Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has 'no agenda' on Obamacare, abortion

[webfact]

Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has 'no agenda' on Obamacare, abortion

By Lawrence Hurley, Patricia Zengerle and Andrew Chung

 

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett speaks during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 13, 2020. Demetrius Freeman/Pool via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday she gave no commitments to the White House on how she would rule on Obamacare or election-related disputes and declined to tell senators whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided.

 

Barrett opted not to say whether she would step aside from taking part in a major Obamacare case to be argued on Nov. 10 or in any disputes arising from the Nov. 3 election - as Democrats have requested - as she answered questions for the first time on day two of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

 

The marathon questioning gave the conservative U.S. appellate judge a chance to respond to Democrats who oppose her because they fear she will cast a decisive vote in striking down the 2010 healthcare law formally called the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

 

"I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act," Barrett said. "I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law."

 

Trump has asked the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to confirm Barrett before Election Day. Trump has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election's outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

 

Barrett said no one at the White House sought a commitment from her on how she would rule on that or any issue.

 

"No one has elicited from me any commitment in a case or even brought up a commitment in a case. I am 100 percent committed to judicial independence from political pressure," Barrett said.

 

While Democrats were persistent in their questioning, the hearing retained a respectful tone and Barrett remained even-tempered while nimbly sidestepping questions on her views on abortion, LGBT rights, gun control and voting rights.

 

In the Obamacare case, Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law. Barrett said the case centers upon a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare that she has criticized.

 

 

The law, signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage. Democrats have blasted Trump for trying to kill Obamacare amid a deadly pandemic.

 

In declining to commit to stepping aside on politically charged cases in light of her nomination so near an election and comments made by Trump on the issues, Barrett said she would follow rules giving justices the final say on recusal amid questions about impartiality.

 

Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 Supreme Court majority. She is Trump's third Supreme Court appointment.

 

ABORTION RULING

Abortion rights advocates fear Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about the ruling, Barrett said she would consider the usual factors on whether to overturn a precedent.

 

"Judges can't just wake up one day and say, 'I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion,' and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world," Barrett said.

 

But Barrett indicated Roe v. Wade was not a "super-precedent" that could never potentially be overturned.

 

"I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates Roe does not fall in that category. Scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean it is not a case that everyone has accepted," Barrett said.

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, asked Barrett whether she agreed with her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

 

After Barrett sidestepped, Feinstein told her that "it's distressing not to get a straight answer."

 

Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, said she could set aside her religious beliefs in making judicial decisions.

 

"I do see as distinct my personal moral religious views, and my task of applying laws as a judge," Barrett said, adding that she expected that as a nominee her religious faith would be "caricatured."

 

Barrett also declined to say whether she agreed with Scalia that the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided.

 

"I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said.

 

Asked about George Floyd, a Black man killed by Minneapolis police in May in an incident that triggered widespread protests, Barrett called the issue "very, very personal for my family" because among her seven children, two - adopted from Haiti - are Black. Barrett said she and one of her daughters, Vivian, cried together after seeing the video.

 

Barrett said racism persists in America but declined to give her view on whether it is systemic or how it should be addressed.

 

Trump nominated Barrett to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote due by the end of October on Barrett's confirmation.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and Lawrence Hurley and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-14

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

Uhhhh yea I don’t think I belive her 

[polpott]

Easy to see why Trump likes her.....she's an accomplished liar.

[Lacessit]

To modify the comment of Mandy Rice-Davies: " Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?"

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Uhhhh yea I don’t think I belive her 

I disagree, I believe her, she seems sincere.

[animalmagic]

I presume it's merely a coincidence that she also worked on the Florida vote counting case during the Bush v Gore election 20 years ago?

[Chomper Higgot]

Republicans have enough seats in the Senate to appoint this religious zealot to the SC, there is nothing Democrats can do to prevent that.

 

She is a clear threat to the Affordable Care Act, Roe v Wade and LBGT rights.

 

The only thing that can prevent her appointment is Republican Senators deciding voting for her is a threat to their own chances of re-election.

 

The game isn’t yet over.

[Curt1591]

 

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, Curt1591 said:

 

Entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not she has an agenda on abortion and obamacare.

Her personal position on abortion is so extreme that she asserted that disposing of fertilized human eggs is murder. She has stated that John Roberts, the swing vote on Obamacare, decided wrongly. If she had been on the Supreme Court instead of Robert or Ginsburg, the ACA would now be defunct. 

[Walker88]

One wonders how this woman's clearly stated personal views on a host of issues that will come before her should she become a SCJ, or the memberships in organizations that have clearly stated views on a host of issues that will come before her, 'will not impact her decision-making on the SC', but we have been told ad nauseum for 4 years how the views of Peter Strzuk or Lisa Page must impact their professional behavior in the FBI.

 

What makes this more befuddling is that Page and Strzuk were part of a massive team of folks working on the Russia investigation, and thus their influence would be ameliorated by the other hundred or so team members, but ACB will be only one of 9 judges whose decisions can impact every single American for decades.

[polpott]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Republicans have enough seats in the Senate to appoint this religious zealot to the SC, there is nothing Democrats can do to prevent that.

 

She is a clear threat to the Affordable Care Act, Roe v Wade and LBGT rights.

 

The only thing that can prevent her appointment is Republican Senators deciding voting for her is a threat to their own chances of re-election.

 

The game isn’t yet over.

She and the other 5 Republican judges pose a much bigger threat when Trump appeals against the result of the election. He's been working towards this end for months. The real reason he wants her in place before the election.

 

You must remember that Trump always thinks about himself first. Losing the election will be a disaster for him on a personal level. I guess he's not looking forward to living in Sing Sing.

[thaibeachlovers]

I watched a couple of hours of the committee hearings. She is cool, calm, knowledgeable and unflappable, IMO. She dealt with the attacks on her about Roe vs Wade, and the ACA very well. Quite rightly she refused to answer questions that tried to make her say how she'd vote on a theoretical case.

An impressive person that would make an excellent justice IMO.

 

One of the Democrats on the committee spent almost her entire time talking and allowed Barrett very little time to answer. Not an impressive use of her time IMO.

 

The entire uproar from the Dems seems to be about abortion and the ACA, but she will not be the only justice and in any event the SCOTUS isn't just about abortion and health care.

[Credo]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I watched a couple of hours of the committee hearings. She is cool, calm, knowledgeable and unflappable, IMO. She dealt with the attacks on her about Roe vs Wade, and the ACA very well. Quite rightly she refused to answer questions that tried to make her say how she'd vote on a theoretical case.

An impressive person that would make an excellent justice IMO.

 

One of the Democrats on the committee spent almost her entire time talking and allowed Barrett very little time to answer. Not an impressive use of her time IMO.

 

The entire uproar from the Dems seems to be about abortion and the ACA, but she will not be the only justice and in any event the SCOTUS isn't just about abortion and health care.

She may look calm and cool, but she does not appear to know her stuff and might need to brush up on the Constitution.   When she was asked about voter intimidation, she didn't know the law and had to be told.   She didn't know if it was illegal or not.   That's not a good sign.   She also didn't know that the President can't change the date of elections and that's clearly laid out in Article II of the Constitution -- the authority lies with congress.   

She was chosen for specific reasons and that is never a good way to chose a SC justice.   

 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Republicans have enough seats in the Senate to appoint this religious zealot to the SC, there is nothing Democrats can do to prevent that.

 

She is a clear threat to the Affordable Care Act, Roe v Wade and LBGT rights.

 

The only thing that can prevent her appointment is Republican Senators deciding voting for her is a threat to their own chances of re-election.

 

The game isn’t yet over.

 

Please define what in your opinion constitutes "a religious zealot" and then provide the proof you have which leads you to believe Judge Barrett is one. 

 

It seems you base your views on political considerations.

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Please define what in your opinion constitutes "a religious zealot" and then provide the proof you have which leads you to believe Judge Barrett is one. 

 

It seems you base your views on political considerations.

