Senators on the Judiciary Committee had a second opportunity to ask Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett questions today.
The committee asked her questions for nearly 18-hours over the course of two days.
Committee members will now enter a closed session to discuss Barrett’s FBI background check, which is part of the confirmation process.
Senators will meet at 9 a.m. Thursday for a business meeting to vote on Barrett’s nomination.
In case you missed it, here are some of the highlights from the hearing:
Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris started her second round of questioning during Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation by walking through the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling striking down a key part of the law.
Harris asked Barrett whether she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts’ writing in the opinion that “voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that.”
Barrett would not engage on the question, saying it was one that could come before the court.
When Harris asked her about it a second time, Barrett said, “I think racial discrimination still exists in the United States.”
“I don’t mean to signal I disagree with the statement either, what I mean to say is I’m not going to express an opinion because these are very charged issues, they have been litigated in the courts, and so I will not engage on that question,” Barrett said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to meet at 9 a.m. Thursday to mark up the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, according to a GOP aide.
The GOP will have enough members for a quorum, the aide said.
Democrats are expected to use their power under the committee rules to delay the vote for one week, according to the aide. The vote should occur on Oct. 22.
After both sides argue for a bit tomorrow, the committee will hear testimony from outside witnesses, the aide said.
What to expect: Americans should expect to hear a lot of criticism from Democrats about this truncated processes, which typically takes two to three months but they are on pace to get it done in just over a month’s time and days before the election.
For much of the hearings, six of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s seven children have been in attendance to witness their mother’s hearing.
Today, Barrett said that one of her son’s “got very upset yesterday during the questioning.”
Barrett had introduced the country to Liam as “smart, strong and kind,” she said, “to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad.”
She has expressed concerns about the impact of her confirmation before calling the process “excruciating” at times.
Here’s a portion of her exchange with Sen. Thom Tillis:
Tillis: I asked you when we met why would you do this knowing how this was going to play out, knowing that you were going to be attacked and unfairly treated, and I think to a level of where maybe some of your constitutional rights have been questionably denied. So, why are you doing this, Judge Barrett? Why not just say thanks but no thanks, leave it for someone else?
Barrett: Well, as I said to Sen. Graham yesterday, and I think this was part, you know, in parts of the conversation that you and I had, that this is a very difficult process, actually, I think I used the word excruciating, over the weeks. And knowledge that people are going to say horrible things, you know, that your entire life will be combed over, that you will be mocked, that your children will be attacked. And so one might wonder why and sane person would undertake that risk and that task unless it was for the sake of something good. And as I said yesterday to Sen. Graham, I do think the rule of law and its importance in the United States, and I do think the role of the Supreme Court is important, it’s a great good. It would be difficult for anybody in this seat, I think everybody knows the confirmation process is very difficult. And so, for me to say no, I mean other people could do this job, but the same difficulty will be present for everyone. And so, for me to say I’m not willing to undertake it even though I think the system is important would be a little cowardly. And, you know, I wouldn’t be answering a call to serve my country in the way that I was asked. I also think in our conversation I said that, you know, my children were part of the reason not do it, because, you know, my son Liam got very upset yesterday during the questioning. And so, we had to call him in the car, he didn’t stick it out until the end. You know, I was surprised he stuck it out as long as he did. But Liam got very upset at the questioning, and Sen. Kennedy referenced some of the other things that happened to the children in the process. And so, I said to you that before any of that happened that in many ways the children are the reason not do it. But they’re also the reason to do it, because if we are to protect our institutions and protect the freedoms and protect the rule of law that’s the basis for the society and freedom that we all enjoy, if we want that for our children and children’s children, then we need to participate in that work.”
As they did yesterday, Democrats are continuing to push Judge Amy Coney Barrett on a 1965 case called Griswold v. Connecticut establishing that married couples have a right to obtain and use contraception in the privacy of their own home.
Griswold comes up in most every confirmation hearing because of its legal underpinnings concerning the “right to privacy” surfaced again in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
The Democrats, including Sen. Chris Coons and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, among others, suggest that Barrett should easily be able to say that Griswold was correctly decided.
But she is not doing so, likely because she fears the next question is whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.
Barrett told Coons that she thinks Griswold is “very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, unlikely” to be overturned.
Coons pointed out that he thought Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan went further than Barrett.
