Conservative win: Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED.

We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s 4-4 deadlock Monday on whether Pennsylvania must count some late-arriving ballots said it all.

The four most conservative justices sided with the Republican Party, which has fought tooth and nail against permitting states to make accommodations to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump-induced collapse of the United States Postal Service by relaxing rules, including deadlines. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the party’s request for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision providing that ballots will be counted if postmarked by the night of Nov. 3 and received within the following three days.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, in voting to let the decision stand. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would undoubtedly have voted with them. With her or without her, the conservatives would still be one vote short of the five needed to grant a stay.

Can I be certain that soon-to-be Justice Barrett, President Trump’s choice to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, would have been that fifth vote? Can I assume that she would really have been so bold, so unabashed about carrying the Republican Party’s water within days of her arrival following the strong-arm tactics the party used to secure her confirmation?

No, of course, I can’t. All I know for sure is who her friends are — and what she said and didn’t say during her two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. I don’t know whether the four justices who voted to block the Pennsylvania court’s decision have ever met Judge Barrett. But they seem to consider her their ally-in-waiting.

I say that because when the Supreme Court denies a stay without opinion, as it did on Monday, there is no requirement or general practice for indicating the actual vote or the identities of the justices who voted one way or another. When a tie vote makes the court unable to decide a case it has actually heard on the merits, a more consequential step than the mere denial of a stay, the court says nothing more than “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” We are left to guess who was on which side.

Yet here, the four justices who voted unsuccessfully for a stay chose to reveal themselves by noting that they “would grant the application.” Why did they do that? It’s not too cynical to suppose that they wanted to make it clear to the base how much they needed Judge Barrett to join them, now, before other cases like this one inevitably come along. Do Supreme Court justices have a base? These do.

On the subject of abortion, we don’t need to read tea leaves. We just need to know how to read. And I don’t mean the statement Judge Barrett signed back in 2006 opposing “abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to a natural death.” I mean an opinion she joined in 2018 calling for her court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to reconsider as a full court an opinion by a smaller panel of the court that had invalidated an Indiana anti-abortion law.

Because the opinion was a dissent, one that she joined but didn’t write, and because the requested full-court rehearing never took place, the case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, has remained under the radar. It emerged only once during last week’s hearing, in a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. Judge Barrett deflected the question with an answer that struck me as close to disingenuous, and the senator, either pressed for time or not fully understanding the exchange, let the matter drop.

For that reason, and because I see this procedurally obscure case as providing the clearest indication of how Judge Barrett will approach abortion cases, it’s worth unpacking in some detail.

In 2016, the Indiana legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed an abortion law with two provisions. One required clinics to treat aborted fetuses as deceased persons, by cremation or burial. The other prohibited doctors from performing an abortion knowing that the woman’s decision was based on the sex or race of the fetus or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or “any other disability.” A federal district judge barred enforcement of both provisions, and a Seventh Circuit panel upheld that ruling in April 2018.

One of the three judges on the panel, Daniel Manion, dissented from the fetal-remains portion of the opinion. He then said he found it “regrettable” that Supreme Court precedent required him to concur with his colleagues that the other provision was unconstitutional, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has ruled that before fetal viability, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion.

He then proceeded to rail against the court’s abortion jurisprudence in a separate 20-page opinion that contained the blithe assertion that “children with Down syndrome bring joy to everyone around them” — an observation that had no bearing on the legal issue and that coming from a 78-year-old man might well appear cavalier to a young family struggling to grasp the uncertain future that such a diagnosis portends; most families faced with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose abortion.

“Indiana made a noble attempt to protect the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group,” Judge Manion wrote, adding, “The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence proved an insurmountable obstacle.”

The state sought a rehearing before the full court on the fetal-remains provision. It did not ask the court to reconsider the validity of the provision prohibiting abortions sought for particular reasons. The court denied rehearing over the dissent of five judges in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. His opinion is a remarkable document. Even though the state had not put the prohibition portion of the statute at issue, Judge Easterbrook proceeded to address it at length, calling it “an anti-eugenics law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Easterbrook wrote:

Casey and other decisions hold that, until a fetus is viable, a woman is entitled to decide whether to bear a child. But there is a difference between ‘I don’t want a child’ and ‘I want a child, but only a male’ or ‘I want only children whose genes predict success in life.’ Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered. None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.