I would consider someone who wants to remove another woman's right to have control over her own body on the grounds of their personal religious beliefs, a religious zealot. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, don't try to impose them on others.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

One wonders how this woman's clearly stated personal views on a host of issues that will come before her should she become a SCJ, or the memberships in organizations that have clearly stated views on a host of issues that will come before her, 'will not impact her decision-making on the SC', but we have been told ad nauseum for 4 years how the views of Peter Strzuk or Lisa Page must impact their professional behavior in the FBI.

 

What makes this more befuddling is that Page and Strzuk were part of a massive team of folks working on the Russia investigation, and thus their influence would be ameliorated by the other hundred or so team members, but ACB will be only one of 9 judges whose decisions can impact every single American for decades.

 

The 2 FBI agents sent rather inappropriate communications which declared their agenda. In following their declared agenda, they very clearly acted in ways to support their agenda.

 

Now, please show us, from her previous judicial rulings, where Judge Barrett has similarly acted, if you can?

 

If you can't then your statement is politically motivated conjecture rather than based on any facts. 

[Proboscis]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I watched a couple of hours of the committee hearings. She is cool, calm, knowledgeable and unflappable, IMO. She dealt with the attacks on her about Roe vs Wade, and the ACA very well. Quite rightly she refused to answer questions that tried to make her say how she'd vote on a theoretical case.

An impressive person that would make an excellent justice IMO.

 

One of the Democrats on the committee spent almost her entire time talking and allowed Barrett very little time to answer. Not an impressive use of her time IMO.

 

The entire uproar from the Dems seems to be about abortion and the ACA, but she will not be the only justice and in any event the SCOTUS isn't just about abortion and health care.

Assuming that you are not a Troll, it is an absolute given that any person put up for the supreme court of the USA has to be qualified. To be qualified, they have to be highly experienced and highly intelligent and, to use your word, impressive. Otherwise they would not have reached even the previous levels in the judiciary.

 

And yes, I would agree that she is probably, by her own standards, a good person. She has adopted two black children and understands the issues about race well. But here is a problem that many feminists do not really grasp, which is that middle-class women with good access to health care and good education do not need as much access to abortion as poor, uneducated and underpriveleged women. Middle-class women will have better access to the "morning-after" pill (which this Supreme Court candidate is also against) and reliable contraception. Middle class women will have more stable home lives, will be able to live independently etc, all of which plays into their choices when having sex.

 

While the candidate for the Supreme Court is correct when she says that Congress legislates and that the Court does not make law, the truth is that the Court can and does find laws that were passed by Congress as unconstitutional and are thrown out. Often this is because of a part of the law, not because of the intent of the law. And in this way, we end up with the court changing the legal landscape. If you don't believe it, tell it to all those people who will no longer have medical insurance when the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. They will know

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Assuming that you are not a Troll, it is an absolute given that any person put up for the supreme court of the USA has to be qualified. To be qualified, they have to be highly experienced and highly intelligent and, to use your word, impressive. Otherwise they would not have reached even the previous levels in the judiciary.

 

And yes, I would agree that she is probably, by her own standards, a good person. She has adopted two black children and understands the issues about race well. But here is a problem that many feminists do not really grasp, which is that middle-class women with good access to health care and good education do not need as much access to abortion as poor, uneducated and underpriveleged women. Middle-class women will have better access to the "morning-after" pill (which this Supreme Court candidate is also against) and reliable contraception. Middle class women will have more stable home lives, will be able to live independently etc, all of which plays into their choices when having sex.

 

While the candidate for the Supreme Court is correct when she says that Congress legislates and that the Court does not make law, the truth is that the Court can and does find laws that were passed by Congress as unconstitutional and are thrown out. Often this is because of a part of the law, not because of the intent of the law. And in this way, we end up with the court changing the legal landscape. If you don't believe it, tell it to all those people who will no longer have medical insurance when the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. They will know

Till AI replaces humans on the SCOTUS, the same complaints of bias can be made against every judge nominated for it.

As long as the senate confirms justices the same situation exists. If the Dems were the majority, the GOP would complain about the nominated person.

Fact is the senate is majority GOP and they will confirm someone that is of the sort they want. The Dems would do the same, so no point complaining about it.

As long as there is a possibility that Trump will lose, or the senate will become Dem majority it would be strange if the GOP did not take the opportunity to elect a conservative justice before the election.

