Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Amy Coney Barrett pledges 'open mind' and plays down conservative record

      by

      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

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The problem with Amy Coney Barrett's nomination isn't timing. It's her views | Nathan Robinson

      by

      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

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris questions Amy Coney Barrett over the Affordable Care Act – video

      by

      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 Barrett

      Topics

      Amy Coney Barrett

      Law (US)

      US politics

      Kamala Harris

      US supreme court More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      US election 2020: what if Trump refuses to concede? – podcast

      by

      Trump has repeatedly stated that he may refuse to accept defeat in the coming election. As Lawrence Douglas explains, things could get very messy if the result is close

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      In the run-up to the 2016 election, Donald Trump famously declared that he would accept the result of the contest with Hillary Clinton, before pausing for dramatic effect and adding: “If I win.” Even after being sworn in as president he cast doubt over the legitimacy of millions of votes that had seen him lose the popular vote while winning in the electoral college. This time around, with millions more than usual expected to vote by mail and with him trailing badly in the polls, Trump is once again questioning the legitimacy of the voting system. Prof Lawrence Douglas, the author of the recently published Will He Go?, tells Anushka Asthana that the stage is being set for a disputed election if the result hinges on small margins and mail-in ballots, which take longer to count. In this scenario, he believes Trump is likely to refuse to concede if the vote goes against him. It could open up a legal and political minefield that the US constitution and the separated powers of the US government is ill-equipped to deal with. One thing is clear: a new president must be sworn in at noon on 21 January 2020. But who turns up to that ceremony could be the result of a bitter and protracted battle. More

    • 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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      US election 2020: why are so many Americans being denied a vote? – podcast

      by

      Millions of American voters will be unable to cast their ballot in this year’s presidential election and those affected will be disproportionately first-time voters and from minority groups, reports Sam Levine

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      As the November election approaches, Donald Trump is continuing to make stark claims about voter fraud, particularly focused on postal voting. Despite a lack of evidence, many are interpreting the president’s claims as a prelude to his challenging the result should he be defeated. Fears of fraud are also being used by many states to place more hurdles in the way of voters trying to cast their ballots. The Guardian’s Sam Levine tells Anushka Asthana about the bureaucratic steps required to cast a legal vote in some states and how research shows that they mean the discounting of votes from disproportionately younger and minority voters. He also describes how millions of former prisoners are being denied votes decades after release due to bureaucratic errors or minuscule unpaid fines. He met Alfonso Tucker, a resident in Alabama, who was struck from the register over a $4 fine and whose son of the same name was also prevented from voting. Meanwhile, there are growing fears of intimidation at the polls, not least following Trump’s performance at the presidential debate in which he failed to denounce white supremacists, telling the rightwing Proud Boys group to “stand back and stand by”. More