in US Politics
Top Senate Republican says he has the votes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett
Judiciary committee expected to confirm supreme court justice nomination on 22 October before advancing to full Senate ballot More
Amy Coney Barrett
Subterms
More stories
- in Elections
Kamala Harris cancels events after flying with two people who tested positive for Covid – live
Harris’s communications director and a ‘non-staff flight crew member’ tested positive
Senate Judiciary committee to vote on Amy Coney Barrett nomination on 22 October
Trump and Biden to hold town halls tonight
Civil rights and Qanon candidates: the fight for facts in Georgia
Sign up for Fight to Vote – our weekly US election newsletterLIVE
Updated More - in US Politics
Amy Coney Barrett hearing: top Republican praises judge for being 'unashamedly pro-life' – live
Lindsey Graham lavishes praise on supreme court nominee
Barron Trump had coronavirus, first lady reveals
Barrett dodges abortion and healthcare questions
Trump and Biden offer different visions of US role in world
Trump in trouble as Florida’s seniors shift towards Biden
Sign up for Fight to Vote – our weekly US election newsletterLIVE
UpdatedPlay Video
Amy Coney Barrett questioned on third day of supreme court hearing – watch live
Key events
Show
5.48pm EDT17:48
Public hearing poortion ends5.00pm EDT17:00
Today so far4.06pm EDT16:06
Barron Trump had coronavirus, first lady reveals1.15pm EDT13:15
Today so far12.33pm EDT12:33
Third day of Barrett’s nomination hearings resumes12.01pm EDT12:01
First break in today’s hearing10.27am EDT10:27
Virginia voter registration deadline extended after technical failureLive feed
Show
5.48pm EDT17:48
Public hearing poortion ends
Next is a closed hearing on FBI background checks. Tomorrow the judiciary committee will set up a vote and hear outside witnesses.
“You will be confirmed, God willing,” Graham said.Updated
at 5.49pm EDT5.40pm EDT17:40
Senator John Neely Kennedy, a Republican, used a Trump campaign talking point that Harris’ past career as a prosecutor deepened racial inequities to rebut her claim that systematic racism exists.
You can read more about Harris past as a prosecutor here. The Trump campaign – while itself promoting a “tough on crime” attitude and railing against Black Lives Matter protestors – has nonetheless adopted progressive critiques of Harris’ record as “top cop”.
Harris “thinks America is systemically racist – I think our history is the best evidence of that it is not,” said the senator from Louisiana, citing the Barack Obama presidency as proof. “With the blink of an eye, we went from institutionalized slavery to an African American president,” he said.
After lobbing several softball questions at Barrett including (“Do you hate little warm puppies?”) Kennedy ended by asking: “Who does the laundry in your house?” (which I’m sure he also meant to ask Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch).
It is worth noting that Barrett didn’t clearly answer this one either: “We run a lot of loads of laundry.”5.19pm EDT17:19
Barrett also would not comment on whether she believes voting discrimination exists.
Harris: Do you agree with Justice Roberts when he said voting discrimination still exists?
Barrett: “I will not comment on what any justice said in an opinion, whether an opinion is right or wrong, or endorse that proposition.”Aaron Rupar
(@atrupar)
Under questioning from Kamala Harris, Amy Coney Barrett refuses to say if she thinks voting discrimination still exists pic.twitter.com/gv9KN904fuOctober 14, 2020
5.14pm EDT17:14
Harris took up questioning Barrett on climate change.
Harris: Do you think COVID-19 is infectious?
Barrett: Yes.
Harris: Do you think smoking causes cancer?
Barrett: I’m not sure exactly where you’re going with this… Yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer.
Harris: Do you think climate change is happening?
Barrett: “Senator, again… You have asked me a series of questions that are completely uncontroversial, and then trying to elicit an opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate.”
Climate change is not a contentious matter of public debate – about 8 in 10 Americans say that human activity is fueling climate change, per a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. But most importantly, climate change is not a contentious matter of scientific debate.5.00pm EDT17:00
Today so far
That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours.
Here’s where the day stands so far:
The third day of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearings is still unfolding. Barrett has been answering questions from the Senate judiciary committee for eight hours, and Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris is currently questioning the nominee.
Lindsey Graham praised Barrett as “unashamedly pro-life,” describing her nomination as historic. “I have never been more proud of a nominee,” the Republican committee chairman said. “This is history being made, folks. This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology. And she’s going to the court.”
