Will Barrett Get An Avenatti Moment?

Sifting through the vast array of ever-shifting attacks, and denials that they are anything more than strawman cries, against the now-nominated Amy Coney Barrett has been amusing, sad and pathetic. But the worst of it isn’t the usual cries by the civically illiterate, who have no clue what judges do or are supposed to do. The worst is that the groundlings are being manipulated by those who do.

To be fair, it’s too easy. Judge Barrett is being attacked/not attacked for being a Catholic, for adopting black children, and for her love/hatred of stare decisis. Smart people are arguing with surprising vehemence about how Judge Barrett will bring the “conservative” majority to 6-3 (because 5-4 isn’t a majority?), upon which every decision some cherish will be reversed and every decision some despise will be redoubled. By the way, that’s always been the way people have understood stare decisis, even though it’s a tenet about judicial stability.

No doubt Judge Barrett was well aware of what her nomination meant going in. It would be a bruising battle, but it’s not as if any judge gets too many shots at being nominated to the Supreme Court. Even knowing that you will be the target of attack by lies and truth, do you suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

From the left, what principled judge would agree to be nominated given that we’re on the eve of an election and they (and many, perhaps most Americans) believe the seat should be filled by the next president. This would mean, of course, that Judge Barrett wouldn’t be nominated and would likely never become a Supreme Court justice. Why wouldn’t she take a pass to appease the left? Is a nominee willing to accept the nomination under these circumstances disqualified?

But we’re still at the starting gate of this battle, even as the soothsayers have already condemned her for reversing Roe v. Wade, holding the ACA unconstitutional and a slew of rulings that, we’re assured, will definitely be coming down the pike and will destroy society. When Harvard lawprof Noah Feldman wrote that ACB was, his policy and jurisprudential disagreements with her aside, exceptionally well qualified, it evoked the most Michele Dauber of Dauber reactions.

Noah Feldman: “I am stupid and get women to do my homework for me. Yet because of my white penis I had a job I apparently admit I did not deserve.”

But all of this is already known, and frankly expected, and factored into the equation. What’s not known is whether there will be an Avenatti moment to come.

On September 26, 2018, after Avenatti promoted unbelievable claims that Brett Kavanaugh had participated in a criminal organization that planned and executed a series of gang rapes, every single Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter demanding a delay in the committee vote on then-Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.

“In light of shocking new allegations,” the committee Democrats wrote, “It would be an unprecedented abuse of power and abdication of our constitutional responsibilities to move forward with this nomination given the concerns about Brett Kavanaugh’s character and actions. We ask that you immediately request an FBI investigation or support the withdrawal of this nominee, but at a minimum the vote that has been scheduled for Friday must be canceled.”

Key here is that the Senate Dems may not have the votes to prevent confirmation of Judge Barrett, but if they can come up with some mechanism to delay the confirmation hearings, it could possibly serve the same end. Bear in mind, after the Senate Reps refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing (which isn’t a constitutional requirement) and vote for no better reason than they had the clout to deny a nominee his day and there was no rule that precluded them from exercising raw power, turnabout is fair play.

What if someone comes out of the woodwork to claim Amy Coney Barrett has done something horrible, evil, maybe even criminal? Don’t ask what it might be, as who knows? But what if it’s true? It can happen, right? Or maybe it’s just a wholesale fabrication, a lie born of the fevered brow of some savior of the cause, willing to dive into this battle to make a claim just to gum up the works? It could happen, too.

And if someone comes forward to accuse ACB of dastardly deeds, how would anyone know if it’s true or a lie without a thorough investigation? Surely we couldn’t end the “job interview” without it, and no one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court with a nefarious accusation hanging over their head.

There’s little serious doubt as to why Judge Barrett has accepted the nomination knowing that she will be the target of attack, whether legitimate or idiotic and outrageous. But no one can anticipate whether there will be some new Avenatti, adored for a while as he courted the useful idiots by saying what they so desperately wanted to hear. And no one can anticipate what shape that attack will take. Once freed of any connection to reality, a fertile mind can manufacture all manner of accusations, and can easily justify their lies as serving a higher purpose of preventing this handmaiden from taking a seat on the bench.

Perhaps it’s worthwhile to remember that the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett may not be a choice you or I would make, but even though her nomination came from Trump, she’s still a legitimate choice for the Court. More importantly, consider that it could have been Jeanine Pirro or maybe even Geraldo, assuming he identified as a woman.

How dirty, nasty, and insane this battle will get before it comes to an end, one way or another, remains to be seen. While Judge Barrett is no Ruth Bader Ginsburg, why would she be? That doesn’t make her evil, and certainly not unqualified, but that won’t prevent some flaming nutjob from trying to burn down her nomination for the cause. And it won’t prevent the mob and Senate Dems from using it to their advantage.

29 thoughts on “Will Barrett Get An Avenatti Moment?

  1. CLS

    We’re already seeing calls to delay the confirmation until someone can investigate the legitimacy of Judge Barrett’s two adoptions. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if some new accusation magically appears in the coming weeks. In fact, I think we can expect it.

  2. jeffrey gamso

    Hell, maybe it’s all a scheme on Trump’s part. Nominate her. Then when she gets so disgusted over something real or not that she quits, he names Jared. After all, there’s nothing in the constitution requiring the justices (or any judges, for that matter) to be lawyers.

      1. Miles

        The Senate Dems have pretty much conceded that there is no way for them to stop confirmation. The Reps can’t (in the secret heart of hearts) be unaware that Trump is horrible, even if he’s giving them what they want in terms of the judiciary, in general, and SCOTUS, in particular.

        So they’ll take ACB, because frankly she’s not bad all things considered, and the nominee could have been far worse given Trump, knowing that Trump’s demise is imminent and they’ve learned the lesson that if they don’t find a way to live together, another Trump, maybe the left hand version, will be their, and our, punishment.

  3. John Barleycorn

    Her husband, Jesse’s, mad cooking skills and babysitters is where it is at according to the tea leaves of her nomination acceptance speech, I guess…

    But, only one thing is certain though and that is:

    “In the context of prison discipline, however, ‘deliberate indifference’ is not enough.”

    Nothing like some good ‘ol Old Testament Law and Order to dip the cookies in…

    She is gonna be Tony the Frosted Flakes Tiger GREEAAAAT!!!

    Wanna bet 5K (to charity) on something important like whether or not she gets creative with her jabot up in the stratosphere at 1 First St NE and whether or not she changes her style every decade?

    The window will be opening soon, by the decade until 2060, on needlepoint, cross-stitch, or silk screen icon skulls, after I do a little more research…

  4. Solomon L. Wisenberg

    I’ve already heard the rumors that her boyfriend demanded marijuana brownies in high school. She substituted oregano, never said anything about it, and pretended to get high with him.

  5. Jay

    Republicans refusing to nominate a justice under Obama. Greenfield: that’s in poor taste but I understand it.

    Democrats trying to come up with any reason to stop Republicans from putting a cultist on the court. Greenfield: you sicken me.

    1. LocoYokel


      I believe from various comments here that you are a lawyer. One would presume that means you have a certain, minimum, level of intelligence and an extensive education. However seeing the repeated, extremely stupid comments you post belies that presumption.

      Even I, who is admittedly far from the most intelligent person here and probably even on the lower end of that bell curve, can understand the fundamental difference between refusing to allow a confirmation vote if you have the ability and the repeated use of libel, character assassination, bigotry and outright perjury to attack and destroy a person publicly.

      Honestly, if you are representative of what they are graduating from law schools these days the future of the American legal system is in serious doubt. Grow up and get an f’ing clue.

      Scott, please correct me if I am mistaken about his being a lawyer, I would hope that someone that stupid wouldn’t be able to get in. If he is, I may have to apply to law school.

      1. Scott Jacobs

        One would presume that means you have a certain, minimum, level of intelligence and an extensive education.

        Sit down. I have something to tell you and it is going to make you sad.

    2. Richard Parker

      “… ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

      I like the Constitution.

  6. Drew Conlin

    I like it when my thoughts match someone I admire. I am not a lawyer, certainly not a Judge; I haven’t a clue how they go about things. ___ unless you count the local district court Judge who hands down fines….
    Based on my not knowing what a justice does I rely on others to make those decisions on selecting/ nominating… it’s worked out so far.
    Lawyers should be judges…. that’s not my thought I once read that from Scalia. He said the business of law requires people that know the law!

      1. Drew Conlin

        If you’ve not already,perhaps you will write a piece on those three sentences…. hard , good law , and impossible..

  7. Keith

    How dirty, nasty, and insane this battle will get before it comes to an end, one way or another, remains to be seen.

    Scott is so hopeful. It’s never going to end.

  8. Richard Kopf


    “Mother Teresa was a martyr — not for India’s and the global South’s poor — but for white, bourgeois guilt.” Krithika Varagur, Mother Teresa Was No Saint, Huff Post (03/15/2016). It therefore occurred to me that the burning of ACB would absolve me of my white bourgeois guilt. I look forward to the witch burning.

    All the best.


  9. B. McLeod

    The sky is falling at every moment, as each perceived crisis outstrips the last one. Hysteria must be maintained at all costs, as every field, barn, pigeon house and hilltop must be contested by any and all means necessary. No argument is too stupid or silly to be thrown onto the stack.

  10. Rengit

    Soon enough, we will get talking points about how any judge (or for that matter, any political appointee) who accepts a nomination while under intense criticism must be mentally unwell and unfit on a clinical/medical basis, like psychopathy, deficient empathy, autism, or some kind of personality disorder, and an open letter signed by 100+ ostensible psychiatric professionals will be published in the New York Times saying that, on the basis of their scientific expertise, the nominee must be denied, or if confirmed, then impeached and removed, for such mental unfitness. Because a obviously normal, mentally healthy person would accept the criticism, take it to heart, and step aside or otherwise turn down the nomination.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. Anyone using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly will be ridiculed. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.