President Donald Trump, who loves to boast of doing anything his predecessors have never done, pulled off such a historic first Monday. He won confirmation of a Supreme Court justice only eight days before a presidential election, rushing his choice through the Senate before voters decide whether to give him four more years or kick him out of office.

Trump then did something else no other president has done. He hosted a nighttime ceremony on the White House lawn to swear in Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a virtual do-over of the superspreader event blamed for infecting multiple people with the coronavirus a month ago to the day, including the president himself, who was forced to spend three nights in the hospital.

To Trump, the first history-maker outweighed the second, a chance to celebrate a landmark political victory regardless of the risk. It was, in effect, the triumph of defiance over experience, a stubborn gesture by a president who refuses to acknowledge the continuing threat of a pandemic that has killed more than 225,000 people in the United States even after it has swept through his own circle of aides, advisers and allies. Undaunted and unbowed, Trump hosted the event even as five people working for Vice President Mike Pence have tested positive in recent days.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/judge-rejects-us-request-to-shield-trump-from-rape-accusers-defamation-lawsuit-338376" hreflang="en">Judge rejects US request to shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit</a>

This time, at least, the White House made some concessions to the virus. Unlike the Rose Garden event on Sept. 26 when Trump announced his nomination of Barrett, apparently leading to a raft of infections, the ceremony Monday night marking her confirmation was held on the roomier South Lawn, with folding chairs seated several feet apart and guests required to wear masks.

Neither Trump nor Barrett wore masks, perhaps owing to the fact that both have already had the virus and therefore presumably could be immune. Melania Trump, the first lady, who also was infected after the last event, likewise attended without a mask. Justice Clarence Thomas, who was on hand to swear in his new colleague, wore no mask either, even though he is not known to have been previously infected. None of the other seven justices attended.

Neither the president nor the new justice made any reference to the virus or what happened the last time the two gathered supporters at the White House. Instead, they congratulated themselves on the superquick confirmation process that has now put her on the court just in time to rule on any of Trump’s challenges emerging from next week’s election.

Trump praised Barrett’s “deep knowledge, tremendous poise and towering intellect,” calling her a suitable replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal stalwart who died last month, even though she is the ideological polar opposite.

“It is highly fitting that Justice Barrett fills the seat of a true pioneer for women, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” the president told the crowd. “Tonight, Justice Barrett becomes not only the fifth woman to serve on our nation’s highest court, but the very first mother of school-aged children to become a Supreme Court justice.”

Barrett, 48, who has seven children, will be the current court’s youngest member, its third woman, its sixth Catholic and its only jurist from outside the Ivy League. A graduate of Notre Dame Law School, where she later taught, she has served on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since Trump appointed her in 2017 and has become a favorite of conservatives. Her appointment to the Supreme Court was Trump’s third, the most any president has had in a single term since Richard Nixon and an important credential for Republican voters who care about the judiciary.

In her own remarks Monday, Barrett, whose short-sleeve black dress contrasted with the president’s heavy, black overcoat on a crisp, 55-degree evening, referred to the speedy Senate approval as “a rigorous confirmation process,” a characterization Democrats strenuously disputed.

But she seemed intent on sending the message that she would not simply do Trump’s bidding, using the words “independent” or “independence” three times, even though he has said explicitly that he wanted her seated before the election so she could lend her vote in case of a legal dispute over the balloting.

“A judge declares independence not only from the Congress and the president but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her,” Barrett said after being sworn in. “The oath I have solemnly taken tonight,” she added, “means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences.”

Neither Democrats nor Republicans seemed to believe that, instead commending or condemning her confirmation as a victory for conservatives and a defeat for liberals. Her replacement of Ginsburg means that the conservative wing now controls the Supreme Court 6-3, heralding a new era of jurisprudence not only on the forthcoming election, but on hot-button issues like abortion, gay rights and health care.

The House Judiciary Committee Republicans, led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of Trump’s most outspoken allies, taunted Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in 2016, after the Senate’s evening vote.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/how-trump-and-bolsonaro-broke-latin-americas-covid-19-defenses-338261" hreflang="en">How Trump and Bolsonaro broke Latin America’s COVID-19 defenses</a>

“Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed,” said a message posted on the committee’s Twitter account at 8:03 p.m. “Happy Birthday, @HillaryClinton!”

Clinton posted her own message six minutes later, suggesting that Republicans may pay a political price in just a week. “Senate Republicans just pushed through a Supreme Court justice who will help them take away Americans’ health care in the middle of a pandemic,” she wrote. “For them, this is victory. Vote them out.”

The nomination ceremony a month ago undercut the political message Trump wanted to send when he, Trump and others who were in attendance later tested positive for the coronavirus. Trump emerged from his sickness as uncowed as ever, insisting that the virus could be beaten and telling Americans not to let it dominate their lives.

Many of those who were infected that day stayed away Monday night. Among those who were back for more was Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who tested positive for the virus after the announcement ceremony where he had gone maskless and hugged others in the crowd. “Tonight’s vote was a huge win for the American people,” Lee said on Twitter without referring to the virus.

Democrats were flabbergasted that the White House would replicate the event a month later.

“They shame mask wearing,” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., said on Twitter earlier in the day. “They hold super spreader events daily. They discourage testing. They pretend like a vaccine is days away so that people will let down their guard. The biggest threat to America’s public health isn’t the virus, it’s the Trump White House.”

But Trump relished the theatricality of the moment, escorting Barrett up the stairs to the balcony off the Blue Room that he has now used several times in recent days. From there, the two looked out on the crowd as the president applauded his new appointee; then the two were joined by their spouses, Melania Trump and Jesse Barrett, before all four along with Thomas slipped back into the White House again.

President Donald Trump, who loves to boast of doing anything his predecessors have never done, pulled off such a historic first Monday. He won confirmation of a Supreme Court justice only eight days before a presidential election, rushing his choice through the Senate before voters decide whether to give him four more years or kick him out of office.

President Donald Trump, who loves to boast of doing anything his predecessors have never done, pulled off such a historic first Monday. He won confirmation of a Supreme Court justice only eight days before a presidential election, rushing his choice through the Senate before voters decide whether to give him four more years or kick him out of office. Trump then did something else no other president has done. He hosted a nighttime ceremony on the White House lawn to swear in Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a virtual do-over of the superspreader event blamed for infecting multiple people with the coronavirus a month ago to the day, including the president himself, who was forced to spend three nights in the hospital. To Trump, the first history-maker outweighed the second, a chance to celebrate a landmark political victory regardless of the risk. It was, in effect, the triumph of defiance over experience, a stubborn gesture by a president who refuses to acknowledge the continuing threat of a pandemic that has killed more than 225,000 people in the United States even after it has swept through his own circle of aides, advisers and allies. Undaunted and unbowed, Trump hosted the event even as five people working for Vice President Mike Pence have tested positive in recent days. Also read: Judge rejects US request to shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit This time, at least, the White House made some concessions to the virus. Unlike the Rose Garden event on Sept. 26 when Trump announced his nomination of Barrett, apparently leading to a raft of infections, the ceremony Monday night marking her confirmation was held on the roomier South Lawn, with folding chairs seated several feet apart and guests required to wear masks. Neither Trump nor Barrett wore masks, perhaps owing to the fact that both have already had the virus and therefore presumably could be immune. Melania Trump, the first lady, who also was infected after the last event, likewise attended without a mask. Justice Clarence Thomas, who was on hand to swear in his new colleague, wore no mask either, even though he is not known to have been previously infected. None of the other seven justices attended. Neither the president nor the new justice made any reference to the virus or what happened the last time the two gathered supporters at the White House. Instead, they congratulated themselves on the superquick confirmation process that has now put her on the court just in time to rule on any of Trump’s challenges emerging from next week’s election. Trump praised Barrett’s “deep knowledge, tremendous poise and towering intellect,” calling her a suitable replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal stalwart who died last month, even though she is the ideological polar opposite. “It is highly fitting that Justice Barrett fills the seat of a true pioneer for women, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” the president told the crowd. “Tonight, Justice Barrett becomes not only the fifth woman to serve on our nation’s highest court, but the very first mother of school-aged children to become a Supreme Court justice.” Barrett, 48, who has seven children, will be the current court’s youngest member, its third woman, its sixth Catholic and its only jurist from outside the Ivy League. A graduate of Notre Dame Law School, where she later taught, she has served on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since Trump appointed her in 2017 and has become a favorite of conservatives. Her appointment to the Supreme Court was Trump’s third, the most any president has had in a single term since Richard Nixon and an important credential for Republican voters who care about the judiciary. In her own remarks Monday, Barrett, whose short-sleeve black dress contrasted with the president’s heavy, black overcoat on a crisp, 55-degree evening, referred to the speedy Senate approval as “a rigorous confirmation process,” a characterization Democrats strenuously disputed. But she seemed intent on sending the message that she would not simply do Trump’s bidding, using the words “independent” or “independence” three times, even though he has said explicitly that he wanted her seated before the election so she could lend her vote in case of a legal dispute over the balloting. “A judge declares independence not only from the Congress and the president but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her,” Barrett said after being sworn in. “The oath I have solemnly taken tonight,” she added, “means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences.” Neither Democrats nor Republicans seemed to believe that, instead commending or condemning her confirmation as a victory for conservatives and a defeat for liberals. Her replacement of Ginsburg means that the conservative wing now controls the Supreme Court 6-3, heralding a new era of jurisprudence not only on the forthcoming election, but on hot-button issues like abortion, gay rights and health care. The House Judiciary Committee Republicans, led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of Trump’s most outspoken allies, taunted Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in 2016, after the Senate’s evening vote. Also read: How Trump and Bolsonaro broke Latin America’s COVID-19 defenses “Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed,” said a message posted on the committee’s Twitter account at 8:03 p.m. “Happy Birthday, @HillaryClinton!” Clinton posted her own message six minutes later, suggesting that Republicans may pay a political price in just a week. “Senate Republicans just pushed through a Supreme Court justice who will help them take away Americans’ health care in the middle of a pandemic,” she wrote. “For them, this is victory. Vote them out.” The nomination ceremony a month ago undercut the political message Trump wanted to send when he, Trump and others who were in attendance later tested positive for the coronavirus. Trump emerged from his sickness as uncowed as ever, insisting that the virus could be beaten and telling Americans not to let it dominate their lives. Many of those who were infected that day stayed away Monday night. Among those who were back for more was Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who tested positive for the virus after the announcement ceremony where he had gone maskless and hugged others in the crowd. “Tonight’s vote was a huge win for the American people,” Lee said on Twitter without referring to the virus. Democrats were flabbergasted that the White House would replicate the event a month later. “They shame mask wearing,” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., said on Twitter earlier in the day. “They hold super spreader events daily. They discourage testing. They pretend like a vaccine is days away so that people will let down their guard. The biggest threat to America’s public health isn’t the virus, it’s the Trump White House.” But Trump relished the theatricality of the moment, escorting Barrett up the stairs to the balcony off the Blue Room that he has now used several times in recent days. From there, the two looked out on the crowd as the president applauded his new appointee; then the two were joined by their spouses, Melania Trump and Jesse Barrett, before all four along with Thomas slipped back into the White House again.