The first lady revealed Barron Trump had coronavirus. Melania Trump said Barron, her and the president’s 14-year-old son, tested positive for coronavirus but showed no symptoms. Barron and the first lady have both since tested negative, she said.
Trump is en route to Des Moines, Iowa, where he will hold a campaign rally tonight. The president won Iowa by 9 points in 2016, but recent polls show Trump and Biden running neck and neck in the state.
Virginia extended its voter registration deadline, after an accidentally cut cable caused the state’s online registration system to shut down yesterday. Virginia voters now have an additional two days to register.
Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.4.54pm EDT16:54
Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris is now questioning Amy Coney Barrett. She is the last Democrat who will speak in this round of questioning.
4.49pm EDT16:49
Trump is en route to Iowa, a state that he won by 9 points in 2016. Polls currently show the president and Joe Biden running neck and neck in Iowa.
The president will hold a rally in Des Moines tonight, and attendees will be greeted by this billboard when they arrive at the event site.Jim Acosta
(@Acosta)
Billboard outside Des Moines airport where Trump holds Iowa rally tonight. pic.twitter.com/XHix45wzlwOctober 14, 2020
4.41pm EDT16:41
Speaking to reporters before leaving for his Iowa rally, Trump very briefly addressed his son’s health before pivoting to praising Amy Coney Barrett.
Aaron Rupar
(@atrupar)
Trump spent exactly one second answering a question about how his son Barron is doing after he tested positive for coronavirus pic.twitter.com/aiGXBSbHRZOctober 14, 2020
“Barron’s fine, and Amy is doing a fantastic job. We’re heading out to Iowa, and we have a big rally,” Trump said.
The first lady said in a statement that Barron tested positive but experienced no coronavirus symptoms. He has since tested negative, as has the first lady.4.31pm EDT16:31
Like other Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee, Cory Booker pressed Amy Coney Barrett on voting rights.
As part of his questioning, Booker asked Barrett if she had ever waited in line for five hours to vote. She said no. Booker asked if she had ever waited an hour to vote. She said no.
Booker compared those answers to the experience of many black voters in America, who often face long lines at their polling stations.4.22pm EDT16:22
Trump said his son, Barron, is doing “fine” after testing positive for coronavirus.
The president responded to a reporter’s question about Barron as he left for Des Moines, Iowa, where he is holding a campaign rally later tonight.
Shortly before Trump’s departure, the first lady revealed Barron had tested positive but shown no coronavirus symptoms in a statement about her own experience with the virus.
Melania and Barron Trump have both since tested negative, the first lady said.4.16pm EDT16:16
Amy Coney Barrett told Democrat Cory Booker that she could not offer her opinion on whether it was wrong to separate immigrant children from their parents.
“That’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge,” Barrett said. “I can’t express a view on that.”
The Democratic senator responded that he considered such matters to be “basic questions of human rights”.
The Trump administration attracted severe criticism in 2018 after its “zero tolerance” immigration policy resulted in thousands of children being separated from their parents.4.06pm EDT16:06
Barron Trump had coronavirus, first lady reveals
Melania Trump released a statement about her experience with coronavirus, and the first lady revealed her son with the president, Barron Trump, tested positive for coronavirus.
The first lady said 14-year-old Barron initially tested negative after the president was diagnosed, as the White House announced. But the White House did not reveal Barron’s later test came up positive.Melania Trump
(@FLOTUS)
To all who have reached out – thank you. Here is my personal experience with COVID-19 :https://t.co/XUysq0KVaYOctober 14, 2020
“To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn’t help but think ‘what about tomorrow or the next day?’,” the first lady said in the statement.
“My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive. Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms.”
The first lady noted Barron has since tested negative again, as has she. Trump said her own experience with coronavirus was like “a roller coaster of symptoms in the days after” she was diagnosed.
“I experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time,” Trump said. “I am happy to report that I have tested negative and hope to resume my duties as soon as I can.”
The first lady added, “Along with this good news, I want people to know that I understand just how fortunate my family is to have received the kind of care that we did.”