He added, “We ought not to impute to the justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.”

In other words, Judge Easterbrook, and the judges who joined him in dissent, would have, if they had the power, reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s precedents to uphold a statute that those precedents clearly prohibit. One of those judges was Judge Barrett.

Asked about the case by Senator Leahy, Judge Barrett said this, referring to “the eugenics portion of the bill”:

It is true the state of Indiana did not seek ‘en banc’ rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook’s dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question, but one that’s left to the Supreme Court, and we did not reach any conclusion with respect to it.

No, Judge Barrett. It’s not an “open question.” It’s a question with one answer and one answer only. For now.

(In May 2019, the Supreme Court, over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, overturned the Seventh Circuit and upheld the fetal-remains portion of the statute. The court denied Indiana’s appeal on the prohibition portion, letting stand the panel’s decision on its unconstitutionality. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas mirrored, fervently and at length, Judge Easterbrook’s complaint.)

Judge Barrett had left the witness chair by Friday, the Judiciary Committee’s wrap-up day. But outside the hearing room, far from Washington, the lock-step march of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion judges continued. With two Trump judges in the 2-1 majority, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Kentucky law that will have the effect of closing the two remaining abortion clinics in the state, a decision that the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, called “terribly and tragically wrong.”

The law requires abortion clinics, in order to maintain their license, to have a “transfer agreement” with a nearby Kentucky-licensed hospital to accept any patients needing care. This is a copycat law in imitation of the admitting-privileges requirement that the Supreme Court has invalidated in two successive decisions. Needless to say, the two Trump appointees in the majority, Judges Joan Larsen and Chad Readler, had to jump through many hoops to justify upholding this law.

But the richest part of their opinion was their assertion that the two clinics, neither of which has been able to reach a hospital agreement, hadn’t demonstrated with sufficient persuasiveness that they would actually have to close. That’s because the law offers the chance to apply for a 90-day waiver. To the clinics’ objection that they can’t remain in business if they can’t assure their staff of employment after 90 days, Judge Larsen had this to say in her majority opinion: “We must presume that the inspector general will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act simply to make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.”

It was somehow fitting for this decision to appear on the day the Judiciary Committee finished its astonishingly rushed confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. As I read the majority opinion, this thought occurred to me: Here, with Roe v. Wade still on the books, a state can force the closure of all abortion clinics within its borders. So at this rate, when the Supreme Court gets around sooner or later to overturning Roe, how will anyone be able to tell?

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED. We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett.

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED. We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s 4-4 deadlock Monday on whether Pennsylvania must count some late-arriving ballots said it all. The four most conservative justices sided with the Republican Party, which has fought tooth and nail against permitting states to make accommodations to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump-induced collapse of the United States Postal Service by relaxing rules, including deadlines. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the party’s request for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision providing that ballots will be counted if postmarked by the night of Nov. 3 and received within the following three days. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, in voting to let the decision stand. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would undoubtedly have voted with them. With her or without her, the conservatives would still be one vote short of the five needed to grant a stay. Can I be certain that soon-to-be Justice Barrett, President Trump’s choice to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, would have been that fifth vote? Can I assume that she would really have been so bold, so unabashed about carrying the Republican Party’s water within days of her arrival following the strong-arm tactics the party used to secure her confirmation? No, of course, I can’t. All I know for sure is who her friends are — and what she said and didn’t say during her two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. I don’t know whether the four justices who voted to block the Pennsylvania court’s decision have ever met Judge Barrett. But they seem to consider her their ally-in-waiting. I say that because when the Supreme Court denies a stay without opinion, as it did on Monday, there is no requirement or general practice for indicating the actual vote or the identities of the justices who voted one way or another. When a tie vote makes the court unable to decide a case it has actually heard on the merits, a more consequential step than the mere denial of a stay, the court says nothing more than “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” We are left to guess who was on which side. Yet here, the four justices who voted unsuccessfully for a stay chose to reveal themselves by noting that they “would grant the application.” Why did they do that? It’s not too cynical to suppose that they wanted to make it clear to the base how much they needed Judge Barrett to join them, now, before other cases like this one inevitably come along. Do Supreme Court justices have a base? These do. On the subject of abortion, we don’t need to read tea leaves. We just need to know how to read. And I don’t mean the statement Judge Barrett signed back in 2006 opposing “abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to a natural death.” I mean an opinion she joined in 2018 calling for her court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to reconsider as a full court an opinion by a smaller panel of the court that had invalidated an Indiana anti-abortion law. Because the opinion was a dissent, one that she joined but didn’t write, and because the requested full-court rehearing never took place, the case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, has remained under the radar. It emerged only once during last week’s hearing, in a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. Judge Barrett deflected the question with an answer that struck me as close to disingenuous, and the senator, either pressed for time or not fully understanding the exchange, let the matter drop. For that reason, and because I see this procedurally obscure case as providing the clearest indication of how Judge Barrett will approach abortion cases, it’s worth unpacking in some detail. In 2016, the Indiana legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed an abortion law with two provisions. One required clinics to treat aborted fetuses as deceased persons, by cremation or burial. The other prohibited doctors from performing an abortion knowing that the woman’s decision was based on the sex or race of the fetus or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or “any other disability.” A federal district judge barred enforcement of both provisions, and a Seventh Circuit panel upheld that ruling in April 2018. One of the three judges on the panel, Daniel Manion, dissented from the fetal-remains portion of the opinion. He then said he found it “regrettable” that Supreme Court precedent required him to concur with his colleagues that the other provision was unconstitutional, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has ruled that before fetal viability, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion. He then proceeded to rail against the court’s abortion jurisprudence in a separate 20-page opinion that contained the blithe assertion that “children with Down syndrome bring joy to everyone around them” — an observation that had no bearing on the legal issue and that coming from a 78-year-old man might well appear cavalier to a young family struggling to grasp the uncertain future that such a diagnosis portends; most families faced with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose abortion. “Indiana made a noble attempt to protect the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group,” Judge Manion wrote, adding, “The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence proved an insurmountable obstacle.” The state sought a rehearing before the full court on the fetal-remains provision. It did not ask the court to reconsider the validity of the provision prohibiting abortions sought for particular reasons. The court denied rehearing over the dissent of five judges in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. His opinion is a remarkable document. Even though the state had not put the prohibition portion of the statute at issue, Judge Easterbrook proceeded to address it at length, calling it “an anti-eugenics law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Easterbrook wrote: Casey and other decisions hold that, until a fetus is viable, a woman is entitled to decide whether to bear a child. But there is a difference between ‘I don’t want a child’ and ‘I want a child, but only a male’ or ‘I want only children whose genes predict success in life.’ Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered. None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children. He added, “We ought not to impute to the justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.” In other words, Judge Easterbrook, and the judges who joined him in dissent, would have, if they had the power, reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s precedents to uphold a statute that those precedents clearly prohibit. One of those judges was Judge Barrett. Asked about the case by Senator Leahy, Judge Barrett said this, referring to “the eugenics portion of the bill”: It is true the state of Indiana did not seek ‘en banc’ rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook’s dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question, but one that’s left to the Supreme Court, and we did not reach any conclusion with respect to it. No, Judge Barrett. It’s not an “open question.” It’s a question with one answer and one answer only. For now. (In May 2019, the Supreme Court, over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, overturned the Seventh Circuit and upheld the fetal-remains portion of the statute. The court denied Indiana’s appeal on the prohibition portion, letting stand the panel’s decision on its unconstitutionality. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas mirrored, fervently and at length, Judge Easterbrook’s complaint.) Judge Barrett had left the witness chair by Friday, the Judiciary Committee’s wrap-up day. But outside the hearing room, far from Washington, the lock-step march of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion judges continued. With two Trump judges in the 2-1 majority, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Kentucky law that will have the effect of closing the two remaining abortion clinics in the state, a decision that the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, called “terribly and tragically wrong.” The law requires abortion clinics, in order to maintain their license, to have a “transfer agreement” with a nearby Kentucky-licensed hospital to accept any patients needing care. This is a copycat law in imitation of the admitting-privileges requirement that the Supreme Court has invalidated in two successive decisions. Needless to say, the two Trump appointees in the majority, Judges Joan Larsen and Chad Readler, had to jump through many hoops to justify upholding this law. But the richest part of their opinion was their assertion that the two clinics, neither of which has been able to reach a hospital agreement, hadn’t demonstrated with sufficient persuasiveness that they would actually have to close. That’s because the law offers the chance to apply for a 90-day waiver. To the clinics’ objection that they can’t remain in business if they can’t assure their staff of employment after 90 days, Judge Larsen had this to say in her majority opinion: “We must presume that the inspector general will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act simply to make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.” It was somehow fitting for this decision to appear on the day the Judiciary Committee finished its astonishingly rushed confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. As I read the majority opinion, this thought occurred to me: Here, with Roe v. Wade still on the books, a state can force the closure of all abortion clinics within its borders. So at this rate, when the Supreme Court gets around sooner or later to overturning Roe, how will anyone be able to tell?

