Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will boycott Thursday’s vote on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, calling it a “sham process from the beginning.”
“Republicans have moved at breakneck speed to jam through this nominee, ignoring her troubling record and unprecedented evasions, and breaking longstanding committee rules to set tomorrow’s vote,” said the committee Democrats in a statement. “Fearing a loss at the ballot box, Republicans are showing that they do not care about the rules or what the American people want, but are concerned only with raw political power.”
“We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway,” they added.
The move will be a symbolic one to placate liberals, and is almost certain not to have an impact on Barrett’s confirmation. Even if the Democrats did show up, they’d be outvoted by the Republican majority who will send her nomination to the full floor. From there, Republicans seem to have the votes to put Barrett on the bench.
Cognizant of their weakness as the minority party in the chamber, Senate Democrats have been trying to exact as high a political price as possible for the Republicans’ rushed confirmation. During the committee hearings last week, Democrats hammered the threat to the Affordable Care Act Barrett’s nomination would pose, and pummeled the alarm on the damage she could help do to LGBTQ protections, abortion rights and civil rights gains.
Democrats have coalesced behind the health care message especially, one that unites lawmakers and candidates alike. Oral arguments in the latest suit against the ACA begin November 10, meaning that Barrett will likely be on the bench to hear them, based on the current clip at which Republicans are jamming the confirmation through.
According to a HuffPost report, Democrats plan to fill their empty seats with photos of constituents who stand to lose their coverage, and even their lives, if the ACA is dismantled by the high court. Similar photos dotted the committee room during questioning, often as visual aids to assist senators in telling the personal anecdotes of those dependent on the law.
Currently, Barrett’s full Senate floor vote is scheduled for next Thursday.
There is a case at the Supreme Court that by how the Court has handled the case to include its timeline that tells in no uncertain terms that 5, with Cony-Barret 6, total Republican partisan hacks currently control America’s legal system.
The case involves Trump’s emergency order taking from money appropriated by Congress for the military to build his wall. The Supreme Court last ruled on a similar case in Trump’s favor, that Trump has the power to do this. The case will be decided after the election and what is obvious is that the results of the election will determine what Chief Injustice Roberts and other Republican hacks on the court decide.
The case is about Trump’s legal authority to do this, which the Court decided last year he had. The reason you know this has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with a possible Biden administration, is that the Court is allowing Trump to spend the money well it decides. That is if the Court had any intention of limiting Trump’s authority it would not let him spend the money until the case was decided. Hence the only possible reason the Court would consider a ruling other than “YES, the President has the authority”, is if Trump will no longer be president and the Republican Court wants to start ASAP to limit the authority of President Biden.
That is the Court will, if Biden wins, use this case that it has already said Trump has the power to say President Joe Biden does not have the power. It is as obviously bias as bias can be in favor of Republicans and against America and democracy.
This is good stuff. First step in adding new justices. Nine is not a sacred number. Originalists know this.
It’s really the only thing they can do — highlight that the fix is in and everyone knows it.
Um, “next Thursday” is tomorrow, right?