In swearing in Barrett, Trump defiantly mimics ‘superspreader’ Rose Garden ceremony

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate handed President Donald Trump a major pre-election political victory on Monday by confirming his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, with the White House planning a celebratory event afterward.

US Senate confirms Trump's Supreme Court pick Barrett

The would-be justice Amy Coney Barrett played safe yet again & chose not to give direct answers to crucial questions. As the #SCOTUS hearing winds down, GOP move up to vote. WION brings you the highlights of day 3.

Judge Barrett sails though grill session | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

After nearly 12 hours of questioning, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has portrayed herself as an independent judge without an agenda. She did it by dodging all questions on high profile cases. Here are the highlights from day 2 of #SCOTUS hearing.

Judge Barrett's art of dodging questions | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday said it is an "open question" as to whether Trump could pardon himself while adding that the nation's top judicial body "can't control" whether a president obeys its decisions.

On the third day of her four-day Judiciary Committee hearing, Barrett also sought to allay Democratic fears that she would be an automatic vote to strike down the Obamacare healthcare law in a case due to be argued Nov. 10, promising an "open mind."

Barrett sidestepped questions from senators on the ability of presidents to evade efforts to hold them accountable.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/barretts-testimony-is-a-deft-mix-of-expertise-and-evasion-335202" hreflang="en">Barrett’s testimony is a deft mix of expertise and evasion</a>

Trump has said he has the "absolute power" to pardon himself, part of his executive clemency authority. Asked by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy whether a president has such power, Barrett said the "question has never been litigated."

"That question may or may not arise but it's one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. So because it would be opining on an open question when I haven't gone through the judicial process to decide it, it's not one on which I can offer a view," Barrett added.

Trump faces a criminal investigation about the conduct of himself and his businesses by a New York City prosecutor who is seeking his financial records and tax returns. Trump also has issued executive clemency to political allies and friends.

Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge, is the Republican president's third selection for a lifetime job on the Supreme Court. Trump has asked the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to confirm her before the Nov. 3 U.S. election.

Barrett said "no one is above the law" but twice declined to answer directly when Leahy asked her whether a president who refuses to comply with a court order is a threat to the U.S. constitutional system of checks and balances within the three branches of government.

"The Supreme Court can't control whether or not the president obeys," Barrett said.

Supreme Court rulings, Barrett said, have the "force of law" but the court lacks enforcement power and relies on the other branches of government.

"A court can pronounce the law and issue a judgment but it lacks control over how the political branches respond to it," Barrett added.

Barrett declined to discuss whether Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution's "emoluments" clause with his business dealings, objecting to Leahy's characterization of the provision as an anti-corruption measure. The provision bar presidents from taking gifts or payments from foreign and state governments without congressional approval.

"I don't know if I would characterize it as an anti-corruption clause," Barrett said, adding that it was designed to "prevent foreign countries from having influence."

OBAMACARE CASE

Barrett could be on the high court for arguments in a challenge by Trump and Republican-led states to the 2010 law formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that has helped millions of Americans obtain medical coverage and includes protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

In response to Democratic suggestions that she would vote to strike down Obamacare in its entirety if one part is deemed unlawful, Barrett said that if a statute can be saved, it is a judge's duty to do so.

Barrett indicated she favors of a broad reading of the "severability doctrine" in which courts assume that when one provision of a law is unlawful, Congress would want the rest of the statute to remain in place. The Supreme Court has taken such an approach in recent years.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/barrett-declining-to-detail-legal-views-says-she-will-not-be-a-pawn-of-trump-335274" hreflang="en">Barrett, declining to detail legal views, says she will not be ‘a pawn’ of Trump</a>

"I think insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted, it's the court and Congress working hand in hand," Barrett said of the doctrine.

When judges address the legal question raised in the Obamacare case, the "presumption" is that Congress did not intend the whole statute to fall, Barrett added.

"If I were on the court, and if a case involving the ACA came before me, I would approach it with an open mind," Barrett told Republican Senator John Cornyn.

Barrett has criticized previous Supreme Court rulings upholding Obamacare.

ABORTION RIGHTS

Barrett has faced questions on contentious social issues including abortion, which as a devout Catholic she personally opposes.

"This is history being made folks," Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the panel, said. "This is the first time in American history that we've nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she's going to the court."

Barrett, 48, would be the fifth woman ever to serve on the court.

Barrett reiterated her Tuesday comments that the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide was not a "super-precedent" that could never potentially be overturned. Barrett also said she has an "open mind" on whether to allow television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings.

Barrett's confirmation would give the court a 6-3 conservative majority. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty.

