As President Donald Trump’s official pick for Supreme Court justice, per his announcement on Saturday, Amy Coney Barrett has undoubtedly become the immediate target for all derision the Democrats can muster up.
So far, they have attacked her for the adoption of two black children, calling her racist because of it, as well as spat on her religion, because you know those Catholics are just awful people… (Note that both Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden claim to be Catholic.)
Of course, neither of the two has actually stuck, given the ridiculousness of the attacks. So naturally, the political left is desperately trying to come up with something else that could ruin her and the GOP’s chances at getting the recently vacated SCOTUS seat left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Their latest attempt has been to distort previous comments made by Barrett when she was a law professor in 2016.
The only problem with them, besides being erroneously false, is the not even Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer would go along with the idea. Oops.
On Wednesday, before Trump had made his SCOTUS pick official, the establishment media outlet that is CNN tried to push the idea that Barrett herself was against the idea of nominating a potential justice who could “flip the balance of power” in the court.
CNN’s Erin Burnett was speaking with Schumer on the upcoming nomination and confirmation. As Barrett had already been named as a likely choice for President Trump, she naturally came up.
Burnett said, “An unearthed video we found, Senator, from 2016 shows Professor Amy Coney Barrett at the time, now an appeals court judge, obviously, and current favorite to be the president’s Supreme court pick, she warned of appointment for the Supreme Court that could flip the balance of power.”
Burnett then played a piece of the video, in which Barret supposedly decries the idea of changing things up in the court.
Barrett, during the obviously edited video, said, “We’re talking about Justice Scalia, you know, the staunchest conservative on the court and we’re talking about him being replaced by someone who can dramatically flip the balance of power in the court… It’s not a lateral move.”
Burnett then spoke to Schumer again, saying that Barrett was “raising a flag, it seems, on making an appointment like this in an election year. So, what do you say to that? Is it going to be important in any hearings?”
Now, Schumer, as a staunch Democrat and one who has lies and ran with them before, could have easily picked up on Burnett’s idea that Barrett was issuing a warning against her own appointment.
However, whether he noticed that the video was heavily edited, taken out of context, or just false, is unknown because he let the whole thing go.
Instead, he made one simple comment. “I’m not going to comment on any prospective nominee for judge before they are nominated.”
And then he quite adeptly changed the subject, at least in part, turning instead to his frustrations with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and how all the Dems dreams would be thrown aside should anyone the president wants make it into the court.
Burnett tried again, insinuating that no one should be shocked “that the Senate is willing to push a president’s nominee through in an election year when they share the same political affiliation. The president has the power to nominate and the Senate has the power to act or not, and I don’t think either one of them can claim that there’s a rule governing one way or the other.”
But again, Schumer sidestepped the host, instead, going into the usual Democratic rhetoric that the GOP has stolen not “one but two Supreme Court justices using abject power.”
Now, Barrett did, in 2016, speak of Scalia’s replacement, as did many people. But in no way was she criticizing such a move. Rather she was using it as an example of one of several instances where a Supreme Court Justice has been confirmed during an election year in which the same party led both the Senate and the White House. In fact, five out of six of the last election year confirmations happened under those exact circumstances.
But apparently, the reality of Barrett’s comments wasn’t up for debate, at least not according to politically backed media networks like CNN. Instead, as usual, they only see things how they want to.
You know, just how they want to take a woman as accomplished as Barrett, and someone who might be the epitome of what the left has strived to say a woman is, and thrown her to the wolves, all because of party affiliation.