Failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton tried her best to attack Amy Coney Barrett in a tweet Wednesday — but it seems it was Clinton herself who ended up getting schooled.
According to the Daily Wire, Clinton was humiliated by the likes of “no less than Justice Antonin Scalia’s son” after she challenged President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee on her “originalist” view of the Constitution.
Of course, it’s no surprise to Dems like Clinton misinterpreting legal language — after all, they can’t seem to understand the concept of court-packing — but Clinton is a lawyer. These are things she really ought to know.
As she made clear Tuesday during the second day of her confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett follows the same approach to judicial decision making as the late Justice Scalia — a concept known as “originalism.”
According to the Daily Wire, originalists are, “in essence,” required “to consider the document authors’ intent and the Constitution’s immediate historical context when interpreting the Constitution’s guarantees in light of a particular case.”
The concept also applies to laws beyond the Constitution. Scalia, Barrett, and others who follow the “Original Meaning” approach recognize that laws are, more often than not, written down; thus, in order to apply these laws, one must be able to interpret the words on the page — and they interpret them as they were originally intended to be interpreted.
Of course, as the Daily Wire notes, “each originalist has his or her own definition.”
Here’s how Barrett put her philosophy at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday: “In English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”
This week, Clinton tried to capitalize on Barrett’s statement — but all she did was show she didn’t understand it. Take a look:
At the time the Constitution was ratified, women couldn’t vote, much less be judges. https://t.co/B0oxTT2nzt
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 14, 2020
Perhaps Christopher Scalia explained it best. “Dear HRC staffers: originalists don’t believe the Constitution should never change; they just realize it’s the job not of judges but of citizens through their legislators to make those changes. See, for example, the 19th amendment,” he wrote in a tweet, according to the Daily Wire.
The truth of the matter is that, despite all of the left’s fearmongering, neither Barrett nor her judicial approach is a threat — unless, of course, you think of judges as super-legislators put in place to sign off on far-left policies, like Democrats seem to.