Democrats have said the winner of the presidential election should get to fill the court's vacancy left by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The four-day hearing is scheduled to end on Thursday with testimony from outside witnesses. Republicans are preparing for a committee vote next week and a final Senate confirmation vote before the end of October. Trump nominated Barrett to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26.

President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday said it is an "open question" as to whether Trump could pardon himself while adding that the nation's top judicial body "can't control" whether a president obeys its decisions.

President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday said it is an "open question" as to whether Trump could pardon himself while adding that the nation's top judicial body "can't control" whether a president obeys its decisions. On the third day of her four-day Judiciary Committee hearing, Barrett also sought to allay Democratic fears that she would be an automatic vote to strike down the Obamacare healthcare law in a case due to be argued Nov. 10, promising an "open mind." Barrett sidestepped questions from senators on the ability of presidents to evade efforts to hold them accountable. Also read: Barrett’s testimony is a deft mix of expertise and evasion Trump has said he has the "absolute power" to pardon himself, part of his executive clemency authority. Asked by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy whether a president has such power, Barrett said the "question has never been litigated." "That question may or may not arise but it's one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. So because it would be opining on an open question when I haven't gone through the judicial process to decide it, it's not one on which I can offer a view," Barrett added. Trump faces a criminal investigation about the conduct of himself and his businesses by a New York City prosecutor who is seeking his financial records and tax returns. Trump also has issued executive clemency to political allies and friends. Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge, is the Republican president's third selection for a lifetime job on the Supreme Court. Trump has asked the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to confirm her before the Nov. 3 U.S. election. Barrett said "no one is above the law" but twice declined to answer directly when Leahy asked her whether a president who refuses to comply with a court order is a threat to the U.S. constitutional system of checks and balances within the three branches of government. "The Supreme Court can't control whether or not the president obeys," Barrett said. Supreme Court rulings, Barrett said, have the "force of law" but the court lacks enforcement power and relies on the other branches of government. "A court can pronounce the law and issue a judgment but it lacks control over how the political branches respond to it," Barrett added. Barrett declined to discuss whether Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution's "emoluments" clause with his business dealings, objecting to Leahy's characterization of the provision as an anti-corruption measure. The provision bar presidents from taking gifts or payments from foreign and state governments without congressional approval. "I don't know if I would characterize it as an anti-corruption clause," Barrett said, adding that it was designed to "prevent foreign countries from having influence." OBAMACARE CASE Barrett could be on the high court for arguments in a challenge by Trump and Republican-led states to the 2010 law formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that has helped millions of Americans obtain medical coverage and includes protections for people with pre-existing conditions. In response to Democratic suggestions that she would vote to strike down Obamacare in its entirety if one part is deemed unlawful, Barrett said that if a statute can be saved, it is a judge's duty to do so. Barrett indicated she favors of a broad reading of the "severability doctrine" in which courts assume that when one provision of a law is unlawful, Congress would want the rest of the statute to remain in place. The Supreme Court has taken such an approach in recent years. Also read: Barrett, declining to detail legal views, says she will not be ‘a pawn’ of Trump "I think insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted, it's the court and Congress working hand in hand," Barrett said of the doctrine. When judges address the legal question raised in the Obamacare case, the "presumption" is that Congress did not intend the whole statute to fall, Barrett added. "If I were on the court, and if a case involving the ACA came before me, I would approach it with an open mind," Barrett told Republican Senator John Cornyn. Barrett has criticized previous Supreme Court rulings upholding Obamacare. ABORTION RIGHTS Barrett has faced questions on contentious social issues including abortion, which as a devout Catholic she personally opposes. "This is history being made folks," Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the panel, said. "This is the first time in American history that we've nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she's going to the court." Barrett, 48, would be the fifth woman ever to serve on the court. Barrett reiterated her Tuesday comments that the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide was not a "super-precedent" that could never potentially be overturned. Barrett also said she has an "open mind" on whether to allow television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings. Barrett's confirmation would give the court a 6-3 conservative majority. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty. Democrats have said the winner of the presidential election should get to fill the court's vacancy left by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day hearing is scheduled to end on Thursday with testimony from outside witnesses. Republicans are preparing for a committee vote next week and a final Senate confirmation vote before the end of October. Trump nominated Barrett to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26.

Supreme Court can't control a president, says Trump's nominee Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett flatly refused Tuesday to pledge that she would recuse herself if a dispute over the Nov. 3 election came before the Supreme Court, insisting that despite her nomination by President Donald Trump, she would not “allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.”

During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ efforts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice.

“I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. “I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.”

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/barretts-testimony-is-a-deft-mix-of-expertise-and-evasion-335202" hreflang="en">Barrett’s testimony is a deft mix of expertise and evasion</a>

After days of hammering Barrett over the health care law, Democrats dismissed her assurances as essentially meaningless. Trump did not need to secure any specific promises from Barrett, they argued. He selected her precisely because her honestly held legal views would achieve the end he is after.

“I am then left with looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the American people,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., “and I think it leads us to a place that’s going to have severe repercussions for them.”

Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.

The president has stated that he wants Barrett confirmed by Election Day given that he anticipates an election dispute and is “counting” on the court to “look at the ballots.” And he has said he wants justices who would “do the right thing” and invalidate the Affordable Care Act.

“I am gravely concerned by what I see,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “I believe your views are sincere, but I also think you genuinely think the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.”

