Democrats say Barrett is a threat to health care, 2020 election

In opening statements for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday, Democratic senators highlighted concerns that a conservative court would overturn the Affordable Care Act and how it might rule on a contested 2020 election.

Alex Edelman/AP
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett speaks at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 12, 2020, in Washington. Senate Republicans almost certainly have the votes to confirm Judge Barrett.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face senators’ questions over her approach to health care, legal precedent, and even the presidential election during a second day of confirmation hearings on track to lock in a conservative court majority for years to come.

The mood is likely to shift to a more confrontational tone as Judge Barrett, an appellate court judge with very little trial court experience, is grilled in 30-minute segments Tuesday by Democrats gravely opposed to President Donald Trump’s nominee, yet virtually powerless to stop her rise. Republicans are rushing her to confirmation before Election Day.

“This should not be President Trump’s judge,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats say the winner of the presidential election should choose the nominee.

“This should be your judge,” she said.

Judge Barrett presented her approach to the law as conservative and fair on Monday at the start of fast-tracked confirmation hearings. Democrats cast her as a threat to Americans’ health care coverage during the coronavirus pandemic.

With her husband and six of their seven children behind her in a hearing room off-limits to the public and altered for COVID-19 risks, Judge Barrett delivered views at odds with the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal icon whose seat Trump nominated her to fill, laying out a judicial philosophy she has likened to that of her conservative mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life,” declared the 48-year-old federal appeals court judge, removing the protective mask she wore most of the day to read from a prepared statement.

Americans “deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written,” Judge Barrett told the committee.

The Senate, led by Mr. Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Judge Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election.

Republicans also hope to seat Judge Barrett quickly enough to hear any legal challenges after the election. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut was among several Democrats demanding that Judge Barrett pledge not to take part in any election case. She has made no such commitment.

Justice Ginsburg’s legacy was felt throughout the hearing, with some Democrats wearing lapel pins with her likeness. Judge Barrett also praised the liberal icon, saying she was “forever grateful” for Justice Ginsburg’s trailblazing path as a woman on the court.

Yet Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, warned that Judge Barrett’s nomination puts in jeopardy everything Justice Ginsburg fought to protect.

Testifying from her office because of the pandemic, Ms. Harris said that the court is “often the last refuge for equal justice” and that not only health care but voting rights, workers’ rights, abortion rights, and the very idea of justice are at stake.

Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Judge Barrett to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, and they spent their time portraying her as a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials. She would be Mr. Trump’s third justice.

“She is a slam dunk” based on her qualifications, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the committee chairman, told reporters late in the day Monday.

Judge Barrett received the highest rating – “well-qualified” – from the American Bar Association, though she is the first nominee since Clarence Thomas who did not receive a unanimous assessment.

Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Mr. Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, even before the last day of hearings wrapped, which would allow final approval by the panel for one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26.

One after another, Democrats sought Monday to tie her nomination to the upcoming Obama-era health care case.

Republicans lambasted Democrats for attacking Judge Barrett’s Catholic religion, although none actually did.

Some senators took part remotely, after two committee Republicans, Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, tested positive for the novel coronavirus 10 days ago.

Mr. Lee was present in the hearing room, bearing a doctor’s note saying he didn’t need to remain isolated. Mr. Tillis took part remotely, but his spokesman said he also was free of symptoms.

Protesters rallied outside the Senate buildings with the hearing room largely closed to the public.

The start of the four-day hearings followed a White House event announcing her nomination just over two weeks ago, in which most of the audience did not wear masks. The event has been labeled a “super spreader” for COVID-19.

More than two dozen people linked to the Sept. 26 Rose Garden event, including the two GOP senators, have contracted COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. Judge Barrett and her family went maskless at the event. She and her husband, Jesse, tested positive for the virus earlier this year and recovered, administration officials have said.

Democrats already were enraged that Republicans are moving so quickly, having refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee after Justice Scalia’s death in February 2016, well before that year’s election.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writers Matthew Daly and Michael Balsamo in Washington, Elana Schor in New York and Kathleen Ronayne in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.