I don’t know if award shows have the same effect on you or not, but for years I’ve planned an acceptance speech for an Academy Award. While the actors who actually win them seem utterly unprepared; I am always ready to go, thanking everyone important and saying something poignant yet amusing, all before the “clear the stage” music can begin. 
   

 Many of us like to imagine we can participate, albeit vicariously, in important events and the current Senate hearings for the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice is certainly one such event that has inspired me to create a line of questioning for the eloquent but evasive Judge Barrett.  
    

    Just as I do with the Oscars, I temporarily bestow myself with the credentials needed to sit in that hallowed chamber, channeling Amy Klobuchar perhaps, but with my own ideas.  What follows is my prepared questions.  I’m not supplying the Judge’s response, just my musings about what they might be.

Senator Doolittle:  Good morning Judge Barrett. I have to say that I am in awe of you and your accomplishments.  Your academic and professional successes are indeed remarkable and your large and very lovely family are a tribute to your ability to manage multiple responsibilities with grace and aplomb.  

    My own experiences as a mother, a teacher and a Senator seemed full of pitfalls at times and I admit I am just a little envious, an all-too-common human failing.  Can you tell me briefly how you manage so well?

Judge Barrett:  (My admiration is genuine, as is my envy, but I hope I’ve sowed the seed that all humans are subject to human failings, even herself and she might express some humility in her answer)

Senator Doolittle: You were an English major, as I was, at least for my first years of college and I believe we share a love for words and writing, so I’d like to ask you to speak to me about a word that I think resonates with and your commitments to family, profession, and faith.  What does the word fidelity mean to you and how does it figure in your career in the law?

Judge Barrett: (Will she have any idea where I am taking her with this question?  Perhaps I sound rather scattered in my reasoning.  She anticipated where Senator Harris was going with a line of questions about science which culminated in a question about accepting the nature of climate change which she avoided as politically charged instead of acknowledging it as widely accepted and valid science.  What may be politically charged are policy decisions surrounding solutions which could lead to litigation, but the factual nature of climate change should not be to a well-educated and well-informed person in America.  That was a stunning exchange)

Senator Doolittle:  Indeed, fidelity is that quality of faithfulness and loyalty, that your word is your bond and that what you say can be depended upon.  You have told us that you will provide equal justice to all under the law and faithfully execute all the duties incumbent upon you. 

    If you are installed as a Supreme Court Associate Justice you will take an oath confirming that; an oath not very different from the oath taken by me and each and everyone on this Senate Committee. 

    I recall very well, the weight of responsibility and history I felt when I placed my hand upon the Bible.  Judge, Chairman Graham took the same oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which he was about to enter: So help me God.”   Judge Barrett, Senator Graham promised fidelity, promised honesty, promised to be a man of his word, before God and his countrymen.  
You are well aware, no doubt, as are every member of this committee and most Americans that Senator Graham gave his word, gave his solemn promise that and I quote,
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right.” 
Again in October, 2018 he reiterated, ”If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election. 
You are aware of that promise, Judge Barrett?

Judge Barrett:  Yes (what else could she say?)

Senator Doolittle:  My granddaughter, age 7, knows the value of a promise, particularly a “pinky promise”; a promise you make and confirm when you hook fingers with a friend—
“You can’t break a pinky promise, Grandma,” she said.  She’s right, you know. Something significant is lost when a solemn promise is broken. 
But Lindsey Graham and the rest of the Republicans do not have fidelity to their word.  In your courtroom  I am sure you apply the laws fairly and equally; to use the same standards for each case regardless of the wealth or power of the participants, regardless of their race or gender.  
Mitch McConnell and almost everyone of his Republican colleagues are choosing to deviate from that ethical stance.  They are choosing to apply different standards to the same situation, not for legal reasons but for reasons of gaining power and control and just because they can.
We can say that your nomination is within the letter of the law, but can we say that it is within the spirit of the law?  And something else we seem to have forgotten.  Can we say that it is respectful of the last wishes of the Justice Ginsburg, who is rightly honored and esteemed by all present, honored at least in words, but not necessarily in actions.  She clearly wished for the selection of her replacement to wait until after the election.  The court can function without nine justices for several months and has done so previously.  