Referring to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat she would be taking if confirmed, he added that if Trump and Republicans “are able to swing the court out of balance by replacing Justice Ginsburg by someone whose views may be significantly to the right, the health of a majority of Americans may well be in peril.”

Republicans, rushing to secure Barrett’s confirmation before the election, lavished her with praise for her legal qualifications and personal virtues. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the judiciary panel’s chairman, called her “one of the most qualified people of your generation,” while Sen. John Cornyn of Texas encouraged her to hold up the blank notepad in front of her at the witness table to show that she was speaking entirely without notes.

“That is impressive,” Cornyn said.

The marathon day of televised questioning offered senators and Americans their first detailed look at Barrett’s conservative legal philosophy, heavily influenced by former Justice Antonin Scalia, and a window into her personal life as a 48-year-old judge and mother of seven children. She will face another day of questioning Wednesday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/honour-justice-ginsburgs-dying-wish-hillary-opposes-barretts-appointment-before-us-elections-335117" hreflang="en">Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections</a>

Barrett was most eager to discuss her legal philosophy on broad strokes. She expounded at length on the tenets of textualism and originalism, approaches made popular by Scalia that privilege plain reading of legal texts and seek to minimize a judge’s own interpretations of statute or the Constitution.

“Judges cannot just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said.

But that was more or less as much as she would say about any one issue. Barrett invoked her predecessors — including Ginsburg — in refusing to say how she would rule on all manner of politically potent issues. Democrats were exasperated.

Pressed by Coons, Barrett said she would take the question of recusal on any election-related cases “very seriously,” but pointed to strict guidelines that govern such matters rather than making a commitment in advance.

“I would certainly hope that all members of this committee would have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said.

On the Affordable Care Act, an issue Democrats see as central to their success in next month’s elections, Barrett offered even less insight into her thinking. If confirmed, she could be hearing arguments in a Republican challenge to the law in November.

At one point, Klobuchar displayed a 2015 Twitter post by Trump in which he said as president he would appoint judges who would “do the right thing unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.” The tweet was a reference to Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinions that left the health law in place.

“I can’t speak to what the president has said on Twitter,” Barrett said. “He hasn’t said any of that to me.”

Barrett also resisted attempts by Democrats to argue that her own academic writing criticizing Roberts meant she would certainly vote to strike it down in the case coming before the court.

“One of the upsides of being an academic is you can speak for yourself,” she told Klobuchar. “It’s difficult for me to say how I would have decided that case if I had to go through the whole process of judiciary decision-making.”

Besides, she told Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the panel’s top Democrat, the legal question now before the court — whether the entire law must be struck down because one part of it has been deemed flawed, or whether the flawed part is “severable” from the rest — poses a different question.

Democrats likewise argued Barrett would be a vote to chip away at or outright strike down the Roe v. Wade decision establishing abortion rights. Conservatives believe she will and have enthusiastically backed her nomination as a result. The nominee gave neither side much help, though.

When Feinstein reminded Barrett that Scalia had famously written that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned, Barrett refused to clarify her own views.

“I have no agenda to try and overrule Casey,” she said, referring to another abortion rights case. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”

Still, she said later that she did not consider Roe “superprecedent,” which she defined as “precedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.” Democrats took the answer to mean she would be open to overturning the ruling.

“I would suggest that we not pretend that we don’t know how this nominee views a woman’s right to choose and to make her own health care decisions,” said Sen. Kamala Harris of California, the Democrats’ nominee for vice president.

Multiple senators presented Barrett with a 2006 advertisement she had signed in support of overturning Roe v. Wade and its “barbaric legacy.” She said she had signed it quickly in the back of a church when she was a private citizen, but would not do so now as a judge.

“I’m happy to talk about views I’ve expressed when I was a private citizen, but now I’m a judge, so I cannot publicly express views,” she told Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

In more personal moments, often elicited by Republicans looking to cool the heat, Barrett spoke of a lapsed love of the piano and of rusty French language skills. She implied that mockery of her Catholic faith, her large family and her decision to adopt two of her children from Haiti had been painful.

She said that she and her husband, Jesse Barrett, “knew that our faith would be caricatured, we knew our family would be attacked” if Trump nominated her, and had discussed in advance whether to submit to that level of scrutiny.

While she said her faith was important to her, Barrett — a member of People of Praise, a tight-knit Christian community inspired by the traditions of charismatic Christianity — said it would have no bearing on her work as a justice.

“I have a life brimming with people who have made different choices, and I have never tried, in my personal life, to impose my choices on them,” said Barrett, who teaches at Notre Dame, a Catholic university, and serves on an appeals court in Chicago. “The same is true professionally.”

She spoke in deeply personal terms about her family’s experience on matters of race, saying that she had wept with her 17-year-old daughter, Vivian, who is Black, after the killing of George Floyd in police custody in May in Minneapolis.

Senate Republicans alternated between burnishing Barrett’s image and arguing that Democrats were inflating the risk posed to the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights and gay marriage. In doing so, said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, they were acting as if the Supreme Court were a supergovernmental entity ruling the country.

At many points, senators on both sides simply used their 30-minute block of time to give speeches, forgoing perhaps waning opportunity to solicit public answers from Barrett before she takes a lifetime appointment.

