[ad_1]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court deadlock this week in a key election case illustrates the power that President Donald Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett could wield and reveals why Republicans are rushing to install her as a judge, officials said. Democrats on Wednesday in his last speech to block his confirmation from the United States Senate.
Chief Justice John Roberts broke with the other four conservative justices and joined the court’s three liberals on Monday in denying a request by Republicans seeking to block a state court ruling extending the deadline for the ballot delivery by mail in Pennsylvania for three days. .
That produced a 4-4 court vote against a judge following the September death of liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, producing a deadlock that upheld the lower court ruling.
There has been an increase in voting by mail due to the coronavirus pandemic. Democrats said that if Barrett were already on the court, he would have voted in favor of the Republican proposal to block the extension in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to Trump’s re-election chances.
The Pennsylvania case, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said during a call with reporters, “was a disturbing demonstration of what is at stake if the Republicans get away with it and fill this vacancy.”
“With one more vote they would have been successful,” Durbin said. “That is exactly the kind of judicial activism that Republicans claim to oppose … It is exactly the kind of judicial activism they expect from Judge Barrett as they rush to confirm it.”
Trump has asked the Republican-led Senate to confirm Barrett before Election Day, saying he expects the Supreme Court to decide the outcome of his race against Democratic challenger Joe Biden, who leads national opinion polls even as Trump seeks to sow doubts about integrity. of the voting process.
Barrett’s confirmation would give the court a conservative 6-3 majority and curb Roberts’s current role as his swing vote in closed cases.
Pennsylvania Republicans had argued that the state Supreme Court had exceeded its authority by extending a term that should be left to the legislature. The four most conservative Supreme Court justices, including the two previously appointed by Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, said they would have accepted the Republican request.
CONFIRMATION LOOM
The Senate Judiciary Committee held Barrett’s confirmation hearing last week and he is expected to vote Thursday to send his nomination to the full Senate for final approval next Monday. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, which means Democrats have little chance of stopping their confirmation.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said Trump views Barrett as electoral insurance, saying, “He wants her to side with him when he makes his usual unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud by mail. He wants a ninth judge to hand over the election to him.” .
“When you look at what’s going on,” added Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, “there are cases across the country and the Supreme Court, in many of those cases, could end up being the final arbiter.”
The Supreme Court has only once decided a presidential race. In 2000, his conservative majority won Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore with a 5-4 decision that involved voting in Florida.
During his confirmation hearing, Barrett said he would not be in debt to Trump in any election case.
“I certainly hope that 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 in deciding this election for the American people,” Barrett said, although she rejected Democratic pleas that she agree to recuse herself in such cases.
The Supreme Court may stay out of a big election case this year, said Florida State University election law professor Michael Morley, noting Roberts’ eagerness not to bring judges into such disputes.
“I think this court is particularly aware of the judicial role and the desire for the people to decide the elections,” Morley added.
But Roberts has only limited ability to keep the court out of a major election case like the one in 2000, said Stetson University election law professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy.
“You probably have a conservative majority that can do what you want,” Torres-Spelliscy added. “Chief Justice Roberts cannot control five justices who are to his right.”
(Reported by Jan Wolfe and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Scott Malone and Will Dunham)
[ad_2]