Barrett said she thinks the question is “entirely academic” and that the “only reason” that It’s even worth asking “is to lay a predicate for whether Roe was right decided” and she does not want to telegraph her thoughts on that.
The hearing room audio system is out for the second time today, forcing another break.
The mics went out earlier causing a 40-minute delay in Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing.
Answering questions about voting from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she “can’t recall a time” she voted by mail.
The comment came as the US prepares for the November election, and many Americans are choosing to vote by mail as the coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the nation.
Here’s the exchange:
Klobuchar: We’re in the middle of a global pandemic that is forcing voters to choose between their health and their vote. Are absentee ballots, or better known as mail-in ballots, an essential way to vote for millions of Americans right now?
Barrett: That’s a matter of policy on which I can’t express a view.
Klobuchar: Okay, to me that just feels like a fundamental part of our democracy. But okay, let’s try this. Have you ever voted by mail?
Barrett: Umm, I can’t recall a time that I voted by mail. It may be in college that I did, when I was living away from home. But I can’t as I’m sitting here specifically recall a time I voted by mail.
Klobuchar: Do you have friends or family that have voted by mail or are voting by mail?
Barrett: I have had friends and family vote by mail.
The hearing has gone into a 10-minute recess following what appeared to be a malfunction in Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s mic.
Chair Lindsey Graham said the hearing would return shortly once the issue was resolved.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has returned from break to continue questioning Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Senators are now asking Barrett questions.
Each senator on the committee will get 20 minutes to question Barrett. Yesterday, on the first round of questioning, each member had 30 minutes of question time.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing is in a break until 12:30 p.m. ET.
Barrett is facing the Senate Judiciary Committee for a second day of questioning.
The health care law has been a dominant topic so far on both sides of the aisle thanks to the looming November case the Supreme Court will hear on a Republican effort to strike down the law.
After facing a barrage of questions over the past two days from Democrats about her past writings and comment taking issue with rulings upholding the Affordable Care Act, Amy Coney Barrett was asked Wednesday by Sen. Patrick Leahy: “Did you ever write or speak out against the ACA?”
Barrett said her past criticism of ACA rulings was when “I was speaking as an academic.”
Leahy pressed her again on if she’s ever spoken in favor of the ACA. “No, I’ve never had a chance to weigh in on the policy question.”
Some context: When she was a law professor, Barrett tried to puncture arguments favoring Obamacare.
Barrett, then a University of Notre Dame law professor, wrote in a 2017 law review essay, “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power.”
She continued, “Had he treated the payment as the statute did —as a penalty —he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.”
Democrats have argued during the confirmation hearings that Barrett’s criticisms of Roberts’ 2012 ruling to uphold Obamacare, which she made before she was appointed to the federal appeals bench in 2017, were a sign that she would try to overturn it.
Barrett insisted that was not the case, saying she had no agenda when it came to the health care law. “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.”
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said that “no one is above the law,” but would not say one way or another if a president has the right to pardon him or herself.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, referencing President Trump’s claim that he has “the absolute right” to pardon himself first asked Barrett if she believes that no American is above the law.
“I agree. No one is above the law,” Barrett asked.
Then, Leahy asked: “Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime? I mean, we heard this question after president Nixon’s impeachment.”
Here’s how Barrett responded:
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was just asked how she feels about allowing cameras into the Supreme Court.
Barrett, like several other Supreme Court justices, agreed to “keep an open mind” about the possibility.
But once confirmed, that might change: We have seen other justices testify that they are open to the idea, but once they arrive at the marble palace that seems to change.
As things stand, the court is allowing a live feed of audio, as justices work remotely during the pandemic, but it seems very far away from allowing cameras in.
Watch:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced a set of outside witnesses who will appear before the committee tomorrow, the fourth and final day of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing.
The witnesses will discuss the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights and voting rights, according to Feinstein.
Here are the four witnesses, as described in a news release from Feinstein:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the panel’s top Democrat, asked Judge Amy Coney Barrett about the legal doctrine of “severability,” or whether the entire law can stand if one part of it is deemed illegal, during Barrett’s second day of questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
It’s a concept that could play a key factor in the case from Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration seeking to strike down the Affordable Care Act case next month, arguing that the entire law should be struck down because the law’s individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional.
Barrett explained to Feinstein, a California Democrat, that severability was like a game of “Jenga.”
