Will The Senate Democrats Now Apologize To Justice Barrett?

Throughout the confirmation hearings of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett, I objected to the obviously false narrative that she was nominated for vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act from the pending case of California v. Texas. The case was highly unlikely to result in such a determination and the Democrats understood it. The case was  concentrated on a highly technical and restricted issues of severability. It would be resolved on this limited basis or ignored for status. While Barrett might see the ACA as unconstitutional (as most do), I noted that she was more likely to discount the challenge or sever the person mandate compared to fall down the Act from the case. That is what she did joined the 7-2 decision to dismiss the case.
Throughout the verification, the Senate Democrats besieged the room with giant images of people who would lose their healthcare when Barrett was confirmed and struck down the Act. They were depicted as her future victims as members pummeled Barrett with accusations that she was only an ACA-killing shill. Barrett retained her composure and did not state the obvious — that she was more likely to vote to dismiss the case than to strike down the Act. She also refused to take the lure in reacting to President Trump’s phone for the Act to be struck down.
The black attacks were unrelenting. Democrats insisted there was no doubt that Barrett would vote in the event to strip off health care for the millions.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-M.D., claimed that Barrett was in an”mission” by Trump to Eradicate Obamacare:

“We only waited for a moment, and I really wanted to attempt to comprehend her experience as a person as it came to healthcare since she’s being sent on mission to the Supreme Court by President Trump. And we all know what that mission is, remove the Affordable Care Act.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., referred to Barrett as a”judicial torpedo” aimed at destroying Obamacare:”This Supreme Court nominee has signaled from the judicial equivalent of all caps she believes the Affordable Care Act needs to go, and the precedent shielding the ACA does not matter,” Whitehouse said. He claimed the”influences behind this unseemly hurry see this nominee as a judicial revamp that they’re firing at the ACA.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, claimed in a meeting through Barrett’s confirmation hearings that Republicans”need her on that court to listen to the Affordable Care Act case… so she can strike it down. This nominee poses a clear and present threat, an immediate threat, to the health care of over 20 million Americans who’ve health care as a result of the Affordable Care Act.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Announced that Barrett would”work to gut” the ACA and called Barrett that a”right-wing ideologue who does not represent the majority of Americans.”
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., believed Barrett’s nomination has been”fast-tracked” because of the pending case:

“This nominee has been fast-tracked, to start with, since this nominee has been vetted by the 2 groups that thing: the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation,” Casey explained. “Both groups totally committed to undoing, striking down the Affordable Care Act. So she has passed this test, and that she seemingly passed with flying colors as she moved quite quickly to a probable confirmation”

tweeted. “Make no mistake, a vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who fulfills President Trump’s checks will be a vote to remove people’s healthcare and vital rights.”
Legal and press experts echoed the narrative that confirming Barrett meant no healthcare for Americans.  Professor Charles Tiefer composed with complete assurance that”[a]s a textualist, she’ll discover that the whole ACA is dead. It’ll be a reminder that the Presidential race comes out, Republicans have set a 6-3 Court conservative court that will reign supreme for years ahead.”  He and many others like NYU Professor Stephen Gillers stated that Barrett should consider recusal from the case.
Barrett sat through days of such baseless predictions and attacks. She even had to endure Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claiming her adoption of 2 Haitian children elevated the image of a”white colonizer” and implied that the children were little more than props to his mommy.
I do not seriously expect apologies. That is something that does not occur in our age of anger. Spurious attacks and false claims are simply dismissed by the media when they’re later turned out to be untrue.  They served their function in the staging of this affirmation. By the time the”judicial torpedo” was a dud, the members and the media had moved to another goal and orchestrated narrative.