Judge Amy Coney Barrett knows some political jiujutsu and on Wednesday, took one of the left’s favorite concepts and threw it on its head.
As first reported by The Daily Wire, Barrett was being hassled by Democrat Senator Chris Coons about her being something of a female Antonin Scalia. Barrett has been hearing that quite a bit and decided to fire back at Coons.
“Judge Barrett, in accepting President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court, you stated you shared the judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia, your mentor, the justice for whom you clerked,” said Coons. “His philosophy, is, of course, originalism, essentially, the idea that the authoritative meaning of the Constitution is what it meant when ratified, whether that was 150 years ago, 240 years ago, but meant when ratified.”
Barrett, being calm, proceeded immediately put Coons on the backfoot by assuming a position the left considers worthy of reverence; an independently thinking woman…
…so long as that woman is independently thinking what the left tells her to think.
“I hope that you aren’t suggesting that I don’t have my own mind or that I couldn’t think independently, or that I would just decide, ‘Let me see what Justice Scalia has said about this in the past,’ because I assure you I have my own mind,” said Barrett.
Coons attempted to frame the question as a way to help people understand “what that originalist philosophy could really mean for their everyday lives,” and went into the example of Griswald v. Connecticut, a series of cases that dealt with a “right to privacy,” specifically around couples using contraceptives in their own home, which is not actually found within the Constitution. It was a case Scalia found himself in opposition strictly due to the fact that this privacy wasn’t in the founding document, and it was his job to make sure laws line up with it.
Coons’ reasoning is, of course, a lie. What he was really trying to do was make Barrett seem like someone who would set women back and attack the LGBT community as he inevitably revealed:
So I understand you’ll be your own justice and Justice Scalia’s philosophy is significant, but you’ve made it clear that it’s actually your philosophy, and I’m trying to help viewers understand what it means to replace a Justice Ginsburg with someone who may more closely follow Scalia’s approach. If Justice Scalia had had his way, we’d be in a very different country with regards to gender discrimination. In one of Justice Ginsburg’s most celebrated decisions in 1996, in the case involving Virginia Military Institute, she struck down their male-only admissions policy. Decades later, VMI honored Justice Ginsberg in recognition of the contributions its female alumni have made. Justice Scalia was the sole dissenter in that case, and even accused the court of destroying VMI, which remains standing and strong to this day. Now I’m just getting at how closely you would ally yourself with Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence. Would you agree with Justice Scalia that Justice Ginsburg’s decision in VMI was wrong?
Barrett didn’t take it lying down, which lead to her reversal and putting Coons in a verbal headlock:
Well, Senator Coons, to be clear, as I said I think in response to this question yesterday, I do share Justice Scalia’s approach to text, originalism and textualism, but in the litany of cases that you’ve just identified, the particular votes that he cast, are a different question of whether I would agree with the way that he applied those principles in particular cases. And I’ve already said, and I hope that you aren’t suggesting that I don’t have my own mind or that I couldn’t think independently, or that I would just decide, “Let me see what Justice Scalia has said about this in the past,” because I assure you I have my own mind. But everything that he said, is not necessarily what I would agree with or what I would do if I were Justice Barrett. That was Justice Scalia. So I share his philosophy, but I’ve never said that I would always reach the same outcome as he did.
Barrett continues to show that she can hold her own.