Senate panel sets October 22 vote on Trump court pick despite Democrats' protests

By Andrew Chung, Patricia Zengerle and Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: Judge Amy Coney Barrett responds to a question from Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) during the third day of her Senate confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, U.S., October 14, 2020. Michael Reynolds/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday scheduled an Oct. 22 vote to advance conservative appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court to the full Senate, moving ahead with the confirmation process over Democratic objections.

 

The fourth and final day of the confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump's nominee wrapped up in the early afternoon after committee Democrats protested what they called the needlessly rushed nature of proceedings and complaining that Barrett sidestepped questions about presidential powers, abortion, climate change, voting rights and Obamacare.

 

"I believe that this rushed, sham process is a disservice to our committee," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. "She has been rushed in a way that is historically unprecedented ... and the purpose of doing it is simply to have a justice on the Supreme Court, as the president said, to decide the election and to strike down the Affordable Care Act."

 

The Republican president has asked the Senate to confirm Barrett before the Nov. 3 U.S. election in which he is seeking a second term in office. Trump has said he expects the court to decide the election's outcome.

 

The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday scheduled an Oct. 22 vote to advance conservative appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court to the full Senate for confirmation, rejecting Democratic objections. This report produced by Yahaira Jacquez.

 

Republicans are aiming for a confirmation vote on the Senate floor by the end of October.

 

With Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority, her confirmation seems assured. Barrett's confirmation would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority. Barrett, 48, could serve for decades, alongside Trump's two other Supreme Court selections, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

 

"There is no way you will ever convince me that Amy Coney Barrett is not qualified, using any reasonable standards of qualification," Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the committee chairman, said.

 

Barrett answered questions from senators during marathon sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday. The hearing concluded on Thursday with outside witnesses who testified in support and against Barrett's nomination. Barrett was not present.

 

The committee heard from two representatives from the American Bar Association, a national nonpartisan lawyers' group that deemed her "well qualified" after an evaluation of her "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."

 

Democratic senators again raised a number of misgivings about Barrett's potential votes on the Supreme Court on matters ranging from gun control to criminal justice matters, and expressed concern that she avoided answering many critical questions, including whether a president can delay an election and queries related to transitions of power.

 

"What was the purpose of this hearing if we've reached the point now where we really don't know what she thinks about any issues?" Democratic Senator Dick Durbin asked.

 

"I would be afraid to ask her about the presence of gravity on Earth. She may decline to answer because it may come up in a case - you know, it could come before the court some day," Durbin added.

 

Democrats were upset that Senate Republicans proceeded with the confirmation process for Trump's nominee so close to an election after refusing to act on Democratic President Barack Obama's 2016 Supreme Court nominee because it was an election year.

 

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar said that Americans want the winner of the election to decide who fills the court's vacancy created by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Klobuchar said the Senate should act on coronavirus pandemic relief instead of Barrett's confirmation.

 

Despite some tense moments, the hearing was conducted largely with a congenial tone. It stood in contrast to the contentious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in 2018 in which he angrily denied sexual assault allegations.

 

At the end, Graham told the Democratic senators, "You have challenged the judge, you have challenged us, and I accept those challenges as being sincere and not personal. I don't think anybody crossed the line with the judge in terms of trying to demean her as a person."

 

The committee's top Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein, praised Graham for the manner in which he conducted the hearing.

 

If confirmed, Barrett could be on the Supreme Court in time to participate in a case on Nov. 10 in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the 2010 Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act.

 

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

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-16

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Going to be a sad day for the American people imo health care women’s rights workers rights a very sad day indeed but imo it will seal trump,McConnell,Nunes,and their ilks fates 

What a great choice President Trump has made!   I watched some of the confirmation hearing and she is as sharp as a tack!  ???? 

Yup the dirty politics of the USA continues.  What a circus, a big country with only 2 

political parties, and a Senate.  Wow must be so nice to only have 2 dinosaurs to

vote for and Senate control of one party or the other. Too bad that a 3rd political 

party did not exist to vote on with someone who is young enough to last for 2

terms.  Well maybe some day, but not in my life time.  Good Luck Joe.

Geezer

The US Constitution states whenever a seat opens on the Supreme Court, the President shall submit a qualified candidate to fill it.  The Senate then shall vote to approve or reject that selection. And when one political party controls the White House and the Senate—the process works.

Read 'em and weep.
Those who don't know how the system works see conspiracy and mischief.  Those who do know how the system works but don't want a conservative on the bench tell their supporter that this is all conspiracy and mischief. 

What is it in reality?  It's Constitutional procedure. Nothing else.

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by CALSinCM

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump has said he expects the court to decide the election's outcome.

 

That is obviously part of Trumps ' Plan B ' in case he loses the election ....

Excellent news. Hopefully it goes well and Trump's legacy of a conservative SCOTUS will be realised.

It's probably the most important thing he did during his first term.

2 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

The US Constitution states whenever a seat opens on the Supreme Court, the President shall submit a qualified candidate to fill it.  The Senate then shall vote to approve or reject that selection.

 

Except when the same Republic majority in the Senate, under McConnell, refuses to bring President Obama's Supreme Court nominee to a Senate vote, claiming the decision should wait until after the presidential election coming later that year.

 

More than just a wee bit hypocritical, then vs. now, by the time the Senate vote, maybe just a week before the presidential election....  But then, that's what we've come to expect from them.

 

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Excellent news. Hopefully it goes well and Trump's legacy of a conservative SCOTUS will be realised.

It's probably the most important thing he did during his first term.

He hasn’t done it yet, but if he does it will probably be the most consequential thing he’s done.

2 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

The US Constitution states whenever a seat opens on the Supreme Court, the President shall submit a qualified candidate to fill it.  The Senate then shall vote to approve or reject that selection. And when one political party controls the White House and the Senate—the process works.

“the President shall submit a qualified candidate to fill it.”

 

The President’s candidate wasn’t able to list the five freedoms protected under the First Amendment, her ‘qualification’ is suspect.

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

five freedoms protected under the First Amendment

The five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assembly and the right to petition the government.

 

If you were able to name all of them on your own, you deserve an extra hot dog and ice cream

Crazy doing this while the election is underway.

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Crazy doing this while the election is underway.

Would you expect less of America and the freedoms the constitution provides.  4 years is 4 years, just because someone say's ok let the next president pick the nominee, it does mean it is considered status quo.  One side wants there cake, the other wants the cake and they want to eat it too, so who is right. You can not have it both ways, and then those that do not get it their way complain.  Is she qualified, hell yes she is qualified, is she a puppet, no she is not.  Was Kavanaugh abused and treated as a puppet, yes he was.  Has he turned out to be a puppet, no he has not. 

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by ThailandRyan

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

The five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assembly and the right to petition the government.

 

If you were able to name all of them on your own, you deserve an extra hot dog and ice cream

My post was not invite to you to google the five freedoms protected under the First Amendment, it is an observation that a candidate for a seat on the SC where her only job is to consider the application of the Constitution to cases brought before the court is herself ignorant of the freedoms the Constitution protects.

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My post was not invite to you to google the five freedoms protected under the First Amendment, it is an observation that a candidate for a seat on the SC where her only job is to consider the application of the Constitution to cases brought before the court is herself ignorant of the freedoms the Constitution protects.

And my post was in jest and sarcastic.

For once the Senate hearing was fair and the Nominee was treated with the respect that she deserved. She didn't have to make notes at all because she was an honest and straightforward woman. 

6 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

The US Constitution states whenever a seat opens on the Supreme Court, the President shall submit a qualified candidate to fill it.  The Senate then shall vote to approve or reject that selection. And when one political party controls the White House and the Senate—the process works.

It doesn't state that it's mandatory he or she do so.

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by placeholder

The US Constitution states whenever a seat opens on the Supreme Court, the President shall submit a qualified candidate to fill it.  

 

It says he Shall not should, not may, but SHALL. 

 

No ambiguity there at all.

 

Actual verbiage cut from Article 2 of the US constitution 

 

The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,

 

For those who want Biden's take on it. Back in 2016 he said the following:

 

https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/verify/verify-yes-back-in-2016-joe-biden-did-say-a-president-should-fill-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-an-election-year/65-acdd935d-b26b-42d8-832e-2867963d0eae

 

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by ThailandRyan

Elections have consequences. Blue wave will make America better

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My post was not invite to you to google the five freedoms protected under the First Amendment, it is an observation that a candidate for a seat on the SC where her only job is to consider the application of the Constitution to cases brought before the court is herself ignorant of the freedoms the Constitution protects.

 

Apparently, Trump's latest Supreme Court pick isn't so big on "freedoms"...

 

--freedom to vote, not so much

--freedom of women to control their own bodies, probably not at all.

--freedom to not have a radical right-wing Supreme Court totally out of touch with the majority of the American public, certainly not at all...

 

On 10/16/2020 at 10:19 PM, JusticeGB said:

For once the Senate hearing was fair and the Nominee was treated with the respect that she deserved. She didn't have to make notes at all because she was an honest and straightforward woman. 

She is, IMO, going to make an excellent justice on SCOTUS. Well done Trump for nominating her.