[ad_1]
The United States Senate opens the hearing of Amy Coney Barrett. With him, Republicans should secure a long-term conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Trump and his conservative legacy: The president of the United States has introduced Federal Justice Amy Coney Barrett as his candidate for the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House.
Photo: Alex Brandon (Keystone)
The layout of the Capitol Assembly Hall made it clear that this was an unusual meeting of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, which began on Monday, exactly 22 days before the presidential election. The chairs were separate, there were hand sanitizers on the tables, there were only plastic drinking cups. The fact that everyone present was also wearing masks showed that the pandemic is being taken more seriously in the Senate than in the White House. Above all, it was an unusual session because, for the first time in American history, a vacancy on the Supreme Court will be filled shortly before the election.
Republicans determined to be 48 years old Amy Coney Barrett nominate for the vacant position on the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in mid-September. That would cement the majority in court. If Barrett’s nomination is confirmed at the end of October, which can be assumed with certainty, six conservative justices will sit across from just three liberal colleagues. Since the positions are for life, Barrett’s appointment will see him well beyond the presidency of Donald Trump, whether or not he is re-elected on November 3.
Historic opportunity for Republicans
Through Thursday, Barrett will answer questions from the 22 members of the judicial committee. It can be assumed that it will be a long, sometimes ugly show, which has a lot to do with that on the one hand Republicans do not want to miss the historic opportunity to change the majority on the court in the long term, and on the one hand. on the other hand, Democrats believe that the whole process should never have started. In his opinion, the vacancy should only be filled after the election.
Exactly this point was made by committee chair Lindsey Graham in his opening remarks on Monday. His statements seemed like a tortuous justification for someone who knows he’s doing something questionable but is now doing it anyway. He stressed several times that the actions of the Republicans were in line with the constitution. Furthermore, a president is elected for four years and not three, which is why Trump has the right to fill the vacant position. Both are correct.
However, Democrats cite that there was a similar case in the last year in office of Barack Obama. In February 2016, Conservative Judge Antonin Scalia died. Obama wanted to replace him with the moderate Merrick Garland. Republicans refused even to listen to Garland. That was possible because they had the majority of the seats in the Senate, which ultimately decides on the nomination. His justification at the time, nine months before the election: No Supreme Court seat should be filled so shortly before the presidential election. This right should go to the next president.
The old times of harmony in the Senate are over
Republicans no longer want to hear this line of argument. They note, among other things, that they still have a majority in the Senate. Neither does Lindsey Graham, especially since he is the driving force behind this new appointment as chair of the committee.
First, Graham spoke a bit about the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He noted that it was confirmed by the Senate in 1993 with a 96-3 vote majority. He repeated this number almost in disbelief. “Those days are over,” he said, and asked, “What happened between then and now?” The simple answer is that the fronts between the two sides have hardened enormously, which is mainly due to the fact that the word of the other side can no longer be trusted. “Maybe,” Graham suggested, “we should all take some of the blame.” In any case, it should be clear that none of the Democrats will vote for Barrett, which is not only due to the process, but also to the judge herself.
Catholic, mother of seven and member of a cult: Judge Amy Coney Barrett takes a seat in the Senate for her hearing.
Photo: Leah Millis (Reuters)
“Who is she?” Graham asked, answering himself briefly: Barrett grew up in New Orleans, has seven children, two of them adopted from Haiti. She was a brilliant student and professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Most recently, he worked as a federal judge in an appeals court. What Graham did not mention: Barrett is Catholic and with her husband Jesse Barrett belongs to a group called “People of Praise”, which has about 1650 members and, among other things, maintains the tradition that God speaks to his followers through through the particularly pious. Critics speak of a cult.
The constitution must be interpreted literally
He also failed to mention that Barrett is a believer in “originalism” or “textualism,” a legal interpretation that assumes that the constitution must be understood today exactly as the founding fathers of the United States understood it in the 18th century. This interpretation of the law is becoming more popular in conservative circles, while more liberal legal circles tend to investigate what the constitution might mean when applied to current conditions.
Lindsey graham He said he would give his “Democratic friends” all the time to review Barrett’s nomination. However, he admitted that the audience is probably not trying to convince anyone. It is already clear how the vote will end.
Tribute to Judge Ginsburg
Amy Coney Barrett had sent senators an advance written statement. “I was nominated to fill the position of Judge Ginsburg, but no one will take his place,” she said, “I will be eternally grateful for the path you have taken and the life you have led. lived.”