What does Amy Coney Barrett mean for the Supreme Court?

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was "time to dissent" against attempts to "push through" Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on US Supreme Court before US Elections due on November 3. Amy Coney Barrett is US President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created due to passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.&nbsp;

"This is a moment for us to dissent against President Trump's and Mitch McConnell's desire to push through, the confirmation of a successor before election day," said Clinton.

Clinton said that it was Justice Ginsburg's "dying wish" that a new judge not be appointed before American people have had their say through the ballot. Hillary Clinton was speaking at a livestream event called Honour Her Wish.

US President Donald Trump and Republican Party have made it their priority to confirm Amy Coney Barrett on Supreme Court before November 3 elections.&nbsp;

Republican Party and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are facing criticism for what some say is their 'hypocrisy'

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kamala-harris-grills-barrett-on-obamacare-she-sidesteps-question-335107">Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question</a>

In 2016, when then US President Barack Obama wanted to fill Supreme Court vacancy, McConnell had refused to hold Senate hearings saying such a move to fill Supreme Court vacancy in an election year should not be made.

But McConnell himself is now pushing for confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett when elections are literally weeks away.

Why&nbsp;the hurry

Republicans and Trump himself envisage that Supreme Court may have to step-in to declare winner of US Elections 2020 just like it did in 2000. In such a case, Trump may have an advantage if conservative judges hold 6-3 majority, which they will if Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed in the Supreme Court.

Currently, Republicans hold a 57-43 majority in the Senate and Barrett is expected to get confirmed easily in the hearings.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was "time to dissent" against attempts to "push through" Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on US Supreme Court before US Elections due on November 3.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that it was "time to dissent" against attempts to "push through" Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on US Supreme Court before US Elections due on November 3. Amy Coney Barrett is US President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created due to passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "This is a moment for us to dissent against President Trump's and Mitch McConnell's desire to push through, the confirmation of a successor before election day," said Clinton. Clinton said that it was Justice Ginsburg's "dying wish" that a new judge not be appointed before American people have had their say through the ballot. Hillary Clinton was speaking at a livestream event called Honour Her Wish. US President Donald Trump and Republican Party have made it their priority to confirm Amy Coney Barrett on Supreme Court before November 3 elections. Republican Party and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are facing criticism for what some say is their 'hypocrisy' Also Read | Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question In 2016, when then US President Barack Obama wanted to fill Supreme Court vacancy, McConnell had refused to hold Senate hearings saying such a move to fill Supreme Court vacancy in an election year should not be made. But McConnell himself is now pushing for confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett when elections are literally weeks away. Why the hurry Republicans and Trump himself envisage that Supreme Court may have to step-in to declare winner of US Elections 2020 just like it did in 2000. In such a case, Trump may have an advantage if conservative judges hold 6-3 majority, which they will if Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed in the Supreme Court. Currently, Republicans hold a 57-43 majority in the Senate and Barrett is expected to get confirmed easily in the hearings.

Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-cleaver-attack-suspect-says-acted-over-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-sources-say-330440">Paris cleaver attack suspect says acted over Charlie Hebdo cartoons, sources say</a>

A man suspected of wounding two people with a meat cleaver near the former offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris has admitted staging the attack, linking it to the republication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed by the satirical weekly | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-cleaver-attack-suspect-says-acted-over-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-sources-say-330440">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-to-restrict-stay-of-chinese-journalists-to-90-days-330466">US seeks to restrict stay of Chinese journalists to 90 days</a>

USA is seeking to limit stay of Chinese journalists on its soil to 90 days. The proposal of the Departement of Homeland Security is part of fixed time limit on visas of students, researchers and foreign journalists in the US | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-to-restrict-stay-of-chinese-journalists-to-90-days-330466">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ruth-bader-ginsburg-becomes-first-woman-to-lie-in-state-at-us-capitol-330457">Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state at US Capitol</a>

Deceased United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the first woman in history to lie in state in the US Capitol | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ruth-bader-ginsburg-becomes-first-woman-to-lie-in-state-at-us-capitol-330457">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-us-election-winner-might-not-be-known-for-months-330460">Trump says US election winner might not be known for months</a>

United States President Donald Trump on Friday said Americans might not know the winner of the November presidential election for months due to disputes over mail ballots | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-us-election-winner-might-not-be-known-for-months-330460">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/international-film-festival-of-india-iffi-postponed-to-january-2021-330378">International Film Festival of India (IFFI) postponed to January 2021</a>

The International Film Festival of India (IFFI), has been postponed to the next year, citing COVID-19 pandemic | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/international-film-festival-of-india-iffi-postponed-to-january-2021-330378">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/at-unga-pm-modi-bats-for-reforms-and-a-bigger-role-for-india-in-decision-making-330487">At UNGA, PM Modi bats for reforms and a bigger role for India in decision-making</a>

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday made a strong pitch for a prominent role for India, the world's largest democracy and home to 1.3 billion people, in the decision-making structures of the United Nations | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/at-unga-pm-modi-bats-for-reforms-and-a-bigger-role-for-india-in-decision-making-330487">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/man-killed-in-clashes-with-police-in-egypt-protest-against-president-330508">Man killed in clashes with police in Egypt protest against president</a>

An Egyptian man was killed overnight Saturday in clashes between protesters and police during a demonstration in a village south of Cairo against President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, family and medical sources said | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/man-killed-in-clashes-with-police-in-egypt-protest-against-president-330508">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-inaugurates-citys-first-park-honouring-a-black-woman-330470">Paris inaugurates city’s first park honouring a Black woman</a>

A public garden, honouring a Black woman who fought for the liberation of slaves on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, was inaugurated in Paris | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-inaugurates-citys-first-park-honouring-a-black-woman-330470">READ MORE</a>

Paris cleaver attack suspect says acted over Charlie Hebdo cartoons, sources say A man suspected of wounding two people with a meat cleaver near the former offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris has admitted staging the attack, linking it to the republication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed by the satirical weekly | READ MORE US seeks to restrict stay of Chinese journalists to 90 days USA is seeking to limit stay of Chinese journalists on its soil to 90 days.

Paris cleaver attack suspect says acted over Charlie Hebdo cartoons, sources say A man suspected of wounding two people with a meat cleaver near the former offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris has admitted staging the attack, linking it to the republication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed by the satirical weekly | READ MORE US seeks to restrict stay of Chinese journalists to 90 days USA is seeking to limit stay of Chinese journalists on its soil to 90 days. The proposal of the Departement of Homeland Security is part of fixed time limit on visas of students, researchers and foreign journalists in the US | READ MORE Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state at US Capitol Deceased United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the first woman in history to lie in state in the US Capitol | READ MORE Trump says US election winner might not be known for months United States President Donald Trump on Friday said Americans might not know the winner of the November presidential election for months due to disputes over mail ballots | READ MORE International Film Festival of India (IFFI) postponed to January 2021 The International Film Festival of India (IFFI), has been postponed to the next year, citing COVID-19 pandemic | READ MORE At UNGA, PM Modi bats for reforms and a bigger role for India in decision-making Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday made a strong pitch for a prominent role for India, the world's largest democracy and home to 1.3 billion people, in the decision-making structures of the United Nations | READ MORE Man killed in clashes with police in Egypt protest against president An Egyptian man was killed overnight Saturday in clashes between protesters and police during a demonstration in a village south of Cairo against President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, family and medical sources said | READ MORE Paris inaugurates city’s first park honouring a Black woman A public garden, honouring a Black woman who fought for the liberation of slaves on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, was inaugurated in Paris | READ MORE

Top ten world news today: Update on Paris cleaver attack, and more

Deceased United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the first woman in history to lie in state in the US Capitol.

