18 May—The long letter below (actually three pages, mostly names, stitched together) is the reason Sandra Slack Glover will not get to be a Connecticut Supreme Court associate justice. Some defenders of Mrs. Glover’s disgraceful politically motivated lynching maintain that since she’s never been a judge in a lower court she’s not qualified to be a state supreme.

But that doesn’t hold water, since, as Chief of the Appellate Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Connecticut since 2010, inter alia, Mrs. Glover certainly is knowledgeable and experienced in everything the state’s court of last resort does.

The real reason the Democrat Whores of Hartford object to Mrs. Glover’s appointment is that six years ago she, along with all the other SCOTUS clerks who had served in the 1998 term, supported conservative Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and last year SCOTUS Associate Justice Barrett joined the SCOTUS conservative majority in dumping Roe v. Wade.

Shame on Amy for being staunchly anti-abortion, shame on Sandra for having friends and colleagues and not being prescient.

The letter, as you can see, is just a perfunctory, generalized, rather bland pro forma endorsement of a fine legal mind by friends and colleagues of all political persuasions, as the letter clearly states. So why the hot poker up the Democrat whores’ collective ass? Well, even though Mrs. Glover is a pro-choice, etc. Democrat, she’s evidently not liberal—make that progressive—enough for those morons.

And—oh, the horror!—she has history with conservatives and Republicans. But we won’t go into that. Because it shouldn’t, absolutely shouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on judicial appointments. In Utopia.

For all the good it did, in her apparent desperation to get the on the bench, Mrs. Glover assured the lynch mob of her liberal leaning. And—what’s disappointing and even shameful—she insisted that had she known in 2017 what she knows now about Amy Coney Barrett, she would not have signed that awful letter. Doesn’t it matter that Amy was well qualified?

Regretful 20-20 hindsight, to be sure. But also regrettable. In all events, Sandra should be better than that . . .