Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Barrett Hearing Day Four LIVE: Democrats Will Appeal to Emotions With Witnesses on Abortion, Obamacare

    Barrett Hearing Day Four LIVE: Democrats Will Appeal to Emotions With Witnesses on Abortion, Obamacare

    The Democrats are really convinced Barrett will get rid of Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and violate all the voting and civil rights, aren’t they?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0eKn7wsCaQ
    Listen to this article

    The fourth and final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing includes witnesses brought in by the Democrats to appeal to emotions instead of law and the Constitution and Republicans to explain Barrett’s dedication to the law and Constitution.

    But as the Democrats have proven (sarcasm), Barrett will throw Roe v. Wade and Obamacare into the trash can on her first day on the bench.

    Laura Wolk

    Walk was a student of Barrett. She is completely blind and due to glitches, she didn’t have the right technology.

    But Barrett helped her to get the technology. She also said, “Laura, this is no longer your problem, it is my problem.”

    Amanda Rauh-Bieri

    She clerked for Barrett in her first year on the bench.

    Rauh-Bieri confirmed Barrett approaches each case with an open mind and often sought opinions from her clerks.

    Stacy Staggs

    Staggs want them to vote against Barrett because a vote for her would mean a vote to overturn Obamacare.

    Staggs is telling the story of how Obamacare helped her premature twins with an RBG figurine behind her.

    https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1316774406472060928

    Crystal Good

    Good said she is only where she is because she had an abortion at 16. She got pregnant by having sex with her boyfriend, not rape or incest.

    Law Professor Saikrishna Prakash

    Prof. Prakash said that Barrett wasn’t rated higher because one could not go higher. She can break down “complex subjects,” “doesn’t want to burn the whole place down.”

    Prakash also said it was appropriate for Barrett not to comment on hypothetical cases.

    He also knows that Barrett won’t use her conservative and religious beliefs to make decisions.

    Kristen Clarke

    Clarke said “Barrett’s views are far outside the mainstream.” It troubled her that “Barrett would not say whether voter intimidation was illegal.”

    Clarke also didn’t like that Barrett wouldn’t take a stance on hypothetical cases.

    Judge Thomas Griffith

    Griffith is testifying for Barrett.

    Dr. Farhan Bhatti

    Bhatti is testifying about the consequences of overturning Obamacare.

    https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1316768098326925315

    Randal D. Noel and Pamela Roberts

    Pamela Roberts said, “It is the opinion of the ABA standing committee that Judge Barrett is well qualified.”

    Roberts also said that Barrett was “the smartest student I’ve ever taught.”

    Witnesses

    Emotions and feels have no place in the courts. It’s about the law and the Constitution.

    But that doesn’t matter to the left because feels and emotions is all that they have in the book.

    These are the ones obviously brought in by the Democrats:

    Crystal Good: Feinstein is bringing her in because she fought to have the “right to obtain an abortion at age 16.” Feinstein’s office said Good “will speak about the importance of reproductive rights and justice.” (Um, reproductive justice?)

    Stacy Staggs: Democrats will use feels with this witness, too, because she has “7-year-old twins who each have pre-existing conditions because of their premature birth and rely on protections from” Obamacare.

    Dr. Farhan Bhatti: CEO of Care Free Medical who will probably “discuss the harm overturning the ACA would have on his patients.”

    Kristen Clarke: President and Executive Director of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. She will talk “about voting rights and other civil rights protected by the Constitution and federal law.”

    Witnesses brought in by Republicans:

    Randal D. Noel and Pamela Roberts

    Randall D. Noel of the Memphis, Tenn.-based Butler Snow, LLP and Pamela Roberts of the Columbia, S.C.-based Bowman and Brooke LLP represent the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Noel wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that the American Bar Association, the largest lawyers’ group in the U.S., rated Barrett as “well qualified.”

    Thomas Griffith

    The Honorable Thomas Griffith is a retired judge who sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit until September. Griffith is widely expected to speak on the role of Article III courts, which much of his academic work has focused on off the bench.

    Professor Saikrishna Prakash

    Saikrishna Prakash is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law where he focuses on the separation of powers and executive power. A supporter of Barrett’s nomination, Prakash is a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas as well as Barrett’s former boss on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Laurence Silberman.

    Amanda Rauh-Bieri

    Amanda Rauh-Bieri was one of Barrett’s first law clerks on the Seventh Circuit and now an associate at the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone. Rauh-Bieri previously told the National Law Journal that Barrett was “a person who cares quite a bit about different backgrounds and perspectives. I would expect that that is something that’s important to her.”

    Laura Wolk

    Laura Wolk was a clerk for Justice Thomas and student of Barrett when was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. At a Heritage Foundation panel earlier this month, Wolk said Barrett “had one unspoken rule in her class … that rule was you better come to class prepared and you better have good reasons to believe in the arguments you are making. She did not tolerate soft ideas and she did not tolerate sloppy reasoning.”

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     3
    Wade Hampton | October 15, 2020 at 1:20 pm

    Was in a discussion with a Democratic campaign worked. Healthcare came up and she asked why I was against ACA. Told her I didn’t want ANY government involved in my healthcare decisions. It’s my body my choice. Pretty much ended the conversation


       
       0 
       
       2
      gonzotx in reply to Wade Hampton. | October 15, 2020 at 2:52 pm

      So your not going to be taking Medicare when you turn 65?

      I have Medicare and I can tell you I am happy, but I am not so dumb to think if we have Medicare for all it will look anything like it is

      It will be destroyed as we know it and the elderly and most needy will suffer greatly.

      CAT scan for cancer and your 70, probably 6 month wait in hopes you die before it’s performed

      We have seen how GB demanded an infant to die, wouldn’t let the parents take him out of the hospital and be flown to the US for treatment… under penalty of imprisonment… and the baby did die, just as they wanted.

      Couldn’t have expensive treatment save him…

      Monsters, just monsters

      The world needs to rise up, all the governments are corrupt as

    No, she won’t, and with good cause. Unlike the Communists’ one-child, the Progressives’ selective-child (wicked solution) has been normalized. Unless we are prepared to go through with Civil War 2.0, when in Civil War 1.0 only a minority were, in fact, slavers and diversitists, then we can only mitigate the progress of abortion rites, abortion chambers, cannibal clinics, and tear down the walls through religious/moral/ethical reform. Baby steps.


     
     0 
     
     1
    tom_swift | October 15, 2020 at 3:10 pm

    Wolk said Barrett “had one unspoken rule in her class … that rule was you better come to class prepared and you better have good reasons to believe in the arguments you are making.”

    That’s two rules.

    Fewer lawyer types and more math majors in our judiciary might not be a bad thing.

    ms. wolk was a very impressive young lady, may she have a very long career in law.


     
     0 
     
     0
    BierceAmbrose | October 15, 2020 at 8:07 pm

    Screaming D’s make quite the case that they should maybe take up amendments addressing federal health care, privacy penumbras n similar.

    It seems to me that the last time the fundamental scope of US Federal govt was changed, The R Party led expanding the charter, plus “…and do it, dammit.” to subordinate govts. (Authority for federal intervention vs. Jim Crow, and The Civil Rights Act flow from those amendments.)

    The last time the tinkering utopian D’s got an amendment, it was pure nanny-stating, so ineffective n egregious in its consequences it got removed, but only afternfueling organized crime n culture-wide disregard for law n govt.

    Nanny-stating that creates grift-parasite cancers seems to be their thing. Shockingly, not everyone votes for such stuff all the time.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend