Judge Amy Connie Barrett referred to most of the days of her confirmation hearing questions as the “Ginsberg rule” and refused to give a position on whether she agreed with past examples. This is an approach popularized by late Justice Ruth Bader Jensberg (although she did actually speak more freely on some topics) – and it gives a little extra insight into Barrett’s position on issues including reproductive rights and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Barrett, however, commented more broadly. He noted that despite criticizing past decisions supporting the law, it was not “hostile” to the ACA. She has repeatedly said there is no “agenda” to overthrow her Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, A 1992 decision that reaffirmed one’s right to have an abortion, although his past views indicate openness to limit these rights.
“I have no commitment with anyone on how I will decide any case,” Barrett insisted, noting that President Donald Trump and his staff have not discussed how to rule on specific cases – many Democrats have previously The issue has highlighted the promises made for the appointment of anti-abortion nominees and The judges who overthrew the ACA.
Barrett also repeatedly noted that he adhered to Judge Antonin Scalia’s radicalism at the end of the Supreme Court, but insisted that he would bring his own views to the role. “If I had been confirmed, you would have got Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia,” he said.
Here are six moments from the confirmation hearing so far.
1) Barrett does not say that the presidential election alone is incapable of being delayed
Feinstein: Does the constitution give Potts the power to unilaterally delay elections under any circumstances?
Cone Barrett: “If that question had ever come to me before, I would have needed to hear the plaintiffs’ arguments and read the summaries … I don’t think we judges want to be legal pundits.” pic.twitter.com/N4skDHlPQI
– Aaron Rupar (@ atroper) 13 October October, 2020
A: Congress, not the president, will have to pass legislation to delay the election, but when Barrett was asked about the subject, he refused to raise the issue.
When Barrett was directly pressed about the president’s power to delay the election, he handed down the sentence, showing that he was not prepared to take any direct position on the question, writes Vox’s Aaron Ruper.
He said, ‘If this question had come before me, I would have needed to go through the process of listening to the plaintiffs’ arguments and reading them briefly and consulting with my legal practitioners and talking to my colleagues and writing opinions. “So, you know, if I answer, I’m basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we judges want to be legal pundits. I think we want the judges to approach the cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.
2) Barrett will not commit to reconsideration of cases concerning the election or the ACA
When asked if he would re-use himself to maintain the Affordable Care Act in cases where he could review the outcome of the next election, Barrett said he would not be able to take such action at this stage.
“It’s not a question that can answer the abstract,” Barrett said when asked about whether he would take part in the ACA’s November case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had previously argued that Barrett would withdraw from the case because of his criticism of past law enforcement decisions – and because of Trump’s remarks about electing judges who could undo him.
Similarly, when Sen. When Patrick Leahy (D-VT) investigated a potential conflict of interest, Barrett did not agree to re-use himself if an election-related case was before the court. In an exchange with Larry Barrett, Lay wondered if Trump could choose someone for the court who would favor his position if a case came before him about the election result.
“I am committed to fully and confidently enforcing the law of recovery,” Barrett said. “I can’t give a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I will make.”
“I firmly hope that all members of this committee will have more confidence in my integrity than I think I will allow myself to use as a pawn for the American people to decide this election.”
)) Barrett refused to take his place Row Was wrongly determined
Barrett was repeatedly asked if she believed Row The decision was made like the former Scalia, and she dodged the question many times – citing the same reason other nominees were in the past.
“I would request a description of Justice Kagan, which I think has been put in place perfectly,” he said, “she said she would not go to the grade example or give him a thumbs or thumbs up.”
Barrett’s judicial track record indicates that she would be open to further restricting access to abortion, as Ian Millihiser of Vox previously explained:
In Planned Parenthood vs. Benedict (2019), Barrett briefly joined in the disagreement, arguing that his court should rehearse a case before enacting an anti-abortion law before the law applies. That opinion argues that “preventing state law from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal constitution” – suggesting that Barrett would have prevented his court from blocking anti-abortion law at the center of that case if given the chance. .
“I have no agenda. I have no agenda to try to beat Casey, “Barrett said.
Sen. In an exchange with Amy Klubutcher (D-MN), she also refused to classify. Row vs. Wade Like a “super precursor” Brown Vs. Board of Education. The term “super-precedent” refers to court decisions that Barrett has described in the degree to which “no political actors make too much noise.”
“Row “This is not a great example,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it should be overstated.”
)) Barrett said he could not take a position on the next ACA case
The nearby ACA case was another area where Barrett declined to elaborate further. “Assumptions of judicial conduct will prevent me from expressing an opinion,” he said while pressing on the perspective on the arguments involved.
In the lawsuit, a group of Republican state attorney generals is arguing that a personal order – which no longer includes penalties – is no longer a tax and consequently unconstitutional. Judges will also see if the broader law is unconstitutional if the individual order is considered.
Barrett has in the past criticized Justice John Roberts’ argument for maintaining the ACA. NFIB Vs. Sebilius In 2012, however, he argued that the pushback did not mean that it was widely “hostile” to the law itself.
“I am not hostile to the ACA. I am not against any law you have passed, “Barrett said. “I enforce the law, I obey the law, you make policy.”
)) Barrett says he will set aside personal beliefs when making judicial decisions
The relationship between Barrett’s religious views and possible judicial decisions was the focus of Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court, although not raised to the same degree by Democrats during this year’s panel. This is partly because of how some legislators last tied up the subject, as if she was attacking her faith, not her connection to her role as a judge.
Barrett is a theologian, and he has previously written about how a judge’s Catholic faith can affect his approach to cases involving the death penalty. On Tuesday, Barrett said he would set aside his athletic beliefs and his broader personal beliefs when making a judicial decision – and emphasized the action he would take to interpret the law.
“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns. I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk like a royal queen and impose her will on the world, “You have to wait for cases and controversies to move forward with the process, which is the language of the constitution,” he said.
)) Barrett used the term “dog whistle” when discussing LGBTQ rights
Barrett also declined to comment Ber Bergefel v. Hodges, The case of 201 cases in which gay couples were guaranteed the right to marry was not expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court. In describing her position on protection for the LGBTQ community, she used the term “sexual choice”, which encouraged the aggression of many LGBTQ rights organizations who noted that “sexual orientation” was 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 and will not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said as part of his response.
The use of the term “sexual choice” has been suggested by opponents of equality as being #LGBTQ is a choice, “noted Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy group. To tweet.
Sen. The former hero (D-HI) later confronted Barrett about his use of the word, asking him to apologize. “I would mean a word that leads to crime in the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “So if I did, I’m so sorry for that.”
Help keep Vox free for all
Millions turn to Vox every month to understand what happens in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to the racial divide, which is perhaps the most consequential presidential election of our lifetime. Our mission has never been more important than this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of open journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market improve, your resource will be an important part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you don’t have, please consider helping everyone make sense of a growing chaotic world: Contribute less than $ 3 today.