Ginsburg, who died last week at 87, also is the first Jewish-American to lie in state and just the second Supreme Court justice. The first, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, also had been the country's president.

Ginsburg's casket was brought to the Capitol Friday morning for a private ceremony in Statuary Hall attended by her family and lawmakers.

Members of the House and Senate, who were not invited to the ceremony because of space limitations imposed by the coronavirus pandemic, paid their respects before a motorcade carrying Ginsburg's casket departs the Capitol early afternoon.

The honour of lying in state has been accorded mostly to presidents, vice presidents and members of Congress. Representative John Lewis, the civil rights icon, was the last person to lie in state following his death in July.

Rosa Parks - a private citizen, not a government official - is the only woman who has lain in honour at the Capitol.

Ginsburg has lain in repose for two days at the Supreme Court, where thousands of people paid their respects, including President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump on Thursday.

Trump plans to announce his nomination Saturday of a woman to take Ginsburg's place on the high court.

Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, seved for 27 years at the court and was the leader of the liberal justices. She will be buried next week in Arlington National Cemetery beside her husband, Martin, who died in 2010.

Deceased United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the first woman in history to lie in state in the US Capitol. Ginsburg, who died last week at 87, also is the first Jewish-American to lie in state and just the second Supreme Court justice.

Deceased United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the first woman in history to lie in state in the US Capitol. Ginsburg, who died last week at 87, also is the first Jewish-American to lie in state and just the second Supreme Court justice. The first, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, also had been the country's president. Ginsburg's casket was brought to the Capitol Friday morning for a private ceremony in Statuary Hall attended by her family and lawmakers. Members of the House and Senate, who were not invited to the ceremony because of space limitations imposed by the coronavirus pandemic, paid their respects before a motorcade carrying Ginsburg's casket departs the Capitol early afternoon. The honour of lying in state has been accorded mostly to presidents, vice presidents and members of Congress. Representative John Lewis, the civil rights icon, was the last person to lie in state following his death in July. Rosa Parks - a private citizen, not a government official - is the only woman who has lain in honour at the Capitol. Ginsburg has lain in repose for two days at the Supreme Court, where thousands of people paid their respects, including President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump on Thursday. Trump plans to announce his nomination Saturday of a woman to take Ginsburg's place on the high court. Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, seved for 27 years at the court and was the leader of the liberal justices. She will be buried next week in Arlington National Cemetery beside her husband, Martin, who died in 2010.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state at US Capitol

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump was greeted with jeers and boos on Thursday&nbsp;as he visited the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the U.S. Supreme Court, by a crowd who had gathered to honor the liberal justice.

Trump, wearing a black face mask and accompanied by first lady Melania Trump, stood near the casket at the marble court building amid boos and chants of "vote him out." The moment highlighted the public flashpoint Ginsburg's death has become ahead of the November&nbsp;3 presidential election.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Trump at the court as crowd chants “vote him out” — it’s rare for this President to see his opposition this up-close and in-person <a href="https://t.co/VEVkRHOkjM">pic.twitter.com/VEVkRHOkjM</a>
— Kevin Liptak (@Kevinliptakcnn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kevinliptakcnn/status/1309131222589865984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Republican president, who has already installed two top court picks since taking office in 2017, said earlier he would unveil his latest choice on Saturday, a week after the 87-year-old justice died on September&nbsp;18.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/is-there-a-link-between-trumps-supreme-court-candidate-and-the-handmaids-tale-329762">Is there a link between Trump's Supreme Court candidate and 'The Handmaid's Tale'?</a>

His decision to move quickly on a replacement less than two months before the election has drawn sharp battle lines between Republicans and Democrats, and reshaped the race as Trump seeks re-election during a coronavirus pandemic that has killed over 200,000 people in the United States and devastated the economy.

