Senate Republicans ready quick push on Trump's Supreme Court pick Barrett

[webfact]

Senate Republicans ready quick push on Trump's Supreme Court pick Barrett

By Lawrence Hurley and Steve Holland

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett reacts as U.S President Donald Trump holds an event to announce her as his nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 18, at the White House in Washington, U.S., September 26, 2020. REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans on Sunday prepared a concerted push toward quickly confirming President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, despite strenuous objections by Democrats who appear powerless to stop them.

 

In a White House Rose Garden ceremony on Saturday, Trump announced Barrett, 48, as his selection to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Sept. 18 at age 87. Barrett said she would be a justice in the mold of the late staunch conservative Antonin Scalia. Her confirmation would result in a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.

 

Trump urged Republicans, who hold a 53-47 Senate majority, to confirm Barrett, a federal appeals court judge and a favorite of religious conservatives, by the Nov. 3 election. He has said he expects the justices to have to resolve the election in which he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

 

The Supreme Court has only once in U.S. history had to resolve a presidential election, in 2000. Trump also has declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election.

 

"I look forward to meeting with the nominee next week and will carefully study her record and credentials," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has made confirming Trump's judicial appointments a paramount priority. "As I have stated, this nomination will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead."

 

Barrett is expected to begin meetings with individual senators on Tuesday. Trump said the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by his ally Senator Lindsey Graham, would begin confirmation hearings on Oct. 12.

 

Like Trump's two other appointees, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett is young enough that she could serve for decades in the lifetime job, leaving a lasting conservative imprint. Trump's two previous appointments were surrounded by controversy.

 

Trump was able to appoint Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by Scalia's 2016 death only because McConnell refused to let the Senate consider Obama's nominee Merrick Garland because it was an election year, an action with little precedent in U.S. history. Democrats now accuse him of hypocrisy.

 

Kavanaugh was confirmed after a tumultuous confirmation process during which a California university professor accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1983 when both were high school students in Maryland. Kavanaugh denied the allegation and portrayed himself as the victim of an "orchestrated political hit" by Democrats. During his confirmation hearings, Graham angrily defended Kavanaugh.

 

DEMOCRATS SEE HEALTHCARE THREAT

Biden and his vice presidential running mate Kamala Harris, a member of the Judiciary Committee, blasted Trump's choice of Barrett, focusing in particular on the threat they said she would pose to healthcare for millions of Americans.

 

Biden noted that even as Trump's administration is seeking to strike down Obamacare in a case the Supreme Court is due to hear on Nov. 10, Barrett has a "written track record" criticizing a pivotal 2012 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts preserving the healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. If quickly confirmed, Barrett could be on the bench to hear that case.

 

Democrats also fretted that Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, a goal of religious conservatives.

 

"Trump's hand-picked successor to Justice Ginsburg's seat makes it clear: they intend to destroy the Affordable Care Act & overturn Roe. This selection would move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans," Harris wrote on Twitter on Saturday.

 

Barrett, a devout Roman Catholic who earned her law degree and taught at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, was appointed by Trump to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

 

An emboldened Supreme Court conservative majority could shift the United States to the right on hot-button issues by, among other things, curbing abortion rights, expanding religious rights, striking down gun control laws, halting the expansion of LGBT rights, and endorsing new restrictions on voting rights.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Steve Holland; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-28

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Puchaiyank]

It is hard to believe in this day and age Republicans still insist on nominating to the Supreme Court Constitutional scholars to interpret the Constitution of the US.

 

We need judges that will use the bench to promote a liberal social agenda and legislate social engineering methods to suit the people in Hollywood and undocumented minorities.

 

This is a tragedy!

[plentyofnuttin]

3 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

It is hard to believe in this day and age Republicans still insist on nominating to the Supreme Court Constitutional scholars to interpret the Constitution of the US.

 

We need judges that will use the bench to promote a liberal social agenda and legislate social engineering methods to suit the people in Hollywood and undocumented minorities.

 

This is a tragedy!

