October 12, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From the transcript (the first line in boldface is the key line, the most predictable and indispensable line but I've also boldfaced something else that I think is distinctive and important): 
Ranking Member Feinstein and members of the committee, I’m honored and humbled to appear before you today.... 
As I said, when I was nominated to serve as a justice, I’m used to being in a group of nine, my family, nothing is more important to me and I am very proud to have them behind me. My husband, Jesse and I have been married for 21 years.... Our oldest daughter, Emma, is a sophomore in college.... Next is Vivian.... Tess is 16.... John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti and Jesse, who brought him home still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago.... Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with mom and dad. Ten-year-old Juliette is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author... and our youngest, Benjamin, is at home with friends. Benjamin has Down Syndrome.... My own siblings are here... Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael.... My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains why I became a law professor.... My freshman year [in college], I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. And when I did my first presentation, which was on Breakfast at Tiffany’s, I feared I had failed, but my professor took the time to talk to me. She filled me with confidence about how well I had done and she became a mentor. And when I graduated with a degree in English, she gave me Truman Capote’s collected works as a gift.
Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided that my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors. In particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Lawrence Silverman of the DC circuit gave me my first job in the law and he continues to teach me today.... 
I also clerked for Justice Scalia and like many law students, I felt like I knew that Justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like, but as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say that we have a government of laws and not of men. 
Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There’s a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else, but that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life.

 

I worked hard as a lawyer and as a professor, I owed that to my clients, to my students and to myself, but I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.  A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society, but courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.

That is, she uses her rich, personal life as a foundation for a spare judicial life. This is the opposite of what liberals tend to say, which is that a judge with a rich life brings dimension and empathy to the task of judging.

The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try. 
That is the approach that I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law whatever my own preferences might be. 
I try to remain mindful that while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the litigants involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors, cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world often through their liberty or livelihood. 
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how I would view the decision if one of my children was the party that I was ruling against. Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in law. That is the standard that I set for myself in every case. And it is the standard that I will follow so long as I am a judge on any court. 

So she exercises empathy, but in service of an austere form of judging. It's how to be fair to all the parties — to do only and exactly what you see the law as requiring.

When the President offered me this nomination, I was deeply honored, but it was not a position I had sought out and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process and the work of serving on the court, if confirmed requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role. 
I come before this committee with humility about the responsibility that I have been asked to undertake and with appreciation for those who have come before me. 
I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in the seat. She told the committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

A fine tribute to all of the women — 2 women — who have completed their service on the Supreme Court.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the chief justice and seven associate justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague and I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the president noted, when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the court... 
I believe in the power of prayer and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me....

65 comments:

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

We don’t deserve her, but I do pray we get her.

Francisco D said...

I am assuming that ACB wrote the statement with minimal editorial input from friends. If so, the style and intention of her writing suggests that she is a clear thinker who gets to the point without a lot of phony emotionalism.

I suspect that she will be an excellent Justice, but not the conservative warrior that some hope for.

Francisco D said...

My primary complaint about ACB is that she traded a presumably soft Louisiana accent for a grating Midwestern one.

Her voice reminds me of my Wisconsin born and raised mother. However, if she is as honest and hard working as my mother, then we will have a very good Supreme Court Justice.

YoungHegelian said...

My own siblings are here... Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael.

I mean, names of kids in a Catholic family or what?!

rhhardin said...

You have to pander to women.

Maillard Reactionary said...

She'll do fine no matter what the jackals and petty demons of the Senate try out on her. A Christian fears nothing.

The Dems are pretty dim bulbs, on the whole, but on some level they have to realize that tormenting this harmless and gracious woman is not a good look a few weeks before the election.

Or maybe not. It's the only play in their book.

Michael K said...

Well said. I did not watch but understand the Democrats mostly attacked Trump not her.

rhhardin said...

The good character you want on the court is like Justice Thomas's, stick to the job and don't be corrupt. It has nothing to do an inclination to adopt orphans from shithole countries. The latter is a warning sign, a danger signal, not reassurance.

If it weren't for women having the vote, this feelz stuff wouldn't have to be flirted with all the time. As it is, you don't know what you're getting. Is she just pandering or is she serious.

Mike Sylwester said...

My freshman year [in college], I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. And when I did my first presentation, which was on Breakfast at Tiffany’s, I feared I had failed, but my professor took the time to talk to me. She filled me with confidence about how well I had done and she became a mentor. And when I graduated with a degree in English, she gave me Truman Capote’s collected works as a gift.

