Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings

[Mike Gehlhausen]

So far not one of you have said, "My sexual preference is to be straight." Think about that for a moment.

Pastor Speckhard, I cannot believe that you are that dense. Of course Gay people get married, engage in heterosexual sex but societal pressure is always the overriding concern that these people have and they do not act to their true selves. I'm 72 years old and from a very early age I have had the prescience to know that getting married and having children were not in the cards for me. I have seen so many Gay people get married and have families. They are the unhappiest group of people around with a big, big secret. And some can no longer handle it and separate from their wives and families to start a new life thus devastating those left behind.

If it were that simple, why don't straight people flip the switch since it is so easy.

Nowhere was it said or implied that changing one's preferences, sexual or otherwise, is easy as flipping a switch. "Sexual preference" doesn't mean that. The point is that language police push an agenda by making speech a matter of virtue signaling. The most up-to-the-minute terminology serves no real purpose other than to distinguish the people who are really on board with progressivism from those who are merely going along with it to avoid conflict.

There was zero reason to correct Judge Barrett. There was not even real offense taken, as it evidenced by the lack of a rebuke even in recent days and weeks when other people used that term. It was purely a power play, to make the point that Judge Barrett is not a true believer, a fellow traveler with the Left.

This is why "virtue signaling" is a term in modern parlance.

Virtue signaling as it is, I am glad that Amy Comey Barrett calmly accepted the criticism, said she did not mean to offend, and moved on.  While conservative media rage on and on about this, it defused the issue completely regarding the hearings.

I know that a great deal of Trump's base appreciates that he "does not play the media's game" and thus often doubles down in a situation like this.  I know that by doing so he reinforces to that base that he will not let political correctness and the cancel culture intimidate him.  I know that it also allows Trump to dominate the news cycle.

I still think it is foolish.  Perhaps that simply means that while I acknowledge that Trump has done many good things policy-wise in his administration, I still find his being intentionally coarse and offensive to achieve those ends extremely distasteful.  I'm on the other edge of the line where being crass and insulting turns me off rather than fires me up.

As the election nears and early voting has already started, I've noticed a significant number of Republican senators and congresspeople distancing from Trump.  Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, I am hoping that this represents the breaking of the fever which showed key Republicans like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz embrace Trump despite their earlier distaste for him.  Up until now, a Trump endorsement or Trump criticism often made the difference in the Republican primaries.   Even if Trump is re-elected, I think that many Republicans will not feel their electoral futures to be as bound to Trump, and I think they'll back off of the offensiveness for offensiveness' sake and act independently.

I'd love for Ben Sasse and Mitch McConnell to epitomize the future of the Republican party while the Trumpian populism fades into the background.  Policy-wise that much may not change nor should it, but the change in tenor would be greatly appreciated.

* edited to correct wording

[James J Eivan]

An issue that has left some wondering ... Democrats routinely quote Republican statements concerning filling a SCOTUS seat in 2016. 

Any idea why the Republicans do not return the favor and remind the public that Democrats saw no problem with filling the seat in 2016 ... but are horrified that it is being done in 2020?

[Dan Fienen]

An issue that has left some wondering ... Democrats routinely quote Republican statements concerning filling a SCOTUS seat in 2016. 

Any idea why the Republicans do not return the favor and remind the public that Democrats saw no problem with filling the seat in 2016 ... but are horrified that it is being done in 2020?

I'm cynical enough to think that there is actually a single standard in play when considering whether or not a vacancy on the Supreme Court should be filled in an election year. Both Democrats and Republicans have over the years consistently held to the position that whatever benefits my party at this time is the position on filling the vacancy that should be followed.

[RogerMartim]

President Obama submitted Merrick Garland's name about seven months before the election. Trump put forth Amy Barrett's name and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had not even been put in the ground yet. Trump has said that he wanted ACB so that when the election would go to the Supreme Court she would vote in his favor. He seems to think that it will go nowhere except through the Supreme Court. That's the difference, James. Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

[peterm]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

[Dan Fienen]

Does saying that the other side did it too make the Democrats' position any better? If we want to talk hypocrisy here, I don't think that either the Republicans or the Democrats have much room to complain.

