(This post may contain disputed claims. We make no assertions as to the validity of the information presented by our Opinion Columnist. We are an opinion blog, not a traditional news outlet, and this post should be treated as such. Enjoy.)Day two of the Senate hearings on the Amy Coney Barrett nomination saw the Democrats freak out over the nominee’s past decisions on gun rights and voter ID laws. In fact, Coney Barrett admitted she “owns a gun,” and that’s when Senator Amy Klobuchar tried to “outwit” Coney Barrett by comparing the right to bear arms to strict voter ID laws. Poor Amy Klobuchar got torched by the mother of seven. You’ll love this.
Senator Amy Klobuchar came prepared to put President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee in the hot seat. Klobuchar thought she could “outwit” Amy Coney Barrett on matters of jurisprudence. The senator from Minnesota made an utter fool of herself.
The Democrats are all clamoring to get Coney Barrett to admit that gun rights in the Constitution are the same as voter rights.
The reason this is such a big deal is due to the upcoming presidential election. Most conservatives know the leftists would have no voter ID requirements if they could get away with it. They also would love to have felons have the right to vote.
Klobuchar pressed Barrett on voting rights, raising Barrett’s dissent in the Kanter v. Barr case Sen. Durbin raised earlier, in which Barrett suggested the Constitution protects the right of non-violent felons to own guns but does not protect their right to vote — a right she wrote belongs “only to virtuous citizens.”
Before diving into the details, it is worth noting two facts. First, the Fourteenth Amendment — the same amendment that guarantees the right to vote — also allows states to abridge that vote “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”
The Second Amendment contains no such caveat: it says that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” That does not mean it is unlimited, but it is noteworthy that the Constitution specifically treats the right to vote somewhat differently.
“How do you define the word virtuous?” Klobuchar questioned. “It doesn’t appear in the Constitution… We are living in a time or a lot of people are having their voting rights taken away from them. What’s virtuous?”
“Senator, I want to be clear that that is not in the opinion designed to denigrate the right to vote which is fundamental. The distinction between civic and individual rights is one that is present in the court decisions and it has to do with the jurisprudential view,” Barrett said. “It doesn’t mean, I think, anybody gets a measure of virtue and whether they are good or not and whether they are allowed to vote. That’s not what I said.”
Coney Barrett refused to play word games with Amy Klobuchar. The right to bear arms “must not be infringed” is pretty distinct. However, states have the right to make voter ID requirements as the right to vote does not carry the same language as the Second Amendment.
“Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at the polls?” Klobuchar asked.
“Senator Klobuchar, you know that is eliciting. I’m not sure it’s eliciting a legal opinion for me because a reasonable person standard, as you know, is more common in the law. Or just an opinion as a citizen. It’s not something really that’s appropriate for me to comment on,” Barrett replied sharply.
Amy Coney Barrett owns a gun.
Earlier in the hearing, Coney Barrett admitted to owning a gun. Senator Lindsey Graham asked if she could “fairly decide a case even though you own a gun.” Barrett responded: “Yes.”
“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 Consitution, to wind their way through the process.”
The Senate Democrats can’t reckon with the sheer force of Amy Coney Barrett. She needs no notes, and that says volumes about her mind and memory. She might not be “a royal queen,” but Coney Barrett has demonstrated she is the queen of the Senate hearings and will be a very welcome addition to the Supreme Court.
