Democratic opposition to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is based on their unsuccessful demand for her to promise to legislate from the bench.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
In the past few weeks, the American people have been introduced to Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the Senate considered her candidacy for the position of Assistant Supreme Court Justice.
From her opening speech at the White House to her last day of confirmation hearings on the Senate Judicial Committee, we’ve seen one of the most qualified candidates ever nominated for the Supreme Court.
It was already known that Justice Amy Coney Barrett by any measure, including the ABA gold standard, is incredibly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has extensive experience, including serving as a judicial law clerk for Judge Antonin Scalia and as a Judge for the Seventh Circuit, but her unaddressed execution during affirmation hearings showed a thoughtful and impartial commitment to applying the Constitution and the law as written.
By the second day of the hearing, it became clear that my fellow Democrats on the committee were grasping at straws, trying to find reasons to object to its nomination.
Their entire opposition is based on their unsuccessful demand for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to promise to legislate from the bench and advance their liberal agenda, infringing on your right to religious freedom and to keep and bear arms.
Democrats know that if they cannot push forward their radical liberal agendas like the Green New Deal and taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants through legislation, they can appoint judges to do their jobs for them, transforming the federal government. the judicial system in the continuation of state power. legislature. It is not right.
Even more troubling than the Democrats’ demands for Judge Barrett to be a legislator from the dock is their plan to fill the Court if they don’t get their way.
This is not a new concept, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to “package” the Supreme Court, but ultimately failed. Why did Trump select succeed Amy Coney Barretts? Check out details!
For over 150 years, the Supreme Court has been composed of nine judges. The late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed that nine judges is a good number for the Court, and for good reason.
Sadly, former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Kamala Harris, California, Senator Chuck Schumer, New York. and their liberal allies are obsessed with repeating the mistakes of the past and filling the Supreme Court with left-wing activists.
Let me be clear – while some Democrats have said in an attempt to hide their plans to increase the number of Supreme Court seats, packing up the court means increasing the number of judges so that the Court has a leftist majority. it will churn out an unconstitutional liberal agenda for Democrats.
The wrapping up of the trial means House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer will be able to confiscate your weapons, force people to violate their deeply rooted religious beliefs, and use the federal bureaucracy as a weapon to suppress American business and taxpayers.
This is why I strongly support judges like Justice Amy Coney Barrett who interpret the Constitution and the law as written. They don’t have any conservative or liberal views. They don’t go to the dock to pass laws or advance any agenda.
Their job is to interpret the law as it is written; no more, no less. Rather than collecting courts, radical Democrats should instead work with Republicans to approve judges who will be neutral arbiters of the law rather than supporters of liberal or conservative politics.
But, unfortunately, they won’t. For them, eliminating religious freedom, violating our Second Amendment rights, and imposing a Green New Deal that kills their work is more important than having a properly limited Supreme Court.
Democrats will do whatever it takes to achieve these goals, including making the Supreme Court an unelected supra-legislative body.
This cannot be, and while I am in the Senate, I will fight this.