 

While the candidate for the Supreme Court is correct when she says that Congress legislates and that the Court does not make law, the truth is that the Court can and does find laws that were passed by Congress as unconstitutional and are thrown out. Often this is because of a part of the law, not because of the intent of the law. And in this way, we end up with the court changing the legal landscape.

Exactly, and that is what the GOP hope will happen, IMO. If the situation were reversed the Dems would have the same hope, IMO.

 

Assuming that you are not a Troll

One could say the same of you.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Srikcir]

Amy doesn't need an agenda.

She has her biases memorized.

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, polpott said:

I would consider someone who wants to remove another woman's right to have control over her own body on the grounds of their personal religious beliefs, a religious zealot. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, don't try to impose them on others.

But that’s the problem with all religious zealots: they demand respect from others because of their religion, but in turn they have absolutely no respect for anyone who thinks differently, they think it is their god-given duty to impose their beliefs on all those heathens. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by rudi49jr

[polpott]

54 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Amy doesn't need an agenda.

She has her biases memorized.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic. Trust me, they have been ingrained in her since birth.

[Lacessit]

I wonder how she feels about the fact the man who is trying to appoint her has been treated with a compound made from aborted fetuses to cure his coronavirus. And what she would do, if offered the same material to save her life.

[Curt1591]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

If she had been on the Supreme Court instead of Robert or Ginsburg, the ACA would now be defunct. 

Your point?

[candide]

Wow! Cruz really grilled her!  ????????????????

I was wondering if he would ask her whether she prefers dogs or cats!

Edited October 14, 2020 by candide

[riclag]

44 minutes ago, polpott said:

I was raised as a Roman Catholic. Trust me, they have been ingrained in her since birth.

I was too  

The  Kennedy's were  Roman Catholic as well!  Some don't always follow the stigma that they follow all the teachings religiously! Many have flexible beliefs! 

madonna,rosie odonel,mia farrow,jimmy fallon, nicole kidman,mel gibson!

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas are all Catholic

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by riclag

[Lacessit]

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

I was too  

The  Kennedy's were  Roman Catholic as well!  Some don't always follow the stigma that they follow all the teachings religiously! Many have flexible beliefs! 

madonna,rosie odonel,mia farrow,jimmy fallon, nicole kidman,mel gibson!

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas are all Catholic

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps America would function better if it had fewer bible-bashers.

[J Town]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

I disagree, I believe her, she seems sincere.

She is sincerely giving non-answers and "I don't recalls" as if she had an audience of one.

[J Town]

6 hours ago, Credo said:

She may look calm and cool, but she does not appear to know her stuff and might need to brush up on the Constitution.   When she was asked about voter intimidation, she didn't know the law and had to be told.   She didn't know if it was illegal or not.

That was a litmus test probe to see if she had ANY understanding of basic law and current affairs. She failed miserably at both.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The 2 FBI agents sent rather inappropriate communications which declared their agenda. In following their declared agenda, they very clearly acted in ways to support their agenda.

 

Now, please show us, from her previous judicial rulings, where Judge Barrett has similarly acted, if you can?

 

If you can't then your statement is politically motivated conjecture rather than based on any facts. 

She has already stated Roberts decision on roe v wade was wrong and signed on to an anti abortion memo.

 

Of course she will say anything now so she gets the lifetime gong. Then just act on her extreme religious views. Shes not a normal catholic, she is extreme. 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Please define what in your opinion constitutes "a religious zealot" and then provide the proof you have which leads you to believe Judge Barrett is one. 

 

It seems you base your views on political considerations.

Someone who expresses the view that their own personal religious beliefs should be imposed on others and/or seeks to impose their own personal religious beliefs on others.

 

Very specifically, someone who has expressed a view that their own personal religious beliefs should determine the choices others are permitted to make, or who, on the basis of their own religious beliefs, seeks to control the choices others make.

 

That’s my definition of a religious zealot and Judge Barrett fits it like a glove.

... 

 

I see no basis for your assertion that I base these views on ‘political consideration’, unless of course you are referring to my firm belief in the separation of church and the state.