Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing lays bare US hypocrisy, dysfunctional democracy

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing at the Senate lays bare hypocrisy and the dysfunctional democracy in the United States.

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing at the Senate lays bare the depth of hypocrisy and dysfunctional democracy in the United States.

Today Judge Coney Barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is illegal.

Just to be clear: voter intimidation IS illegal. It’s explicitly outlawed (in 18 USC 594 to be exact).

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) October 13, 2020

In the first day of questions in her confirmation hearing, US President Donald Trump's nominee dodged questions on the GOP's apparent plan to abolish the Affordable Care Act soon after the November 3 election.

“I’ve made no commitment to anyone about how I would decide any case,” Barrett emphasized before the Senate panel Tuesday, adding that Trump and his staffers had not discussed how she should rule on specific cases. “I am not hostile to the ACA. I am not hostile to any statute that you pass... I apply the law, I follow the law, you make the policy.”

I asked Amy Coney Barrett whether she had seen or heard statements before her nomination from Donald Trump promising to nominate judges who would rule against the Affordable Care Act.

Her answer? “I don’t recall.”

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 14, 2020

Pressed directly about the president’s power to delay an election, she refused to take a straightforward stance.

“If that question ever came before me, I’d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read 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 off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.

I asked Amy Coney Barrett today if she believes every president should make a commitment to the peaceful transition of power.

She wouldn't answer my question.

That's profoundly concerning for a judge who aspires to join our nation's highest court.

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) October 14, 2020

She also refused to agree to recuse herself if a case related to the election were before the high court after the November race.

“I commit to you to fully and faithfully apply the law of recusal... I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.” Barrett said. “I would certainly hope that all members of this committee would have 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."

Today was day two of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Barrett is proving that she understands our Constitution and the importance of separation of powers far better than Senate Democrats do.

1600 Daily: https://t.co/A68ueVC88u pic.twitter.com/nZX9i4ghlh

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 14, 2020

The GOP-held Senate refused to give Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee, a fair hearing in 2016.

Eighty-eight faculty members at the University of Notre Dame, where Amy Coney Barrett is a law school professor, said she should call for a halt to her Supreme Court nomination until after the election. https://t.co/ncyERqtIUl # via @HuffPostPol

— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) October 14, 2020

At the time, Amy Coney Barrett went on television and said that filling the seat in an election year would be inappropriate.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk