World Net Daily ... As Republican senators gear up to conduct hearings later this month on President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat, Democrats gear up to fight it.

Dems have floated a constitutional defense built on a house of cards that the media predictably ignore. Most damning is that Barrett, not Ginsburg, is the true champion of the Constitution.

Democrats' logic and ignorance of judicial history make their defense irrational and hypocritical.

Ginsburg – the longest serving SCOTUS member until her death – was confirmed in 1993 and soon established herself as a liberal icon. This was unsurprising. 

Her ideological roots went back to the 1970s as co-founder and later a director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Women's Rights Project. If ever an organization has challenged the Constitution's original interpretation, the ACLU is it.

A nonprofit group founded in 1920, the ACLU was established "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."  This was a "noble cause" in concept but has veered far left and sucked up to most of the subversive movements of today.

An indicator of the ACLU's strong influence on Ginsburg was revealed in a 2012 interview she gave in Egypt. 

Post-Arab Spring Egypt was looking to draft a new constitution. When revolutionaries asked if RBG would recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model, she responded negatively, suggesting post-World War II constitutions or charters such as those in South Africa, Canada and Europe be considered.

A 2005 statement that Ginsburg made was most telling. She admitted weighing foreign law in addition to U.S. law when forming legal opinions, looking beyond the four corners of our Constitution. 

There was little more a sitting judge on the highest court in the U.S. could say to undermine the sanctity of a document she was specifically charged with interpreting.

This was the philosophy she brought to the Court. She imposed her own mindset upon our Founding Fathers' intentions – moving constitutional interpretation in a progressive direction rather than accepting the Constitution's original meaning as frozen in time.

Ironically, this also ran contrary to a warning she gave the Egyptians: "If the people don't care, the best constitution in the world won't make any difference." But caring depends on continuity in knowing what is expected under a document frozen in time rather than wondering how a progressive judge might choose to interpret it.

Her philosophy ran completely contrary to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 

Justice Scalia noted, "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."

Constitutional changes are up to the Congress and will of the people. As one critic pointed out following Ginsburg's death, her "loyalty to leftism meant she was often intellectually dishonest."

The undeniable reality is this: What Colin Kaepernick has done to our national anthem, RBG has done to our Constitution. 

Yet despite her history taking the constitutional vehicle and putting it into a progressive tailspin, Democrats front a false claim that Barrett's nomination abuses the Constitution. 

It was Ginsburg who committed this sin during her 27-year tenure on the high court, not Trump now.

This unwarranted claim has been echoed by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden that Barrett's nomination ignores the will of the people. Asserting he IS the Democratic Party and qualifying himself as a constitutional legal expert for having taught it, we are to believe the Republicans' position violates the Constitution.

We should worry about the crop of legal scholars Biden has produced teaching his interpretation of constitutional law. He is no expert. In fact, dozens of progressive legal experts wrote a letter attesting to what the president's legal "duty" is.

Despite family claims that Ginsburg's dying wish was that she "not be replaced until a new president is installed," she herself noted in 2016 that "nothing in the Constitution" prevents a president from doing so. 

But rest assured that, despite RBG opposing court-packing (which most Americans oppose as well) her "wish" will not stop Democrats from doing so should they win the election.

It's crucial to understand the clear verbiage that our Founding Fathers used in the Constitution

The Article II Appointment Clause specifies the trigger for the president to act is the vacancy of a SCOTUS seat, which has happened. It is then his duty to nominate a replacement for Senate consideration, which he has done. In turn, a Senate duty then arises to vet the nominee, providing "advice and consent" concerning confirmation.

There is absolutely no basis for delaying confirmation to await results of an upcoming national election.

Dozens of progressive constitutional law professors, citing Article II, wrote the president, advising him of his duty to move the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process forward to a floor vote in the Senate before year's end – with "no exception for election years." 

Although written in 2016 to then President Barack Obama, the letter is relevant today. The only difference was that Republicans, by holding a Senate majority in 2016, were able to derail Obama's nomination; today, holding both the Oval Office and a Senate majority, Republicans are able to confirm Trump's nominee.

As Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, explains, all 29 times a SCOTUS vacancy occurred in a presidential election year, a nomination was made. Of the 19 times that a Senate majority and presidency were of the same party, 17 were confirmed.

Doing so also avoids the risk of a possible 4-4 split on Court decisions due to the seat's vacancy.

And despite Biden's ridiculous constitutional law protestations, an Article II confirmation constraint is nonexistent. However, liberal Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) claim that Trump will attempt an "illegitimate power grab." She and other Democratic senators therefore refuse to meet with Barrett while attempting to delay the confirmation process utilizing various ploys.

If Amy Barrett is confirmed, it pretty much assures the country that an originalist's sense of the Constitution will be in force. Barrett is viewed as a proven heir to a mindset, both intellectually and spiritually, of Scalia for whom she clerked.

Democrats raise a faulty constitutional defense to her nomination for a single sin: that Amy Coney Barrett is the conservative hope to save a Constitution that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has butchered.