Supreme Court nominee Barrett pledges fealty to law as Senate hearing looms

[webfact]

Supreme Court nominee Barrett pledges fealty to law as Senate hearing looms

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, in the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, U.S., September 29, 2020. Demetrius Freeman/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will tell senators in her high-stakes confirmation hearing this week that she will approach cases based on the law, not her personal views, as Democrats urged her to step aside on an upcoming challenge to the Obamacare law and any potential election-related disputes.

 

A four-day Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for the conservative appellate court judge is set to begin on Monday, a key step before a final full Senate vote by the end of October on her nomination for a lifetime job on the court.

 

In a copy of her prepared remarks released on Sunday, Barrett said that as a judge she seeks to "reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be."

 

Barrett, 48, said in the statement that it will be an "honor of a lifetime" to serve alongside the current eight justices and explained how she approaches cases.

 

"When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against," she wrote.

 

President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, will face a grilling from Democrats this week during a multi-day Senate confirmation hearing as Republicans push ahead with their plan to quickly fill a vacancy on the bench before November's presidential election. Lisa Bernhard produced this report.

 

Barrett's confirmation to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would create a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that could lead to rulings rolling back abortion rights, expanding religious and gun rights, and upholding Republican-backed voting restrictions, among other issues.

 

Democratic opposition to Barrett on policy issues has focused on her possible role in deciding a case before the Supreme Court in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA) healthcare law, often called Obamacare.

 

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on Sunday that Barrett should, if confirmed, step aside from the case, which is scheduled to be argued at the court on Nov. 10.

 

"She doesn't come unbiased and that's why she should recuse herself," he said.

 

A key Obamacare provision that would be thrown out if the court strikes down the law bars insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Democrats have criticized Trump for seeking to end Obamacare protections amid a pandemic that has killed more than 210,000 Americans.

 

Schumer also said Barrett should recuse herself from any cases involving the presidential election because of statements made by Trump in which the president has said the court is likely to have election cases. Trump, who is running for reelection against Democrat Joe Biden, has indicated he would expect the court to rule in his favor if Barrett is confirmed.

 

Under existing rules, individual justices have the final say on whether they should recuse.

 

The Senate's Republican leaders rejected Democratic pleas to delay the hearing after two Republican Judiciary Committee members and Trump himself tested positive for the coronavirus in the days following his Sept. 26 White House ceremony announcing Barrett as his nominee.

 

Barrett, who will appear in person, is scheduled to deliver her opening statement to the committee on Monday, with senators also making opening remarks. Each senator has the final call on whether to attend in person. Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, Biden's running mate, will participate remotely because of the health concerns, a spokesman said on Sunday.

 

Barrett is set to face questions from senators on Tuesday and Wednesday, starting with Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, for what promises to be grueling all-day sessions. The hearing is due to conclude on Thursday with outside witnesses testifying about her qualifications.

 

With Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority, Barrett's confirmation seems assured. Democrats are still fuming that McConnell is hurrying to confirm Barrett as the election approaches, after blocking consideration of Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to fill a 2016 Supreme Court vacancy during an election year.

 

Graham has said his committee will likely vote on the nomination on Oct. 22, setting up a vote on the Senate floor by the end of the month.

 

"We can easily get her confirmed before the election," he said on Sunday in an appearance on Fox News show "Sunday Morning Futures."

 

ABORTION QUESTIONS

Barrett also is expected to face Democratic questioning on abortion. In 2006, while teaching law at the University of Notre Dame, Barrett, a devout Catholic, added her name to an advertisement opposing "abortion on demand" that appeared in a local newspaper in Indiana and also signed a similar statement in 2013, she disclosed on Friday.

 

Christian conservative activists long have hoped for the court to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

 

During her 2017 confirmation hearing to her current judgeship, Barrett said her religious faith would not affect her decisions on the bench.

 

Republicans have said questions about Barrett's religious faith should be off-limits and so far Democrats have indicated they will not focus on it.

 

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono said in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Barrett's religious views were "irrelevant."

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici, David Morgan and Steve Holland; Editing by Will Dunham and Rosalba O'Brien)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-12

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Paul Henry]

The Democrats will be within their rights if they increase the number of justices on the bench. The Republicans have no moral fortitude and like Trump change the rules to their advantage, therefore

if the Democrats win they can morally play the same game as the Republicans.

[nobodysfriend]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

"She doesn't come unbiased and that's why she should recuse herself,"

She is biased , even if she pretends not to be .

 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Schumer also said Barrett should recuse herself from any cases involving the presidential election because of statements made by Trump in which the president has said the court is likely to have election cases. Trump, who is running for reelection against Democrat Joe Biden, has indicated he would expect the court to rule in his favor if Barrett is confirmed.

 

To put her in her new job was part of Trump's political strategy to have a majority of the supreme court judges on his side in case that he will lose the upcoming election . He will probably not accept the election's result in case he loses , and it is quite possible , that , in the end , it will be the supreme court who decides in the final instance .

Trump and his party seem well prepared for this case ... he has been sowing doubt about the mail-in votes for a long time already ...

In just 3 weeks we will know ...

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by nobodysfriend

[TopDeadSenter]

8 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

To put her in her new job was part of Trump's political tactics to have a majority of the supreme court judges on his side in case that he will lose the upcoming election .

The way I see this is Trump wanted new judges that follow the law, not progressive activists. This is the supreme court after all. The biggest news in recent weeks is how Biden/Harris refuse to confirm they will not stack the court with "progressive" judges. They have been asked several times and Biden stated he will only answer this super important question "after the election". Oh really?!  Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO. Worrying about whether the left side like Mrs Barrett or not is somewhat irrelevant when the legitimacy and very future of the supreme court is at stake.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The way I see this is Trump wanted new judges that follow the law, not progressive activists. This is the supreme court after all. The biggest news in recent weeks is how Biden/Harris refuse to confirm they will not stack the court with "progressive" judges. They have been asked several times and Biden stated he will only answer this super important question "after the election". Oh really?!  Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO. Worrying about whether the left side like Mrs Barrett or not is somewhat irrelevant when the legitimacy and very future of the supreme court is at stake.

"Trump wanted new judges that follow the law?" Of all the unconsciously humorous statements you have made on various threads, this one sits on Mount Olympus.

Perhaps you have forgotten the hypocrisy of Republicans who wanted the appointment of judges postponed until the 2016 election was over, and are trying to rush Barrett through despite their pious mouthings at the time.

Why is it Republicans can stack the Supreme Court, but that's not permissible for Democrats? Ever heard of a double standard?

[TopDeadSenter]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Why is it Republicans can stack the Supreme Court, but that's not permissible for Democrats? Ever heard of a double standard?

Republicans followed the rules. When a judge ends his/her tenure they have the right to choose a new judge, subject to approval. This is not what Harris/Biden stacking the courts means. It means they will change the rules in a major conflict of interest and just add a bunch of progressive judges, throwing the legitimacy of the "new progressive expanded court" into serious doubt, so there will not be 9 judges there will be....? A massive difference.

[Isaan sailor]

Why does Joe Biden duck the court packing question?  Afraid of upsetting the far left?  Or afraid of losing the independent vote?

Indecisiveness in a leader, a sign of weakness

Edited October 12, 2020 by Isaan sailor

[Sujo]

20 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Republicans followed the rules. When a judge ends his/her tenure they have the right to choose a new judge, subject to approval. This is not what Harris/Biden stacking the courts means. It means they will change the rules in a major conflict of interest and just add a bunch of progressive judges, throwing the legitimacy of the "new progressive expanded court" into serious doubt, so there will not be 9 judges there will be....? A massive difference.

Republicans changed the rules by refusing to consider obamas appointee. Then changed the rule back again to allow trump.

 

Are you insinuating biden will do something illegal to add judges? Is there a rule saying how many judges there can be?

Edited October 12, 2020 by Sujo

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Why does Joe Biden duck the court packing question?  Afraid of upsetting the far left?  Or afraid of losing the independent vote?

Because its not relevent. Thats just trump supporters wanting it to be a talking point to move away from the virus disaster.

[Morch]

54 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The way I see this is Trump wanted new judges that follow the law, not progressive activists. This is the supreme court after all. The biggest news in recent weeks is how Biden/Harris refuse to confirm they will not stack the court with "progressive" judges. They have been asked several times and Biden stated he will only answer this super important question "after the election". Oh really?!  Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO. Worrying about whether the left side like Mrs Barrett or not is somewhat irrelevant when the legitimacy and very future of the supreme court is at stake.

 

There was nothing said, other than by Trump supporters, about 'progressive' judges. How would increasing the number of SC justices result in the SC 'losing all credibility'? How is it different than appointing a solid majority leaning to one side? Your 'concern' is dully noted, though.

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

"Trump wanted new judges that follow the law?" Of all the unconsciously humorous statements you have made on various threads, this one sits on Mount Olympus.

Perhaps you have forgotten the hypocrisy of Republicans who wanted the appointment of judges postponed until the 2016 election was over, and are trying to rush Barrett through despite their pious mouthings at the time.

Why is it Republicans can stack the Supreme Court, but that's not permissible for Democrats? Ever heard of a double standard?

every administration will appoint judges with views consistent with their own.  that is NOT considered court-packing.  that is simply filling vacancies.

 

calling it court-packing is misleading at best.

 

court-packing is adding new slots and filling them with your appointees to gain a majority.

 

of course, the following republican administration could simply add more slots and pack the court in their favor assuming they have control of congress.  eventually we wind up with hundreds, perhaps thousands of supreme court justices.

 

 

[J Town]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

"Trump wanted new judges that follow the law?" Of all the unconsciously humorous statements you have made on various threads, this one sits on Mount Olympus.

Perhaps you have forgotten the hypocrisy of Republicans who wanted the appointment of judges postponed until the 2016 election was over, and are trying to rush Barrett through despite their pious mouthings at the time.

Why is it Republicans can stack the Supreme Court, but that's not permissible for Democrats? Ever heard of a double standard?

That's just one of MANY reasons why that member got banished to the phantom zone. 

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will tell senators in her high-stakes confirmation hearing this week that she will approach cases based on the law, not her personal views

ROFLMAO

[TopDeadSenter]

58 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Are you insinuating biden will do something illegal to add judges? Is there a rule saying how many judges there can be?

I am saying one party abandoning convention and increasing the supreme court size from 9 judges to a new number that guarantees their agenda will be approved is not right. Ask yourself, if Trump today added 50 new judges on the supreme court, comprising of the Millers, the Bannons, Tucker Carlson etc etc would you be happy and consider it fair? As you say, "is there a rule saying how many judges there can be?" 

 I suggest the only appropriate way for the democrats to increase the SC size from 9 judges would be to pass a law that comes into effect in say 10 years time, after their potential turn at the helm has passed. Otherwise, I will say they are cheating. And the supreme court's legitimacy would be zero, and the problems arising from such a situation would make Mrs Barrett's appointment seem a drop in the ocean by comparison.

[J Town]

44 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Why does Joe Biden duck the court packing question?  Afraid of upsetting the far left?  Or afraid of losing the independent vote?

Indecisiveness in a leader, a sign of weakness

He would certainly lose votes if he said he would. It's actually just plain savvy politics. Not saying I like it, I'd rather someone say their yes is a yes, their no a no.

[Dumbastheycome]

Despite Barrett pledging fealty to law she comes as a nominee who being a staunch Catholic can now pop down to a Confessional and be absolved of lying through her teeth.

[Thailand]

"----that she will approach cases based on the law, not her personal views,"

 

Of course, totally independent and unbiased, but she felt she had to say it for some reason.

[Caldera]

I think she will do a good job, and I say that as someone who despises the clown who nominated her.

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The way I see this is Trump wanted new judges that follow the law, not progressive activists. This is the supreme court after all. The biggest news in recent weeks is how Biden/Harris refuse to confirm they will not stack the court with "progressive" judges. They have been asked several times and Biden stated he will only answer this super important question "after the election". Oh really?!  Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO. Worrying about whether the left side like Mrs Barrett or not is somewhat irrelevant when the legitimacy and very future of the supreme court is at stake.

