Who Will Replace Mitch McConnell?
Google CEO Pledged to Use AI to Combat Trumpism
Joe Biden: My Fellow Americans, You're All Idiots
Is This the Most Racist MSNBC Segment to Date?
Attacks on Police Outpacing 2023 Levels
The White House Tries Out a New Term for Illegal Aliens and Hoo,...
The Left Is Mocking Lauren Boebert After Her Son's Arrest and John Fetterman...
Federal Judge Blocks Texas's New Law Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration. Abbott Responds...
The Push to Transition to Electric Vehicles Brings a Major Concern to the...
'Jeopardy!' Blasted for Going Woke
A 'Trans' Athlete Caused Injuries in a Girls' Basketball Game. Here's How the...
Townhall Has Learned That Senator Risch Has Endorsed Kari Lake for Senate in...
Here's What Obama's DHS Secretary Said About Biden's Border Crisis
KJP Just Made the White House's Response to Laken Riley's Murder Even Worse
On McConnell's Legacy

Why a Connecticut Supreme Court Nomination Got Very Messy. Hint: It Involves Justice Barrett.

AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett might have sailed through her confirmation process—it was certainly easier than Kavanaugh’s—but it torpedoed the nomination of another. It was a state Supreme Court seat in Connecticut, but how the federal judge who filled the vacancy left by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg got roped into this failed judicial nomination is something that can only happen in a blue state. The nominee, Sandra Sack Glover, signed a letter backing Barrett to be confirmed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. That act is disqualifying for the rabid pro-abortion cohorts that dominate the Democratic Party. What’s worse is that Glover recanted her support for the eminently qualified Barrett (via CNBC): 


A federal prosecutor on Friday removed her name from consideration for a seat on the Connecticut Supreme Court after blowback from legislators over a 2017 letter she signed in support of Amy Coney Barrett, who is now a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Gov. Ned Lamont's nomination of Sandra Slack Glover had floundered in recent days due to her prior backing of Barrett for a seat on the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals — five years before Barrett provided a vote on the U.S. Supreme Court to end the federal right to abortion. 


Glover, who called herself a staunch defender of abortion rights, said Monday during her confirmation hearing at the Connecticut Senate Judiciary Committee that she was "naive" and "wrong" to have signed the letter in support of Barrett. 

"Looking back and knowing what I now know, I shouldn't have signed it," Glover testified about the letter, which was signed by every U.S. Supreme Court clerk who worked during that court's 1998-99 term. 


Despite her statements that day, key Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee predicted on Tuesday that her nomination would not be approved, the news site CTMirror.com reported. The committee had declined to vote on her nomination after the seven-hour hearing on Monday. 

"I don't really see a path forward for this particular nominee," said Sen. John Kissel of Enfield, top Republican on the committee, according to CTMirror. "The votes aren't even close to double digits in her favor." 


Basically, a letter of recommendation is what killed this nomination. Barrett is a qualified jurist—that is a fact. So, liberals being unable to see that due to political animus isn’t surprising. They’re the first to turn into the vilest creatures when they come upon those with whom they disagree politically. It’s their heroin. The irony is that even lefty legal scholars have noted Roe’s shaky standing. The Left had a generation or more to codify Roe after 1973 and probably could have succeeded in passing a law establishing a right to an abortion before liberal America went off the deep end on this issue, especially with late-term pregnancies. 

Both sides technically have time and space to make their case for bills for national laws on abortion. No language is in the Constitution prohibiting it, so if the Left wants abortion on demand, pass a law. If conservatives want to ban it, pass a law. Dobbs merely returned this debate to where it should have remained in 1973: the legislative process. Apparently, Ms. Barrett interpreting the Constitution properly on this issue was a disqualifying offense.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos