Mitt Romney Weighs in on How He Will Vote on Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation

Senator Mitt Romney ((barely) R-UT) said that he will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next justice on the US Supreme Court.  This is good news, since he was the only Republican to vote to convict the innocent President Donald Trump during the impeachment hearings for something that Joe Biden actually did when he was vice president.

On Thursday, Romney said in a statement, “After meeting with Judge Barrett and carefully reviewing her record and her testimony, I intend to vote in favor of her confirmation to the Supreme Court.” He continued, “She is impressive, and her distinguished legal and academic credentials make it clear that she is exceptionally well qualified to serve as our next Supreme Court justice.”

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  The part that most likely escapes the Utah senator is that this is considered news.  Romney is so known for being a Trump hater that I honestly suspected he would join the Democrats by using their lame excuse that because they didn’t give a confirmation hearing to Merrick Garland they should do so for Amy Coney Barrett.

He added: “I am confident that she will faithfully apply the law and our Constitution, impartially and regardless of policy preferences.”

Senator Susan Collins ((barely) R-ME) still holds that she will not vote to confirm a nominee so close to the election, because she is in a fight for her seat after her Kavanaugh vote.  I think it’s disgraceful when politicians put themselves before doing what’s right.  Senator Lisa Murkowski ((barely) R-AK), has not revealed how she will vote.  She’s done after this term of her career, so she doesn’t want to cause turmoil.

Barrett’s last day of questions by Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded Thursday, with the committee setting a vote on her nomination for October 22nd with the full Senate vote more-than-likely the following week.  That’s if the Democrats don’t try to pull another stunt that resembles a petulant childish on the playground taking his ball and going home the way they did this week, with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crying about how Committee Chairman Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went ahead with the hearing without a full quorum.  I for one am pleased that Graham didn’t fall for that stunt.  The rules for quorum were created so that one party couldn’t sneak something in with the other party not knowing about it, but if the Democrats intentionally stayed away when they showed up every other day, and knew that the hearing was scheduled, then I call bullschtein, and Senator Graham was correct to continue.

Last month, Romney said that he will vote for a nominee based on the nominee’s qualifications, not how close the hearing is to the election.

“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder,” Romney said in his September statement. “It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”  See that?  Mitt Romney can figure things out without resorting to the Democrat’s viewpoint.  Who knew?

The Utah senator continued, saying, “The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

Romney expanded on his logic in following up comments to the press:

“We may have a court that has a more conservative bent,” which is something different from what we’ve seen in recent decades, Romney said after his announcement. “But my liberal friends have over many decades gotten used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that’s not written in the stars.”

Wow, I have to commend the senator for that understanding.

He added: “It’s also appropriate for a nation that’s if you will center-right to have a court which reflects center-right points of view. Which again are not changing the law from what it states but instead following the law and following the Constitution.”

What Democrats have forgotten a long time ago is something that Judge Barrett this week reminded them, and that is that a justice’s job is not to rule in the way of his or her ideology, but to rule in the ideology of the Constitution and how the original meaning of each clause was written.  The leftists on the court, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Notorious ACB is going to replace once confirmed, rather than hold the law put up before them to the stands of the Constitution, tried to bend the Constitution to allow a bad law, favored by the Left, to stand.  That won’t happen with a Justice Barrett, and it’s driving the Democrats crazy.