 |
| Blumenthal and Sanders |
It has been said of U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal that there is no more dangerous place in Connecticut than the space between him and a television camera. On the day after Judge Amy Barrett’s first appearance before the U.S. Senate, Blumenthal’s picture appeared twice in a Hartford paper. He was prominently featured in both an AP story, “Barrett makes case as next justice on the Supreme Court,” and a separate Connecticut story, “Blumenthal says fate of Obamacare is on the line.”
Blumenthal is used to receiving in his home state gushingly
favorable press. So, no surprise there.
The first day of Barrett’s testimony was not devoted to the
questioning of the nominee by senators. Barrett briefly addressed the assembled
senators, after which the senators addressed Barrett, sitting mutely before
them, looking somewhat like a masked pillar of salt. The interrogatories occurred
on Tuesday and Wednesday. What is the real purpose, some may wonder, of this
awkward preamble to the hearing?
Barrett, perhaps anticipating hostile questioning from Democrats,
was permitted to make an initial statement, in the course of which she said,
according to the AP story, that Americans “deserve an independent Supreme Court
that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written.” And the
senators were permitted to make statements – pitches really to their separate constituencies
– that later may be carved out and presented to voters in campaign statements
before the upcoming elections, which have already commenced.
As quoted by the reporter in the Hartford paper, Blumenthal’s
message was: “Your nomination” – the senator, full of an unbending resolve, was
speaking directly to the pillar of salt – “is about the Republican goal of
repealing the Affordable Care Act, the Obamacare they seem to detest so much.”
Blumenthal has not yet told us how a single likely Supreme
Court Justice would be able to “repeal” -- be it noted, a legislative term -- an
act passed by Congress. Supreme Court Justices should not be in the business of
repealing congressional bills, the exclusive province of the legislature. The
point Barrett stressed in her opening statement was that justices of the high court
should say whether laws are or are not constitutional and leave the legislative
repair work to such as Blumenthal.
Perhaps Blumenthal did not hear her statement because he was
anxious to present a political point before the November election.
The point he did manage to make was apparently lost on
reporters from his home state, which was this: Democrats, who believe the U.S.
Constitution is a document that should be altered – some would say
deformed -- by high court decisions, want justices to act as the spear
points in a progressive remaking of the very nature of constitutional
governance.
Indeed, that is why Barrett, whose ambition is far more
humble, has been singled out by Blumenthal and other progressive saboteurs as a
menace. She was treated as such by Blumenthal, who refused to meet with her, a
discourtesy unusual even for Blumenthal, before her Senate judiciary hearing. Connecticut Commentary mentioned Blumenthal’s
humiliating snub of Barrett here.
In the meantime,
Democrats such as Connecticut’s sainted Senator From Planned Parenthood, Dick Blumenthal, who denied Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett the courtesy of a
private meeting before her anticipated auto de fa, are busy strewing faggots at her feet and will not
be satisfied with anything less than a public humiliation, followed by a public
burning. The nation’s shameless mainstream media will help light the Democrat’s
Senate Judiciary Hearing pyre. Barrett, don’t you know, is a member of a
Christian “cult”, a Catholic charismatic movement warmly embraced by papists
such as Pope Francis and all the bishops in Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro’s Catholic Church.
The message to
Catholics could not be plainer: It’s OK for Pentecostals to acknowledge the
workings of the Holy Spirit in human history, but not Catholics. It’s OK
for Catholics to honor saints such as Francis and Aquinas, but to aspire to be
like either is cultism.
At the last moment, Democrats apparently decided not to paw
Barrett’s Catholicism during their hearing. The pawing, one may be sure, will
be sufficiently subtle, not embarrassingly overt. It is not good manners, but
rather political considerations that have persuaded Democrats to paw rather
than claw.
Comments