To be as objective as possible…
- Amy Coney Barrett is a good judge, as was Robert Bork, if you take ideological wish lists out of it.
- If you believe that there needs to be a balance between right and left, between business and government, between striving and caring, etc., etc. (and that too much imbalance opens the Pandora’s box of corruption and cruelty), this is the WRONG time to tilt the balance further to the right.*
- What Democrats are experiencing is the incredible frustration of watching Trump make a good move at a bad time for an evil purpose.
*The pendulum is never in more danger of swinging to one extreme than when it is at the other extreme. Those of you who dread violent revolution above all—you are guaranteeing it.
UPDATE
- Barrett is GOING TO be confirmed.
- For Trump to set up a Supreme Court that could then stop vote counting and reinstall him as president is using the US Government for criminal self-dealing. The confirmation MUST NOT take place until after the election. This should be the laser focus of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
- The best outcome that’s possible at this point: The Republicans decisively lose the presidency and the Senate. The lame duck Senate confirms Barrett. Conservatives get the Justice they most wanted; the two other branches are in Democratic hands. Some balance is restored.
Ambiance 
tom strong said,
October 6, 2020 at 2:40 pm
What is your criteria for claiming Bork was a “good judge”?
amba12 said,
October 6, 2020 at 2:47 pm
I’m no legal scholar (to put it mildly), but my impression, reading widely, was that he was a respected legal scholar and that the objections to him were ideological. That from a purely legal point of view, he was well qualified. It seems that a lot of the contemporary warfare over the Supreme Court started there (though it’s certainly not the first time).
Ironically, Supreme Court justices once installed have and often seem to value a high degree of ideological independence, so their rulings on the court are not entirely predictable. I have a hunch that John Roberts’s decisions with the liberals, always on carefully procedural grounds, are deliberate demonstrations of judicial independence.