U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court pick Barrett in nearly party-line vote

[webfact]

U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court pick Barrett in nearly party-line vote

By Steve Holland and Lawrence Hurley

 

The tally is shown as the U.S. Senate votes on the confirmation of President Donald Trump's nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S, October 26, 2020. U.S. Senate TV/Handout via REUTERS.

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate handed President Donald Trump a major pre-election political victory on Monday by confirming his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, with the White House planning a celebratory event afterward.

 

The Senate voted 52-48, with Democrats unified in opposing Barrett's confirmation, which creates a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court. One Republican, Susan Collins, voted against the confirmation.

 

The ceremony planned at the White House comes a month after a similar event was linked to a COVID-19 outbreak that preceded Trump's own infection. Barrett will succeed liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month.

 

At the ceremony, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will administer one of the two oaths of office that justices have to take, according to a White House official.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the separate judicial oath at the court on Tuesday, the court said in a statement.

 

Trump pressed the Senate to confirm Barrett, 48, to the lifetime post before the Nov. 3 election, which would create a 6-3 conservative majority on the top U.S. judicial body.

 

Senate Minority Chuck Schumer said the Republican majority was "lighting its credibility on fire" by proceeding with the vote so close to the election after blocking Democratic President Barack Obama's election-year nominee in 2016.

 

"The truth is this nomination is part of a decades-long effort to tilt the judiciary to the far right," he added.

 

Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended Barrett's nomination.

 

"We don't have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be confirming," McConnell said. "You can't win them all, and elections have consequences."

 

No nominee to the Supreme Court had ever been confirmed by the Senate this close to a presidential election. Trump has been touting the appointment at campaign rallies to the cheers of his supporters.

 

Trump has said he expects the court to decide the outcome of the election between him and Democrat Joe Biden and wants Barrett to participate on any election-related cases that go before the justices.

 

Barrett, a federal appeals court judge, is Trump's third selection for the court, enabling him to remake it in dramatic fashion as part of his success in moving the broader federal judiciary to the right since taking office in 2017.

 

OBAMACARE CASE

Barrett is expected to participate in arguments on Nov. 10 in a case in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act. The 2010 healthcare law, also known as Obamacare, has helped millions of Americans obtain medical insurance and barred private insurers from denying medical coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

 

Barrett has criticized previous rulings upholding Obamacare but said during her confirmation hearing she had no agenda to invalidate the measure.

 

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, Barrett, a favorite of Christian conservatives, irked Democrats by sidestepping questions on abortion, presidential powers, climate change, voting rights, Obamacare and other issues.

 

The Sept. 26 Rose Garden ceremony at which Trump named Barrett as his nominee preceded a wave of COVID-19 cases among top Republicans including Trump and first lady Melania Trump. The president spent three nights hospitalized receiving COVID-19 treatment.

 

The event, part of which occurred in the White House Rose Garden, was crowded with guests, many of whom did not wear masks.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told reporters that Monday's event likely would be held outdoors.

 

"Tonight, we'll be doing the best we can to encourage as much social distancing as possible," Meadows said.

 

Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican and Trump ally, said he was not overly concerned about attending the White House event.

"I would anticipate that everybody will practice good hygiene, social distancing, whatever is appropriate," Cramer told reporters.

 

Several other Republican senators said they were not sure they would attend, and McConnell did not reply when asked by a reporter. Earlier this month, McConnell said he had not been at the White House since August because of its handling of COVID-19 precautions.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland and Richard Cowan; Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Andrea Shalal, Lawrence Hurley, Sarah N. Lynch and Susan Heavey; Editing by Scott Malone and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-27

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[TopDeadSenter]

Another fantastic achievement by President Trump. This saga illustrates the danger of ego. Had RBG been thinking clearly she could have resigned under Obama's reign and had some progressive judge voted in, but no...

[Chomper Higgot]

Appointing a religious zealot to the SC will have consequences for every American, none good.

[ThailandRyan]

And for those who think she is a Zealot, well then I feel sorry for you but then you are allowed your view, it is what makes it a free country.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-confirms-barrett-to-supreme-court-cementing-its-conservative-majority/ar-BB1apNhG?ocid=msedgdhp

[Pattaya Spotter]

The Democrat Party started the "judicial wars" 30 years ago by not seating Robert Bork on the Supreme Court...the Republican Party ended them by seating Amy Barrett. The moral: Don't start something you can't finish.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[Tug]

6 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

And for those who think she is a Zealot, well then I feel sorry for you but then you are allowed your view, it is what makes it a free country.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-confirms-barrett-to-supreme-court-cementing-its-conservative-majority/ar-BB1apNhG?ocid=msedgdhp

Not anymore that sir imo was a blow to freedom in America another dark day it also imo is another nail in the Republican Party’s coffin the lady’s aren’t going to take kindly to having their rights to chose beeing ripped away losing healthcare not going to go over well the working folk aren’t going to appreciate getting their rights on collective bargaining getting ripped away no sir it’s not about freedom it’s about repression 

[OneMoreFarang]

Good that that is done. Now some people who normally vote for the GOP have one reason less to vote. That means relativly more votes for the DEMs. Good.