In my blog about the movie Dirty Dancing, I published an 11-part series of articles about the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's and and its theme song, "Moon River". The movie Breakfast at Tiffany's appeared in movie theaters in 1961 -- two years before the Dirty Dancing story takes place in 1963.

Baby Houseman's older sister, Lisa Houseman, surely saw Breakfast at Tiffany's and was influenced by it. In my series' Part 11, I described the movie's impact on Lisa.

Neither the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's nor the song "Moon River" is mentioned in the movie Dirty Dancing, but an earlier script of Dirty Dancing did mention the song.

If Amy Coney Barrett wants to understand the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's better, than she should read my entire series of blog articles, which begins at Part 1.

Limited Perspective said...

It doesn't matter what she says, they aren't listening. They are listening to their advisors on how to take her down. I'm guessing most Senators were reading notes from the staff while she was speaking. She's chopped liver.

Did any Senator ask her questions or probe deeper into her opening statement? If so (I can't listen to these jackasses), what did they want to know? Has she been accused of being a child molester yet?

BarrySanders20 said...

ACB does seem like the real deal.

"That is, she uses her rich, personal life as a foundation for a spare judicial life. This is the opposite of what liberals tend to say, which is that a judge with a rich life brings dimension and empathy to the task of judging."

So she is not a wide Latina. That is good.

She professes to live her faith and I presume that means she believes in something larger than herself beyond earthly concerns. Contrast that with the atheist left who have adopted so-called progressive politics as their substitute religion. Who seems more grounded and able to deal with the complexities of judging?

Big Mike said...

"Send to me your best and your brightest."

Owen said...

I thought it was a very strong statement: honest, lucid, even. No fireworks but not capitulation.

Meanwhile the panic-mongering BS goes on. Sad.

Kevin said...

Ranking Member Feinstein and members of the committee, I’m honored and humbled to appear before you today.... As I said, when I was nominated to serve as a justice,...


Hey

Sparticus,

listen to me when I tell you

that I'm coming for you and not

because my daughter has Girl Scout cookies to
get off my kitchen table. Yes I'm your


worst nightmare, an actual soccer mom with adopted and
special needs kids who prays at
the judicial feet of Scalia. You can pass
whatever legislation you like but you'd
better watch your p's, q's, and commas. There will
be more but that's all for now.


I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague and I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the president noted, when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the court... I believe in the power of prayer and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me....

Fernandinande said...

"My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains why I became a law professor."

If I were one of her persecutors I would ask her what she thought the heritability was for most personality traits.

Unknown said...

Wow. I am in love. Seriously. She honors the law and the constitution. The Left will complain because of exactly that, which is bonkers, but here we are.

Dave Begley said...

I'm praying for ACB.

I'm expecting riots in DC soon. The Left is totally unhinged.

And, Ann, as a woman lawyer and also first in your law school classes, you must feel some kinship with ACB. She's a younger and Catholic version of you. I've read some of her 7th Circuit opinions and she's an excellent writer; just like you.

rcocean said...

I wonder how many blog posts you'll do on this. I know you're a ex-law professor, so this is your area of interest, but these Senate dog and pony shows bore the fuck out of me. The Bork hearings ( I listened to them at work) were fascinating. The Thomas hearing was a train-wreak and interesting for that reason. The Kavanaugh hearings were like watching Stalinist show trial or Salem witch trial.

But this will just be a bore. The D's will have to rein back their usual vulgarity & lack of decency, because...woman. Otherwise, it'll just be 4 days of dull speeches and "you'll bring back back-alley abortion!" nonsense. I suppose listening to Harris might be interesting, not because she isn't dull, but because she'll probably be our next President.

In the end all the D's will vote against - just like always. And it'll go to the floor vote, where the D's will all vote against - just like always. I'm beginning to hate these pompous blowhard Senators and their ridiculous self-importance and S-L-O-W moving ways.

Mikey NTH said...

She will be gracious. Will the Democrats resist the temptation to be complete jerks?

My guess is no.

Marshall Rose said...

When Scalia died, Trump put forward his list of potential judges.

His list, and his up front transparency were the first reason he gave me that he was worth voting for.

America’s Politico said...

I cannot wait for Harris, Hirono, White House, Blumenthal, Murphy, and Coons to disregard her statement. They will fail of course. Yet, Biden will win the WH and Harris will use the hearing as the final step for her career.

GOP: This is your last victory. Your next victory will come after 8-years of Harris.

Cheers!

Owen said...