Mitch McConnell blocked bringing the nomination of Justice Merrick Garland for a Senate vote, citing it would not be done because it was a presidential election year. The blatant hypocrisy in this Presidential year cannot be justified. Due to the blatant Republican hypocrisy, I will have far less concern for the newly elected Democratic Senate restoring some balance in the Supreme Court. Sadly, the cost of all this is a further deterioration of the American citizens believing in and supporting the USA. "Progressive judges"? Ha! Yes, like the "Progressive" majority that, ironically, allowed the legalization under the US Constitution of interracial marriages ... such as that of "strict Constitutional constructionist" Justice Clarence Thomas.

[darksidedog]

TopDeadSenter said: Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO

 

Isn't that exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now though? They have gone back on their position of four years ago, of no new judges in an election year, to doing precisely that to stack the court to the right.

This is the court which is after all supposed to be completely impartial and apolitical so its very credibility you are so concerned about, is being brought into question, by the current GOP actions.

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I am saying one party abandoning convention and increasing the supreme court size from 9 judges to a new number that guarantees their agenda will be approved is not right. Ask yourself, if Trump today added 50 new judges on the supreme court, comprising of the Millers, the Bannons, Tucker Carlson etc etc would you be happy and consider it fair? As you say, "is there a rule saying how many judges there can be?" 

 I suggest the only appropriate way for the democrats to increase the SC size from 9 judges would be to pass a law that comes into effect in say 10 years time, after their potential turn at the helm has passed. Otherwise, I will say they are cheating. And the supreme court's legitimacy would be zero, and the problems arising from such a situation would make Mrs Barrett's appointment seem a drop in the ocean by comparison.

 

Oh, so when it suits 'convention' is a thing, and needs to be adhered to. On the other hand, when it does not suit the agenda, there's no need to stick with them old ways. Not applicable, apparently, with regard to Republicans blocking nomination during Obama's term on a made up pretext, only to break away with it this time around. Not applicable whenever Trump does something un-presidential or outside accepted norms.

 

[wwest5829]

5 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Isn't that exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now though? They have gone back on their position of four years ago, of no new judges in an election year, to doing precisely that to stack the court to the right.

This is the court which is after all supposed to be completely impartial and apolitical so its very credibility you are so concerned about, is being brought into question, by the current GOP actions.

We agree but I note an issue with the posting ... your quote attributed to me, was actually your quote. Hmmm, me thinks something may be screwed up? 

14 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO

Edited October 12, 2020 by wwest5829

[Dave0206]

as many have said before surely since it is so close to the election best to wait till january?.

American voters will show how they wish this to go or are voters not to be trusted on such an important issue?

Law and presidence mean nothing if republicans push this through in a panic and afterwards claim unfair if dems win and redress the imbalance of fairness in the courts.

after all Biden by keeping quiet about that possabilaty unlike Cruz Graham ect will not be a hypocrit

[connda]

The Left: She's a crazed Catholic pentecostal wacko who will over-turn Roe vs Wade for sure.
The Right: She's pro-life Catholic pentecostal saint who will, we pray, over-turn Roe vs Wade for sure.

Independent with no dog in the fight:

She's a conservative Constitutionalist jurist and Anthony Scalia clone and she'll allow Roe vs Wade to stand as the precedence is already set. 

[connda]

29 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

TopDeadSenter said: Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO

 

Isn't that exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now though? They have gone back on their position of four years ago, of no new judges in an election year, to doing precisely that to stack the court to the right.

This is the court which is after all supposed to be completely impartial and apolitical so its very credibility you are so concerned about, is being brought into question, by the current GOP actions.

DarkSideDog said: "Isn't that exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now though? They have gone back on their position of four years ago, of no new judges in an election year, to doing precisely that to stack the court to the right."

All US legislators play partisan politics.  Here's the synopsis:
If the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate, they can and will nominate and seat a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution.  The Republicans would howl.
If the Republicans have the Presidency and Senate, they can and will nominate and seat a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution.  The Democrats would howl.
If the Democrats have the Presidency but not the Senate, they will nominate a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution, but will more than likely be unable to seat the justice on the SCOTUS.  The Democrats would howl and the Republicans would say they'd never seat a justice during an election year after blocking the confirmation.
If the Republicans have the Presidency but not the Senate, they will nominate a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution, but will more than likely be unable to seat the justice on the SCOTUS.  The Republicans would howl and the Democrats would say they'd never seat a justice during an election year after blocking the confirmation.

