Sen. Leahy’s head-scratching Barrett concern: ‘We’ll go back to a time where women can be discriminated against in the workplace’

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!

At today’s opening session of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats are already engaging in their traditional end-of-the-world demonization of any judge nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by a Republican president. For instance, Vermont Sen. Pat Leahy, an ultra-liberal longtime member of the panel, claims that people “are scared that the clock will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace.”

In addition to the abortion issue, Leahy also threw in Obamacare (per a case pending before the high court), which has emerged as a significant part of the liberal, anti-Barrett messaging, as well as climate change, among other issues.

“Sen. Leahy says he’s worried if Judge Barrett is confirmed, we’ll go back to a time where women can be discriminated against in the workplace. Is he unaware of who he is interviewing to fill the vacant seat? A highly-successful working mom of school-age children,” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser reacted on Twitter to Leahy’s remarks about the glass-shattering jurist.

Especially given the tight time frame to move the nomination toward confirmation before Election Day, with Democrats vowing to engage in stalling tactics, the committee is wasting an entire day with the traditional grandstanding in the form prepared statements by senators (with a lot of gratuitous Trump bashing on the Democrat side).

The judge, a mom of seven with outstanding professional credentials, is required to sit there stoically and listen, apart from delivering her own relatively brief statement. In this emotionally charged setting, wearing a mask might be a plus, apart from public health regulations.

Things won’t get interesting until Tuesday when lawmakers begin the actual questioning of the “scary judge.” Based on the way Democrats have conducted themselves in prior hearings of this nature, Judge Barrett should be, and presumably is, prepared for anything, including scorn for her faith. Democrats seem to have forgotten that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits a religious test as a condition for holding public office.

Watch the Leahy clip below:

Dannenfelser added that “The strategy is clear: pretend Judge Amy Barrett is not sitting in the room right in front of you. Talk about everything but her qualifications and credentials. Pretend that she is a legislator as foil. Lionize RBG as if Judge Barrett hasn’t kicked through every glass ceiling.”

Parenthetically, while Leahy and his other colleagues are championing the so-called popularity of Obamacare, anyone who has actually been forced to go into a plan created by the fundamentally misnamed Affordable Care Act knows full well the degree to which the coverage, premium costs, co-pays, and deductibles are unsatisfactory.

Despite the Democrats’ fear-mongering about her faith, at the 2017 confirmation hearings for her seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett testified that “I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge” and “it’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else on the law.”

She has also separately said in the past that it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned outright.

Here’s what some of the judge’s former students and court clerks have to say about her.

 

Powered by Topple

Robert Jonathan

Comments

Latest Articles