[ad_1]
Democrats and Republicans are surprisingly civilized during the three days of hearings. Amy Coney Barrett’s responses give an idea of how she will act as Chief Justice.
Amy Coney Barrett on the last day of her Senate hearing.
Photo: Michael Reynolds (Keystone)
What was spectacular about Amy Coney Barrett’s audience was how little of a show it was. How calm, how practical, partly even joyful, was the questioning of the woman who, according to the will of the Republicans, will fill the position on the Supreme Court that was vacated with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Regardless of the political consequences of Barrett’s nomination for the United States, in the days of the hearing it seemed that political America, at least in the Senate Judiciary Committee, had briefly met again. To a debate, to an exchange of arguments, to an intelligent dialogue.
As of Monday, the 48-year-old Barrett had been answering questions from the 22 members of the judicial committee, and nearly every commentator in Washington had expected a sight that could be unpleasant at times. Instead, something happened on the big political stage that was no longer believed possible in Donald Trump’s America.
Unexpectedly moderate and fair audience
At the end of three intense days, the chair of the Republican committee, Lindsey Graham, thanked fellow Democrats “on behalf of the country” for making this audience so exemplary. He was briefly interrupted by Democrat Dick Durbin. But only because he wanted to thank Graham on behalf of his party for the fair development of the audience. It seemed downright unreal.
The last time Republicans ran a Supreme Court candidate two years ago, a devastating spectacle unfolded in the Senate. The candidate, Brett Kavanaugh, faced accusations of sexual harassment. There was a credible witness, and while that doesn’t mean there’s anything to the allegations, hardly anyone in Washington would deny that Kavanaugh was unconvincing.
The difference with the audience with Amy Coney Barrett could not have been greater. The democrats reject both the procedure and the candidate. The trial because, in his opinion, no Supreme Court position should be filled so close to the November 3 presidential election. The candidate because, as a conservative Catholic, she is against, for example, the right to abortion enshrined in the United States since 1973. However, they did not attack the lawyer, but rather questioned her. Moderate in tone, mostly accurate on the subject.
The unsaid causes headaches for Democrats
Of the Monday was an easy day for Barrett. The 22 senators first gave their own ten-minute statements, then she read hers. On Tuesday, however, he answered questions for nearly twelve hours, and on Wednesday it was nearly nine. She didn’t make a mistake. He also didn’t say much in concrete terms, and what he didn’t say now worries Democrats.
In essence, virtually all the democratic presentations revolved around two issues. First, if Barrett is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice by the Republican majority in the Senate in late October, as expected, Barrett will help abolish the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, the plan of health insurance introduced by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama. that protects millions of Americans? Second, will it help make abortion a crime in the United States?
Barrett does not consider the abortion sentence sacrosanct
Barrett evaded both points, arguing that he could not speak on matters that could land on his desk as a judge. Regarding Obamacare, however, he indicated that he did not follow the Republicans’ legal arguments to abolish the program entirely.
Regarding abortion, she remained extremely vague, but had the perspective that she believed fundamentally in the legal principle of “stare decisis”, which means that a decision once made by the court must stand. In this case, that would be the decision in the case of “Roe v. Wade, ”who established the right to abortion in 1973.
However, Barrett also said that he did not consider this decision to be one of the precedents that could never be negotiated again. In this range, he elevated, for example, the judgments of the Supreme Court on the end of racial segregation. But specifically not about the right to abortion.
“The best is yet to come” – a phrase as a threat
Most Republicans on the committee emphasized that a great woman would make it to the Supreme Court. Mother of seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti. Always the best at her school, at her university. Teacher at the age of 30. Voted the most popular and best teacher multiple times at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, in the American Midwest.
It was Democratic Senator Chris Coons, himself a lawyer, who wanted to explain in a few words to his colleagues, and perhaps to the small part of the country that was seeing this hearing, what Barrett’s election could mean. He had put a board of all Barrett’s decisions as a federal judge in the court of appeals. Based on this, he predicted a dark future for gay, lesbian and transgender rights, for abortion rights, for minorities in general. In his words: everything that left America has fought for a long time. The words were clear, but the tone was conciliatory.
When President Lindsey Graham closed the hearing Wednesday night, he told Amy Coney Barrett, “You are one of the most amazing people I have ever met.” He paused for a moment before continuing: “And the best is yet to come.” Democrats should have understood the second part of the sentence as a threat.
