Round Two! This morning Amy Coney Barrett once again took questions from Senator Diane Feinstein. 

Notably, Feinstein did NOT ask any questions about Amy Coney Barrett’s faith. That told me that Feinstein read the tea leaves and knew that if she went there again, as she did during the 7th Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017, it would be a political killer for her. 

Secondly, Feinstein was very distressed by ACB’s answers on abortion and Roe v Wade. You see, Feinstein wanted Barrett to provide answers as to whether Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, whether any of Justice Scalia’s rulings were wrong, and how she would rule on any upcoming court cases involving abortion. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe [v. Wade] was wrongly decided?”

Barrett declines to answer: “If I express a view on a precedent … it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.” https://t.co/OFIhfeFBUy pic.twitter.com/ajBDhohYbv

— ABC News (@ABC) October 13, 2020

Poor Diane, she was oh so disturbed that she didn’t get the answers she wanted! ACB is absolutely correct. I wouldn’t want ANY judge from the local level to SCOTUS telling the world what they personally think about any upcoming or prior cases. Why? Because any decisions then made by that judge would potentially lead to being appealed and overturned because the judge acted as a legal pundit or activist, as we’ve seen with multiple cases involving President Trump.

There was a weird pivot to the Second Amendment with questions asked about her dissent on Kantor and the Heller ruling. Liberal gun grabber heads are now exploding because ACB OWNS A GUN!!  So? That is perfectly her right to do so because of that Constitution deal and those pesky Bill of Rights. 

Feinstein pivoted back to abortion, hit on Obamacare, then moved on to the election. Feinstein obviously wanted Barrett to tell us right NOW if she’d rule in favor of delaying the election. 

“”Barrett declined to answer when Feinstein asked her whether the U.S. Constitution gives the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances. Barrett said if such a question came before her as a judge she would have to hear arguments and read legal briefs before deciding.

“If I give off the cuff answers then I would be basically a legal pundit. And I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. We want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind,” Barrett said.””

Once again Diane was very disappointed in ACB’s non-answer. Except that it WAS an answer. The election delay is a hypothetical that even the sitting SCOTUS justices can’t and won’t answer because again, offering an opinion on a hypothetical is judicial malpractice! Round Two certainly wasn’t going as Feinstein thought it would.

As Senator Mitch McConnell warned us a couple of weeks ago that this would happen. 

““Democrats are demanding that Judge Barrett commit in advance to recuse herself from entire categories of cases, for no reason,” McConnell said this month during an extended Senate floor speech.

“Nobody has ever suggested that Supreme Court justices should categorically sit on the sidelines until the president who nominated them has left office,” he added.

Michael McConnell, a former federal judge now teaching at Stanford University Law School, said in an interview that “it would be unprecedented for a justice to recuse because of a statement made by someone else — even if the statement was made by the president of the United States.””

That didn’t stop Feinstein from trying! And…she lost. 

Yes, Senator Feinstein was very distressed multiple times during that thirty minute time span. As was pointed out, it is very ok for Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayer to use the Ginsburg Rule and not forecast how they’d rule on a case that would possibly come before SCOTUS. But the same Democrats are holding Judge Barrett to a different standard because REASONS! 

The Democrats and the media will be running the rest of the week with the ‘she REFUSED TO ANSWER!’ gambit. Likely legal pundits of the Democrat/liberal/activist persuasion will be parroting the same, all the while knowing full well that Judge Barrett was absolutely correct in refusing to answer as it would undermine any case coming before the court. 

The entire exchange between Feinstein and Amy Coney Barrett was painful to watch given how Feinstein fumbled around and quite frankly had her ass handed to her very politely by ACB every single time. 

Three other things to note. Judge Barrett’s answer to Lindsey Graham concerning why she would put herself through this is well worth watching. 

Lindsey Graham just asked ACB how it feels to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Her answer was incredible and I hope everyone takes a minute to watch and listen. pic.twitter.com/gpckQNobWG

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) October 13, 2020

Secondly, she didn’t bring any notes! It’s just her, water, and one single sheet of paper! 

Judge Barrett is using no notes. pic.twitter.com/zqZ6QGckOq

— Trish Turner (@caphilltrish) October 13, 2020

Third, this.

To sum up @SenFeinstein : "You [ACB] claim to be impartial when following the law and that's a problem to me because it means you do not favor my political agenda."#SupremeCourt #ACB #SCOTUS

— Shani ⭐ Geine (@JunkoGeine) October 13, 2020

It was a given that Diane Feinstein would have an agenda. It was quite honestly delightful to watch this very polite boxing match with Judge Amy Coney Barrett calmly and courteously delivering multiple knockout punches.  

Round Two goes to Judge Barrett.

Feature Photo Credit: boxing gloves by Andreas via Pixabay, cropped and modified