The coverage of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings is annoying me more than I thought it would. I understand that mainstream news outlets have to cover it straight, but at the same time it means that news consumers who aren’t politics junkies never get the real story, namely:
- Barrett is very conservative and will almost certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and Chevron if she gets a chance. These will not necessarily take the form of explicit overrules, but the practical impact will still be to get rid of them.
- Barrett will, of course, refuse to comment on any of this as a nominee. But it hardly matters since everyone already knows her opinions.
- In any case, the entire hearing is just kabuki anyway. Republicans will all vote to confirm Barrett, and Democrats will all vote to oppose her.
- None of this has anything to do with judicial philosophy. It’s because Barrett will almost certainly support Republican positions and oppose Democratic positions. There have been cases in the past when Republicans have nominated candidates who turned out to be only weak partisans, but those days are long gone. Nobody with questionable loyalties makes it past their filters any longer.
Anyone who cares enough about politics to read this blog already knows this, and also knows that all the words being spilled on both sides are little more than a charade. Republicans will vote for Barrett because she’s a Republican and they have enough votes to confirm her. That’s it. That’s the whole story.