Amy Coney Barrett

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Amy Coney Barrett faces questions on legal record as nomination hearings continue – live

      by

      First of two days of questioning for Barrett begins
      What Barrett’s likely confirmation means
      Pete Buttigieg emerges as Biden’s unlikely Fox News fighter
      Sign up for Fight to Vote – our weekly US election newsletter

      LIVE
      Updated

      Play Video

      Amy Coney Barrett continues questioning in supreme court hearing – watch live

      Key events

      Show

      5.24pm EDT17:24
      Supreme Court says Trump administration can shut down census count, as experts fear undercount

      5.02pm EDT17:02
      Today so far

      4.42pm EDT16:42
      Biden says Obama will hit the campaign trail

      3.41pm EDT15:41
      Second break in Barrett nomination hearing

      3.01pm EDT15:01
      Barrett: ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act’

      2.29pm EDT14:29
      Barrett declines to characterize Roe as a ‘super-precedent’

      1.15pm EDT13:15
      Today so far

      Live feed

      Show

      5.47pm EDT17:47

      Mazie Hirono, the Democratic senator of Hawaii, referred back to Amy Coney Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” – criticizing it as “offensive and outdated”.
      Barrett told California senator Diane Feinstein earlier “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference.”
      The term “is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice,” Hirono said. “It is not.” Barrett’s use of the term raised concerns about how she would rule on LGBTQ rights.
      Barrett apologized but again refused to answer whether previous cases, including the one that ensured equal marriage rights, were decided correctly.

      5.37pm EDT17:37

      In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: “The harms caused by rushing this year’s census count are irreparable. And respondents will suffer their lasting impact for at least the next 10 years.”
      The Supreme Court ruling today put on hold a US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling that said the Commerce Department, which runs the census, could not stop counting in early October. Plaintiffs in that case, which include the National Urban League, maintain that less time will result in an undercount of immigrants, low-income families, and other harder-to-count populations.

      5.24pm EDT17:24

      Supreme Court says Trump administration can shut down census count, as experts fear undercount

      Hi there, it’s Maanvi Singh – reporting from the West Coast.
      As senators continue to question supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, the standing members of the court granted a Trump administration request to halt the census count while litigation continues.

      Hansi Lo Wang 1️⃣8️⃣? DAYS
      (@hansilowang)
      BREAKING: The Supreme Court is setting aside for now a lower court order that extended #2020Census counting through Oct. 31, allowing the Trump administration to end counting soonhttps://t.co/85ZtoS6JfJ pic.twitter.com/JYM72i3Tsp

      •

      Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, was the only one to note her dissent
      The Trump administration said it needed to stop counting people immediately and move on to processing the data collected, in order to meet a statutory deadline. Lower courts ordered the census to go on through 31 October, but the administration filed an emergency request to put the counting on hold.
      Census experts say stopping the count could result in significant undercounts.
      The pandemic has significantly delayed census workers ability to count each person living in the US. But the administration – which in a separate court case is fighting to exclude undocumented immigrants from census counts used to apportion seats in Congress – is deeply invested in meeting a 31 December deadline too have state-by-state population totals sent to the president.
      If Trump – who is lagging in national polls – loses the election, and the government is unable to process census data before he’d have to leave office at the end of the year, the new administration would be in charge of apportioning Congressional seats.

