Letter: Comments on Supreme Court Justice Barrett

Recognizing that the timing of Justice Barrett’s nomination brought forth political disputes, that, by and of itself was no reason for the Senate majority to abandon an opportunity to appoint a Justice whose method of interpreting the Constitution
aligned with theirs. That opposition from the minority party would be incurred was predictable, that their opposition was not steeped in any historical precedent, but rather in philosophic differences was also predictable. In fact, historical precedents support distinguishing election-year nominees when the President’s party controls the Senate.

Accusing Amy Coney Barrett of being “an extreme ideological nominee” is far removed from reality. She received a "well
qualified" rating from the ABA Standing Committee. She was approved by a majority of all voters and three times voted
“Distinguished Professor of the Year.”  Does this equate to an extreme ideological nominee?

It is unconscionable the extent to which the left is unwilling to use reason over partisanship and to disparage those who
have achieved such amazing success. First, it was Justice Kavanagh and now Justice Barrett. Is there no shame?
Placing cardboard cutouts picturing Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who boycotted the final vote to send Justice
Barrett’s nomination to the full Senate was hyperbole and immature. And even though they did not speak, the gesture spoke
loudly to the American public about those unwilling to compromise. This unwillingness has created polarization within
America and further demonstrates the Left’s willingness to remain silent and ignore those who vilify and terrorize those
who disagree.

The Left desires to change the Constitution by nominating Jurist whose interpretation of it is as judicial activists, turning
the court into a third legislative branch. This eliminates the power of the people and replaces it with the Left’s political
dogma.

Ira Clevenger