Trump rejoices as Senate panel approves Barrett while Democrats boycott

[webfact]

Trump rejoices as Senate panel approves Barrett while Democrats boycott

By Richard Cowan

 

U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) speaks with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 22, 2020. REUTERS/Hannah McKay/Pool

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved President Donald Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to a lifetime Supreme Court seat despite a Democratic boycott, clearing the way for a final Senate confirmation vote planned for Monday.

 

By a 12-0 vote, the panel approved Barrett with all Republican members voting yes and the 10 committee Democrats boycotting the meeting after calling the confirmation process a sham. With Trump's fellow Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority, Barrett's confirmation appears certain.

 

Trump, who asked the Senate to confirm Barrett before the Nov. 3 U.S. election in which he is being challenged by Democrat Joe Biden, applauded the committee vote, writing on Twitter: "Big day for America!"

 

Barrett, 48, has been a federal appeals court judge since 2017 and previously was a legal scholar the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. Her confirmation would give the top U.S. judicial body a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices named by Trump.

 

"The Senate majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan and the least legitimate process in the long history of Supreme Court nominations," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told reporters after the vote.

 

The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved President Donald Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to a lifetime Supreme Court seat despite a Democratic boycott, clearing the way for a final Senate confirmation vote planned for Monday. This video produced by Jonah Green.

 

 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said the Democratic boycott was "their choice."

 

"It will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee. We're not going to allow them to take over the committee," Graham said.

 

The empty seats for the Democratic committee members had posters placed upon them bearing photographs of people who they argue would be hurt if the Affordable Care Act healthcare law, also known as Obamacare, is struck down as Trump has sought in a case to be argued before the justices on Nov. 10.

 

Barrett, nominated on Sept. 26 to succeed the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has criticized previous rulings upholding Obamacare but said during her confirmation hearing she has no agenda to invalidate the measure.

 

Democrats were incensed that Senate Republicans moved forward with Barrett's confirmation process so near an election after refusing in 2016 to allow the chamber to act on a Supreme Court nomination by Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, because it was an election year.

 

Schumer called the Republican hurry to confirm Barrett "a naked power grab" through a "sham vote," arguing that Republicans broke the committee's own rules by approving the nomination without Democrats present.

 

No nominee to the Supreme Court has ever been confirmed by the Senate this close to a presidential election. More than 45 million ballots already have been cast. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has planned a confirmation vote on the Senate floor on Monday.

 

'LAW OF AMY'

Calling the committee vote "a groundbreaking historic moment," Graham said of Barrett: "The 'law of Amy' will not be applied to a case in controversy. It will be the law as written in the Constitution or by statute or whatever regulatory body she's going to review. She will take her job on without agenda."

 

A favorite of Christian conservatives, Barrett frustrated Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing last week by sidestepping questions on abortion, presidential powers, climate change, voting rights, Obamacare and other issues.

 

Trump has said he believes the Supreme Court will decide the election's outcome and has made clear he wants Barrett on the bench for any election-related cases.

 

Republicans are hoping Barrett's confirmation can give a boost to incumbent senators in the party facing tough re-election fights, including Graham in South Carolina and Judiciary Committee members Joni Ernst in Iowa and Thom Tillis in North Carolina.

 

Some on the left have floated the idea of expanding the number of justices - fixed by federal law at nine - if Biden wins to counter the court's rightward drift in light of the actions of Senate Republicans in 2016 and now. Republicans have decried the idea as "court-packing."

 

Biden told the CBS program "60 Minutes" that if elected he would create a bipartisan commission of constitutional scholars to examine reforms for the "out of whack" federal judiciary, saying there could be various alternatives to consider besides expanding the Supreme Court.

 

Graham said expanding the number of justices after presidential elections would mark "the end of the independence of the court."

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-23

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[thaibeachlovers]

Not just Trump rejoicing.

 

"The Senate majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan and the least legitimate process in the long history of Supreme Court nominations," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told reporters after the vote.

I saw a clip of him complaining. I really enjoyed his "outrage".

 

I saw some democrat on tv complaining that Barrett is going to influence the US for many years and I agree. However, I doubt we have the same opinion as to whether that will be good or bad though.

 

Roll on Monday, and her confirmation by the full ( or perhaps just the GOP senators ) senate.

Edited October 22, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Sujo]

Gives biden reason to expand the court.

[Chomper Higgot]

Acting in direct contradiction of the wishes of the majority of Americans in the days before an election is going to have vote consequences.

[Tug]

Another blow to freedom in America imo

[herfiehandbag]

Perhaps the Republican, despairing of retaining the Presidency and the Senate, are determined to salvage something from the wreckage by ensuring that they will control the court?

 

Mr Trump, driven as ever by his own concerns and interests,  may well wish to ensure a partisan bench should he carry out his often stated threat to dispute the result of the election to the court. Of course he may also have in mind the several cases against him which are waiting for him leaving the White House. 