[Terry W Culler]

President Obama submitted Merrick Garland's name about seven months before the election. Trump put forth Amy Barrett's name and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had not even been put in the ground yet. Trump has said that he wanted ACB so that when the election would go to the Supreme Court she would vote in his favor. He seems to think that it will go nowhere except through the Supreme Court. That's the difference, James. Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the foundational law of the United States.  As Madame Justice Ginsburg noted 4 years ago, the President is elected for a full 4 year term.  He does not cease to be the president in an election year.  Conservatives had to deal with the Warren Court's search for meaning in the "penumbra" of the Constitution as Mr. Justice Douglas so infamously stated it.  Now it's time for the liberals among us to man up and deal with it.  Sorry for your luck

[James J Eivan]

Thank you Roger, you beat me to the punch.  I happen to think ACB is a solid candidate, as was Garland.  Saying the other side did it too, is IMO a weak argument akin to my children's well he hit me first.  For seven months and more the Republicans insisted that Garland not even get hearings, and yet they push this one through mere weeks before the election.  Symptomatic  of how far apart the two sides are that they can't even talk because they are so locked into all or nothing approach

Perhaps the mistake Republicans made was not going through the process…Returning the favor and not approving Judge Garland 

But as we are always reminded elections have consequences the voters apparently approved of the actions of the senate in that they continued the republican control of the senate.

Elections make a difference... both in 2014 and 2016 ... as well as this year.

Yes ... there are hypocrites on both sides ... however the idea of a fare a balanced reporting of these facts is woefully lacking.

[Brian Stoffregen]

President Obama submitted Merrick Garland's name about seven months before the election. Trump put forth Amy Barrett's name and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had not even been put in the ground yet. Trump has said that he wanted ACB so that when the election would go to the Supreme Court she would vote in his favor. He seems to think that it will go nowhere except through the Supreme Court. That's the difference, James. Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the foundational law of the United States.  As Madame Justice Ginsburg noted 4 years ago, the President is elected for a full 4 year term.  He does not cease to be the president in an election year.  Conservatives had to deal with the Warren Court's search for meaning in the "penumbra" of the Constitution as Mr. Justice Douglas so infamously stated it.  Now it's time for the liberals among us to man up and deal with it.  Sorry for your luck

Yes, a president serves for the full four years; but like pastors in congregations, we are part of a line of clergy who serve the congregation. What one pastors does during his time of call can make it easier or harder for the one(s) who follow him.


Presidents also have the advantage that when a new one is elected, he (no she's, yet) gets to bring in his own team of people. The old are gone, the new begin. A new pastor usually inherits the secretary, organist, worship committee, etc. that were part of the old regime.

[aletheist]

Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

There is no hypocrisy in these two cases.

Mitch McConnell very clearly and repeatedly explained (in both 2016 and 2020) that when a Supreme Court nomination is made during an election year and different parties hold the White House and Senate, the American people should be given the opportunity to break the impasse; but when the same party holds both, there is no impasse to break--the will of the people was already expressed in the previous elections. In fact, Republicans campaigned specifically on judicial nominations in both 2016 (when Trump won the presidency) and 2018 (when they expanded their Senate majority). Moreover, there was nothing unprecedented about either situation; on the contrary, both were handled in a manner consistent with virtually all the relevant precedents.

As for Lindsey Graham, he has explicitly acknowledged that he changed his mind about confirming a Supreme Court nominee during the last year of Trump's first term because of how the Democrats mistreated Brett Kavanaugh.

