Senators Get Second Bite At The Apple During Day 2 Of Barrett Questioning

October 14, 2020
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 14: Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on October 14, 202... WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 14: Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020 in Washington, DC. With less than a month until the presidential election, President Donald Trump tapped Amy Coney Barrett to be his third Supreme Court nominee in just four years. If confirmed, Barrett would replace the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
October 14, 2020

On Wednesday, senators get a second chance to press Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during another questioning round. Yesterday, Democrats spent their time highlighting the deeply-held rights that would be at risk with a Justice Barrett: health care coverage under the ACA, LGBTQ protections, access to legal abortions.

Republicans, seeing their 45-year effort to secure a conservative majority coming to fruition before their eyes, seem to know that Barrett is a lock. So their priority is to limit the political price Democrats are trying to exact for the rush confirmation job. So far, they’ve tried to do that by pretending that the Supreme Court, and Barrett, are “non-political entities” and that we have no way of knowing how she’ll rule from the bench.

Follow along with the hearing below.

Watch Live

What To Watch

  • On Tuesday, Democrats asked Amy Coney Barrett questions about various priorities — the Affordable Care Act, Roe, voting rights — while she cited the “Ginsburg rule,” a phony GOP interpretation of Ginsburg’s words that some nominees have used to get out of answering tricky questions.
  • Democrats aren’t necessarily trying to smoke out a controversy here — Barrett is almost certain to end up on the Court. They’re trying to exact the ultimate political price for Republicans’ rush job, and they’re doing it by bringing up social issues people feel strongly about: health care, LGBTQ civil rights, abortion rights, etc.
  • Republicans so far have been impressed by everything about Judge Barrett, from her career to her family to her lack of notes.
  • They have also been outraged at Democrats’ lines of questioning about her views on hot-button issues and independence from Trump, trying to make the argument that she is an entirely blank political slate that no one can guess how she’ll rule.
More Less

On Wednesday, senators get a second chance to press Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during another questioning round. Yesterday, Democrats spent their time highlighting the deeply-held rights that would be at risk with a Justice Barrett: health care coverage under the ACA, LGBTQ protections, access to legal abortions.

Republicans, seeing their 45-year effort to secure a conservative majority coming to fruition before their eyes, seem to know that Barrett is a lock. So their priority is to limit the political price Democrats are trying to exact for the rush confirmation job. So far, they’ve tried to do that by pretending that the Supreme Court, and Barrett, are “non-political entities” and that we have no way of knowing how she’ll rule from the bench.

Follow along with the hearing below.

Notable Replies

  1. Lock? How about “religious zealot?”

  2. Avatar for nemo nemo says:

    Dems have to start being explicit about the legitimacy crisis the Supreme Court is facing. “Americans must be able to trust the Supreme Court to be nonpartisan. As Trump has boasted, he has nominated you precisely because you a reliable Republican operative”–somebody has to say stuff like this. “The Ginsburg Rule” is a tell–nobody but Republican partisans uses this term and this false concept, because there’s no such thing as a Ginsburg Rule. The failure to acknowledge that voter intimidation would be unlawful–only a Republican operative would do that. The failure to confirm that a peaceful transfer of power is required by the law–only a Republican operative would do that."

    They have to start laying the groundwork for SC reform now. Americans have to understand that the stakes are not just about the ACA–a line of argument that marginally benefits Biden. And what if (as is entirely possible, and I would even say likely) the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down the ACA, or ACB doesn’t vote to strike it down? That would leave Ds in a rhetorically sticky spot.

  3. Don’t tempt her with the apple! That’s the original sin!

  4. Bring it, Senator Whitehouse.

  5. If the SC doesn’t support the lower court in annulling the law, that’s a win for the nation’s people, even if the Democrat’s rhetoric leaves them out on a limb. (ed.)
    It’s easier to crawl back from an erroneous prediction than from the damage that will be done by the elimination of health care for so many, particularly now, in the midst of a pandemic.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

130 more replies

Participants

Avatar for playitagainrowlf Avatar for jcs Avatar for mondfledermaus Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for cervantes Avatar for trnc Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for irasdad Avatar for sniffit Avatar for lastroth Avatar for left_in_washington_state Avatar for greylady Avatar for moreyampersand Avatar for mrf Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for hornblower Avatar for tena Avatar for dominic Avatar for dougsanders Avatar for bcgister Avatar for emiliano4 Avatar for deerpath Avatar for JorgeP Avatar for geographyjones

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: