I refuse to discuss Amy Coney Barrett’s jurisprudence or character or views. The issue of her nomination should not be about that. It should be about the fact of her nomination in the first place.

The nomination stands for the proposition that an impeached president who demanded that a seat on the Supreme Court be held open for him to fill only four years ago should be able to fill a seat with only 38 to go before he faces the voters.

I don’t believe that.

It also stands for the proposition that a Senate majority that protested only four years ago that the voters should decide who fills a Supreme Court vacancy and asked to be held to that position can reasonably turn on a dime and ram a nominee through.

I don’t believe that either.

Under such circumstances, I would oppose Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination if she were my daughter—and if I knew to a moral certainty that she agreed with me on every issue I cared about.

I will leave it to others to debate her substantive views, her qualifications, and whether she is within the mainstream. I choose not to engage on those subjects.

The nomination fails on an antecedent question.

That’s all I got.