Amy Coney Barrett's hearing is a disgusting spectacle of GOP dishonesty

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Judging by the beginning of confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, Republicans and Democrats agree on this: The worst thing you can say about a Supreme Court nominee is that she will agree with the policy agenda of the Republican Party.

That quickly became clear on the first day of hearings, in which the senators all gave their opening statements and eventually, the nominee herself read her prepared remarks. Each of the two parties had a unified strategy, which they carried out with discipline. And those strategies were extremely revealing of this political moment and the future of the Supreme Court.

Democrats decided that their focus would be the potential real-world effects of Barrett ascending to the court and creating a bulletproof 6-3 conservative majority. While there are many issues they could have discussed — Roe v. Wade, the Voting Rights Act, workers’ rights — they chose to stick with the Affordable Care Act, which the court could strike down in a case it will hear right after the election.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats had no need to conceal their policy intentions or their hopes and fears about the court. The ACA has never been more popular, and if the GOP lawsuit — supported by nearly every Republican-run state government and the Trump administration — succeeds, the result will be nothing short of a health-care cataclysm, with an estimated 23 million Americans losing health coverage and all of us losing protections for preexisting conditions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-amy-coney-barretts-hearing-is-a-disgusting-spectacle-of-gop-dishonesty/ar-BB19WUNh?li=BBnb7Kz

[Laelth]

1. Excellent article. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[FBaggins]

2. I don't "get" the focus on the ACA

I'm not sure whether any republicans pointed it out yet or not... but she can't make much of a difference in that case.

If her vote did make a difference (meaning that she is the 5th vote in a 5-4 decision)... then she didn't actually make a difference - because a 4-4 ruling would leave the lower court decision in place, and that went against us.