Amy Connie Barrett says if I don’t wrongly decide Roe V vs Wade, ‘I don’t have an agenda’

Supreme Court nominee Amy Connie Barrett on Tuesday declined to answer questions asked about abortion cases before the High Court, stating that she cannot “pre-commit”, saying “there is no agenda” .

Diane Feinstein, D-California, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee rankings, pressed Barrett on the issue of abortion and Roe Wee. Wade and the late Justice Ruth Beder Zinsberg were cited during their confirmation hearings in 1993.

“A decision whether to bear a child or not is central to a woman’s life, for her well-being and dignity,” Feinstein quoted Ginsburg as saying. “It’s a decision he must make for himself.”

Feinstein said that Ginsberg said that “when the government controls that decision, it is being considered less than a full adult human for its choice.”

TRUMP LOOMS has worked extensively on BARRETT as Deramukhi, which is OAMAMACARE, CHOICE, CORONVIRUS

Feinstein commended Ginsburg for being “accurate” in talking about the issue and urged Barrett to do the same.

He said, ‘I want to answer every question. On that question, I am going to invoke Justice Kagan’s description, which I think was perfectly laid out – he was not giving the prerequisite grade or giving it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. ” Any further response would be, Barrett replied. “Wrong” and “a violation of the canon for doing so as a sitting judge.”

“It signals to the litigants that I may bow to one pending case one way or another,” Barrett said.

But Feinstein pushed her, saying she was “upset at not getting a straight answer.”

“Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe was wrongly decided?” Feinstein asked.

“I completely understand why you’re asking questions, but I can’t pre-comment or say yes, I’m going with some agenda, because I’m not,” Barrett said. “I have no agenda to try to remove Casey, I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide the cases to come.”

Barrett was referring to a 1992 case, Casey Vs. Planned paternity, when the Supreme Court affirmed the basic decision of Roe v. Wade, that one state is prohibited from banning most abortions.

Barrett stated that Roe v. Wade and Casey “may clash again” and said that she “committed to contact in a case” when she knew it was a “controversial issue” and would be “relaxed” for her to answer. Not possible. Any particular way. ”

“Well, it makes it difficult for me and I think there are other women in this committee because it is a very important matter and it affects millions and millions of people, and you can be a very important vote. “. “And I hope you say as a person, and you understand all the implications of family life – you should be proud of that, I am proud of you for that – you are a problem in this country’s biggest court.” Going along with it, all women see one way or the other in their lives… and the question comes, what happens? And will this justice support a law that has a widespread precedent? ”

Barrett simply stated that she would “follow all the rules” and apply “all factors” precedent and “reliance and practicality”.

“All the standard factors,” Barrett explained. “And I promise to do this for any issue that comes up on abortion or any other issue, I will obey the law.”

Click here to get the Fox News app

Feinstein replied: “Well, I think it’s expected. I respect you and your family … but this is a very real problem. ”

It is common for court representatives to know how they will rule on certain issues so that the cases that could come before them are not resolved. The senators therefore rely on previous statements, legal writings and court opinions to understand how a candidate would rule Roe Veda.

However, Barrett has faced attacks from Planned Parenthood and women’s groups, who argue that there is a threat to women’s reproductive rights.

Barrett has been investigated by Democrats over his conviction, dating back to his confirmation to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. During the hearing, Barrett, a seven-year-old Catholic mother, had to claim several times that this belief would not affect her. Jurisprudence.

During that hearing in 2017, Feinstein told Barrett at the time that she was concerned with her Catholic beliefs and specifically how she would apply them in cases involving abortion.

“Why is it that many of us on this side feel very uncomfortable that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whichever religion has its own dogma. Law is completely different. Is, “Feinstein told Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor.” And I think in your case, Professor, when you read your speech, the conclusion is that dogma stays loud within you. And it’s a matter of concern. ”

In the 2017 White House Questionnaire Appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett was asked whether it was his view that abortion was always immoral. He did not directly answer the question, but said: “If I (for the 7th Circuit) affirm, my views on this or any other question will have no effect on the discharge of my duties as a judge. ”

In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett listed fewer than 10 cases in which he said he was considered a “super-precedent”, no one would judge, even if they were wrongly decided. Among them was Brown v. Board of Education, which declared ethnic segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

One she was not included in the list: Roe v. Wade, a 1973 historical case that confirmed a woman’s right to abortion. Scholars did not include it, she wrote, because public disputes revolving around it have never ended.

Following Barrett’s nomination to the 7th Circuit was the focus of the 2017 confirmation process emphasizing abortion and women’s rights.

Others pointed to Barrett’s membership of the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life” group – and had signed a 2015 letter to Catholic bishops confirming “the value of human life from conception to natural death” Does.

The Senate eventually ratified it in a 55–43 vote, with three Democrats in a majority.

In a 1998 Notre Dame Law School review article, Democrats, despite Barrett’s concerns, “cannot judge – nor should they try to – whenever there are two deviations, our legal with church morality Align the system. However, they must conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect. ”

And last month, despite Democrats questioning whether their religion would affect their decisions on matters, they should be confirmed to accept their nomination to the Supreme Court, stating that:

“A judge must apply the law in writing. Judges are not policy makers, and they must be firm in keeping aside any policy considerations.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.