Harmeet Dhillon Appears on FBN’s ‘The Evening Edit’ To Discuss Judge Barrett’s Supreme Court Hearing
According to Dhillon (Video Transcript):
I don’t think any of them landed a finger on her. And in fact, it’s almost like she has a superpower by calmly sitting there and politely responding to these questions. I think she made each and every one of them look silly, or worse. So from that point of view, I think it was a failure, the Democrats would have been better off actually not having a hearing at all and simply calling the question and voting because I don’t think they convinced anybody with this charade.
That’s just such cheap gutter rhetoric. But what we have come to expect from Claire McCaskill really graceless. The judge did exactly what other judges have done in the same seat and what they should do, because what these Democratic senators either don’t understand or deliberately disingenuous about is cases before the Supreme Court are not a referendum on policy issues like they imagined them to be. They’re actually a plaintiff and a defendant or multiple of those, a set of facts, and a particular procedural posture. You know, is there an injunction pending appeal? What is the circumstance of this case? So no judge could honestly answer how they would vote on a case that they don’t know the facts of, and neither would it be appropriate. And so, I hope in the future, if Democrats are ever in the same position where they’re nominating justices, those justices take the same position, as Amy Coney Barrett, and really everybody has done over the last 30 years.
Same thing, like I just said. Typically, like you look at Bush versus Gore, that case rested on a particular set of facts, a particular state law, particular timing and circumstances and who’s bringing the case. So again, it’s a fanciful scenario in the first place, and no responsible person would answer that question in the abstract. But even if one word opined on it, a responsible person would need to know what is the state, what is the state law, what are the circumstances, was there a nuclear attack? You know, what are the circumstances? So I think that, she again, answered it correctly. Democrats really have nothing to go on here. They don’t have the votes. They’re just projecting. And however, I do think that they’re better behaved slightly than they were in the Kavanaugh hearings. And, when you look at those two, that’s kind of a shocking statement, but certainly Dianne Feinstein was more polite this time, as well than she was before when just when Judge Barrett was before her three years ago for confirmation. So they have seemed to have learned some lessons from prior disastrous confirmation hearings.
Well, I guess it certainly a goal by the left but the very words of Justice Ginsburg, who they revere, refute their position, which was namely, when she was asked this question before the 2016 election, she said the president is the president for four years, not three years. And this mythical concept that the president doesn’t have to do his job and that last year, the Senate doesn’t have to do their job is ridiculous. And there’s a couple more months left to go where the president can make fresh nominations if he wants and the Senate has to do its job there as well.
This is a perfect example, your question of how “inside-the-Beltway” thinking is so radically different than the rest of the country. The rest of the country does not view the United States Supreme Court as something that has relevance in its everyday life, and neither should they, and neither should it. It only decides about 80 to 100 cases in a good year. And you know, most of them have to do with some fairly arcane issues. And so it is it is crazy that the left ever since Roe vs. Wade and other decisions like that have put so much weight on the court because they use it as a way to get what they can’t get in other circumstances. And Ted Cruz at the hearing today did a really good job pointing out how five to four liberal majorities have been able to establish changes in policy that have not been able to accomplish through the legislative process. And that’s not the way the court should go, either. And so the final thing that we need to note here is that the two Democrats running for the top positions in our country are refusing to answer on the record their position about expanding the size of the Supreme Court and therefore, who is really delegitimizing the Supreme Court here? It’s not Republicans, it’s Democrats who are trying to distort it to meet their own goals.
It is a victory for Trump. It is a shame that such a trivial and far-fetched case even made it to the Supreme Court and some trees were killed in the process. And so, that particular argument is among the weakest arguments the Democrats have leveled against the president. I mean, there have been some significant challenges concerning some policy issues regarding the border, regarding immigration, regarding separation of powers issues, but this one was like completely Trump Derangement Syndrome driven and it has met its appropriate ignominious end.