Ginsburg, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993, was an icon for liberals, especially as the court grew increasingly conservative. Her death has sparked a renewed push by Democrats to get people to the polls in November and an outpouring of campaign donations.

Before the 2016 election that made Trump president, Ginsburg criticised him publicly, calling him "a faker" in one interview. Trump responded by writing Ginsburg's "mind is shot" on Twitter. She later apologised saying she regretted the "ill-advised" comments.

Trump drew criticism in recent days for not honoring Ginsburg's wish at the end of her life, reportedly dictated in a statement to her granddaughter, that she be replaced by the next president.

US President Donald Trump was greeted with jeers and boos on Thursday as he visited the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the U.

US President Donald Trump was greeted with jeers and boos on Thursday as he visited the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the U.S. Supreme Court, by a crowd who had gathered to honor the liberal justice. Trump, wearing a black face mask and accompanied by first lady Melania Trump, stood near the casket at the marble court building amid boos and chants of "vote him out." The moment highlighted the public flashpoint Ginsburg's death has become ahead of the November 3 presidential election. Trump at the court as crowd chants “vote him out” — it’s rare for this President to see his opposition this up-close and in-person pic.twitter.com/VEVkRHOkjM — Kevin Liptak (@Kevinliptakcnn) September 24, 2020 × The Republican president, who has already installed two top court picks since taking office in 2017, said earlier he would unveil his latest choice on Saturday, a week after the 87-year-old justice died on September 18. Also read: Is there a link between Trump's Supreme Court candidate and 'The Handmaid's Tale'? His decision to move quickly on a replacement less than two months before the election has drawn sharp battle lines between Republicans and Democrats, and reshaped the race as Trump seeks re-election during a coronavirus pandemic that has killed over 200,000 people in the United States and devastated the economy. Ginsburg, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993, was an icon for liberals, especially as the court grew increasingly conservative. Her death has sparked a renewed push by Democrats to get people to the polls in November and an outpouring of campaign donations. Before the 2016 election that made Trump president, Ginsburg criticised him publicly, calling him "a faker" in one interview. Trump responded by writing Ginsburg's "mind is shot" on Twitter. She later apologised saying she regretted the "ill-advised" comments. Trump drew criticism in recent days for not honoring Ginsburg's wish at the end of her life, reportedly dictated in a statement to her granddaughter, that she be replaced by the next president.

US election 2020: Trump jeered and heckled as he visits Ginsburg's casket

The United States began three days of tributes to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday, as pallbearers carried her flag-draped coffin into the white marble court building and mourners lined up to pay their respects.

US Supreme Court honours Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Lisa Murkowski, Republican Party Senator from Alaska said on Sunday that she will not support US President Donald Trump's efforts to appoint a Supreme Court judge before US Presidential Elections due on November 3. Murkowski became second Senator to oppose the efforts after Susan Collins of Maine.

“For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed,” Murkowski said in a statement.

The position at the Supreme Court is vacant after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday. The liberal justice was 87 years old.

Lisa Murkowski said in her statement that she had opposed such a move even in 2016 when a nomination to fill a vacancy was taken up 8 months before Presidential Elections. She said that the window was even smaller this time around.

“I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia,” she added. “We are now even closer to the 2020 election – less than two months out – and I believe the same standard must apply. ”

Murkowski's stand has brought Donald Trump's plans in jeopardy. Trump and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are trying to fill the position in Supreme Court but the plan may get derailed if more than 3 senators oppose the move. Currently, Republican Party has a majority of 53 in the Senate.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-slap-sanctions-on-over-two-dozen-targets-tied-to-iran-arms-328984">US to slap sanctions on over two dozen targets tied to Iran arms</a>

All eyes are now on Mitt Romney, the Senator who is opposed to Donald Trump. Romney was Republican Party's presidential candidate in the year 2012.

He and Donald Trump are not considered to share good equation and Romney had even voted in support of impeachment against Trump.