[Voelker]

President Obama submitted Merrick Garland's name about seven months before the election. Trump put forth Amy Barrett's name and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had not even been put in the ground yet. Trump has said that he wanted ACB so that when the election would go to the Supreme Court she would vote in his favor. He seems to think that it will go nowhere except through the Supreme Court. That's the difference, James. Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the foundational law of the United States.  As Madame Justice Ginsburg noted 4 years ago, the President is elected for a full 4 year term.  He does not cease to be the president in an election year.  Conservatives had to deal with the Warren Court's search for meaning in the "penumbra" of the Constitution as Mr. Justice Douglas so infamously stated it.  Now it's time for the liberals among us to man up and deal with it.  Sorry for your luck

Yes, a president serves for the full four years; but like pastors in congregations, we are part of a line of clergy who serve the congregation. What one pastors does during his time of call can make it easier or harder for the one(s) who follow him.


Presidents also have the advantage that when a new one is elected, he (no she's, yet) gets to bring in his own team of people. The old are gone, the new begin. A new pastor usually inherits the secretary, organist, worship committee, etc. that were part of the old regime.

SCOTUS is not part of the President's "team". This is basic to the construction of our system of government.

[Mike Gehlhausen]

Remember, Mitch McConnell went back on his word as well as Lindsey Graham that the newly-elected president (incumbent or otherwise) should do the honors reflecting the will of the American people. Hypocrisy was reborn big time.

There is no hypocrisy in these two cases.

Mitch McConnell very clearly and repeatedly explained (in both 2016 and 2020) that when a Supreme Court nomination is made during an election year and different parties hold the White House and Senate, the American people should be given the opportunity to break the impasse; but when the same party holds both, there is no impasse to break--the will of the people was already expressed in the previous elections. In fact, Republicans campaigned specifically on judicial nominations in both 2016 (when Trump won the presidency) and 2018 (when they expanded their Senate majority). Moreover, there was nothing unprecedented about either situation; on the contrary, both were handled in a manner consistent with virtually all the relevant precedents.

As for Lindsey Graham, he has explicitly acknowledged that he changed his mind about confirming a Supreme Court nominee during the last year of Trump's first term because of how the Democrats mistreated Brett Kavanaugh.

Most in terms of this issue have pointed to who controls the Senate as an important difference regarding confirmation in an election year.  Sen. McConnell has been very consistent on this.

However, out of everyone on both sides, Lindsay Graham is one of the few that can be found hypocritical. 

Graham has said multiple times that if a vacancy opened up in the run-up to a presidential election, he would hold off on confirmation.

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." pic.twitter.com/quD1K5j9pz
— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) September 19, 2020 

Graham repeated the sentiment in October 2018 in an interview with The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914774433/use-my-words-against-me-lindsey-graham-s-shifting-position-on-court-vacancies

Graham is free to use the brutal confirmation process Justice Kavanaugh underwent as a reason he has changed his mind.  He also did not know how political winds might change when he made his original comments in 2016.  However, it was unwise for him to double down on the point in 2018 when he really had no reason to do so.

As Graham struggles in his Senate re-election campaign this fall, people are indeed using his words against him.  It's only fair.  He gave them permission to do so.

[Steven W Bohler]

Mr. Gehlhusen,

Does a change in opinion ALWAYS mean one is hypocritical?  That is, do you have no room for an honest change of one's mind?

[Mike Gehlhausen]

Mr. Gehlhusen,

Does a change in opinion ALWAYS mean one is hypocritical?  That is, do you have no room for an honest change of one's mind?

I have plenty of room for an honest change of mind.  I don't doubt that Lindsay Graham honestly changed his mind.  He's changed his mind on a lot more serious things like cozying up politically to a man who consistently insults the memory of Graham's long-time friend, John McCain.

But Lindsay Graham said, "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' ".  He then doubled down on the sentiment in October 2018.

He has to live with that.  And if others judge him to be hypocritical on this point, they have a legitimate basis to do so.

[Dave Likeness]

Unfortunately, in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court nominations have become
political footballs.  Instead of bipartisan efforts in the Senate to look at the resume
of the candidates, we have partisan posturing by both Democrats and GOP to oppose
someone nominated by the opposition President.

The fact is that when the President and the Senate majority are of the same political party,
then you have an advantage that was manufactured by the American voters.