 

And finally, were he a vindictive man (and we must if thorough consider such unworthy and unlikely thoughts) he may be rejoicing that if all else fails he will, despite being rejected, be able to ensure the striking down of his predecessor's landmark achievement - the flawed but better than nothing healthcare provision provided by "Obamacare".

 

That will teach the uppity so-and-so (I'm sure that he would actually use another word) for taking the mickey out of him over his birth certificate at that dinner all that time ago!

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Perhaps the Republican, despairing of retaining the Presidency and the Senate, are determined to salvage something from the wreckage by ensuring that they will control the court?

 

Mr Trump, driven as ever by his own concerns and interests,  may well wish to ensure a partisan bench should he carry out his often stated threat to dispute the result of the election to the court. Of course he may also have in mind the several cases against him which are waiting for him leaving the White House. 

 

And finally, were he a vindictive man (and we must if thorough consider such unworthy and unlikely thoughts) he may be rejoicing that if all else fails he will, despite being rejected, be able to ensure the striking down of his predecessor's landmark achievement - the flawed but better than nothing healthcare provision provided by "Obamacare".

 

That will teach the uppity so-and-so (I'm sure that he would actually use another word) for taking the mickey out of him over his birth certificate at that dinner all that time ago!

 

 

While I would have worded it differently, I could have written something along the same lines.

Of course the senate GOP are going to put someone allied to their philosophy in the SCOTUS given the opportunity. That's only to be expected in politics. As Mitch said on tv, if the shoe were on the other foot the Dems would do exactly the same thing.

[opalred]

why does trump want her appointment through quick/he wants to self pardon himself /which will end up in supreme court 

[Silurian]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Republicans are hoping Barrett's confirmation can give a boost to incumbent senators in the party facing tough re-election fights, including Graham in South Carolina and Judiciary Committee members Joni Ernst in Iowa and Thom Tillis in North Carolina.

 

It is interesting to note that if Barrett gets confirmed to the Supreme Court before the election, this can actually sway some voters to either vote for Biden or not vote at all. I saw a video of one swing voter that stated that if Barrett gets confirmed, he will most likely vote for Biden as the Supreme Court pick has been settled and that is no longer a factor in his vote. I also believe that if Barrett gets the SCOTUS seat, a number of Donald leaning voters might just decide there is no longer a good enough reason to vote for him and just decide to no longer vote at all.

 

So if Republicans push to get Barrett seated, this can actually work in Biden's favor as the SCOTUS seat is no longer an issue for conservative voters who might decide to either not vote or vote for Biden. Not exactly what McConnell is hoping for but I assume McConnell would rather have the SCOTUS seat filled than either the presidency or Senate control.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Silurian

[Surelynot]

I'd like to say that both the Republicans and the Democrats are as bad as each other ......but they are not.....shame Bernie didn't get in, but with Kamala running the show for the next 8 years (and AOC as VP second term) things can only get better.

[wombat]

15 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

I'd like to say that both the Republicans and the Democrats are as bad as each other ......but they are not.....shame Bernie didn't get in, but with Kamala running the show for the next 8 years (and AOC as VP second term) things can only get better.

come the bottom line i think they are as bad as each other

[Boon Mee]

Good reason to rejoice Mr. Trump. ???? 

[Sujo]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Acting in direct contradiction of the wishes of the majority of Americans in the days before an election is going to have vote consequences.

the election is already underway. 40 million have already voted. Nov 3 is the end of the election.

[Baerboxer]

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

Gives biden reason to expand the court.

 

No it doesn't.

[Baerboxer]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Acting in direct contradiction of the wishes of the majority of Americans in the days before an election is going to have vote consequences.

 

Based on polls? Sure, no need to have elections, just have polls to make decisions. No wonder your country couldn't elect a government and had to run without one if others think like you! Just have a few polls 555!

 

But only implement them if the polls results fit your agenda of course! 

[Baerboxer]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

the election is already underway. 40 million have already voted. Nov 3 is the end of the election.

 

which is totally immaterial. As is the fact that Obama was denied because he didn't have control of the senate.

 

Boo hoo, so unfair, unless that unfairness favors the Democrats of course. Standard hypocrisy and grumbling when can't have their own way.

[rabas]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Acting in direct contradiction of the wishes of the majority of Americans in the days before an election is going to have vote consequences.

 

Latest ...    Poll: Majority says Senate should confirm Amy Coney Barrett

 

"51 percent, think the Senate should vote to confirm her nomination, far greater than the 28 percent who say the Senate should vote not to confirm her."

 

"just 24 percent of voters say Congress should pass a law increasing the number of justices."

 

Biden made it clear in the last debate that he would represent the will of the American people.

[Chomper Higgot]

54 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Based on polls? Sure, no need to have elections, just have polls to make decisions. No wonder your country couldn't elect a government and had to run without one if others think like you! Just have a few polls 555!

 

But only implement them if the polls results fit your agenda of course! 

Feel free to ignore the political reality that most Americans do not want the SC judge to be appointed before the next President takes office and on November 3 get an opportunity to express their opinion with their vote.