      Updated
      at 5.31pm EDT

      5.02pm EDT17:02

      Today so far

      That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few days.
      Here’s where the day stands so far:
      The second day of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearings is still unfolding. Members of the Senate judiciary committee have been posing questions to the supreme court nominee for eight hours, and six senators still have to speak.
      Barrett deflected questions on her opinions of the Affordable Care Act, Roe v Wade and voting rights. Instead, the nominee repeatedly insisted that it would be inappropriate for her to offer opinions on major past cases until she joins the court.
      Democrats reiterated their concerns that Barrett’s confirmation could jeopardize the ACA. “I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett told the committee. “I’m just here to apply the law.” The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case involving the ACA just one week after the presidential election.
      Under intense questioning from Amy Klobuchar, Barrett declined to characterize Roe as a “super-precedent” case. Barrett has said she considers Brown v Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in schools, to be a super-precedent case because it will never be overturned given there are no challenges to it now. “I‘m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. She added that her characterization does not necessarily mean Roe should be overturned.
      Trump called for a massive coronavirus relief package, as Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell announced plans to vote on a standalone bill for small business loans. “STIMULUS! Go big or go home!!!” Trump said in a tweet.
      Maanvi will have more updates from the hearing coming up, so stay tuned.

      4.42pm EDT16:42

      Biden says Obama will hit the campaign trail

      In case you missed it this morning: Joe Biden indicated Barack Obama would soon be hitting the campaign trail to stump for his former running mate, with three weeks to go until the presidential election.
      “He’s doing enough for our campaign. He’ll be out on the trail,” Biden said before leaving for Florida.
      Obama has participated in virtual fundraisers for Biden, and the two filmed a “socially distanced conversation” in July, which focused on criticizing Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

      [embedded content]

      Biden similarly focused his speech in Pembroke Pines, Florida, today on criticizing the president’s handling of the pandemic.
      The Democratic nominee told senior voters that Trump had treated America’s older citizens like they were “expendable” and “forgettable.”
      “I prayed for his recovery when he got Covid. And I hoped he’d at least come out of it somewhat chastened,” Biden said of the president.
      “But what has he done? He’s just doubled down on the misinformation he did before and making it worse.”

      4.15pm EDT16:15

      Picking up the same line of questioning as Republican Josh Hawley, Democrat Richard Blumenthal asked Amy Coney Barrett about the 2006 newspaper ad she signed onto that criticized Roe v Wade.
      Barrett appeared to get a bit frustrated as Blumenthal pressed her on why she had not disclosed the ad in the records she submitted to the Senate.
      Blumenthal noted that senators would not even be aware of the ad if the Guardian had not reported on it earlier this month.
      Barrett emphasized she had “no recollection” of signing on to the ad, noting that it was difficult to compile 30 years of documents from her career.
      “I assure you I’m not trying to hide” anything, Barrett told Blumenthal.

      4.03pm EDT16:03

      The second day of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearings have now resumed, with Democrat Richard Blumenthal questioning the nominee.
      Blumenthal opened his questioning by saying he was “disappointed” by Barrett’s refusal to commit to recusing herself from cases regarding the presidential election, given Trump has indicated he wants a ninth justice on the supreme court to help determine the winner of the race.
      “It would be a dagger at the heart of the court and our democracy if this election is decided by the court rather than the American voters,” Blumenthal said.

      3.41pm EDT15:41

      Second break in Barrett nomination hearing

      We have reached the second break in Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearing today. The Senate judiciary committee will reconvene in about 20 minutes.

      3.39pm EDT15:39

      Responding to questions from Republican Josh Hawley, Amy Coney Barrett addressed the 2006 newspaper ad she signed onto that criticized Roe v Wade.
      “While I was free to express my private views at that time, I don’t feel like it is appropriate for me anymore, because of the canons of conduct, to express an affirmative view, at this point in time,” Barrett told Hawley.
      The ad stated, “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade and restore law that protects the lives of unborn children.”
      Hawley later asked Barrett about her experiences raising seven children, noting she has a multiracial family.
      Barrett said, “While my life experiences I think, I hope have given me wisdom and compassion, they don’t dictate how I decide cases.”

      3.31pm EDT15:31

      As Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearing continues in Washington, Joe Biden is campaigning in the crucial swing state of Florida.
      The Democratic nominee kept his mask on as laid out his pitch to senior voters in Pembroke Pines. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senators stir ghosts of Scalia and Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett hearing

      by

      Depending on your point of view, the woman seated before the Senate judiciary committee for her first day of questioning was either the female Scalia or the anti-RBG. Or maybe, of course, both.As proceedings commenced in a brightly lit and deeply sanitized hearing room, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s third nominee to the supreme court, described herself as an originalist in the tradition of her mentor. Like the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, she subscribes to a theory of constitutional interpretation that attempts to understand and apply “meaning that [the constitution] had at the time people ratified it”.That time was the 1780s, when only white and land-owning men could vote. Oddly, Scalia often produced opinions that delighted conservatives. Outside the Capitol on Tuesday, a group of conservative women gathered to sing and pray, hands extended heavenward.Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican committee chair, asked Barrett if it was appropriate to call her the “female Scalia”. She demurred.“If I am confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia,” she said. “You would be getting Justice Barrett.”All of the young conservative women out there, this hearing to me is about a place for youLindsey GrahamThat, of course, is exactly what Democrats fear.In several rounds of questioning, Democratic senators portrayed the would-be justice as a rightwing crusader, chosen to undermine the civil rights legacy of the justice she hopes to replace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, a world-famous champion of women.Outside the Capitol on Monday, progressive activists had worn blood-red robes and bonnets, symbols of female oppression taken from The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel.Barrett has roots in a charismatic Catholic group, People of Praise, which has been cited as an inspiration for Atwood. Such citations are wrong, but in the hearing room on Tuesday Democratic senators nonetheless painted a determinedly dystopian picture, of an America ruled by a conservative court.In their telling, millions – constituents with names, faces and gut-wrenching stories the senators took took pains to tell – stand to lose access to life-saving services provided by the Affordable Care Act; poor women who cannot afford to travel for an abortion will be forced to make dangerous choices; same-sex couples may no longer have the right to marry.Barrett declined to answer questions on such issues – and in doing so, perhaps provocatively, cited RBG. A dictum Ginsburg set forth during her 1993 confirmation hearing: “No hints, no forecasts, no previews.”“These are life and death questions for people,” insisted Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel. Barrett’s repeated refusal to answer questions on abortion was “distressing” Feinstein said, noting that Ginsburg was far more forthcoming about her views on the issue.“I have no agenda,” Barrett said, not for the first or last time.But Donald Trump does.The president chose Barrett from a list of what he called “pro-life” judges. He has said he hopes, even expects, the court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that established the right to abortion.The president tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for himDick DurbinThe president has also insisted he needs a ninth justice on the court before the election, in case the result is contested.“Who came up with this notion, this insulting notion, that you might violate your oath?” Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, wondered sarcastically, in response to Republicans’ accusation that his party was impugning Barrett’s judicial independence merely by asking where she stood on key issues.“Where could this idea have come from? Could it have come from the White House? Could it have come from the president’s tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? That is where it originated.”Despite it all, the hearing played out with an air of inevitability. Graham was clear. This was “the hearing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court”, rather than the traditional opportunity to “consider” her nomination. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Amy Coney Barrett dodges abortion, healthcare and election law questions

      by

      On the second day of hearings before the Senate judiciary committee, Democrats pressed supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on healthcare, election law and abortion rights – and met with little success.Donald Trump’s third nominee for the highest court dodged questions on how she might rule on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA); if she would recuse herself from any lawsuit about the presidential election; and whether she would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v Wade, which made abortion legal.In an exchange with the Democratic Delaware senator Chris Coons, Barrett said: “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.”Multiple Democratic senators pressed Barrett on whether she would recuse herself from a possible case about the outcome of the 2020 election. The Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal said he was “disappointed” in Barrett’s refusal to commit to a position. He added: “It would be a dagger at the heart of the court and our democracy if this election is decided by the court rather than the American voters.”Barrett argued that she was not a pundit, citing remarks by Justice Elena Kagan and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in saying that outside of reviewing a specific case, it was not her place to offer a position.“No hints, no previews, no forecasts,” Barrett quoted Ginsburg as saying, after the California senator Dianne Feinstein questioned her about how she might rule in any case challenging the legality of abortion.Barrett is a devout Catholic whose previous statements and affiliations have been closely examined by Democrats and the media. Trump has said overturning Roe v Wade would be “possible” with Barrett on the court.When she was asked about a newspaper ad she signed criticizing Roe v Wade, first reported by the Guardian, Barrett said she had “no recollection” of it and stressed she had nothing to hide.At another point in Tuesday’s hearing, Barrett cited Kagan in saying she would not give “a thumbs up or thumbs down” on any hypothetical ruling.Most of the questioning from Democrats centered on the ACA, known popularly as Obamacare, and how a ruling by the high court overturning the law would take away healthcare from millions of Americans. A hearing is due a week after election day. Democrats see protecting the ACA as a productive electoral tactic, having focused on it in the 2018 midterms, when they took back the House.Barrett said she was not hostile to the ACA, or indeed abortion or gay rights, another area worrying progressives as the court seems set to tilt to a 6-3 conservative majority. Barrett said she was simply focused on upholding the law.“I am not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett said. “I apply the law, I follow the law. You make the policy.”Asked about gay rights, Barrett said: “I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”Her choice of words conspicuously suggested that to her, sexuality is a choice. Amid scrutiny of Barrett’s past, meanwhile, it has been reported that she was a trustee at a school whose handbook included stated opposition to same-sex marriageRepublican senators also questioned Barrett on healthcare, the Iowa senator Chuck Grassley asking if she had been asked during the nomination process if she supported overturning the ACA.“Absolutely not,” Barrett said. “I was never asked and if I had been that would’ve been a short conversation.”Barrett said it was “just not true” that she wanted to strike down protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.Asked if she thought same-sex marriage should be a crime, she said the ruling in Obergefell v Hodges, in 2015, made it the law of the land.Asked if she would recuse herself on any lawsuit over the outcome of the 2020 election, however, Barrett declined to commit. Instead she said: “I have made no commitment to anyone – not in the Senate, not in the White House – on how I would decide a case.”It was the first of two sessions of questioning, after which outside witnesses will be called. Tuesday’s opening exchanges produced a mere continuation of Barrett’s seemingly serene journey into Ginsburg’s seat.Trump and Republicans are eager to move quickly. The president has said he wants to see Barrett confirmed before election day, which is in three weeks’ time, suggesting that this is in part because he hopes she will rule in his favor if a challenge to the election result reaches the highest court.In a conference call with reporters, Senate Democrats fretted about their chances of stopping Barrett.“The fact of the matter is this nominee is extreme,” the Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal said. “Her views are outliers.“I think we are going to demonstrate today and tomorrow what’s at stake and how extreme and far right this nominee is.”He conceded that Democrats had no “magic” tool to block Barrett. They would, he said, use every procedural tool they have but “the politics are difficult here. Republicans are practically boasting that they have the votes.”Blumenthal said Democrats were “ultimately making our case to the American people”, to make them realize the impact Barrett’s nomination was likely to have. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Amy Coney Barrett: US supreme court nominee delivers opening statement – video

      by

      Play Video

      1:08

      US supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in during Monday’s opening confirmation hearing before the Senate judiciary committee and told senators she was humbled to be considered to fill the seat left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
      President Donald Trump formally nominated Barrett on 26 September.
      Trump’s nomination of Barrett to a vacancy created by the death last month of Ginsburg just weeks before the election enraged Democrats, still furious about Republicans’ refusal to consider a nominee from Barack Obama some 10 months before the 2016 election.

