…just like Brett Kavanaugh did.

Barrett isn’t out to challenge Obamacare, but that’s the narrative floating around the newsopshere, or I should probably call it the “narrativesphere.”

This narrative that ACB is salivating over the termination of Obamacare is, as usual, a lie that has a light kernel of truth to it. As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy wrote of the narrative’s origin, it began when Barrett criticized a case involving Obamacare in a book she had written:

Senator Coons is apparently referring to an article – actually, a book review, “Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty” – that Judge Barrett, as a Notre Dame Law School professor, wrote for a scholarly publication of the University of Minnesota Law School in 2017. The article was not specifically about Obamacare. Instead, it arose out of a roundtable discussion in which several academics discussed Our Republican Constitution, an excellent, provocative book by Randy Barnett, a superb law professor at Georgetown.

In the review, Barrett did not address the merits or demerits of Affordable Care Act as policy. Her discussion centered on the dispositive legal issue in the Supreme Court’s 2012 Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius.

…

The issue Barrett addressed was not Obamacare policy. It was a matter of statutory interpretation: the collision between textualism and judicial restraint – somewhat ironic, in that textualism is generally thought of as a restraint against improper judicial legislating.

Barrett’s problem is with judicial activism in the Supreme Court where some judges believe it’s their job to help create legislation instead of weighing its legitimacy against the rules set forth by the Constitution.

This should be known by our mainstream media with all its researchers and policy experts, especially when it comes to the most famous woman in America right now, but it’s not. Reassuring everyone that the already gutted and starving Affordable Care Act will continue to be around to uselessly make premiums go up wouldn’t be helpful.

Just like the Kavanaugh scare, it’s completely unlikely that all the horrible things that Barrett is predicted to do will not happen but that’s not the point.

The orchestration of fear-mongering is necessary to convince the general public that she’s a danger to them in some way, shape, or form. In truth, Barrett couldn’t be more of a safe option for the entire country. The only people she would threaten are activist lawmakers who will now have a much harder time sending laws blatantly unconstitutional to the Supreme Court in hopes that the law will be interpreted into working instead of it being interpreted as it’s written and judged accordingly.

The weird part about all of this is that the orchestra is for nothing. Scaremongering the people into believing that Barrett is a person she’s not will have no effect on whether or not she’s confirmed. According to Ted Cruz, the confirmation is an inevitability as they have the necessary votes to confirm her. At this point, the hearings are just a formality.

At this point, it just seems that the Supreme Court hearing orchestra of false media reporting isn’t accomplishing anything but giving Barrett a hard time for being the judge nominated to become “Justice Amy Coney Barrett.” It just seems petty at this point. There’s no real purpose behind the lie.

Democrats are just performing at this point for their voters, attempting to make themselves seem like stalwart defenders of whatever the hell the left feels like it’s good to defend today. Giving an innocent woman a hard time for the “Now This” clip is gross politics but hey, this is the Democrats we’re talking about here.