The first rule of DC Fight Club - All legislators lie.
The second rule of DC Fight Club - All legislators lie.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Republicans followed the rules. When a judge ends his/her tenure they have the right to choose a new judge, subject to approval. This is not what Harris/Biden stacking the courts means. It means they will change the rules in a major conflict of interest and just add a bunch of progressive judges, throwing the legitimacy of the "new progressive expanded court" into serious doubt, so there will not be 9 judges there will be....? A massive difference.

Yeah, sure. They followed the rules when it suited them, now they are throwing them overboard.

I sometimes wonder how you can believe the BS you post, then I realize 1984 has come true.

[connda]

10 minutes ago, connda said:

DarkSideDog said: "Isn't that exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now though? They have gone back on their position of four years ago, of no new judges in an election year, to doing precisely that to stack the court to the right."

All US legislators play partisan politics.  Here's the synopsis:
If the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate, they can and will nominate and seat a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution.  The Republicans would howl.
If the Republicans have the Presidency and Senate, they can and will nominate and seat a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution.  The Democrats would howl.
If the Democrats have the Presidency but not the Senate, they will nominate a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution, but will more than likely be unable to seat the justice on the SCOTUS.  The Democrats would howl and the Republicans would say they'd never seat a justice during an election year after blocking the confirmation.
If the Republicans have the Presidency but not the Senate, they will nominate a new Supreme Count justice during an election year as per the US Constitution, but will more than likely be unable to seat the justice on the SCOTUS.  The Republicans would howl and the Democrats would say they'd never seat a justice during an election year after blocking the confirmation.

The first rule of DC Fight Club - All legislators lie.
The second rule of DC Fight Club - All legislators lie.

Nominating and confirming a justice to the SCOTUS isn't "stacking" the court regardless of when the justice is nominated and confirmed.
However, passing legislation to alter the Constitution to allow more justices on the SCOTUS beach - is - stacking.  Altering the Constitution for partisan reasons, regardless of which side does it, is dangerous.  Once that merri-go-round starts, the Constitution will end up shredded.  Is it illegal?  Nope.  It can be done.  But... 

Regardless of what happen I personally think the US is cooked.  Politics and society are so divided and divisive that I expect the nation to collapse before the end of the decade.  There is no such thing as a "statesman" any longer.  Just viscous ideologues with their own party's agenda and no ability to meet in the middle unless it somehow personally benefits the legislators and their wealthy friends at the expense of the US population.  If no one's noticed, both parties are gutting the nation financially. 
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,  In the meantime, in-between time - we ain't got fun.

Edited October 12, 2020 by connda

[connda]

I can see a lot of my fellow American TV members here never took a US Civics class in High School.  Either that or they barely passed the class.  <laughs>

[TopDeadSenter]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

TopDeadSenter said: Such a move to stack the court would result in the supreme court losing all credibility, a disaster IMO

 

Isn't that exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now though?

I don't see the equivalence. Both sides have behaved and spoken hypocritically about SC judges being replaced in the last year of a President's term. Which has exactly zero relevance to the democrats plot to press the nuclear button and add a load of progressive judges to the 9 existing judges. That Harris and Biden repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of whether they will destroy the supreme court's credibility by stacking it with a load of new judges is mind boggling to me. That the media do not force an answer from the pair of contenders on this vital question is unforgiveable.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I don't see the equivalence. Both sides have behaved and spoken hypocritically about SC judges being replaced in the last year of a President's term. Which has exactly zero relevance to the democrats plot to press the nuclear button and add a load of progressive judges to the 9 existing judges. That Harris and Biden repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of whether they will destroy the supreme court's credibility by stacking it with a load of new judges is mind boggling to me. That the media do not force an answer from the pair of contenders on this vital question is unforgiveable.

Remind me - how's it going with trying to get an honest answer from Trump on any subject?