US Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris grilling prompts doubtful claim from Amy Coney Barrett

      by

      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the coronavirus – highlighting the number of Americans who would lose insurance if the 2010 Affordable Care Act were repealed in five states where Republican senators are struggling to win re-election.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/3bP7rJ6u0L

      August 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

    • 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 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Holy war: Republicans eager to focus Amy Coney Barrett hearings on religion

      by

      When Donald Trump’s latest supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, arrives before the Senate judiciary committee for her confirmation hearings on Monday, Democrats will be out to raise an alarm that Barrett could help strike down the Affordable Care Act in the very first case she hears.But in the weeks leading up to the hearings, Republicans have been out for something else entirely: a holy war.The future of the supreme court hinges on the Barrett hearings. But the hearings will be backgrounded by a political fight over religion that is potentially as important as the question of whether Barrett replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late liberal justice, on the court.If Republicans can make it look like Democrats are attacking Barrett, a conservative Catholic, for her religious views, they believe, that could stir enough political anger to rescue a couple of tight Senate races in the elections on 3 November – and potentially save the teetering Republican Senate majority.Democrats hope to defeat the Barrett nomination on the merits.But they also hope to take control of the Senate next month, claim the White House, and then pass a bulwark of laws on key issues – healthcare, reproductive rights, marriage equality, voting rights, the climate emergency – to withstand what could be decades of tendentious rulings by a supreme court with as many as three Trump-appointed justices on it.The current Senate judiciary committee chair, Lindsey Graham, who happens to be among the most endangered Republican incumbents, explained the Republican strategy last month on Fox News, saying Democratic protests over credible sexual assault allegations against Trump’s supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh helped Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections.“Kavanaugh really did help Republicans pick up Senate seats because they went too far,” Graham said.In a transparent attempt to whip up a comparable spectacle around the Barrett nomination, Senate Republicans have produced an ominous video featuring tense footage from the Kavanaugh hearings and accusing Democrats of a “radical power plot” to attack Barrett over her religious beliefs.But prominent Democrats have urged a minimum of pageantry during the Barrett hearings and a focus on Barrett’s views on the healthcare law, abortion, same-sex marriage and other issues.“It is going to be really important to not give Lindsey Graham and the rest of the Republicans a moment of righteous vindication over a circus-like atmosphere,” the former Democratic senator Claire McCaskill said on a popular politics podcast this week.“So I just think this is one of those times when some of our most passionate supporters that are so angry on behalf of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that they’ve got to realize that there is a better way than flooding the halls with women in handmaid costumes.”To protest against the Barrett nomination earlier this month, activists stood outside the supreme court wearing red robes and white bonnets, recognizable from the TV series based on the Margaret Atwood novel of female subjugation, The Handmaid’s Tale.Democrats should focus on the threat posed to healthcare by Barrett, who in 2017 published a critique of Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act, said Ben Jealous, president of the progressive People for the American Way group. On 10 November, just one week after the election, the supreme court is scheduled to hear a separate case that could vacate the law.“The confirmation hearings have to be all about what the nomination is about: destroying healthcare for millions of Americans,” Jealous said. “Anybody who wants to make this about a nominee’s personality, or even the life they’ve lived so far, is missing the point.”Democrats on the committee acknowledge they do not currently have the votes to stop the nomination from moving forward, and Senator Cory Booker said last week that procedural stalling measures would not work – because the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, could merely change the rules to keep the nomination on track.Progressives must not write off the Ginsburg seat as lost, however, said Neil Sroka of the progressive Democracy for America group. More