I'm Dave Three of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings.

What have we learned?

So the short answer is not much.

Nominies in their Supreme Court hearings are often very evasive, but Barrett has been

unusually evasive.

She would not commit to saying that there has to be a peaceful transfer of power.

At one point, I believe with Senator Klobuchar read to her a statute saying it's illegal

to intimidate voters, and she wouldn't say that it's illegal to intimidate voters.

Senator Klobuchar, I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I

can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.

I can only use my case.

It's very hard not to answer questions.

That being said, this is a nominee with a pretty clear record.

She is a so-called originalist, which at least in its modern form is a theory that is used

to implement a very aggressive conservative jurisprudence.

She is very outspoken in her opposition to Roe v Wade.

She's criticized both of the Supreme Court's past decisions, largely upholding the Affordable

Care Act.

So we know that this is a very conservative nominee, and we have a pretty good idea of

what at least a few things are that she's likely to do right away.

Well, I want to get to the originalism, but let's start with the evasive nature of these

hearings.

...