What's Hilarious About the Liberal Media's Response to ACB Answer on Abortion Question

|
|
Posted: Oct 13, 2020 12:35 PM
What's Hilarious About the Liberal Media's Response to ACB Answer on Abortion Question

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

The liberal media has another ‘we’re all morons’ moment today right out of the gate on day two of the hearings regarding the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wasted no time asking the judge about abortion. She asked multiple times about Roe v. Wade and Barrett refused to give a direct answer because it’s not proper for a sitting judge to give an opinion about any case that may or may not come before the Court. This has been called the Ginsburg rule. It was invoked during Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings when he too was attacked by the Left for his supposed views on abortion. 

When John Roberts was nominated in 2005 by George W. Bush, Heritage had a good explanation. And even then, Democrats were up to their usual tricks [emphasis mine]:

When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten.

[…]

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3.

Yet as President Bush and Judge John Roberts left the White House podium … three Democratic senators -- Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer -- were already promising to violate the "Ginsburg Rule," not to mention the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts or making any statement that would create the appearance they are not impartial. This rule is critical to an independent judiciary. Justices must remain open-minded when an actual case comes before them. They must not even hint how they would rule.

That didn’t stop a bunch of journos from mainstream outlets from tweeting about how Barrett’s answer to this question was some ‘bombshell’ development. It’s not. You all knew this was going to be the answer. Also, you people wrote endlessly about the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy, her career, and he mark on American history. You didn’t know this was a rule or you ignored it in order to attack Barrett. Either way, you look like idiots. 

We have the votes. Notorious ACB will be confirmed. Acceptance is part of the grieving process too.