Welcome to the Freedom Hot. This is the best of Buck daily podcast. The top stories of the day from the Buck Sexton Show.

For more Buck, head to Bucksexton.com and remember to subscribe to the podcast.

Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show friends. We can count the days now pretty quickly, can't we, before Election Day.

And yet this entire week pretty much all the political oxygen in the room, so to speak, is going to be taken up by this ongoing Supreme Court justice hearing.

As if the political stakes couldn't be any higher. We have Democrats watching their favorite toy of policy. Right. It's supposed to be a revered, a revered judge, a number of judges who interpret and apply the Constitution.

As we know, it really is just the Democrat super legislature. They love it. They think it's fantastic. As long as it gives them what they want. This is the jurisprudence of a five year old. It should be that way because I wanted that way. That's really what the living Constitution left wing activist judge approached all this is.

But the good news for all of us watching is that Amy Coney Barrett is smarter and a better lawyer than all these people who are questioning her. I also say that some of the members of the Senate Judiciary as you're seeing them and watching them question.

And they're deep into their 80s. I just want to know is this now an expectation that everyone should have that when you're in everyone else, usually you think about retiring or or moving into other capacities in your life, but not if you're dying fine, Stein or Leahy, you get to do this until you're a hundred, it seems. Okay.

There's I guess no surprise then that they pretend that Joe Biden being almost 80 when he becomes president is somehow not indicative of possible problems with his health and his acuity. Regardless, Coney Barrett doing a great job today.

They kept coming at her with the same version of a question that she had already answered, which is effectively how would you how would you deal with this case or what do you think of this precedent.

So you have no thoughts on the subject, Diane Feinstein condescendingly and very stupidly asked her after Barrett had already explained a dozen times that as a sitting federal judge, she isn't allowed to say what she would decide on specific cases.

She just keeps having to say it because ultimately this is about Democrats grandstanding an election cycle for their own purposes while pretending that they care about the Constitution.

While making this big show of how much this is about some broader principle when it's just not.

ACB did a phenomenal job today.

You had to watch her to really appreciate some of the nuances and the the deft manner in which she parried all these different assaults, all these different efforts to undermine, to entrap.

She's just better at this than they are. She's just smarter. Thank God. Absolutely qualified and a female because you know if she was male, you know this.

Democrats would come forward with some version of he touched me a long time ago, even if I can't prove that I was ever in the same state as him and the Democrats would all say,

incredible allegation.

Destroying the word credible in the process and allegation with no underlying facts, evidence or support shouldn't be considered credible just because somebody makes it and has a quiver in their voice and looks like they're about to tear up.

That doesn't mean that someone's telling the truth.

We found that out during the effort to destroy Kavanaugh and also I think Democrats are really seeing the right is entirely unified on this.

There is no dissent.

...