This is from a Facebook post by Bill Svelmoe. Everyone should read this, especially those who will be vetting the #SupremeCourtNominee! It offers excellent advice & a brilliant list of questions.

@ProjectLincoln @SpeakerPelosi @BernieSanders @AOC @SenSchumer @TheDemCoalition

A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett:
- She's a done deal. Dems shouldn't waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had 6 of their kids

in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. Don't go after the POP.

By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no 1st hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.

So Dems should not take a typical approach with her.
*Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, & the Dems likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls taken after RBG's death show no gain for Trump. The majority of Americans think

the SC seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Dems. So don't mess with her. Let Rs do what they're going to do. If the Dems take the presidency & the Senate, none of this matters much. A Dem administration will not let a

conservative court mess with Dem priorities. So keep focus where it matters. On Nov 3.
How should Dems approach these hearings? I saw a good suggestion: turn all their time over to Kamala Harris.
Here's a few more suggestions.
- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason

to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.

- Schedule high interest alternate programming during the hearings. Bring together all 26 women who've accused Trump of sexual assault to tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling

Barrett's virtues will get low ratings.
- If Dems do attend the hearings, they should NOT focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll dodge them. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. Instead Dems should focus on the past 4 years

of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals!
The questions are all right there.
Judge Barrett, please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to

refuse to divest himself of his properties &, in fact, continue to steer millions of $ of tax payer money to them, would this violate the emoluments clause? Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump & his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich

themselves. Ask repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property.
Turn to the Hatch Act. Judge Barrett, please explain the Hatch Act. [She does.] Judge Barrett,

did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them.] The Office of the Special Council has convicted Conway. Ask Barrett: When Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly, mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been

removed from office? Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight. Judge Barrett, please explain the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch.

Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time & again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?
Then turn to Trump's impeachment. Read the

transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about it that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?
Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.

Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration & Russians during the election & get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. & on & on through the worst & most corrupt

administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to

postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. Ask, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording?
Taking this approach does a # of things.
1. Even if Barrett bobs & weaves & dodges all of this, it reminds

Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.
2. None of these hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or another. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she

demonstrates she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.
3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then

Americans get to watch Trump & his lawless admin convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Dems go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine

her character. Use her supposed good character & keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...