This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 28, 2020: 

President Trump said on Sunday that he believes the Senate confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, will go well, and promptly: “I think we could have it done easily before the election.”

Senate Democrats, on the other hand, under pressure from extremists in the party, recognize her confirmation as a threat to their socialist achievements: abortion on demand, government healthcare for all, affirmation of the LGBT agenda, and so forth.

Barrett confirmed their worst suspicions. She praised her mentor, former Justice Antonin Scalia: “His judicial philosophy is mine, too: a judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

That’s the crux of the matter: The founders would, if alive, be appalled at how their original intentions have been twisted out of all recognition by the liberal majorities on the Supreme Court. Barrett wants to give them their voice back.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to Politico, “has his caucus on board with an effort to disrupt and obstruct [the process], using a wide range of procedural tools to try to make it difficult.”

Some of the weapons of disruption available to Senate Democrats include invoking a member’s right to delay action. Absent a unanimous consent agreement, exceedingly unlikely, a Senator who gets recognized by the chair can speak at length. Any senator can force roll-call votes on even the most mundane and routine motions to recess or to adjourn as such motions take precedence.

They could raise “points of order” by making an objection to a particular procedure, and demand a roll-call vote on the most frivolous issues. As Politico opined, “One could imagine an extremely large number of procedural questions” that will be raised to stall, delay, and obstruct the proceedings.

There’s the “two-hour rule,” which can be used to end the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings after two hours, pushing the continuation into the next day.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives could also get in on the act by passing legislation that would require immediate Senate attention, such as impeachment or passing a War Powers resolution.

And, once the committee has confirmed Barrett, the final vote can be delayed by a week.

There are costs to be borne by the Democrats, but their fear of the Supreme Court upending their socialist victories seems to be overriding otherwise common sense. To wit, at least half a dozen Democrat senators are in danger of losing their seats in November, and requiring them to stay in Washington during such delayed hearings would keep them from defending their seats back home.

There’s also the fallout from the Kavanaugh hearings that cost, according to Democrat sources, the party at least two seats in the November 2018 midterm elections. The outrage over the last-minute introduction of spurious “evidence” of Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct while in high school and college remains a sour taste in the mouths of voters.

And California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s attack on Barrett over her Roman Catholic faith during her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit two years ago also is a bitter reminder of what happens when the vitriol exceeds a certain level.

What many fear is another “last minute surprise” such as the one that was sprung on Kavanaugh by Feinstein — the letter from Christine Blasey Ford accusing him of sexual misconduct — even though Ford’s testimony couldn’t withstand the light of day.

Every one of these moves puts the Democratic Party at further risk. When it’s over, Barrett is likely to be confirmed. The question is just how much damage will Democrats be willing to inflict upon themselves in the eyes of the public in the process?