Trump said she continues to pray for the Americans who are currently struggling with coronavirus and their families.Updated
at 4.09pm EDT More - in US Politics
Democrats are resigned to losing the supreme court battle – but set on winning the war
The US politics sketch
Amy Coney Barrett
Democrats are resigned to losing the supreme court battle – but set on winning the war
Amy Coney Barrett’s supreme court confirmation hearings bring few surprises – with occasional glimpses of truth More
- in US Politics
Amy Coney Barrett pledges 'open mind' and plays down conservative record
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee to the US supreme court, returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for a final round of questioning about her judicial record and personal views, with her confirmation all but assured despite Democrats’ forceful opposition.Members of the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday attempted to dig deeper into the conservative judge’s views on the Affordable Care Act, which expanded healthcare cover to millions more Americans under Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation, and abortion rights.Also on the agenda in this week’s hearings are same-sex marriage, gun control and any potential cases related to the result of the looming 2020 election.But Barrett, in the tradition of recent supreme court nominees, avoided answering directly about how she would rule on some of the most important issues that the court may be asked to address.Playing down the conservative positions she expressed in legal writings as an academic and in personal commitments she made as a private citizen, the 48-year-old appellate court judge she had no political agenda and would approach every case with “an open mind”.Barrett has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who died last month. The confirmation hearings have halted all other business on Capitol Hill as Republicans, eager to cement a conservative majority on the court for at least a generation, rush to confirm Barrett before the November election.Opening the session on Wednesday, after nearly 12 hours of questioning the day before, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina and the chairman of the committee, celebrated Barrett’s almost inevitable confirmation as a momentous victory for conservatives, and particularly for conservative women, who he said have faced “concrete” social and cultural barriers in public life that do not exist for liberal women.“This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology,” Graham said. “She is going to the court.”In moments of personal reflection during the hearings, Barrett suggested that mockery of her association with People of Praise, the insular Catholic community inspired by charismatic Christianity, as well as commentary about her large family, which includes two adopted children from Haiti, has been painful. But she said while faith was important to her personally, it would not influence her decisions on the supreme court bench.But she repeatedly declined to say how she would rule on a challenge to Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 supreme court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion. But she declined again on Wednesday to characterize the decision as a “super-precedent” that must not be overturned.Democrats continued to press their case that her confirmation would imperil the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, arguing that Donald Trump and Republicans were rushing to confirm her before the court hears arguments that could decide the fate of the healthcare law next month. Again, Barrett insisted that she was not “hostile” to the ACA and would decided cases “as they come”.Republican state officials and the Trump administration are effectively seeking to invalidate the entire healthcare law based on a single part of it.Though she did not say how she would rule, Barrett expressed skepticism of this view in an extended exchange with Graham. In such cases, the judge said “the presumption is always in favor of severability” – a legal doctrine applied to congressional litigation that she said requires a court to strike down one element while preserving the rest of the law.Democrats have urged Barrett to recuse herself in the forthcoming case involving the ACA – as well as potential challenges to the result of the election – because Trump has repeatedly said that his judicial nominees will dutifully advance his agenda. In a vague reference to the president’s tan, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, suggested that Trump’s words cast an “orange cloud” over Barrett’s nomination.Barrett declined to say whether she would recuse herself in either instance, only that she would consider the matter. Again, she maintained her independence from the executive branch and the president who nominated her, first to a seat on the US court of appeals for the seventh circuit, and then to the supreme court.Pressed by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of Vermont, Barrett would not say whether the president was allowed to pardon himself. She stated unequivocally that that “no one is above the law”, though cautioned that the supreme court has no real recourse to ensure that Americans, including the president, followed its orders.Republicans rushed to the judge’s defense, accusing Democrats of impugning her integrity as a judge.Recalling the 1987 nomination ofRobert Bork, which was derailed amid deep opposition from liberal groups and Democrats who warned that his confirmation would tilt the court to the right on key issues such as religion and abortion, senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, decried the “attempted Borking of Amy Barrett”.Republicans touted her adherence to “originalism”, an approach championed by Barrett’s mentor, the late justice Antonin Scalia, that aims to interpret the constitution as it was written centuries ago. Confronted by Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat of Delaware, with several of Scalia’s more controversial opinions, including a scathing dissent in a landmark case establishing the right for same-sex couples to marry, Barrett said that they shared a philosophy but would not always reach the same conclusions.“I hope you’re not suggesting I don’t have my own mind,” she said.But Coons was not persuaded, and announced that he would not vote to confirm her.“Nothing has alleviated my grave concerns that rather than building on Justice Ginsburg’s legacy of advancing privacy and equality and justice, … in fact, you will take the court in a very different direction,” he said.Owing to the proximity of the election, and the near-certainty of the outcome, many senators have used the nationally televised hearings as an opportunity to amplify their campaign messages. Graham, locked in a tight race for re-election in South Carolina, was effusive in his praise of the conservative judge, who Republicans hope will energize their base while appealing to suburban women leaving the party over Trump.“I have never been more proud of the nominee than I am of you,” Graham said to Barrett. “This is history being made, folks.”Away from the hearing room, the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told donors that Barrett “seems like a decent person” but said it was “an abuse of power” to confirm her to the supreme court before the November election.The committee is expected to vote on 22 October, as Trump pressures the Senate to confirm Barrett before the November election. More