    Judge Barrett, when is it appropriate to break a promise you have made publicly and unequivocably?  I have given you specific examples, but I am asking you to answer this in general terms from your own experience and perspective, from the point of view perhaps of a parent speaking to their child, or a teacher addressing their classroom.  When is it appropriate to break a promise? Then be specific; is it appropriate in this circumstance? Those are my questions—when is it appropriate and is it appropriate now?

Justice Barrett ( I hope I’ve stumped her a little, or unsettled her; but no doubt she’ll attempt to parry this deftly—hopefully I’ll have an equally deft follow-up to her answer)

Senator Doolittle: The United States Senate, my beloved institution that I proudly serve, once known as the world’s greatest deliberative body, has fallen in respect and esteem both here and abroad, unable to accomplish legislative goals or act outside of partisan divisions.  

    In the shadow of broken promises and partisan power-grabbing; you have accepted this nomination and the legacy of excellence that have worked so hard to develop will forever be associated with this highly questionable process.  

    If Merritt Garland was not considered for a position in an election year, your appointment should also be set aside until the people have spoken.  They are voting right now—my Republican colleagues have spoken often about the will of the people to replace us at election time if we are not serving them well.  

    After your appointment, the people will have no further say about your significant impact on their lives.  May you be blessed with long life; that said; your impact will stretch for decades into the future.  My granddaugter’s life choices and opportunities are in your hands; the health of our citizens, our environment and our democracy are in your hands.  

    I do trust and respect your integrity; but you were not selected solely because of your integrity; your expressed views and decisions, your personal history and associations tell of your personal leanings and perspectives that shape your judical decisions and fit in with the goals of the current majority but not necessarily the goals of the 335 million citizens of the United States.          The President did not receive the majority of the votes cast; the Senate Majority represents a minority of the public, due to gerrymandering and continuing demographic changes in states that skew representation, minority rule is becoming more entrenched and the will of the people diluted.  

        Senator Whitehouse’s exemplary explanation of dark money and power in 5-4 decisions is chilling for ordinary citizens.  A 6-3 split on the court will likely place more and more power in the hands of corporations and strip citizens of protections.  

Judge Barrett, I have noted before that we have a number of things in common—college coursework, teaching, love for and commitment to family and public service.  As women, we also have other things in common besides motherhood.  We were both academically and professionally successful.  You spoke early on about what a balancing act it is to accomplish that.  Underlying it all, we know that we would not have succeeded without a driving ambition and will to excellence. Ambition in women is too often criticized and is another hurdle in the path to women’s equality and opportunity.  Sometimes we ourselves struggle with our own ambition and its place in our lives. 
While you can be publicly humble, you know that your accomplishments were only achieved with supreme talent, effort and hardwork along with family support and a lot of luck.  Here you are; an opportunity to reach the pinnacle of your profession; to show your excellence on the largest legal stage there is.  How can you say no to this opportunity of a lifetime?  
And yet…hundreds of faculty members of Notre Dame signed letters urging you to reconsider.  In articles and opinion pieces across all types of media, this process under these political circumstances and timing is being called into question.  Your character and your integrity is on the line.  People saw you and your family at the Rose Garden event, all unmasked.  This nomination is incredibly divisive.  It has been called “not normal”, “a raw exercise of power” “a rushed process”, a “sham”.   

It did not have to come to this; we did not have to engage in a process that lowers the confidence in our judical system.  Judge Barrett; you are key to all of this.  I understand that your desire to serve but also your boundless ambition has led you to say yes. 

        But you could have said no.  You could have said that you would accept the nomination after the election and saved the country from one more contentious action to drive us apart.  You could have spoken for prudence and cooperation.  If Biden wins the Presidency, you would be unlikely to be seated.  There is a lot at stake for you personally.  It would be a great sacrifice, but it would be a sacrifice for the good of our country and for that you would be honored and admired.  

        You could still withdraw your nomination; without that your appointment is almost certainly assured.  Your place in history as a judge seated through an unprecedented power grab is also assured; an asterisk after your name and a blot against the will of the people.