The Barrett Hearings

The Senate hearings for Amy Coney Barrett for a seat on the Supreme Court can be summed up like this:

Senate Democrats try to grill her on cases that could come before the Court and try to discern if her vote and her originalist judicial theory would set back decades of social progress by rolling back health care, abortion rights, and voting rights - including a vote on a possible case that could help Trump overturn the election results if he loses.  is Barrett's originalist judicial theory leads her to help reverse them.  She doesn't flinch.

Senate Republicans praise her qualifications and throw her softball questions.  She smiles and offers polite happy talk. Senate Democrats flinch.

And we know she's going to get confirm and stick it to the little guy because Republicans have the votes.

These hearings have all the predictability of instant coffee.  So, alas, does the outcome of her nomination.  So, obviously, I haven't wasted time watching these hearings.  I'm more annoyed that the cable news channels have devoted all of their time to them without reporting anything else. 

As for my opinion as to whether or not Democrats should expand the Supreme Court and add lower judgeships should they win the Senate and the White House . . . yes, absolutely they should.  It wouldn't be packing the federal court system; rather, it would be balancing the court system to counter the Republican court packing of the past four years!