Kamala Harris made her point loud and clear with the “I Dissent” book about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life
President Trump’s conservative supreme court pick Amy Coney Barrett is currently being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee and on Monday’s opening remarks, Kamala Harris beamed in via video call to share her grievances with Barrett’s nomination and not so subtly trolled her with a children’s book about the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
First, Harris noted that an in-person, indoor hearing without COVID testing during a global pandemic as some Senate Republicans literally have COVID-19 is dumb and reckless, but once she got that out of the way she casually revealed that sitting behind her was the children’s book about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life called, I Dissent: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes Her Mark. Though Harris kept her remarks about Barrett professional and to the point — and never acknowledged the book behind her — but the title of that book was just screaming “I DISSENT” at Barrett and everyone else in that Judiciary Committee.
Before Barrett’s appointment, Trump promised his base that he would only appoint supreme court justices that would overturn Roe V. Wade and Barrett has openly shared her anti-choice comments in the past. The Affordable Care Act is also at stake here as conservative justices overwhelming vote to throw out the mandate and Barrett’s comments in 2017 regarding the ACA are worrisome.
Harris, with the book glaring right at Barrett, shared the following words during her opening statement.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her life to fight for equal justice and she defended the constitution,” Harris said. “She advocated for human rights and equality. She stood up for the rights of women. She protected workers. She fought for the rights of consumers against big corporations. She supported LGBTQ rights, and she did so much more.”
“But now, her legacy and the rights she fought so hard to protect are in jeopardy,” she continued. “By replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy, President Trump is attempting to roll back American’s rights for decades to come.”
If nothing else, Harris’ statement was extremely awkward for Barrett as she played with her hands and looked down as Harris point-blank told her that she’s a threat to human rights.
The problem with Barrett (and there’s many) is that she, like many conservatives, is obsessed with a strict interpretation of the constitution. During the hearing, she said, “I interpret the Constitution as a law and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” Progressives, on the other hand, view the constitution as a living document because why would we govern a modern society by a text that was written by a bunch of white men in 1787? It just seems like common sense, no?
It’s just wild that Barrett, a woman, is so intent in preserving a document that was written without her in mind at all.