[riclag]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Biden told the CBS program "60 Minutes" that if elected he would create a bipartisan commission of constitutional scholars to examine reforms for the "out of whack" federal judiciary, saying there could be various alternatives to consider besides expanding the Supreme Court.

 

Whats out of wack is   elected officials putting cardboard cut outs of unelected people in their place!

And I thought ripping the state of the union address was egregious ! How radical this lot is. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by riclag

[riclag]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

 

Whats out of wack is   elected officials putting cardboard cut outs of unelected people in their place!

And I thought ripping up the state of the union address in front of millions ,was egregious ! How radical this lot of activist are. 

 

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

Whats out of wack is   elected officials putting cardboard cut outs of unelected people in their place!

And I thought ripping the state of the union address was egregious ! How radical this lot is. 

 

Ridiculous statement. Setting up a panel of subject matter experts to come up with recommendation/s is a valid way forward - arbitrary decision making is not the way to go on such a sensitive political issue. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by simple1

[TopDeadSenter]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Meanwhile, Presidents Putin and Xi must be laughing themselves sick.

Not exactly. There are obvious reasons Xi wants Biden to win. Putin also seems eager for Biden to win, not surprising to me seeing as Russian friends already told me how tough Trump has been on Russia(for which I was mocked and ridiculed here for). Well here is confirmation, nice to see Putin stating the obvious about how far left the American left has become too.

 

"Putin Says He Wants to Work With Biden, Claims 'Shared Values' Between Democrats and Communism"

https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-says-wants-work-joe-biden-claims-shared-values-between-democrats-communism-1537501

[Dave0206]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

which is totally immaterial. As is the fact that Obama was denied because he didn't have control of the senate.

 

Boo hoo, so unfair, unless that unfairness favors the Democrats of course. Standard hypocrisy and grumbling when can't have their own way.

So if the democrats get a clean sweep and decide to redress the balance by increasing the amount of judges which they are legally allowed to do.

there will be no boo boo from Republican Party ?

After all hypocrisy is so unbecoming don’t you think?

If there is a big swing might be a seismic shift as 2020 new lines can be drawn lasting 10 years changing whole government representation and as you and Mitch say if boot was on other foot only this time with any luck it will be a boot right up the republicans asse

[EVENKEEL]

3 hours ago, opalred said:

why does trump want her appointment through quick/he wants to self pardon himself /which will end up in supreme court 

Conspiracy much? 

[simple1]

37 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Not exactly. There are obvious reasons Xi wants Biden to win. Putin also seems eager for Biden to win, not surprising to me seeing as Russian friends already told me how tough Trump has been on Russia(for which I was mocked and ridiculed here for). Well here is confirmation, nice to see Putin stating the obvious about how far left the American left has become too.

 

"Putin Says He Wants to Work With Biden, Claims 'Shared Values' Between Democrats and Communism"

https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-says-wants-work-joe-biden-claims-shared-values-between-democrats-communism-1537501

Putin's comments comparing Dems to Communist ideology are a `propaganda piece, as is his comparing Communism to Christianity; a matter you are very likely aware of or should be.

Edited October 23, 2020 by simple1

[Paul Henry]

After January the Democrats have every right to increase the number of judges on the bench to put some equality back on the bench. Trump and the Republicans should take an adult approach to the appointments of judges on the bench. But no they want to politicise the judicial system and will call "foul" when the Democrats negate their efforts.

[wwest5829]

Had the Republican majority Senate voted on the nomination of Justice Merrick Garland in 2016, I could have no reason not to acknowledge the like vote on this nomination. BUT, the Republican Senate in 2016 refused to vote in 2016 because they said it was an election year. OK, then 2020 is an election year and no nomination vote ... blatant hypocrisy. The result? A further loss of belief in the US justice system and this citizen cannot have any conflict in a Democrat majority Senate rebalancing SCOTUS.

Edited October 23, 2020 by wwest5829

[Redline]

What goes around comes around~the country is getting more diverse and more progressive~the days of what remains of the Republican Party are numbered.  Many progressives are also moving into states that are typically conservative~this will change the dynamic of the electoral college.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

which is totally immaterial. As is the fact that Obama was denied because he didn't have control of the senate.

 

Boo hoo, so unfair, unless that unfairness favors the Democrats of course. Standard hypocrisy and grumbling when can't have their own way.

It was the Republicans who created the doctrine that a candidate for the supreme court shouldn't be nominated during the last year of a presidential term. So who are the hypocrites?

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not just Trump rejoicing.

 

"The Senate majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan and the least legitimate process in the long history of Supreme Court nominations," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told reporters after the vote.

I saw a clip of him complaining. I really enjoyed his "outrage".

 

I saw some democrat on tv complaining that Barrett is going to influence the US for many years and I agree. However, I doubt we have the same opinion as to whether that will be good or bad though.

 

Roll on Monday, and her confirmation by the full ( or perhaps just the GOP senators ) senate.

What particular issues have earned Justice Barrett your support?