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, Tug said:

Not anymore that sir imo was a blow to freedom in America another dark day it also imo is another nail in the Republican Party’s coffin the lady’s aren’t going to take kindly to having their rights to chose beeing ripped away losing healthcare not going to go over well the working folk aren’t going to appreciate getting their rights on collective bargaining getting ripped away no sir it’s not about freedom it’s about repression 

I see you have already made the forgone conclusion that she alone will make laws on the books disappear and take away rights and freedoms.  Why do people believe that one person alone can make things happen.  Even with a conservative majority it does not mean that laws and statutes that people believe will be changed will occur.  That in itself is just more scaremongering, and is what the Dems are pushing as an agenda and creating more hatred.  Until the day the arguments come before the High Court we will never know.  Sort of like all those that believed Kavanaugh would vote one way, but then he did not.

[Tug]

3 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

I see you have already made the forgone conclusion that she alone will make laws on the books disappear and take away rights and freedoms.  Why do people believe that one person alone can make things happen.  Even with a conservative majority it does not mean that laws and statutes that people believe will be changed will occur.  That in itself is just more scaremongering, and is what the Dems are pushing as an agenda and creating more hatred.  Until the day the arguments come before the High Court we will never know.  Sort of like all those that believed Kavanaugh would vote one way, but then he did not.

No she alone doesent but she helps there a lot at stake this isent helping freedoms quite the opposite imo but on the bright side it hurts trump in the eyes of the people 

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, webfact said:

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate handed President Donald Trump a major pre-election political victory on Monday by confirming his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, with the White House planning a celebratory event afterward.

 

A major victory at any time. Well done Trump for nominating this excellent candidate for SCOTUS. Win or lose the election, Trump has secured his legacy.

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Another fantastic achievement by President Trump. This saga illustrates the danger of ego. Had RBG been thinking clearly she could have resigned under Obama's reign and had some progressive judge voted in, but no...

IMO she thought that Hillary was going to win. Happily she was wrong.

[Curt1591]

43 minutes ago, webfact said:

U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court pick Barrett in nearly party-line vote

 

 

52 to 48 = "nearly" ?  Definitely a Reuters article. 

[ThailandRyan]

4 minutes ago, Curt1591 said:

 

 

52 to 48 = "nearly" ?  Definitely a Reuters article. 

The article should have said "a Senate majority of 51% is all that's needed", so Reuters indicated there view as being nearly.  All republican votes and no democratic votes.  It is what occurs when one side has a majority and all are in agreement on that side.  CAPHICE

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by ThailandRyan

[Kelsall]

Just watched a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice while the so called "party of diversity" wailed at the moon in anger.

 

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Vote Republican.

 

 

[ThailandRyan]

3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Just watched a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice while the so called "party of diversity" wailed at the moon in anger.

 

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Vote Republican.

 

 

The gnashing of teeth has begun.

[bendejo]

Thomas: now is time to vote on this case

Barrett:  but I haven't read the brief yet

Thomas: just vote 'no' and shut up

 

 

[Curt1591]

1 minute ago, ThailandRyan said:

a Senate majority of 51% is all that's needed.  All republican votes and no democratic votes.  It is what occurs when one side has a majority and all are in agreement on that side.  CAPHICE

 

All republicans voted for. All democrats voted against. That is 100%  party line
 

CAPISCE?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Curt1591 said:

All republicans voted for. All democrats voted against. That is 100%  party line
 

CAPISCE?

From the OP

 

One Republican, Susan Collins, voted against the confirmation.

 

Capisce?

[cmarshall]

It is now much more likely that the Dems will pack the Court, probably with four more justices.  However, the much-needed reforms of the Court need not stop there.  According to the Exceptions Clause the Congress can make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Court and can regulate it.  So, Congress could pass a law making abortion legal in all 50 states with the explicit proviso that cases brought against this law are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  

 

But my preferred solution goes further.  The Congress can create a new Supreme Appellate Court of the United States and pursuant to the same Exceptions Clause transfer most or all of the current appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by item as exceptions to the new Supreme Appellate Court leaving the Supreme Court with its original jurisdiction over cases between the states and with foreign governments.

The Congress could constitute the SAC with say, twenty-five justices each serving a staggered term of seven years.  Once the filibuster is dispensed with such a law could be passed by simple majorities in both Houses and signed by President Biden.  No amendment to the Constitution would be necessary.  

 

This proposal would address the two major defects in the current Supreme Court: life-time tenure, which is in the Constitution, and judicial review, which is not.  Any other remedy, such as packing, would fail to make the necessary reforms.

