After 3 long days of hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as one of the most brilliant Supreme Court nominees in recent history. Former Judiciary Committee Counsel Greg Nunziata and current TV Commentator argued: 

ACB turned in one of the best hearing performances of 21st century Supreme Court nominees.

I'd say Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett are the top three (coincidentally, one for each POTUS), but not sure in what order.

— Gregg Nunziata (@greggnunziata) October 14, 2020

Democrats continued their healthcare forum during today's confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  This came despite:

Judge Barrett correctly says that Obamacare case currently before the Supreme Court turns on the issue of severability, which was not an issue in the previous ACA cases. Someone should tell the Democrats.

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) October 13, 2020

Barrett asks, “What sane person person would go through [this] process without a clear benefit on the other side?” The benefit she says, is the rule of law and an opportunity to serve her country.

— Gabby Orr (@GabbyOrr_) October 13, 2020

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee completed opening statements in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  That needs to be said because, listening to Democrats, you would think it was a healthcare candidates' forum in New Hampshire.  (Hint their message was: "Trump bad, Obamacare good.")  RNLA live tweeted the hearing and will live tweet the Senators questioning of Judge Barrett over the next two days.  Below are some highlights from the RNLA’s Twitter (@thereplawyer) and others:

Senate Judiciary Dems stuck to Sen. Schumer’s talking points (at least for today), but tellingly none of them disavowed the anti-religious, anti-woman, despicable attacks on Judge Barrett made by their mainstream media surrogates and progressive allies. Like this 👇 https://t.co/i0qT8FzzMx

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) October 12, 2020

Today the Washington Post wrote a hit piece on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s religion.  The writer, Emma Brown, is a familiar name to those who work on confirmations: 

Democrats are laundering their (admittedly weak) anti-religious smear of Amy Coney Barrett through Emma Brown, the same reporter they used to launch their massive and media-coordinated anti-Kavanaugh operation that so many Americans found so despicable. https://t.co/WRVyuD2WQ1

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 7, 2020

Judge Barrett on a Few Issues

Judicial philosophy from an article entitled 5 things to know about Amy Coney Barrett:

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

“There’s a lot of talk these days about the courts being mere political institutions. But if we reduce the courts to mere politics, then why do we need them? We already have politicians. Courts are not arenas for politics. Courts are places where judges discharge the duty to uphold the rule of law,” she said.

Barrett went on to cite Scalia, who “used to say that a judge who likes every result that she reaches is not a very good judge. In fact, she’s a very bad judge. The law simply does not align with a judge’s political preference or personal preference in every case.”

President Trump has laid out in detail his potential nominees to the Supreme Court.  Later this week he will formally nominate a new Supreme Court Justice.  Meanwhile, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden refuses to announce his list despite an earlier promise to do so.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Sunday said he won’t release his list of prospective Supreme Court nominees until he is elected, giving off a set of reasons he believes “could influence that person’s decision” ahead of the November election despite pressure from both sides him to do so. . . .

However, Biden pledged in June to release his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, telling reporters that his campaign is “putting together a list of a group of African American women who are qualified and have the experience.” He added that the list wouldn’t release until each nominees are vetted but declined to give a timeline of when the list would be revealed.

The liberal group Demand Justice released its own shortlist of 17 Black women it says would make ideal justices, calling on Biden to follow Trump’s lead in releasing a list.

To follow up on yesterday, we thought we would break down some details of President Trump’s new list of judges. President Trump released his list because voters deserve a clear understanding of a candidate’s vision of the direction of the Supreme Court.  Vice President Biden needs to explain what kind of judges he would select, for as President Trump stated: “Unfortunately, there is a growing radical-left movement that rejects the principle of equal treatment under law. If this extreme movement is granted a majority on the Supreme Court, it will fundamentally transform America without a single vote of Congress.”

Briefly on the new list.  It includes three Senators, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who are very well known and leading conservatives.  Instead let’s first focus on the current judges on the list:

President Trump campaigned on judges, and he delivered at an impressive rate.  As Mike Davis puts it:

To put this in perspective, President Obama appointed 55 circuit judges in 8 years; President Trump has appointed 53 in under 4. In doing this, President Trump has filled every federal circuit-court vacancy – something not done by any president in more than 40 years.

At 200 (and counting), President Trump is #2 of 45 for the pace of all Article III judges – and he would be #1 but for the fact that Congress created 152 new judgeships (25 percent) for President Carter to fill.

As we have documented on this blog, most recently here, it was Joe Biden who started blocking or attempting to block highly qualified judicial nominees nominated by Republican Presidents.  Democrats took this “borking” strategy to the extreme of obstructing multiple nominees.  And now they are angry that conservatives are fighting back. 

Senate Democrats are going after conservatives’ influence over the federal judiciary, but it’s unclear how they plan to counter the immediate impact of President Donald Trump’s wave of judicial nominees.

While the Democrats seem to continuously reward bad actors who falsely accuse, such as Rep. Adam Schiff, with leadership roles, it looks as if they know will award the original such bad actor with their party's Presidential nomination.  The original bad guy Chairman may have been presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden.  Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the term “borking" was created after the travesty done to Judge Robert Bork.  As Webster’s defines "bork": “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification.”