“It speaks volumes that collectively they have had very few questions for you and virtually none calling into question your credentials, which are impeccable, your record and what I think has been an extraordinary life you’ve led,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett flatly refused Tuesday to pledge that she would recuse herself if a dispute over the Nov. 3 election came before the Supreme Court, insisting that despite her nomination by President Donald Trump, she would not “allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett flatly refused Tuesday to pledge that she would recuse herself if a dispute over the Nov. 3 election came before the Supreme Court, insisting that despite her nomination by President Donald Trump, she would not “allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.” During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ efforts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. “I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. “I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.” Also read: Barrett’s testimony is a deft mix of expertise and evasion After days of hammering Barrett over the health care law, Democrats dismissed her assurances as essentially meaningless. Trump did not need to secure any specific promises from Barrett, they argued. He selected her precisely because her honestly held legal views would achieve the end he is after. “I am then left with looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the American people,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., “and I think it leads us to a place that’s going to have severe repercussions for them.” Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule. The president has stated that he wants Barrett confirmed by Election Day given that he anticipates an election dispute and is “counting” on the court to “look at the ballots.” And he has said he wants justices who would “do the right thing” and invalidate the Affordable Care Act. “I am gravely concerned by what I see,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “I believe your views are sincere, but I also think you genuinely think the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.” Referring to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat she would be taking if confirmed, he added that if Trump and Republicans “are able to swing the court out of balance by replacing Justice Ginsburg by someone whose views may be significantly to the right, the health of a majority of Americans may well be in peril.” Republicans, rushing to secure Barrett’s confirmation before the election, lavished her with praise for her legal qualifications and personal virtues. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the judiciary panel’s chairman, called her “one of the most qualified people of your generation,” while Sen. John Cornyn of Texas encouraged her to hold up the blank notepad in front of her at the witness table to show that she was speaking entirely without notes. “That is impressive,” Cornyn said. The marathon day of televised questioning offered senators and Americans their first detailed look at Barrett’s conservative legal philosophy, heavily influenced by former Justice Antonin Scalia, and a window into her personal life as a 48-year-old judge and mother of seven children. She will face another day of questioning Wednesday. Also read: Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections Barrett was most eager to discuss her legal philosophy on broad strokes. She expounded at length on the tenets of textualism and originalism, approaches made popular by Scalia that privilege plain reading of legal texts and seek to minimize a judge’s own interpretations of statute or the Constitution. “Judges cannot just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said. But that was more or less as much as she would say about any one issue. Barrett invoked her predecessors — including Ginsburg — in refusing to say how she would rule on all manner of politically potent issues. Democrats were exasperated. Pressed by Coons, Barrett said she would take the question of recusal on any election-related cases “very seriously,” but pointed to strict guidelines that govern such matters rather than making a commitment in advance. “I would certainly hope that all members of this committee would have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said. On the Affordable Care Act, an issue Democrats see as central to their success in next month’s elections, Barrett offered even less insight into her thinking. If confirmed, she could be hearing arguments in a Republican challenge to the law in November. At one point, Klobuchar displayed a 2015 Twitter post by Trump in which he said as president he would appoint judges who would “do the right thing unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.” The tweet was a reference to Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinions that left the health law in place. “I can’t speak to what the president has said on Twitter,” Barrett said. “He hasn’t said any of that to me.” Barrett also resisted attempts by Democrats to argue that her own academic writing criticizing Roberts meant she would certainly vote to strike it down in the case coming before the court. “One of the upsides of being an academic is you can speak for yourself,” she told Klobuchar. “It’s difficult for me to say how I would have decided that case if I had to go through the whole process of judiciary decision-making.” Besides, she told Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the panel’s top Democrat, the legal question now before the court — whether the entire law must be struck down because one part of it has been deemed flawed, or whether the flawed part is “severable” from the rest — poses a different question. Democrats likewise argued Barrett would be a vote to chip away at or outright strike down the Roe v. Wade decision establishing abortion rights. Conservatives believe she will and have enthusiastically backed her nomination as a result. The nominee gave neither side much help, though. When Feinstein reminded Barrett that Scalia had famously written that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned, Barrett refused to clarify her own views. “I have no agenda to try and overrule Casey,” she said, referring to another abortion rights case. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.” Still, she said later that she did not consider Roe “superprecedent,” which she defined as “precedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.” Democrats took the answer to mean she would be open to overturning the ruling. “I would suggest that we not pretend that we don’t know how this nominee views a woman’s right to choose and to make her own health care decisions,” said Sen. Kamala Harris of California, the Democrats’ nominee for vice president. Multiple senators presented Barrett with a 2006 advertisement she had signed in support of overturning Roe v. Wade and its “barbaric legacy.” She said she had signed it quickly in the back of a church when she was a private citizen, but would not do so now as a judge. “I’m happy to talk about views I’ve expressed when I was a private citizen, but now I’m a judge, so I cannot publicly express views,” she told Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. In more personal moments, often elicited by Republicans looking to cool the heat, Barrett spoke of a lapsed love of the piano and of rusty French language skills. She implied that mockery of her Catholic faith, her large family and her decision to adopt two of her children from Haiti had been painful. She said that she and her husband, Jesse Barrett, “knew that our faith would be caricatured, we knew our family would be attacked” if Trump nominated her, and had discussed in advance whether to submit to that level of scrutiny. While she said her faith was important to her, Barrett — a member of People of Praise, a tight-knit Christian community inspired by the traditions of charismatic Christianity — said it would have no bearing on her work as a justice. “I have a life brimming with people who have made different choices, and I have never tried, in my personal life, to impose my choices on them,” said Barrett, who teaches at Notre Dame, a Catholic university, and serves on an appeals court in Chicago. “The same is true professionally.” She spoke in deeply personal terms about her family’s experience on matters of race, saying that she had wept with her 17-year-old daughter, Vivian, who is Black, after the killing of George Floyd in police custody in May in Minneapolis. Senate Republicans alternated between burnishing Barrett’s image and arguing that Democrats were inflating the risk posed to the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights and gay marriage. In doing so, said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, they were acting as if the Supreme Court were a supergovernmental entity ruling the country. At many points, senators on both sides simply used their 30-minute block of time to give speeches, forgoing perhaps waning opportunity to solicit public answers from Barrett before she takes a lifetime appointment. “It speaks volumes that collectively they have had very few questions for you and virtually none calling into question your credentials, which are impeccable, your record and what I think has been an extraordinary life you’ve led,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Barrett, declining to detail legal views, says she will not be ‘a pawn’ of Trump