David Begley @ 4:42: “...excellent writer...”. Excellent writing cannot happen without excellent intellect. I use “intellect” in its true sense, the ability to reason clearly, to test evidence, to address competing hypotheses. I do not use it to dress up a farrago of fashionable tropes and pseudo-analysis, where it justifies a rag-bag of lazy expediency and faux prestige.

I am sufficiently impressed by ACB that I want to read some of her writings. Can you recommend a link to any of that?

The Godfather said...

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose that in 1973, the Supremes had ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion was a matter to be decided by each State's law. Today, many, maybe most, States would have permissive abortion laws, because that's what the people of those States wanted. Does any rational person think that Justice Amy would overrule that concensus and federalize abortion law?

The uncertainty today is the consequence of using judicial power over voter control in 1973.

Joe Smith said...

God, Country, Notre Dame.

https://und.com/god-country-notre-dame-2/

frenchy said...

It's early. The negative action comes later in the hearings, when it's clear to all the Democrats that they've got nothing, and they start getting nasty and desperate.

stevew said...

"We don’t deserve her, but I do pray we get her."

My feelings exactly. I would like to think that the Democrats, if they were able to set aside their Trump hatred, would agree; I think she is a most honest and sincere person, committed to a lofty, American, ideal. Not holding my breath or betting on it, just would be comforting if they did.

Here's hoping she invokes the Ginsberg Rule when they start badgering her about coming cases and the ACA. Did you see that stunt they pulled today with the photos? Despicable.

Political Junkie said...

rocean...I think Manchin of WV might vote to confirm. I hope he does. Unfortunately, all other D's will most likely vote "no". I am thinking now all R's will vote to confirm.

Cheryl said...

I don't understand why this isn't a baseline mindset for anyone nominated for Justice. The last thing I want is someone who can't wait to put on that robe.

Freder Frederson said...

Scalia loved to "apply the law as written", except when it is the Voting Rights Act or McCain Feingold (and many others), then fuck "the law as written".

Two-eyed Jack said...

It all sounds good, but I always ask myself what the positive argument is on the other side. What is the counterargument to judicial modesty? It is that the democratic process is broken and, hence, undemocratic. Congress is mired in conflicting agendas. It is unable to fix bills after they are passed, even in the case of obvious bugs in their design, since such monumental efforts are needed to pass anything and opponents are motivated to make your side live with the consequences of the bugs. Thus, someone needs to step in and make adjustments that the legislators cannot make, whether administratively or judicially. Judges therefore must get beyond the text, which can never serve as a sufficient guide, and make rulings based upon principles inherent in our society and in their best interpretation of legislative intent.

As always, one wishes text and intent were in concert, but they cannot be across multiple laws, jurisdictions, and judicial levels, so judges refusing to make adjustments in flawed processes and telling the legislatures to go fix it themselves are an impediment to a well-functioning society.

Judges allowing themselves full license are tyrants, of course.

Phil 314 said...

"This is the opposite of what liberals tend to say, which is that a judge with a rich life brings dimension and empathy to the task of judging."

In other words, NOT a wise latina

wary said...

I wish someone would ask lefties to consider how they would feel if a president appointed a judge who felt the constitution was ‘flexible’ but created new laws on the Right.

Like the right to bear arms meant each citizen must have a gun and pass an annual conceal to carry test. Or freedom of religion meant all citizens must be an active member of some church and prove so annually based on donations or volunteer activity.

That freedom of the press meant that half of the reporters must be registered republicans and prove so by donating at least $2000 to official republican candidates and 0 to democrats.

Plus freedom to assemble meant no entertainment or sports event could express a political view so that the attendees would not be made uncomfortable as they are assembling.

Oh and one last one. To vote in federal elections, the voter can only vote on election day, in person. They must show a valid picture id that matches the voter registration and must dip there thumb in that purple ink that doesn’t wear off for a week.

They should be glad we want legislators to write laws not judges.

cubanbob said...

This thread deserves your cruel neutrality tag.

Unknown said...

Wow she sounds way too normal for 2020.

Sebastian said...

"This is the opposite of what liberals tend to say, which is that a judge with a rich life brings dimension and empathy to the task of judging."

But of course, they don't mean it: the empathy only matters if the right outcome is assured. No prog would grant ACB any capacity for empathy in any case.

But I respect progs. Of course, they lie with abandon, they never argue in good faith, they aim to destroy the system as we know it, but they are utterly clear and determined about reaching the results they want. One path is to get a SCOTUS majority to lock in prog gains--the one-way prog ratchet.

Amadeus 48 said...