- in US Politics
The problem with Amy Coney Barrett's nomination isn't timing. It's her views | Nathan Robinson
The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the US supreme court has been controversial in large part because Republicans are so obviously violating the standard they used to justify keeping Merrick Garland off the supreme court during Obama’s second term. But that hypocrisy has overshadowed the much more important matter: the substance of Barrett’s record, and her likely actions as a supreme court justice.Barrett’s rulings on the seventh circuit court of appeals show her to be someone who cares little about justice, and who doesn’t particularly value the interests of workers, immigrants and the poor. In case after case, she has found procedural technicalities to justify depriving people of their basic rights, and it’s clear that on some of the most important issues of our time, she would swing the supreme court in a direction nobody should want to see it go.Take policing. This year saw the eruption of massive Black Lives Matter protests all over the country as a reaction to police violence, with the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor outraging millions of people. But as a judge, Barrett has shown little interest in rectifying racial injustice. In the case of Torry, et al v City of Chicago, et al, she concluded that officers were reasonable in stopping and harassing a group of Black men even though there was absolutely no evidence that they had committed a crime. In Biegert v Molitor, et al, Barrett sided with police who shot a mentally ill man to death after his mother had called 911. In United States v Wilson, Barrett concurred with a decision that officers had reasonable suspicion to use force to detain a Black man when he ran away from them, because he had a “bulge in his pocket” and was in a “high-crime area”, in part because a “reasonable officer could infer from Wilson’s flight that Wilson knew he was in violation of the law”. And in Sims v Hyatte, Barrett indicated that she would have kept a Black man in prison who had been convicted on the basis of incredibly dubious eyewitness testimony.Barrett’s attitude has been the same on other issues. On immigration, she has indicated that she would defer to the executive branch’s absurd reasons for denying visas to lawful immigrants, without requiring the Trump administration to justify its decisions. She has ruled against prisoners, workers, debtors, and consumers, and there is reason to believe she would rule against the Affordable Care Act if the issue came before her.Barrett’s body of rulings is not that large, making it difficult to extrapolate how she would rule on important issues if elevated to the supreme court. But we have ample reason to believe that Barrett, a conservative Catholic, is hostile to abortion rights and might overturn Roe v Wade when she had a chance. In addition to being a conservative Catholic, Barrett is a self-described legal “originalist” who almost certainly believes Roe was a legally shoddy opinion. (Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not that confident in the legal grounds for the ruling.)There is one perspective on law that suggests judges should be evaluated on the basis of their “qualifications” rather than their “politics”. This point of view has led the liberal Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman to endorse Barrett, on the grounds that she is intelligent and experienced. Some of the same arguments were made about Brett Kavanaugh. If you think in terms of qualifications, it’s difficult to come up with good reasons to oppose conservative judges. After all, many conservatives went to top-ranked law schools and published journal articles. I suspect that this is part of why Democratic opposition to Barrett has not been as strong as it should be, and the focus has been on Republican hypocrisy rather than Barrett’s record. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern even argues that Democrats have “privately given up” on opposing Barrett.But they shouldn’t. The fact that Barrett is “qualified” does not automatically entitle her to a supreme court seat – and her politics are enough to justify trying to keep her off it. Barrett’s views are almost certainly far to the right of the average American, and her elevation to the court will make that body even less representative of a complex and rapidly changing society. Judging is a political act; supreme court justices do not, as John Roberts famously insisted, merely “call balls and strikes” like neutral umpires. Instead, they impose their personal convictions on the country through rulings on questions that affect us all. Conservative judges tend to be less sympathetic to the relatively powerless, and this comes out in their rulings. If you care about protecting the legal rights of the powerless, you have good reason to oppose the confirmation of hardline conservatives onto the court no matter which law school they went to or how many years they have previously served on the bench.The primary reason Barrett needs to be opposed is not that she has been nominated during an election year, but that she has been nominated at all. Her record as a federal appeals court judge indicates that she will issue politically conservative rulings with harmful social consequences. Democrats need to unanimously oppose her and use all of the procedural weapons at their disposal to reduce the chances of her successful confirmation. More
- in Elections
Kamala Harris questions Amy Coney Barrett over the Affordable Care Act – video
Play Video
2:57
Supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was questioned by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris over the Affordable Care Act, known popularly as Obamacare, during day two of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. Barrett made the claim that she was not aware of Donald Trump’s campaign promise to appoint justices who would dismantle Obamacare. Harris also tackled Barrett’s views on abortion, making a carefully laid-out case that despite Barrett’s equivocation and insistence that she is unbiased on the issue of reproductive rights, she is far from it. Republicans want to have Barrett confirmed before election day
Amy Coney Barrett dodges abortion, healthcare and election law questions
Kamala Harris grilling prompts doubtful claim from Amy Coney BarrettTopics
Amy Coney Barrett
Law (US)
US politics
Kamala Harris
US supreme court More
- in Elections
Kamala Harris grilling prompts doubtful claim from Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett
Democratic senator and vice-presidential nominee condemns Republican push to overturn healthcare law and abortion rights
Play Video
2:57
Kamala Harris questions Amy Coney Barrett over the Affordable Care Act – video
Kamala Harris delivered a blistering rebuke of Republican efforts to tear down healthcare and abortion access as she grilled Amy Coney Barrett, prompting the supreme court nominee to make the unbelievable claim that she was not aware of Donald Trump’s campaign promise to appoint justices who would dismantle Obamacare.