What's really hard to believe is that before an election Donald Trump - not the Republicans as you claimed - has nominated someone who has gone on the record as being strongly against Obamacare. She strongly criticized John Roberts for upholding the law in a 5-4 decision. And this with it being about to be reviewed again right after the election by the Supreme Court in a case challenging it's legitimacy and supported by the Trump administration. Republican senators up for reelection have been fleeing from their records of repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare. Now the prospect of that lawsuit actually succeeding thanks to the appointment of Barrett must be terrifying to them. 

[AndyFoxy]

Great choice, President Trump.

[Scott]

A post with a trolling reference to a political party has been removed along with the replies. 

 

[TopDeadSenter]

Trump owes his voters and fan to get this job done, and done quickly. Knowing Trump's record of accomplishing his goals expect Mrs Barrett to be seated in the SC in record time. Although I suspect there may be some benefit to the GOP by riding this slowly and letting the opposition smear and throw depraved accusations a la Kavanaugh. Such bad behavior would further electrify Trump supporters and appal swing voters seeing upstanding and respected mother smeared. We will see....

[connda]

56 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

What's really hard to believe is that before an election Donald Trump - not the Republicans as you claimed - has nominated someone who has gone on the record as being strongly against Obamacare. She strongly criticized John Roberts for upholding the law in a 5-4 decision. And this with it being about to be reviewed again right after the election by the Supreme Court in a case challenging it's legitimacy and supported by the Trump administration. Republican senators up for reelection have been fleeing from their records of repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare. Now the prospect of that lawsuit actually succeeding thanks to the appointment of Barrett must be terrifying to them. 

Hopefully so.  The ACA is a terrible piece of legislation.  Medicare is too for that matter.  Healthcare should not bankrupt the public.
Personally I'd like to see a single payer system like those in Canada and other commonweath nations, and for those who want private healthcare, allow them to buy into the same health insurance schemes that cover Congressmen and Senators. 
Never happen though.  Both side will only write legislation that will benefit large healthcare corporations at the expense of the public.  But in the meanwhile, if the ACA is overturned, so be it.  The US with the highest health care costs on the planet needs desperate reform.

[Puchaiyank]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

What's really hard to believe is that before an election Donald Trump - not the Republicans as you claimed - has nominated someone who has gone on the record as being strongly against Obamacare. She strongly criticized John Roberts for upholding the law in a 5-4 decision. And this with it being about to be reviewed again right after the election by the Supreme Court in a case challenging it's legitimacy and supported by the Trump administration. Republican senators up for reelection have been fleeing from their records of repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare. Now the prospect of that lawsuit actually succeeding thanks to the appointment of Barrett must be terrifying to them. 

What is terrifying to the nation is a deadlocked outcome in the Presidential election...one of the most vile dispical human beings on earth, Nancy Pelosi,  would then become President  by default...heaven help us!

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

What's really hard to believe is that before an election Donald Trump - not the Republicans as you claimed - has nominated someone who has gone on the record as being strongly against Obamacare. She strongly criticized John Roberts for upholding the law in a 5-4 decision. And this with it being about to be reviewed again right after the election by the Supreme Court in a case challenging it's legitimacy and supported by the Trump administration. Republican senators up for reelection have been fleeing from their records of repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare. Now the prospect of that lawsuit actually succeeding thanks to the appointment of Barrett must be terrifying to them. 

Biden had better get new legislation drafted.

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Biden had better get new legislation drafted.

You mean Harris.

 

Excellent choice in Barrett.  The Senate will get the nomination confirmed at a crucial time where it appears more likely than not that the Supreme Court will be involved in determining this election.  So much winning . . . 

[plentyofnuttin]

28 minutes ago, connda said:

Hopefully so.  The ACA is a terrible piece of legislation.  Medicare is too for that matter.  Healthcare should not bankrupt the public.
Personally I'd like to see a single payer system like those in Canada and other commonweath nations, and for those who want private healthcare, allow them to buy into the same health insurance schemes that cover Congressmen and Senators. 
Never happen though.  Both side will only write legislation that will benefit large healthcare corporations at the expense of the public.  But in the meanwhile, if the ACA is overturned, so be it.  The US with the highest health care costs on the planet needs desperate reform.

A pity that the public disagrees with you. And before you deny that, you'd have to explain why Republican senators up for reelection are downplaying their opposition to it. You know something that they don't?

You might also want to explain away the fact that the number of Americans uninsured has dropped to record low levels.

Or why the same health care paid for by the government as opposed to that paid for by private insurers costs so much less.

Or why it is that making mandatory the availability of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions is a bad and unpopular thing?

Or why it's so awful that millions of Americans who lost their jobs got free coverage from the Medicaid portion of the ACA?

[Tug]

I’ll try again more gently this isent going to go over well with the voters the republicans will pay down ballot big time 

[plentyofnuttin]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You mean Harris.

 

Excellent choice in Barrett.  The Senate will get the nomination confirmed at a crucial time where it appears more likely than not that the Supreme Court will be involved in determining this election.  So much winning . . . 

I don't think Barrett's heavy thumb on the electoral scale of justice is going to outweigh the effect on the electorate of her opinion that Obamacare is not legally valid. Especially now with millions of Americans who lost their jobs dependent on it.

[plentyofnuttin]

40 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Although I suspect there may be some benefit to the GOP by riding this slowly and letting the opposition smear and throw depraved accusations a la Kavanaugh. Such bad behavior would further electrify Trump supporters and appal swing voters seeing upstanding and respected mother smeared. We will see....

Keep salivating at that mirage. Senate Democrats don't need to invoke her religion given her extremist stances on Obamacare and abortion. Did I mention that based on her reasing of the 2nd Amendment, she also supported a felon's right to carry guns?

[plentyofnuttin]

1 hour ago, AndyFoxy said:

Great choice, President Trump.

I agree. It is a great choice for the electoral prospects of Democrats. Thank you President Trump!

[Emdog]

Mitch expects to get this done in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, covid relief bills, those that help average Americans languish on his desk.

Why the rush? It took 14 months to get new justice when Mitch wouldn't even give a hearing to Obama's nominee. And that time period included presidential election.

It is purely about power and how minority can thwart the will of the public. 70% of electorate want abortion laws kept as they are. ACA is not great, but don't throw out baby with bath water.

Where is his health plan? Since before day 1 of his administration he has claimed to have one "cheaper, better & cover everyone"...

Why did Trump trumpet executive order to cover pre existing conditions? That is already in ACA.

If it was fair to delay Obama nomination, should be fair to delay Trump's.

But it is not about "fairness" or "norms". All about pure power plays

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

I agree. It is a great choice for the electoral prospects of Democrats. Thank you President Trump!

Controlling the house isn’t a bad trade off for being in control of the senate, WH and an ultra majority on the SCOTUS. 

[nobodysfriend]

Does nobody see what Trump prepares ?

If he loses the upcoming election , he will not accept the result .

In this case It will be the supreme court who decides in the final instance .

[wwest5829]

6 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

It is hard to believe in this day and age Republicans still insist on nominating to the Supreme Court Constitutional scholars to interpret the Constitution of the US.

 

We need judges that will use the bench to promote a liberal social agenda and legislate social engineering methods to suit the people in Hollywood and undocumented minorities.

 

This is a tragedy!

You mean like Merrick Garland?

[spidermike007]

Not to worry, if republicans do not want to stand by their word, that they spoke in 2016, during the Garland nomination process, the dems would be wise to load up the courts, with another 3-6 justices, once the GOP majority in senate is eliminated, along with the orange one.

 

Nine is probably too few anyway. Why not? If they want us to grovel, we can get down into their mud. 

[HappyinNE]

Nobody is aware that the Supreme Court decision on Obama Care is really the question of will they vacate the decision of the District court that declared Obama Care unconstitutional.  It will take a majority of the court to throw out that decision.  The Liberals believe that they have four votes not the necessary five for a majority.  A tie would keep the District court decision.  In a 4-4 court you would need five votes to have a majority.  In a nine member court you would still need five votes for a majority.  If you look at it close the only way a new member could affect the decision would be if they voted to overturn the Diatrict Court decision.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Not to worry, if republicans do not want to stand by their word, that they spoke in 2016, during the Garland nomination process, the dems would be wise to load up the courts, with another 3-6 justices, once the GOP majority in senate is eliminated, along with the orange one.

 

Nine is probably too few anyway. Why not? If they want us to grovel, we can get down into their mud. 

