Yesterday was the third, and apparently final, day of hearings for President Trump’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett. With the initially sharp public opposition to her confirmation softening in some surveys, Democrats on the committee have spent the week both assailing the absurdity of rushing a pick through just weeks before the election, and using Barrett’s extremist judicial philosophy to highlight the policy catastrophes that might ensue if she replaces liberal stalwart Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court.
It was actually quite a disciplined, if painfully repetitive, series of performances. And the Democratic gambit here is understandable: Treating the Barrett confirmation as an extension of the policy stakes in the 2020 election and seeking to get her on the record siding with deeply unpopular policy positions held by the deeply unpopular President Trump is probably the smartest play available to them. She is at least a superficially appealing figure, and boycotting the proceedings or seeming gratuitously confrontational might not have played well with voters. But they are also missing a huge opportunity to articulate a coherent progressive-Democratic alternative to Barrett’s self-professed and profoundly radical judicial philosophy of “originalism.”
For Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, …read more
Source:: The Week – Politics