Speaking via teleconference during Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, the Democratic senator and vice-presidential nominee began with a campaign speech about the importance of accessible healthcare amid the coronavirus – highlighting the number of Americans who would lose insurance if the 2010 Affordable Care Act were repealed in five states where Republican senators are struggling to win re-election.
She then addressed Barrett: “Prior to your nomination, were you aware of President Trump’s statement committing to nominate judges who will strike down the Affordable Care Act? And I’d appreciate a yes or no answer.”
Barrett maintained that before she was nominated to the supreme court, she was unaware of his public statements. “I don’t recall hearing about or seeing such statements,” Barrett said.
Harris asked how many months after Barrett wrote an article criticizing John Roberts’ decision upholding the Affordable Care Act she received her nomination for her appeals court position.
“The Affordable Care Act and all of its protections hinge on this seat,” Harris said.
“I would hope the committee would trust my integrity,” Barrett said, noting, as she has done throughout the hearings, that she has not made any commitments to rule a certain way on the healthcare law.
The assertion, and Barrett’s implication that she had somehow tuned out the president’s loud, public criterion for judges he’d appoint, is difficult to believe.
Harris, the former attorney general of California, is famous for her prosecutorial style of questioning. Her sharp interrogation of Donald Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee – now Justice Brett Kavanaugh – helped elevate her political profile.CSPAN
(@cspan)
Complete exchange between Sen. Kamala Harris and Judge Kavanaugh on Mueller Investigation.Kavanaugh: “I would like to know the person you’re thinking of.”Sen. Harris: “I think you’re thinking of someone and you don’t want to tell us.” pic.twitter.com/3bP7rJ6u0LAugust 11, 2020
Harris also tackled Barrett’s views on abortion, making a carefully laid-out case that despite Barrett’s equivocation and insistence that she is unbiased on the issue of reproductive rights, she is far from it.
Barrett was a member of a “right to life” organization that in 2016 promoted a crisis pregnancy center in South Bend, Indiana, that has been criticized for misleading and misdirecting vulnerable women seeking abortions. She has signed off on a newspaper ad calling Roe v Wade – the landmark 1973 ruling protecting the right to choose – “barbaric”. A Notre Dame Magazine article from 2013 describes a lecture series during which Barrett “spoke … to her own conviction that life begins at conception”.
As a federal judge, she has considered three laws restricting abortion and expressed misgivings about rulings that had struck down the laws. She joined the dissent against a decision to strike down an Indiana abortion rule – signed into law by Mike Pence when the vice-president was Indiana’s governor – that mandated the fetal remains be buried or cremated.
“I would suggest that we not pretend that we don’t know how this nominee views a women’s right to choose or make her own decisions,” Harris said. The senator noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett has cited as her model in declining to give any hints on how she would vote on future cases, was, unlike Barrett, much more forthcoming with her own personal views on abortion.
Harris did not ask Barrett a direct question about Roe v Wade, driving home the point that her views have already been made plain.
Harris ended by asking to enter into the record letters opposing Barrett’s nomination from the NAACP, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Planned Parenthood.Topics
Amy Coney Barrett
Kamala Harris
Republicans
US elections 2020
US supreme court
US politics
US Senate
news
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
Reuse this content More