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.”

“The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett expertly followed that playbook at her confirmation hearings Tuesday, in her first day of answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Speaking without notes, she gave sure-footed accounts of Supreme Court precedents and then, almost without exception, declined to say whether the decisions were correct.

Barrett was patient, calm, a little stern and sometimes surprisingly terse when she spoke about the law, easily parrying most questions from the Democratic senators who tried to put her on the spot.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/honour-justice-ginsburgs-dying-wish-hillary-opposes-barretts-appointment-before-us-elections-335117">Also read|&nbsp;Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections</a>

She would not say how she would rule in potential cases on abortion, the election and same-sex marriage — or a pending one on the Affordable Care Act.

Barrett’s stance was in line with the approach of nominees since Judge Robert H. Bork’s answers at his 1987 confirmation hearings helped doom his nomination.

Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, Bork gave extended answers to the senators’ questions, in tones that struck some as candid and thoughtful and others as prickly and arrogant. Democrats said his legal views, particularly his skepticism about the constitutional right to privacy, were extreme and signaled hostility to abortion rights.

The Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, defeated the nomination by a 58-42 vote. That was the largest margin by which it had ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination, and it was the last time the Senate has voted down a nominee for the court.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kamala-harris-grills-barrett-on-obamacare-she-sidesteps-question-335107">Also read|&nbsp;Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question</a>

But Kagan, in her 1995 article, said the hearings were a high-water mark.

“The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the court and the views of the nominee,” she wrote. “Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints, and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”

Barrett seemed to have studied recent hearings carefully, absorbing their lessons. They were presciently summarized in a 1981 memorandum written by a young White House lawyer named John Roberts, who helped prepare Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another Reagan nominee, for her confirmation hearings.

“The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court,” the memo said, “but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-supreme-court-pick-says-she-is-not-hostile-to-obamacare-dodges-on-abortion-335070">Also read|&nbsp;Trump's Supreme Court pick says she is not 'hostile' to Obamacare, dodges on abortion</a>

Roberts took his own advice at his confirmation hearings in 2005. Some said he retired the trophy. Barrett held her own, too.

“I do want to be forthright and answer every question,” she said when asked about whether two key abortion precedents had been correctly decided. But she said she could not describe her views.

“It would be wrong of me to do that as a sitting judge,” she said. “Whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.”

Nor would she say if the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage might be overturned, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito seemed to urge this month.

Barrett acknowledged that she had written and spoken critically of the reasoning in the controlling opinions in two Supreme Court decisions upholding major provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But she said the key issue in the latest challenge, to be argued next month, presented a different issue.

That is correct: The central question now is whether the entire law must fall because Congress in 2017 zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. Barrett said she had expressed no view on that issue.

“I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA,” she said.

And she invoked Kagan, whose views had evolved by the time she appeared before the committee in 2010 for her own confirmation hearings, having been nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat. “She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down,” Barrett said, paraphrasing Kagan.

Barrett also cited the so-called Ginsburg rule, named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month and whose seat Barrett hopes to assume. Ginsburg was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

At her confirmation hearing in 1993, Ginsburg distilled the responsibilities of nominees into a pithy phrase: “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”

Barrett said she would adopt the same stance. “That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely, and it has been the practice of every nominee since,” she said.

As it happened, though, Ginsburg was quite forthcoming during her hearing about her views on abortion. The main exception to the Ginsburg rule, at least where abortion was concerned, was Ginsburg.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity,” Ginsburg said of abortion at her hearings. “It’s a decision that she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human, responsible for her own choices.”

In general, though, Ginsburg had taught a master class in avoiding direct responses to senators’ questions, Kagan wrote in her 1995 article.

“Justice Ginsburg’s favored technique took the form of a pincer movement,” Kagan wrote. If a question was too specific, she would decline to answer on the ground that she did not want to forecast a vote. If it was too general, she would say a judge should not deal in abstractions or hypothetical questions.

Kagan explained what was considered too specific: “Roughly, anything that might have some bearing on a case that might someday come before the court.” She also described what had been too general: “Roughly, anything else worthy of mention.”

