Suspicious Dem questions for Amy Coney Barrett suggest a set-up

For those who have watched the Senate confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court justice, we know one thing:  facing the inevitability of her confirmation, the Democrats are using this entire hearing as a big, fat campaign ad for Joe Biden.  It's all about COVID, the ACA, and health care — just like his entire shtick for the last few months. 

But is this really all they are up to?  History proves that the Dems are usually up to no good, especially when they seem to be behaving.  It's possible they will just use the remainder of their time to filibuster, talk at the nominee, try to humiliate her, and push her into saying something inflammatory that they can use against her nomination and the president.  It's possible they are just going to let the process play out and only hope to gain some political advantage from it — nothing more.  And sure, it's possible all will go as planned by the Senate Republicans —  Thursday, the hearings conclude; the vote takes place the end of the month; and we all go merrily along to the polls.  

Have you picked yourself up off the floor from laughter yet?  When has it ever gone according to Republican plans?  When have the Dems ever been courteous and respectful toward Republican nominees to the High Court?  When haven't they gone to extremes to press a perceived advantage or one they carved out of whole cloth without any regard for the lives and reputations they destroy? 

All the bells and whistles went off in my head when Mazie Hirono asked Judge Barrett, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"  She claims to ask this of every nominee — someone should look that up.  And then Cory Booker asked the judge if she condemns white supremacy.

No, folks.  This hearing is not just a four-day infomercial for Biden/Harris.  Instead, it's more likely a set-up.  They had to anticipate she'd answer "no" to the first question and readily condemn white supremacy.  It doesn't take a political genius to suspect they will spring something on us as the hearing winds down Thursday — in the hopes of delaying the vote and possibly scoring points for Biden/Harris.  They must believe they have the goods on the Good Judge or at least something disruptive enough to stall the proceedings and call her integrity into doubt.  Judging by those questions they asked and using a little imagination, maybe DiFi will produce a letter from a former student, colleague, or domestic employee who will claim that ACB mistreated him, said homophobic or racist remarks, made him feel uncomfortable, triggered him, didn't provide a safe space, and should be removed from consideration because of her microaggressions.  Maybe she failed to pay their Social Security or neglected to pay them a fair salary.  Something.  Anything. 

It's just incredibly hard to believe that those questions were random.  The Democrats are a lot of things, but they don't do things without a purpose. 

When you think about it, Mazie and Cory already primed the pump when they scolded Judge Barrett for using the words "sexual preferences" to mean choice in one's sex.  Apparently, this is now considered offensive — even though for decades, the straight world was hammered over the head to recognize that being gay is a lifestyle, a lifestyle choice, and a choice.  In the '80s and '90s, and at the start of the new Millennium, LGBT individuals regularly referred to themselves as having "sexual preferences" and having chosen this or that lifestyle.  It seems, along with changing the definition of marriage and court-packing, the left has now futzed with the meaning of "sexual preferences," which offensively implies choice in one's sex and denies the (supposed and, as yet unproven) fact that sex is immutable and inborn.  However, for decades, scientists have been searching for an identifiable gene that determines "gender identity" and have come up empty-handed — aside from the ho-hum, boring, binary, and scientific male-female categories of sex...or what we also used to call "gender."  Yeah, they changed the meaning of that, too.

Putting it all together, my guess is that they have someone who will say ACB made offensive remarks about his sex directly to him, in a class, or in one of her legal opinions, and that this caused the accuser irreparable harm, pain, and suffering.  This  person might go even farther and claim (lie) that he were sexually harassed by her.  

So buckle up, girls and boys (and those who self-identify as girls and boys).  The Dems are poised to pull another Kavanaugh on our nominee and Bork the living hell out of her.  I may be wrong about this, but if I'm not, the Republicans had better not capitulate to the Dems.  They must put on their big boy pants, ignore the Dems wholesale, call the vote, and swear Barrett in faster than you can say Biden/Harris.

For those who have watched the Senate confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court justice, we know one thing:  facing the inevitability of her confirmation, the Democrats are using this entire hearing as a big, fat campaign ad for Joe Biden.  It's all about COVID, the ACA, and health care — just like his entire shtick for the last few months. 

But is this really all they are up to?  History proves that the Dems are usually up to no good, especially when they seem to be behaving.  It's possible they will just use the remainder of their time to filibuster, talk at the nominee, try to humiliate her, and push her into saying something inflammatory that they can use against her nomination and the president.  It's possible they are just going to let the process play out and only hope to gain some political advantage from it — nothing more.  And sure, it's possible all will go as planned by the Senate Republicans —  Thursday, the hearings conclude; the vote takes place the end of the month; and we all go merrily along to the polls.  

Have you picked yourself up off the floor from laughter yet?  When has it ever gone according to Republican plans?  When have the Dems ever been courteous and respectful toward Republican nominees to the High Court?  When haven't they gone to extremes to press a perceived advantage or one they carved out of whole cloth without any regard for the lives and reputations they destroy? 

All the bells and whistles went off in my head when Mazie Hirono asked Judge Barrett, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"  She claims to ask this of every nominee — someone should look that up.  And then Cory Booker asked the judge if she condemns white supremacy.

No, folks.  This hearing is not just a four-day infomercial for Biden/Harris.  Instead, it's more likely a set-up.  They had to anticipate she'd answer "no" to the first question and readily condemn white supremacy.  It doesn't take a political genius to suspect they will spring something on us as the hearing winds down Thursday — in the hopes of delaying the vote and possibly scoring points for Biden/Harris.  They must believe they have the goods on the Good Judge or at least something disruptive enough to stall the proceedings and call her integrity into doubt.  Judging by those questions they asked and using a little imagination, maybe DiFi will produce a letter from a former student, colleague, or domestic employee who will claim that ACB mistreated him, said homophobic or racist remarks, made him feel uncomfortable, triggered him, didn't provide a safe space, and should be removed from consideration because of her microaggressions.  Maybe she failed to pay their Social Security or neglected to pay them a fair salary.  Something.  Anything. 

It's just incredibly hard to believe that those questions were random.  The Democrats are a lot of things, but they don't do things without a purpose. 

When you think about it, Mazie and Cory already primed the pump when they scolded Judge Barrett for using the words "sexual preferences" to mean choice in one's sex.  Apparently, this is now considered offensive — even though for decades, the straight world was hammered over the head to recognize that being gay is a lifestyle, a lifestyle choice, and a choice.  In the '80s and '90s, and at the start of the new Millennium, LGBT individuals regularly referred to themselves as having "sexual preferences" and having chosen this or that lifestyle.  It seems, along with changing the definition of marriage and court-packing, the left has now futzed with the meaning of "sexual preferences," which offensively implies choice in one's sex and denies the (supposed and, as yet unproven) fact that sex is immutable and inborn.  However, for decades, scientists have been searching for an identifiable gene that determines "gender identity" and have come up empty-handed — aside from the ho-hum, boring, binary, and scientific male-female categories of sex...or what we also used to call "gender."  Yeah, they changed the meaning of that, too.

Putting it all together, my guess is that they have someone who will say ACB made offensive remarks about his sex directly to him, in a class, or in one of her legal opinions, and that this caused the accuser irreparable harm, pain, and suffering.  This  person might go even farther and claim (lie) that he were sexually harassed by her.  

So buckle up, girls and boys (and those who self-identify as girls and boys).  The Dems are poised to pull another Kavanaugh on our nominee and Bork the living hell out of her.  I may be wrong about this, but if I'm not, the Republicans had better not capitulate to the Dems.  They must put on their big boy pants, ignore the Dems wholesale, call the vote, and swear Barrett in faster than you can say Biden/Harris.