America's Politico is back! The self-confident professor of poopy punditry, who is always wrong but never in doubt.

As I recall, you had Kamala Harris knocking 'em dead in the Democratic primaries and sweeping the board. Too bad she had to quit before Iowa started (is it finished yet?) because her campaign was such a disaster and all her staff quit. She sounds like a winner to me.

Welcome back, and keep up the good work.

MountainMan said...

I just saw a news report where Schumer is going to try to stop the confirmation by refusing a quorum in the Senate.

Jerk.

Joe Smith said...

"Scalia loved to "apply the law as written", except when it is the Voting Rights Act or McCain Feingold (and many others), then fuck "the law as written"."

He was about interpreting the constitution as written, you know, to determine if a written law is constitutional.

If the law as written states that the government can confiscate all guns, that doesn't make it right.

Do you understand checks and balances at all???

Are you as dumb as what you write?

I'm Full of Soup said...

It is a great day when a normal American is being appointed to SC and the WHO decides lockdowns are now not Their prescribed remedy for the Wuhan flu. So sanity has returned to USA and science to the world!

Michael K said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Scalia loved to "apply the law as written", except when it is the Voting Rights Act or McCain Feingold (and many others), then fuck "the law as written".


Political savant Freder ignores the fact that McCain Finegold destroyed Congress. Now the Congress members spend all their time "dialing for dollars" while staffs write the legislation that they will expand as bureaucrats or lobbyists.

Come to think of it, that's what he wants. Administrative State groupie.

wholelottasplainin' said...

MountainMan said...
I just saw a news report where Schumer is going to try to stop the confirmation by refusing a quorum in the Senate.
***************

He doesn't have the votes to do that on his own. A majority is all that's needed for a Senate quorum, and the GOP has that. Schumer would have to enlist a GOP traitor or two. Any Senator who would join Schumer would be in a political world of hurt.

Night said...

MountainMan said...
I just saw a news report where Schumer is going to try to stop the confirmation by refusing a quorum in the Senate.

It would be amusing to see Trump arrest him and physically bring him to the Senate. Then forgot to let him be unarrested.

Night said...

Its good to see people exist that work on excellence. It's a mindset politicians avoid.

English majors that become lawyers will be a hot commodity for law schools?

Kevin said...

When will a reporter ask Nancy about her quiver?

We were promised arrows!

wholelottasplainin' said...

Freder Frederson said...
Scalia loved to "apply the law as written", except when it is the Voting Rights Act or McCain Feingold (and many others), then fuck "the law as written".
************
Freder, you poor booby, if the law "as written" is unconstitutional, then it is unlawful.

If the law "as written" has contradictions or ambiguities it's up to the Supremes to resolve them if they can, consistent with the intentions of Congress.

Scalia's comments in oral argument re the renewal of the Voting Rights Act did not prevail in that case, so his opinion didn't have the force of law.

So once again, you've been schooled with a strap across your back. You must love it.

Question: if you think McCain Feingold was wrongly decided, would you welcome it being reinstated? After all, if corporations could be prevented from making campaign donations, can't you see that Facebook and Twitter would be subject to that law for giving "contributions in kind" to Dems by censoring Trump and conservative candidates?

Careful what you wish for!

America’s Politico said...

Amadeus 48:

Listen to me now, believe me later:

1. Biden is the next POTUS. Harris is the next VPOTUS.
2. Pelosi retains her Speakership.
3. Schumer becomes the Majority Leader after election.
4. There will be furious fight about ACB nomination. But, in the end, she will prevail. GOP's last victory till 2032 or 2036.

It is over for GOP. Trump destroyed GOP. Or, NYT and WashPost worked with Dems to put Russia in every voter's mind.

Cheers!

madAsHell said...

refusing a quorum in the Senate.

King Canute tried the same at the beach.

Tina Trent said...

Very well-put, this post. Thank you.

Theranter said...

Owen @5:47, here is her ND faculty page, which cites some of her scholarship:

https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/

William said...

Her professional achievements are formidable and her domestic life is admirable. What's not to like about her? I can see where Democrats might like to appoint someone more in tune with RBG's philosophy, but those are the breaks. Why can't they simply acknowledge that some women have a different philosophy than RBG and accept that difference without rancor? Such acceptance is sometimes called tolerance, and tolerance ranks supreme in the Democratic hierarchy of virtues...I don't think ACB is any kind of cult member or religious or political fanatic. I would resent any attempt to pose her in that light. She's more conservative than Kagan or Sotomayor. Is that the most salient fact about her character and intellect? She is to all appearances a woman of remarkable intellect and character. ... It will be tough selling her as a dagger thrust in the heart of our democracy, but who knew that Kavanaugh was a serial rapist before the mask was ripped off his choir boy features at the hearing. Thank God for Kamala Harris. She'll get to the bottom of things. Lucretia Borgia was practicing Catholic just like ACB.

