Amy Connie Barrett Hearing in Supreme Court Day 2: 6 Highlights


Judge Amy Connie Barrett spent much of the first day of questions in her confirmation hearing, known as the “Ginsburg Rule”, and ruled out whether she agreed with previous precedents. This is an approach made famous by the late Justice Ruth Beder Zinsberg (though he actually speaks a lot more freely on certain topics) – and it is much about Barrett’s positions on issues including reproductive rights and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Provides little information.

Barrett, however, commented more widely. She said she was not “hostile” to the ACA, despite criticizing previous decisions upholding the law. She also reiterated that she did not have an “agenda” to overturn Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, A 1992 decision that affirmed one’s abortion rights, although his previous opinion indicates an openness to limit these rights.

“I made no commitment to anyone about how I would decide any matter,” Barrett emphasized, noting that President Donald Trump and his staff had not discussed how he would govern specific matters. – a concern many Democrats have previously stated. Promises to appoint anti-abortion nominees and Judges who will overturn the ACA.

Barrett also repeatedly mentioned that he followed the supreme court’s justices Antonin Scalia’s judicial philosophy of originalism, but insisted that he bring his approach to the role. “If I am confirmed, you will get Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia,” she said.

Here are six key moments of the confirmation hearing so far.

1) Barrett does not say that the President is unable to single-handedly delay the election

The Congress, not the president, would have to pass a law to delay the election, but Barrett declined when asked about the subject.

As Aaron Rupar of Vox wrote, when Barrett was pressed directly about the president’s power to delay the election, he pointed, hinting that he was not ready to take a direct position on the question was.

“If that question came up to me, I would need to hear the arguments from the litigants and read the briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” she said. “So, you know, if I give an off-the-cuff answer, I would basically be a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to Settle matters thoughtfully and with an open mind. “

2) Barrett will not commit to reconsider matters regarding the election or the ACA

Asked if she would recuse herself in the results of the upcoming election or in cases reviewing the Protection of Affordable Care Act, Barrett said she would not take such a step at this point.

“This is not a question that I can answer in essence,” Barrett said when he was pressed about whether he would participate in the upcoming November case about the ACA. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has previously argued that Barrett should defend himself from the case because of criticisms of the previous decision – because of Trump’s comments preserving the law about electing judges who would undo it.

Likewise, when St. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) investigated a potential conflict of interest, Barrett would not agree to use himself again if a case related to the election were to come before the court. In Leh’s exchange with Barrett, Leahy wondered if Trump could elect someone to court who would favor his post when the case came about the election result before the election.

“I am fully and honestly committed to enforcing the law of objection,” Barrett said. “I cannot give a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of this decision that I will reach.”

“I would certainly expect that all members of this committee would rather think than to believe in my integrity that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn for the American people to decide this election, “He later insisted.

3) Barrett refused to take a position on it Roe deer Wrongly decided

Barrett was repeatedly asked if she believes so Roe deer It was judged incorrectly, as did Scalia, and she avoided the question several times – citing the same logic that the other nominees have in the past.

He said, “I am going to invoke Justice Kagan’s description, which I think is complete.”

Barrett’s judicial track record indicates that he will likely be open to further limiting access to abortion, as Ian Milheiser of Vox has previously reported:

In Planned Parenthood v. Box (2014), Barrett joined a brief dissent that his court should reconsider a case that blocked the anti-abortion law before that law went into effect. That opinion argued that “preventing the state’s law system from coming into effect is a judicial act of extraordinary severity in our federal structure” – suggesting that Barrett blocked his court’s anti-abortion law at the end of that case Would have stopped doing, when he was given a chance.

“I have no agenda. I have no agenda to try to overthrow Casey, ”said Barrett.

In exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), she also refused to be classified Roe v. Wade Like “super-example” Brown v. Board of Education. The term “super-precedent” refers to court rulings that Barrett described as “the degree to which no political actor pursues further rule.”

Roe deer Not a super-example, ”she said. “But that doesn’t mean it should be overridden.”

4) Barrett said she could not take a position on the upcoming ACA case

The adjacent ACA case was another area where Barrett refused to provide more details. “The principles of judicial conduct will prevent me from expressing a point of view,” she said, when pressuring her view of the arguments involved.

In the lawsuit, a group of Republican state attorneys general is arguing that the individual mandate – which no longer includes a fine – is no longer a tax, and is unconstitutional as a result. The justices will also weigh whether comprehensive legislation is unconstitutional if the individual mandate is understood in this way.

In the past, Barrett has criticized Justice John Roberts’ reasoning for maintaining the ACA NFIB vs Sebelius In 2012, however, she argued that this pushback did not mean she was “hostile” to the law.

“I am not hostile to the ACA. I am not hostile to any law that you pass, ”said Barrett. “I enforce the law, I follow the law, you make the policy.”

5) Barrett states that she will set aside personal beliefs when making judicial decisions

The relationship between Barrett’s religious views and possible judicial rulings was a focus of Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court, although it has not been raised to the same degree by Democrats during this year’s panel. This is due to the way some MPs overcame the subject last time, making it appear as if they were attacking his faith and not related to his role as a judge.

Barrett is a devout Catholic, and has previously written about how a judge’s Catholic faith can influence his approach in cases involving capital punishment. On Tuesday, Barrett said she would continue to separate her Catholic beliefs, and her broader personal beliefs, when making judicial decisions – and she would emphasize the process for interpreting the law.

“The judges can’t just go one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns. I love abortions, I hate abortions,’ and walk like a royal queen.” I am and impose my will on the world. “You have to wait for cases and disputes, which is the language of the constitution, to make your way through this process.”

6) Barrett used the term “dog whistle” referring to LGBTQ rights

Barrett also refused to offer his stand Obergfell v. Hodges, A 2015 case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry, noting that it did not expect it to be challenged in the Supreme Court. However, while describing her position on protection for the LGBTQ community, she used the term “sexual preference”, sparking outrage from many LGBTQ rights organizations, who said “sexual orientation” is the right word.

“I have no agenda, and I want to make it clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference, nor will I ever be discriminated against on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said in response.

The term “sexual preference” is used by opponents of equality to suggest that #LGBTQ is an option, “noted Lamda Legal, a legal advocacy group Tweet.

Sen. Mazi Hirono (D-HI) later confronts Barrett about his use of the word, prompting him to issue an apology. “I would never mean to use a word that would cause crime in the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “If I did, I apologize very much for this.”


Help keep vox free for all

Millions of people turn to Vox every month to understand that from the coronovirus crisis to racial vengeance, which is probably the most consequential presidential election of our lifetime. Our mission is not more important than it is in the moment: empowering you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of interpretive journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recover, your support will be an important part of maintaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you have not done so, please consider helping everyone create an increasingly chaotic world: Contributions from today as low as $ 3.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.