There is a lot of debate about whether the Dems should attack Amy Coney Barrett for this-or-that. That's a mistake. They shouldn't attack her at all. She's not the issue (and on twin-earth, where she's nominated to correct a hard left tilt, she's a fine pick.) 1/

If they find out that she's got 2 million in secret gambling debts, that should come out. But, stunning scandal revelation aside, any criticism of the nominee - even valid criticism - is a distraction from the problem. Make the hearings about the systemic state of the SC. 2/

Say things like 'You have been nominated because hard-right activists want you to deliver policy for them. They want you to overturn Roe, end the ACA, overturn Obergefell, and deliver pro-business, anti-regulatory decisions, etc.' Find juicy quotes in support. 3/

Put ACB under a bit of pressure-by-proxy. Ask her if it would be appropriate for her to be the judge her backers clearly think she is: namely, a reliable tool of right-wing policy-making and preferences. 4/

See if you can get her to say either that Josh Hawley is right to impose an anti-Roe litmus test or that he's wrong to do so. Presumably she will admit: it's wrong for politicians to stipulate specific legal outcomes in advance, as a condition of nomination and confirmation. 5/

Now press: how can the American people be confident that her supporters will be disappointed in her? How can we, the people, be sure you, ACB, are not who they think you are? Your credentials are sterling, yes, but you were not picked for that. That's concerning. 6/

Provide some evidence of her own partisan willingness to blow with the political winds, in saying what would be legally proper. 7/ https://twitter.com/jholbo1/status/1309655020107788288

No need to try to grill too insistently in this way. No doubt ACB will be smart enough not to say anything self-incriminating or too embarrassing to her side about the political realities of the situation. She will say in fact all her supporters want is 'originalism'. 8/

The response to that is: but what they SAY is they want 'conservative judges'. Enough conservatives have slavered at the mouth, in naked results-demanding explicitness, that D questioners can ask, 'shouldn't we be worried these partisans are getting what they want in you?' 9/

Again, I don't expect she'll fold and say 'you've got me.' Like on Perry Mason. The point of this line of questioning is not that ACB is bad but that the SC, in order to enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the citizens, who aren't R's, needs balance. 10/

Nothing ACB says CAN be assurance enough that she'll backstab her backers if need be. So we need checks and balances. If the SC might be as partisan as R's are working to make it - highlight recent hardball play - then there is no fair way to divide it otherwise than evenly. 11/

In short, D's need to make the ACB hearings a seminar on contemporary judicial power politics. D's will be making the normative case for expanding the court under Biden, if it comes to that. R's won't be able to say they weren't given valid arguments about why that's needed. 12/