Amy Coney Barrett's 'ivory-tower cluelessness' of 'unpleasant realities in American life' slammed by conservative

On Thursday, writing for The Washington Post, conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin tore into Judge Amy Coney Barrett for refusing to engage with the real-world struggles faced by everyday Americans in her confirmation hearings.

"Her repeated efforts to avoid making statements on rudimentary moral principles (e.g., it is wrong to forcibly separate families) and basic facts (e.g., corporations have more power than an individual employee; the president cannot unilaterally change the date of the election as set in statute) made Barrett come across as disingenuous, evasive and clueless. She even refused to affirm the peaceful transition of power after an election," wrote Rubin. "Either she has lived her life in a soulless vacuum, or she is terribly afraid of offending President Trump."

"The most painful moments of the hearing may have come when Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) took her through basic facts about voter suppression and bias in the criminal justice system," wrote Rubin. "Her reactions suggested that much of the gross injustices faced by Black Americans, as Booker laid them out, were news to her. In an embarrassing admission, she could not identify any books, law review articles or studies on the legacy of racial discrimination — this at a time when many books on the subject are bestsellers. Not only did she come off as unknowledgeable about a critically important topic, but she apparently also has had no interest in getting up to speed on the great fault line through American life."

"The general impression one gets from Barrett is that she is less knowledgeable about U.S. contemporary life than any Supreme Court nominee in recent memory, with the possible exception of Robert Bork," wrote Rubin. "She cites theories of jurisprudence with ease, but she cannot acknowledge obvious political realities and facts about economic power, discrimination and science. That is a recipe for rigid, abstract judicial reasoning. Despite her insistence to the contrary, she seems to treat jurisprudence in a vacuum, with little regard for how it will affect others with whom she has little familiarity."

"The hearing might nominally have been about Barrett’s confirmation, but it turned into a cringeworthy display of right-wing ideologues’ ignorance, if not indifference, to unpleasant realities in American life," concluded Rubin. "It was also a compelling advertising for achieving more racial and socioeconomic diversity in Congress and the courts."

You can read more here.