Sen. Thom Tillis: Amy Coney Barrett incredibly qualified for Supreme Court, Dems' radical agenda alarming

Amy Coney Barrett ‘represents new wave of feminist role models’: Jessica Anderson

Heritage Action for America Executive Director Jessica Anderson discusses Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation vote expected tomorrow on ‘Fox & Friends.’

Over the last few weeks, the American people have been introduced to Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the Senate considered her nomination to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

From her acceptance speech at the White House through the final day of her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have seen one of the most qualified nominees to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.
It was already known that Judge Barrett is by any measure imaginable—including the ABA gold standard—incredibly qualified to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has extensive experience, including serving as a judicial law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and as Judge on the Seventh Circuit, but her note-free performance during her confirmation hearings showed thoughtful and unbiased commitment to applying the Constitution and law as written.

By day two of the hearings, it was clear my Democratic colleagues in the committee were grasping for straws trying to find reasons to oppose her nomination.

Their entire opposition is predicated on their unsuccessful demand for Judge Barrett to promise to legislate from the bench and advance their liberal agenda by decimating your right to religious freedom and to keep and bear arms.

Democrats know that if they can't advance their radical liberal agenda like the Green New Deal and taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants through legislation, they can appoint judges who will do their job for them, turning the federal judiciary into an extension of the legislative branch. That is wrong. 

What’s even more concerning than the Democrats' demands that Judge Barrett be a legislator from the bench is their plan to pack the Court if they don’t get their way.

This is not a new concept, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to “pack” the Supreme Court, but ultimately failed.

For over 150 years, the Supreme Court has consisted of nine justices. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed that nine justices is the appropriate number for the Court, and for good reason. Unfortunately, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and their liberal allies are hell-bent on repeating the mistakes of the past and packing the Supreme Court with left-wing activists.
Let me be clear—despite what some Democrats have said in an effort to hide their plans to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court—court-packing means increasing the number of justices so that there is a left-wing majority on the Court that would rubber-stamp the Democrats' unconstitutional liberal agenda.

Court-packing means that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer would be able to confiscate your guns, force people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs, and use the federal bureaucracy like a weapon to crush American businesses and taxpayers.
That’s why I strongly support judges like Amy Coney Barrett who will interpret the Constitution and law as written. They don’t have agendas, conservative or liberal. They don’t go to the bench to legislate or to advance any agenda.

Their job is to interpret the law as written; nothing more, nothing less. Instead of court-packing, radical Democrats should instead be working with Republicans to confirm judges who will be neutral arbiters of the law and not liberal or conservative policy advocates. 
But sadly, they won’t do that. For them, eliminating religious freedom, destroying our Second Amendment rights, and imposing their job-killing Green New Deal is more important than having a properly limited Supreme Court.


Democrats will do anything to achieve those goals, including turning the Supreme Court into an unelected super-legislature.

That can’t happen, and as long as I’m in the Senate, I will fight against it.

Source: Read Full Article