount an effective smear campaign to explain why President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee shouldn’t be confirmed.

Not only did they fail to count on Barrett being well prepared to answer their “gotcha” questions, but they also apparently underestimated her knowledge of both the history of the court, and of the woman she will likely replace.

Barrett was hit with a barrage of questions Tuesday with regard to where she stands on a number of hot button issues, including abortion, the upcoming election, same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act.

During one such exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Barrett schooled the California Democrat and her left-leaning colleagues.

Feinstein asked Barrett if she shares the view of late Justice Antonin Scalia, who she clerked for, that there is a constitutional guarantee for a right to same-sex marriage.

Barrett hit her with the so-called “Ginsburg rule.”

“I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I’ve been giving,” Barrett explained.

She continued, “Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing: no hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the ‘Ginsburg Rule’ because she stated it so concisely and it’s been the practice of every nominee since.”

Checkmate!

Democrats are unable to stump Barrett, who is obviously more qualified to do the job she’s been tapped for than they are to do their jobs.

Indeed, Ginsburg did set such a precedent in 1993.

In an excerpt of a 1993 confirmation hearing, shared online by C-SPAN, Ginsburg said, “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

How can Democrats argue with the words of Ginsburg?

Sure, Barrett’s presence in the Senate is violating the nonexistent “dying wish” clause used by Democrats to oppose her nomination, but apparently, Barrett knows more about the liberal icon’s place in the judiciary than the party which championed Ginsburg as its hero.

Barrett is supremely qualified for the high court, using that metric alone.

You Might Like