It was utterly amazing, the first hearing of the
on giving its consent to President
Amy Coney Barrett
produced irrefutable evidence that they do not understand our republic, the
or the court. They think court decisions should legislatively establish policies instead of protecting rule of law.
Democratic senator after Democratic senator assumed that Barrett, if placed on the court, would concur with five other justices
more or less of her ilk in scrapping the Affordable Care Act in an upcoming case. Surrounded by large colorful pictures of
possible victims, they then talked fervently about how millions would be left in misery with no insurance they can afford,
maybe no insurance at all if they have preexisting conditions, a mass catastrophe.
First off, legal analysts say there is almost no way the court would terminate the program. I ran across one expert saying
all nine justices would likely vote to sustain it. The issue has mostly to do with the individual mandate, the original Affordable
Care Act requirement that Americans buy insurance or pay up without it. An earlier
Supreme Court decision changed its penalty status to being a tax and said it was OK and then
Congress got rid of it. Now there's this idea that the rest of Obamacare is unconstitutional without the sustaining tax, but the arguments
are weak and Barrett's constitutionalist mind is not.
Just like the late Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however, Barrett says she will not say what she will do on a case until she has heard the arguments, looked at the evidence
and studied precedents, relevant constitutional language and relevant laws and practices, such as protecting people relying
on a program. To speak out first would be like skipping trials before jury verdicts. The
Democrats don't get it and also struggle to grasp Barret's constitutionalism. It's not that hard. What it means is that, in deciding
a case, her own preferences are not important. The language of the
To neglect its content is to convert the court to an oligarchy unanswerable to the people in elections as it decides on its
own what the
Constitution should say. Leftists contend this is an outdated old document with no grasp of modernity and that what we need is a living
Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Constitution as formulated by anarchic, up-to-date pomposity. Excuse me, but the still-standing founding principles hold up extremely
well and we have a democratic if necessarily difficult amendment process that should be ignored no more than a president's
The second day of the hearing, when the calm, cool, brilliant, good-hearted Barrett was more or less interviewed by committee
senators of both parties, was more pleasant with several astonishing exceptions. One was Sen.
Sheldon Whitehouse, D-
Rhode Island, who informed us of a conspiracy in which unidentified rich people _ "dark money" _ are using Barrett as part of an effort
to take over America. Sen.
Ted Cruz, R-
Texas, crushed him with facts, not the least being that
Wall Street and wealthy corporations are giving three times as much to
Democrats as to
Republicans who still care about free speech and religious liberty.
To some less extreme if still befuddled
Democrats, Barrett is just a Trump ploy to get from her whatever he wants -- a horrific insult to her -- and the hearings are unsafe
because senators are subjected to virus threats almost as great as going to a grocery store. Some absurdly pretend the whole
thing is itself unconstitutional. They point to a Republican farce on a court nomination to justify them now taking roughly
the same farcical position, but the scariest thing in all of this is a ruinous plan to pack the court if Barrett is approved.
The Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden is refusing to state his position, obviously afraid he will lose votes whichever way he turns. He should therefore get no
Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado.