Suggestion for Stephanie Grace as to her recent column on Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Please take a moment to read Article II, Section 2, of U.S. Constitution wherein the president is granted the power to nominate judges of the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court nominees, after being selected by the president must be approved by a simple majority vote (51 votes) of the Senate.
There are no time restrictions as to when the president may nominate or when the Senate may approve or disapprove of a nominee. What time limits would she suggest? Obviously, her position would be that Democrats would have no time restrictions in accordance with the Constitution, but Republicans would be severely limited as to when they could nominate or confirm someone from vacancy on the Supreme Court.
The most disturbing thing in her column is that Barrett “embraces a deeply divisive originalist philosophy.” There are two schools of thought: Conservatives who believe the U.S. Constitution says what it means and means what it says, as opposed to liberals who believe that the amendment process is too cumbersome, and that the meaning of the words in the Constitution are ever-changing to meet changing circumstances and/or more "progressive" ideas.
As to a change in the rules, would she support an expansion or reduction in the number of seats on the Supreme Court anytime there is a change in the majority party of the U.S. Senate?
Finally, what in the world is she referring to when she refers to "the ones who decided that rules don’t apply the first place?" Again, the rules are set out in the U.S. Constitution.
It is the left who only want to apply the rules when it suits them; however if the rules are not convenient, they should be ignored.
RICHARD T. REGAN