      Topics

      US politics

      Amy Coney Barrett

      US supreme court

      Donald Trump

      US elections 2020 More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Judges' politics absolutely sway how they decide cases. I crunched the numbers | Zalman Rothschild

      by

      Not much is certain about US politics these days. But if there’s one thing we know about Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings it is this: she will be asked about the role politics will play in her judicial decision making. If history is precedent, Judge Barrett will adamantly reject the supposition that her politics impact her adjudication. Starting with Chief Justice John Roberts – who, during his confirmation hearings, famously described the judicial role as one of a neutral baseball umpire “call[ing] balls and strikes” – it has become a commonplace for both liberal and conservative US supreme court nominees to declare that politics have no bearing on judicial decision making.In reality, there is no dearth of data measuring the extent to which judges decide cases based on political preferences. Consider the recent spate of cases concerning religious institutions which challenged coronavirus-related lockdown orders as violations of religious freedom. Freedom of religion and the future supreme court are of particular importance: the survival of many recent progressive initiatives – including the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception, and laws prohibiting discriminatory treatment of LGBTQ people, to list just two – will rest in no small measure on courts’ interpretation and application of the “free exercise” religion clause of the first amendment of the constitution. Findings from a survey I conducted suggest that the outcome in some subsets of religious freedom cases track political affiliation to a staggering degree.I surveyed every merits-based federal court decision pertaining to a free exercise challenge to a stay-at-home order. The findings are staggering: 0% of Democrat-appointed judges have sided with a religious institution; the sizeable majority (64%) of Republican-appointed judges have sided with a religious institution; and 0% of Trump-appointed judges have ruled against religious institutions. In other words, all Trump-appointed judges have sided with religious institutions and all Democrat-appointed judges have sided with the state or city government. To be sure, my sample set – 81 judicial decisions – is not enormous. But the ability to predict to such a high degree the outcome of cases implicating the same free exercise question (in remarkably similar contexts) is illuminating. It suggests that Covid-19 has produced not only a partisan divide in the courts, but also that freedom of religion itself has become dramatically politicized.It was not long ago that religious freedom was considered a bipartisan issue, garnering near unanimous support on Capitol Hill. When the supreme court in 1990 drastically narrowed the meaning of free exercise, it was met with outrage from Republicans and Democrats alike. That outrage fueled the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was designed to resurrect the religious freedom the court had eviscerated. RFRA passed the House unanimously and was approved in the Senate by a vote of 97-3.Such collaboration on religious freedom could not be imagined today. In the wake of Obergefell v Hodges, in which the supreme court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, conservatives became alarmed at the prospect of America shifting sharply more “progressive” on cultural and social issues. Conservatives, especially rightwing Catholics and evangelical Protestants, rallied around the banner of religious freedom. They fought the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate and argued that the accommodations for churches in the Act were insufficient. Religious pharmacists also sought exemptions from state requirements that they dispense contraceptives.Yet by far the most charged battle over religious accommodation has concerned same-sex marriage. Conservatives worked hard at the state and federal levels to carve out religious exemptions through state statutes and proposed constitutional amendments. Liberals saw these exemptions as fronts to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals and women seeking contraception. As a result, Democrats in Congress are attempting to pass the Equality Act, a bill which would prohibit almost all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A specific provision would pre-empt the possibility of RFRA being employed as a defense against a discrimination allegation. The Democratic congressman Jerry Nadler – who was a vocal advocate of RFRA two and a half decades ago – co-sponsored the new legislation.Religious freedom has undergone a cataclysmic change over the last decade. Whereas it was once seen as an American value on which Americans across the aisle could agree, now its polarization in society is mirrored in the judiciary. The root of the problem is inflexibility. Rather than take to heart the possibility that a cake shop owner truly feels inhibited by his religious beliefs to assist in the celebration of a gay marriage, advocates for gay rights – and the judges who agree with them – insist on being served by a religious baker, dismissing out of hand the legitimacy of his religious objections. Meanwhile, some religious employers demand to be exempted from merely having to notify the government that they will not provide conception healthcare under their insurance plans, claiming that even doing that violates their religious sensibilities. Neither side seems willing to give an inch, thus further entrenching a polarization that has now infected the judiciary to a staggering degree.To “save th[e] honorable court[s],” and the country, we must learn to listen to, and take to heart, the positions of others. What we need in a polarized country is not the idle fantasy that politics can or will never play a role in adjudication – it always will – but to strive for a world in which we believe in the power of encounter, of giving and listening to the other side, and of being open to compromise. More