What’s good for me is not for thee. This seems to be the attitude on the left as yet again Democrats protest an activity or action they’ve gleefully practiced — until it interferes with their agenda. In the newest round of crybaby politics, Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer (NY) decries virtual hearings – when it comes to consideration of SCOTUS nominee and Appellate Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett. During an Oct. 4, meeting, the New York senator expressed his dislike of the decision-making process for the newest SCOTUS member:
“A virtual hearing is virtually no hearing at all. You need to be with the witness and have direct cross questions, and back and forth with them.
“If it’s not safe for the Senate to meet in session, it’s not safe for the hearings to go forward.”
Ironic, that, since it’s perfectly safe for children and teachers to conduct school online, for parents to work from home, and for medical professionals to diagnose and give advice over the phone or computer. It’s not like this is a new concept, at least not anymore. Since the COVID pandemic, the Senate has already held virtual hearings. As Republican Senatorial Committee Senior Adviser Matt Whitlock tweeted: “’A virtual hearing is virtually no hearing at all’ would certainly be news to the Senate Democrats who have participated in *21* virtual judiciary committee hearings throughout the pandemic.” White House senior adviser Stephen Miller added his thoughts, saying, “Virtual hearings rob Schumer and the left of the protest spectacle of barnstorming into elevators and Code Pink screaming and dragged from the room. That’s all this is about.”
Granted, choosing a Supreme Court justice is a crucial task, but what about the individuals and groups in the 21 cases already heard via virtual hearings? Is the left suggesting that these cases were not important enough to be postponed until the pandemic restrictions have been lifted? Are Schumer and his Democratic cohorts implying that they cannot accurately perform their duties by virtual methods, which is okay for the American people but not for picking a justice for the high court? A Twitter commenter named Rob expounded on the idea, saying: “In other news, the highest court in the land will resume virtual oral arguments tomorrow for cases that would affect people’s lives.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) praised Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) back in May for holding a virtual hearing but now argues that the nomination of Coney Barrett is different because “you want to be able to go back and forth with this nominee given her views,” on subjects such as the Affordable Care Act. This whole line of argument just doesn’t fly. Teachers and students interact online, asking questions and talking back and forth, in their virtual classrooms. Congress has participated in virtual meetings to discuss essential country business. So far it has held more than 20 Judiciary Committee sessions virtually, so why all of a sudden is it not good enough?
We all know the answer to that one: It’s presidential election time. Oh, and the nominee is a President Donald Trump selection, and the left can’t tolerate any commander-in-chief picks. Schumer even promised that if the hearings continue as they are scheduled for Oct. 12, the Democrats will use “every tool in the toolbox to delay and not have the votes occur.”
Another blocking tactic being employed by Dems who aren’t getting what they want.
Read more from Kelli Ballard.