The second day of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings turned into a disaster for the Democrats.
Democrats were not prepared for how their strategy would backfire.
And Amy Coney Barrett revealed something about her personal life that no one saw coming.
Democrats tried to paint Barrett as a political pawn of the conservative movement that was there to affect outcomes and not rule on the cases in front of her based on the law.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham questioned Amy Coney Barrett about her judicial philosophy.
Under questioning from Graham, Barrett explained that she could set her personal beliefs aside and rule on cases based on the text of the law and the Constitution as well as the original intent of the Founders.
The example Graham drilled down on was the Second Amendment.
“We do own a gun.”
“Do you think you could fairly decide a gun case even though you own a gun?” Graham asked.
“Yes,” Barrett replied.
“Judges can’t wake up one day and say I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said. “You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process.”
Democrats then questioned Barrett about the only Second Amendment case she ruled on as a judge.
Kanter v. Barr involved a Wisconsin man convicted of one count of mail fraud in 2004.
In the ruling, Barrett ruled that the government violated his Second Amendment rights by revoking his ability to purchase a firearm because he was a nonviolent felon.
“Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe,” she wrote. “Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”
Under questioning Barrett stood by her ruling explaining that the original intent of the Second Amendment only allowed for the government to restrict the right to own a firearm for violent criminals.
Democrats did not lay a glove on Barrett.
Under questioning Barrett came off as personable, intelligence, patient and qualified.
Barrett’s Democrat interrogators appeared uninformed, partisan and a clown car collection of blowhards.
These hearings are a political messaging bonanza for Senate Republicans and the Trump campaign.
And this could not come at a better time for the GOP.
If you want Conservative Revival to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.