[NumbNut]

44 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Democrat Party started the "judicial wars" 30 years ago by not seating Robert Bork on the Supreme Court...the Republican Party ended them by seating Amy Barrett. The moral: Don't start something you can't finish.

Famous last words...

[rabas]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Appointing a religious zealot to the SC will have consequences for every American, none good.

She now joins the other 8 zealot justices. The court now has 6 catholic judges, a seventh who was raised catholic and became an Episcopalian Christian, and two Jews. All exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion, while guaranteeing your rights to not practice religion, if you so choose.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by rabas

[ThailandRyan]

19 minutes ago, Curt1591 said:

All republicans voted for. All democrats voted against. That is 100%  party line
 

CAPISCE?

I guess you believe I did not insinuate the vote was along party lines in my post. You need to look a little harder

[Psimbo]

Right wing religious zealot appointed- Trumpetts  on here almost cream their jeans. Set your watches back 50 years folks.

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, rabas said:

She now joins the other 8 zealot justices. The court now has 6 catholic judges, a seventh who was raised catholic and became an Episcopalian Christian, and two Jews. All exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion, while guaranteeing your rights to not practice religion, if you so choose.

 

Only one is a member of a cult.

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

Just watched a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice while the so called "party of diversity" wailed at the moon in anger.

According to Joe Biden, he's not black (because likely not voting for him) so just another white racist justice swearing in another.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[JusticeGB]

Separation of Powers when the Senate votes in Judges? What a joke!

[Pattaya Spotter]

49 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

It is now much more likely that the Dems will pack the Court, probably with four more justices.  However, the much-needed reforms of the Court need not stop there.  According to the Exceptions Clause the Congress can make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Court and can regulate it.  So, Congress could pass a law making abortion legal in all 50 states with the explicit proviso that cases brought against this law are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  

 

But my preferred solution goes further.  The Congress can create a new Supreme Appellate Court of the United States and pursuant to the same Exceptions Clause transfer most or all of the current appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by item as exceptions to the new Supreme Appellate Court leaving the Supreme Court with its original jurisdiction over cases between the states and with foreign governments.

The Congress could constitute the SAC with say, twenty-five justices each serving a staggered term of seven years.  Once the filibuster is dispensed with such a law could be passed by simple majorities in both Houses and signed by President Biden.  No amendment to the Constitution would be necessary.  

 

This proposal would address the two major defects in the current Supreme Court: life-time tenure, which is in the Constitution, and judicial review, which is not.  Any other remedy, such as packing, would fail to make the necessary reforms.

The Constitution states the judicial power of the federal government shall be invested in a supreme court, and any inferior courts, that Congress may establish. There is no authority to establish an "appellate Supreme Court," which I presume you to mean a court superior to the Supreme Court. A Constitutional amendment would be required. Increasing or decreasing the number of justices and/or limiting the court's jurisdiction could by done by Congress, however.

 

Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (U.S. Constitution) 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[Pattaya Spotter]

10 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

Separation of Powers when the Senate votes in Judges? What a joke!

SOP refers to Congress and the Presidency...not really the Supreme Court, as its members are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. So the court is really a creature, by necessity, of the other two branches. The justices can also be removed by Congress, so again not completely independent, whereas the justices cannot on their own remove a member of Congress or the president. It's also the only branch of the federal government which doesn't derive its power from the people.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Constitution states the judicial power of the federal government shall be invested in a supreme court, and any inferior courts, that Congress may establish. There is no authority to establish an "appellate Supreme Court," which I presume you to mean a court superior to the Supreme Court. A Constitutional amendment would be required. Increasing or decreasing the number of justices and/or limiting the court's jurisdiction could by done by Congress, however.

 

Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (U.S. Constitution) 

You misread the Constitution.  The proposed Supreme Appellate Court would be above the various district courts of appeals as just another layer of appeals courts the creation of which is left entirely to the Congress under the Constitution.  The new SAC would not be superior to the current Supreme Court since it would not have jusrisdiction over any cases to which the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction.  It would be superior to the district and appellate courts.  It could equally be called the Superior Appellate Court of the United States to avoid confusion.

 

The key provision is that the Exceptions Clause allows the Congress to strip away appellate jurisdictions that the Supreme Court now holds.  The Exceptions Clause of the US Consitution, Art. III, § 2, Cl 2, provides, “…the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make..."   So, the Congress can itemize the exceptions, i.e. the appellate jurisdictions no longer held by the SC, e.g. Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction over cases involving civil rights, interstate commerce, maritime law, reproductive rights, etc.  

 

The other important point is that Congress can at the same time deprive the Court of the power to overturn any law passed by the democratically-elected Congress, a power that does not exist in the Constitution and which John Marshall created out of whole cloth in 1803.