Drago said...

wary: "I wish someone would ask lefties to consider how they would feel if a president appointed a judge who felt the constitution was ‘flexible’ but created new laws on the Right."

There is zero value in asking any questions of the left/LLR-left as they are simply psychotic liars who rewrite history and alter language every single day.

Skeptical Voter said...

Chuck You and his band of bloviating babbling buffoons at work again. Dear Little Maisie is really a piece of work.

mikee said...

Wary, a rightist activist judge should demand the government provide free firearms, free ammo and free training for citizens, and probably same for all legal residents in the country, with tax-reducing certifications for completion of training with a good score on the practical shooting test.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

But will she find it the honor of a lifetime to serve next to the Chief Justice and 11 Associate Justices?

I don’t think the Democrats should move to add 4 more Justices immediately after the election. Better to wait for an egregiously unpopular decision. Better to leave packing the Court hanging like the sword of Damocles. After all, she might be a Roberts.

Mark said...

I think Manchin of WV might vote to confirm

Don't hold your breath. Manchin's been a d-tease for a while now.

I wouldn't be surprised if he went along with the plans to abolish the filibuster and to pack the Court.

He really is a poor girl's Murkowski.

Kirk Parker said...

William,

The heck it is!

Rather, the pretence of tolerance ranks supreme in the Democratic hierarchy of dishonesty..

The Godfather said...

Left Bank (9:16 pm) refers to "Roberts". I assume he means Justice Owen Roberts, who changed from opposition to New Deal legislation to support (or at least non-opposition) after FDR's threat to "pack" the Court -- Roberts was said to have made "a switch in time that saved nine."

Iman said...

“So she is not a wide Latina. That is good.”

LOL. Tamales are fattening, but tone it down a bit...

I watched much of Monday’s session and did see Barrett’s address. I found her to be clear, articulate and impressive.

Bay Area Guy said...

Smart woman, exceptionally qualified, should be approved 100-0.

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are whiney little bitches.

GingerBeer said...

Political Junkie, rocean, and Mark: Manchin has already announced he would not vote to confirm Coney-Barrett before election day. Ever the Goldilocks.

https://woay.com/manchin-says-he-will-not-vote-to-confirm-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/

iowan2 said...

Our host bolded the best part.
The left took that as a double middle finger salute and spit in the face of leftist judges of all ranks.
We should all celebrate the understanding a judge should be ruling against their personal preference on a regular basis. Scalia said his worst rulings were the ones he hated, but was bound by the constitution to rule against what he knew was the best.
It cannot be restated enough, the left finds it impossible to advance their agenda through the legislative process. Because the people don't like their agenda. That does not mean that some people don't agree. But not enough to implement at a National level...as it is designed. Federalism is the law of the land. People forget that abortion was legal all across this land. Just not abortion of convenience. Each jurisdiction, using the local cultural standards of the community ruled the day. The way the Constitution specifically states. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

iowan2 said...

Feder, if you are going call SCOTUS rulings wrong, you are going to have to say why. Explain where the ruling conflicts with the constitution. McCain Feingold, prohibited speech. SCOTUS struck it down, because it violated the constitution. Congress made a law restricting speech. Stop using talking points, it makes you look stupid.

Tina Trent said...

One: Any committee that has both Sheldon Whitehouse and Ben Sasse on it is going to have moments of pure distilled insanity. Why is Rhode Island even a state that gets to elect people? What is that drug that makes homeless people chew off other people's faces under overpasses in Florida?

Two: But nothing, no possible thing topped that Rosemary's Baby reference by Kennedy. Nothing, now, before, or after this time will ever top it.

Three: Man, did we dodge a bullet on Full Coyote Ugly Klobuchar.

Four: Cruz was brilliant.

wendybar said...

I wonder if CNN will put their clowns on instead of the confirmation. They show their biased colors everyday in new and improved ways. I can't wait until they are gone...they deserve nothing less.

Francisco D said...

Freder Frederson said...
Scalia loved to "apply the law as written", except when ...

Are you really tat dumb or that deceptive?

Scalia looked at THE CONSTITUTION as written. He saw his job as determining if the law followed the Constitution.

Geeez. I am beginning to understand why the lefties are not bothered by Biden's addled brain.