Democrats' Desperate Late-Night Drama Fails To Derail Amy Coney Barrett Nomination


Not even a Democratic all-nighter could derail President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee.

In a Sunday-into-Monday display of melodrama — aimed, no doubt, at bringing out their base in next week’s election — Democratic senators gabbed endlessly in an attempt to forestall Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s ascension to the high court.

But it was clear even Sunday afternoon that the end was in sight.

“The Senate is doing the right thing. We’re moving this nomination forward and colleagues, by tomorrow night we’ll have a new member of the United States Supreme Court,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Sunday, according to USA Today.

Naturally, Democrats didn’t like that at all.

Hollywood Star's Wife Played Key Role in International Criminal Court's Arrest Warrant for Israeli Leaders

Considering the disgraceful depths they have descended to when it comes to political battles over the Supreme Court — the attempted public character assassination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh is still an open wound for many conservatives — the party’s lack of self-awareness on the issue is almost stunning.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut — one of the party’s most ludicrously partisan members — made his colleagues’ hypocrisy inadvertently clear in a Twitter post early Monday morning.

“Just finished the 3-5am shift on the Senate floor in protest of the vote later today on radical Amy Coney Barrett,” Murphy wrote.

“She will rule to invalidate Obamacare, causing 23M to lose insurance in the middle of a pandemic. Catastrophic.

“Both sad and furious on my rainy drive home.”

So now Barrett is radical? When a federal judge with a distinguished career as a law professor, spoken of highly by virtually everyone who has worked with her — not to mention the mother of seven children — is considered a “radical” by Democrats because of her fealty to the Constitution, it shows how far astray the party has gone from American values.

That’s why many on the left have threatened to retaliate by “packing” the court with more justices in the disastrous event Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency, and it’s an excellent reason for thinking Americans to do everything they can to defeat Democrats on every level of the ballot.

Fortunately for the future of the Republic, millions of Americans support Barrett’s nomination to the fullest.

Liberal Justice Devastates Colorado's Attempt to Keep Trump Off Ballot with Case-Killing Question

Barrett is not confirmed yet. It will take a Senate floor vote Monday evening before it’s official, but with Republicans holding a 53-seat majority in the upper chamber, she seems assured of getting the 51 votes necessary. (As Fox News reported Sunday, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican in a tough re-election fight, is the only questionable GOP vote.)

Do you think Democrats will try to "pack" the court if Joe Biden wins the presidency?

That would bear out McConnell’s prediction from Sunday and would seal a majority on the high court — for a time, at least — of justices who respect the Constitution as a governing document, not as a living license to impose any law Democrats see fit at any given time.

That’s what Democrats fear most about Barrett. It’s why they tried to stop the nomination any way they could.

And it’s what voters need to remember most when it comes time to turning out for Trump on Nov. 3.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , ,
Joe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro desk editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He's been with Liftable Media since 2015.
Joe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He's been with Liftable Media since 2015. Largely a product of Catholic schools, who discovered Ayn Rand in college, Joe is a lifelong newspaperman who learned enough about the trade to be skeptical of every word ever written. He was also lucky enough to have a job that didn't need a printing press to do it.