“If you picture severability being like a Jenga game, it’s kind of like, if you pull one out, can you pull it out while it all stands? If you pull two out, will it all stand?” Barrett said. “Severability is designed to say well would congress still want the statute to stand even with the provision gone?”
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham, during his questioning of Barrett, seemed to suggest he thought that the Affordable Care Act could be saved because of severability, saying the doctrine’s “goal is to preserve the statute if that is possible.”
This was their exchange:
Graham, who is facing a tough reelection fight, nevertheless launched into another attack on former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, saying, “Obamacare is on the ballot.”
It’s the second day senators get to question Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney. They’re again asking about a doctrine called “stare decisis” — it’s a legal term that refers to a court’s practice of following precedent. It translates into “stand by the thing decided.”
Why does it matter? It’s actually a critical doctrine that guides justices on when they should vote to overturn a previously decided case. It often comes up in confirmation hearings as senators push to see a particular nominee’s view on the doctrine. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has said he has little respect for it, while other justices believe it’s an important stabilizing factor for the court.
What Barrett has said about stare decisis: Democrats are likely to turn to Barrett’s own writing from 2013, when she was a professor at Notre Dame and she penned an essay centered on the doctrine. While she pointed to its strength, her critics focus on the fact that at one point she suggested room for some cases to be overturned.
“Court watchers,” she added, “embrace the possibility of overruling, even if they may want it to be the exception rather than the rule.”
The third day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has begun.
Barrett will face more questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
The 22 senators on the Judiciary Committee get a second round of 20 minutes to question the nominee.
“There is an opportunity here to explore the nominee’s thinking, to the extent she can share her thoughts without deciding a particular case that comes before her,” Chair Lindsey Graham said as he opened today’s hearing.
The committee has scheduled a Thursday hearing to hear from outside witnesses and then is expected to vote on Barrett’s nomination next week, putting her on pace for a Senate floor vote by the end of the month.
Democrats get their last chance to try to pin down President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, on Wednesday with a second lengthy day of questions in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.
Today, the 22 senators on the Judiciary Committee each get 20 minutes for more questions to the nominee.
The committee has scheduled a hearing Thursday to hear from outside witnesses and then is expected to vote on Barrett’s nomination next week, putting her on pace for a Senate floor vote by the end of the month — and ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham has said the committee is expected to vote on Barrett’s nomination on Oct. 22, setting up a Senate floor vote one week before the election.
Barrett spent more than 11 hours before the committee on Tuesday, where Democrats pressed her on everything from the upcoming Supreme Court case challenging the Affordable Care Act to whether she would recuse herself on election disputes involving the President that might reach the high court.
Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democratic senator who questioned Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during yesterday’s confirmation hearing, said that Barrett’s responses indicated that President Trump looms over her nomination.
“Let’s face it here, she is a personable, likable, intelligent person who has done great things in her life. No question about that. But there is an orange cloud over her nomination,” he added.
Barrett repeatedly said that she would follow the law and not let her personal opinions influence her decisions.
The judge said that she does not think that Roe v. Wade falls into the category of being “super precedent,” protected from being overturned.
“You have to, I guess, anticipate that she would be a vote as the President promises that would overturn these protections for women’s health care,” Durbin said.
Barrett is back in the Senate Judiciary Committee today for a second day of questioning.
Watch more:
Frequently during her confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett fell back on a standard that’s been attributed to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett would replace, not to discuss specific cases because they could come before the court.
Under questioning from Sen. Pat Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, Barrett would not say whether she would recuse herself from cases involving the 2020 election. Leahy argued Barrett should recuse herself, if confirmed, because Trump has said he’s moving a nomination forward because the election is likely to go before the Supreme Court.
Later, Barrett said she hoped “all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.”
Barrett also declined to say whether the Constitution gave Trump the authority to postpone the date of the election. Doing so would require an act of Congress, but Barrett declined to weigh in, saying that doing so would make her “basically a legal pundit.”
She also declined to discuss questions about what constitutes voter intimidation. And she responded to a question from Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey about Trump refusing to accept a peaceful transition by saying she didn’t want to get pulled into the “political controversy.”
Barrett apologized on Tuesday for a comment she made early in the hearing saying she would never discriminate “on the basis of sexual preference,” a term that implies being gay or lesbian is a choice.
“I certainly didn’t mean and, you know, would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “So if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell’s holding with respect to same-sex marriage.”