Barrett recited the usual factors for considering whether a precedent should be overruled: whether people had come to rely on it in ordering their affairs, whether it was workable in practice and whether it has been undermined by later decisions or factual developments. She would consider those factors, she said, for “abortion or anything else.”

She made an exception for Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation case. That was a “super-precedent,” she said, “one that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.”

Barrett refused to say whether she would recuse herself from the case on the health care law or potential ones arising from the election next month. She would, she said, consider judicial ethics rules and consult with her colleagues.

“I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said.

She was adamant that she had made no promises about how she would rule: “I have made no commitment to anyone, not in the Senate, not over at the White House, on how I would decide any case.”

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.” “The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.” “The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.” Judge Amy Coney Barrett expertly followed that playbook at her confirmation hearings Tuesday, in her first day of answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Speaking without notes, she gave sure-footed accounts of Supreme Court precedents and then, almost without exception, declined to say whether the decisions were correct. Barrett was patient, calm, a little stern and sometimes surprisingly terse when she spoke about the law, easily parrying most questions from the Democratic senators who tried to put her on the spot. Also read| Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections She would not say how she would rule in potential cases on abortion, the election and same-sex marriage — or a pending one on the Affordable Care Act. Barrett’s stance was in line with the approach of nominees since Judge Robert H. Bork’s answers at his 1987 confirmation hearings helped doom his nomination. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, Bork gave extended answers to the senators’ questions, in tones that struck some as candid and thoughtful and others as prickly and arrogant. Democrats said his legal views, particularly his skepticism about the constitutional right to privacy, were extreme and signaled hostility to abortion rights. The Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, defeated the nomination by a 58-42 vote. That was the largest margin by which it had ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination, and it was the last time the Senate has voted down a nominee for the court. Also read| Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question But Kagan, in her 1995 article, said the hearings were a high-water mark. “The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the court and the views of the nominee,” she wrote. “Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints, and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.” Barrett seemed to have studied recent hearings carefully, absorbing their lessons. They were presciently summarized in a 1981 memorandum written by a young White House lawyer named John Roberts, who helped prepare Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another Reagan nominee, for her confirmation hearings. “The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court,” the memo said, “but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments.” Also read| Trump's Supreme Court pick says she is not 'hostile' to Obamacare, dodges on abortion Roberts took his own advice at his confirmation hearings in 2005. Some said he retired the trophy. Barrett held her own, too. “I do want to be forthright and answer every question,” she said when asked about whether two key abortion precedents had been correctly decided. But she said she could not describe her views. “It would be wrong of me to do that as a sitting judge,” she said. “Whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.” Nor would she say if the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage might be overturned, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito seemed to urge this month. Barrett acknowledged that she had written and spoken critically of the reasoning in the controlling opinions in two Supreme Court decisions upholding major provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But she said the key issue in the latest challenge, to be argued next month, presented a different issue. That is correct: The central question now is whether the entire law must fall because Congress in 2017 zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. Barrett said she had expressed no view on that issue. “I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA,” she said. And she invoked Kagan, whose views had evolved by the time she appeared before the committee in 2010 for her own confirmation hearings, having been nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat. “She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down,” Barrett said, paraphrasing Kagan. Barrett also cited the so-called Ginsburg rule, named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month and whose seat Barrett hopes to assume. Ginsburg was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. At her confirmation hearing in 1993, Ginsburg distilled the responsibilities of nominees into a pithy phrase: “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” Barrett said she would adopt the same stance. “That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely, and it has been the practice of every nominee since,” she said. As it happened, though, Ginsburg was quite forthcoming during her hearing about her views on abortion. The main exception to the Ginsburg rule, at least where abortion was concerned, was Ginsburg. “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity,” Ginsburg said of abortion at her hearings. “It’s a decision that she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human, responsible for her own choices.” In general, though, Ginsburg had taught a master class in avoiding direct responses to senators’ questions, Kagan wrote in her 1995 article. “Justice Ginsburg’s favored technique took the form of a pincer movement,” Kagan wrote. If a question was too specific, she would decline to answer on the ground that she did not want to forecast a vote. If it was too general, she would say a judge should not deal in abstractions or hypothetical questions. Kagan explained what was considered too specific: “Roughly, anything that might have some bearing on a case that might someday come before the court.” She also described what had been too general: “Roughly, anything else worthy of mention.” Barrett recited the usual factors for considering whether a precedent should be overruled: whether people had come to rely on it in ordering their affairs, whether it was workable in practice and whether it has been undermined by later decisions or factual developments. She would consider those factors, she said, for “abortion or anything else.” She made an exception for Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation case. That was a “super-precedent,” she said, “one that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.” Barrett refused to say whether she would recuse herself from the case on the health care law or potential ones arising from the election next month. She would, she said, consider judicial ethics rules and consult with her colleagues. “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said. She was adamant that she had made no promises about how she would rule: “I have made no commitment to anyone, not in the Senate, not over at the White House, on how I would decide any case.”

Barrett’s testimony is a deft mix of expertise and evasion

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is being grilled by the Democrats. She said that she had made no commitments to the President or anyone else about how she might rule on a case aimed at dismantling the Affordable Care Act or on a potential dispute in the upcoming presidential election.

Democrats grill Barrett on healthcare: Evades answers on abortion, gay marriage

barrett

Barrett, News on Barrett, stories on Barrett, articles on Barrett, Barrett stories at Wion, Barrett news, Barrett latest news