The Semitic Judiciary Committee met Thursday as a race of Republicans to confirm the election of US President Donald Trump ahead of the November 3 election and voted Oct. 22 on Amy Connie Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination.
After three days of public testimony the session was without Barrett, in which she stressed that she would be her own judge and sought to create a distance between herself and past positions critical of abortion, the Affordable Care Act and other issues.
As some Senate Democrats have also agreed, her confirmation to take the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat is inevitable.
Senator Lindsay Graham decided on the panel’s October 22 vote on past Democratic objections, recommending her affidavit before final witnesses testify before and after her nomination.
Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar said the process of filling the seat should wait until the election winner is decided. .
“You have a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, in the middle of an epidemic, when the Senate is at a break, when voting in the presidential election has already begun in the majority states,” said Delaware’s Democrat Sen. Chris Coon.
But Republicans have objected that Trump is on the verge of becoming president to fill a court vacancy.
John Cornin, a Texas Republican, understands the frustration of the Democrats, but I think their loss is to the benefit of the American people.
In the minority, Democrats agreed that there was very little they could do to stop Republicans from locking up the conservative majority in court in the coming years. This change will cement the 6-3 traditional majority in court and will be the most obvious ideological change in 30 years, from the Liberal Icon to the Conservative Court of Appeal judge.
The 48-year-old judge, who faces nearly 20 hours of questions from senators, was careful not to take the president who nominated her and asked her to distinguish herself from writings on controversial topics when she was an educator. She bypassed past Democrats’ questions about confirming the date of next month’s election or preventing voter threats, as stipulated in federal law, and by peacefully transferring presidential power.
She also declined to comment on whether the president could pardon her.
To a question from Democrat Sen. Patrick Leehi of Vermont, she said, “I can not give an opinion.”
Democrats raise those questions because Trump did it himself.
Previous life pro lawyer
When it comes to major issues before the court, including abortion and health care, Barrett has repeatedly promised to keep an open mind and said that neither Trump nor anyone else in the White House has tried to influence her views.
“In one case no one received any commitment from me,” she said.
Nominees are generally opposed to giving more information than they have, especially since the presidential party now controls the Senate. But while Barrett is not obsessed with easily changing issues, only Congress can change the date of the election.
WATCH l Barrett asked about the justice she would replace:
Despite her criticism of two Supreme Court rulings that protected key parts of the Obama-era health care law, Barrett said she was not on a “mission to destroy affordable care law.” She may be in court on November 10 when she hears the latest challenge from the Republican leadership.
Barrett, the most outspoken opponent of abortion nominated to the Supreme Court in decades, and Democrats fear her ascending abortion will become a threatening point.
Republican senators have embraced her stance, in Graham’s words, a “shameless pro-life” conservative, shaping her history as a role model for other women.
Sen. Josh Haley, a Republican from Missouri, said “there is nothing wrong with attesting to a devoutly positive Christian.”
Barrett declined to say whether the 1973 Milestone Row vs. Wade ruling on abortion rights was properly decided, but said the decision was “infamous” despite her signing of an open letter seven years ago.
Democrats have repeatedly pressed for a judge’s policy on health care, abortion, racial equality and voting rights, but she has admitted that she is unlikely to stop verifying it quickly.
See Landmark Civil Rights Act Barrett:
In exchange with California Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, Barrett called the voting rights law a “victory in the civil rights movement” without discussing the specifics of the challenge beforehand. Another challenge to court law will be heard early next year.
There were even more dramatic moments when Barrett told Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California on Wednesday that she did not say whether there was still racism in the voting or whether she would comment on climate change.
Harris asked if she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote “Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts” in the 2013 voting rights case.
Barrett said “no justice will comment on what is said in an opinion.”
‘Controversial’ discussion on climate change: Barrett
When asked “will climate change happen”, Barrett said she was not engaged because it was “a very controversial topic in public debate”. However, Barrett said he believes the coronavirus novel is contagious and that smoking can cause cancer.
In addition to trying to repeal the Health Care Act, Trump has publicly stated that he wants justice for any controversy that arises from the election, and most importantly, the increase in mail-in ballots expected during the epidemic as voters prefer to vote by mail.
Barrett testified that he had not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases and refused to commit to withdrawing himself from post-election cases.
The committee vote will be decided on the same day as the debate between Trump and Biden in Nashville.