That, plus plus undo the gerrymandering, add dc and PR as states.

[riclag]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

An emboldened Supreme Court conservative majority could shift the United States to the right on hot-button issues by, among other things, curbing abortion rights, expanding religious rights, striking down gun control laws, halting the expansion of LGBT rights, and endorsing new restrictions on voting rights.

The last 4 years, Americans have voted twice on  Senate representation ! Both  resulting in a gop majority! The constitution says a  senate majority vote confirms a SCJ!

Americans know what potential effects a  liberal majority  vs, a conservative majority could have on  hot button issues for the foreseeable  future! Being a independent/swing voter I'm comfortable  and content with these  elected officials decisions!

!

Elections have consequences ,thank god

Edited September 28, 2020 by riclag

[Rimmer]

Off topic post removed.

Probably posted by accident in the wrong place and was intended to be HERE

[Isaan sailor]

The big question: will Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee do another Kavanaugh to her?

[Damual Travesty]

16 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump was able to appoint Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by Scalia's 2016 death only because McConnell refused to let the Senate consider Obama's nominee Merrick Garland because it was an election year, an action with little precedent in U.S. history. Democrats now accuse him of hypocrisy.

"Little Precedent in U.S. HIstory?"Well now. I am afraid I have to call out these writers again for another false statement. Let me call it exactly what it is - a lie - I would say they are lying through their teeth. Not only are they lying through their teeth but they know they are lying, and they now exactly why they are lying. Here is the truth:

 

You can read or watch the video - Official website of a sitting US Senator, Speaking into the official Record of the US Senate:

 

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5392

 

 

[Damual Travesty]

9 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Not to worry, if republicans do not want to stand by their word, that they spoke in 2016, during the Garland nomination process, the dems would be wise to load up the courts, with another 3-6 justices, once the GOP majority in senate is eliminated, along with the orange one.

 

Nine is probably too few anyway. Why not? If they want us to grovel, we can get down into their mud. 

What Mud? This is routine. A Justice has died. A Justice is being replaced. See my latest post regarding the official record on this. Stop trying to destroy our Country please. It's just a fact that the Senate is controlled by the President's party. The seat made vacant belongs to the people of the USA and the Constitution speaks about how this is to be done. This is not deserving of a Democrat national freak out.

 

Once again if you need to understand this:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5392

[Damual Travesty]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

That, plus plus undo the gerrymandering, add dc and PR as states.

I think that there should be reason for adding a state - other then as an attempt to establish power for a particular Political party. That seems sensible, to me, and also to the people of the USA I am sure, as well as the people of Puerto Rico. As for DC, that would require a Constitutional Amendment I believe. Gerrymandering is something that exists in the County as a result of both parties, not just one, and its been going on for decades, and changing for decades. It's not so simple to change districts. Often at the time they are changed, it satisfies both parties, but later the Demographics change and then the accusations begin to fly. Likewise the court is good at 9, the age of voting good at 18, the Electoral College need not be abolished, I love my Country and I love the fact that we have a Constitution that has stood for about 250 years, and still stands. No need for all of this insanity because a Supreme Court Justice is being replaced according to the law of the land. This is how it has always been done. God Bless America. Long may she wave! One Nation Under God! Home of the Brave and the Land of the FREE !

Edited September 28, 2020 by Damual Travesty
sp

[spidermike007]

30 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

What Mud? This is routine. A Justice has died. A Justice is being replaced. See my latest post regarding the official record on this. Stop trying to destroy our Country please. It's just a fact that the Senate is controlled by the President's party. The seat made vacant belongs to the people of the USA and the Constitution speaks about how this is to be done. This is not deserving of a Democrat national freak out.

 

Once again if you need to understand this:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5392

And once again the people have spoken. Surveys show 62% say they want whoever is elected in November, to appoint a justice family. Why is that so hard for the devotees to comprehend? 

[riclag]

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And once again the people have spoken. Surveys show 62% say they want whoever is elected in November, to appoint a justice family. Why is that so hard for the devotees to comprehend? 

 Public opinion polls, surveys  and dying wishes don't supersede  who appoints  a SCJ ! 

The constitution clearly states 100 % , your  President does, the current office holder!

In case you didn't know good things come in 3's

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by riclag