Lisa Murkowski, Republican Party Senator from Alaska said on Sunday that she will not support US President Donald Trump's efforts to appoint a Supreme Court judge before US Presidential Elections due on November 3.

Lisa Murkowski, Republican Party Senator from Alaska said on Sunday that she will not support US President Donald Trump's efforts to appoint a Supreme Court judge before US Presidential Elections due on November 3. Murkowski became second Senator to oppose the efforts after Susan Collins of Maine. “For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed,” Murkowski said in a statement. The position at the Supreme Court is vacant after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday. The liberal justice was 87 years old. Lisa Murkowski said in her statement that she had opposed such a move even in 2016 when a nomination to fill a vacancy was taken up 8 months before Presidential Elections. She said that the window was even smaller this time around. “I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia,” she added. “We are now even closer to the 2020 election – less than two months out – and I believe the same standard must apply. ” Murkowski's stand has brought Donald Trump's plans in jeopardy. Trump and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are trying to fill the position in Supreme Court but the plan may get derailed if more than 3 senators oppose the move. Currently, Republican Party has a majority of 53 in the Senate. Also Read | US to slap sanctions on over two dozen targets tied to Iran arms All eyes are now on Mitt Romney, the Senator who is opposed to Donald Trump. Romney was Republican Party's presidential candidate in the year 2012. He and Donald Trump are not considered to share good equation and Romney had even voted in support of impeachment against Trump.

Lisa Murkowski 2nd GOP Senator against Trump's efforts to appoint judge before elections

Ahead of the US Election 2020, the President of United States of America Donald Trump is all set to announce nominee for the vacant seat of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, after the sad demise of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

US President all set to announce nominee for vacant seat of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

As the US braces for a showdown over the vacant Supreme Court seat, watch WION's special broadcast on #USElections with Susan Tehrani.

US Election 2020: A Tribute to Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg |

Like every year, the 2020 Emmys also witnessed winners, host and presenters adrressing political issues and Donald Trump. 
 
'Black Lives Matter' movement, the upcoming US Presidential elections, the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg- all were reflected at this year's ceremony. 
 
'Go, vote!' 
 
Almost every winner urged fans to get out and vote in the upcoming US Presidential elections. 
 
“For any of you who have not registered to vote, please do so, and then go out and vote, because that is the only way we are going to have some love and acceptance out there,” said Daniel Levy while accepting an award for 'Schitt’s Creek'. “I’m so sorry for making this political, but I had to.” 
 
“Vote for love and compassion and kindness,’ said Mark Ruffalo, winning for 'I Know This Much Is True.' 
 
'Un-than you' 
 
Jeese Armstrong, while accepting his award for best drama for 'Succession' called out leaders for failing to manage the coronavirus crisis and said a number of 'un-thank yous'. 
 
“To President Trump, for his crummy and uncoordinated response (to COVID-19),” he said. “Un thank you to Boris Johnson and his government for doing the same in my country. Un thank you to the nationalist and quasi nationalist governments in the world doing sort of the opposite of what we need right now. Un thank you to the media moguls who do so much to keep them in power" 
 
Host of the evening Jimmy Kimmel too took a jibe at pandemic and Trump and at one point said, "Of course we don’t have an audience. This isn’t a MAGA rally. It’s the Emmys." 
 
Racial injustice, Police brutality

Many addressed racial injustice and police brutality in America, which has been a point of discussion for a long time. There was a rebewed call for greater diversitry and representation in TV industry as well as Hollywood. 
 
Sterling K Brown wore a BLM shirt, Uzo Aduba wore a Breonna Taylor one to drive home a point. Anthony Anderson chanted "Black Lives Matter," and made host Kimmel join him as well and said, “Say it so that Mike Pence can hear it: Black Lives Matter.” 
 
Remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
 
The show also gave tribute the Justice Ginsburg as Kimmel pointed how the impact she has had as a cultural figure. Regina King, while urging people to vote, said, "“Rest in power, RBG.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/from-regina-king-to-zendaya-big-win-for-black-artists-this-emmys-329146" hreflang="en">From Regina King to Zendaya, big win for Black artists this Emmys</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/emmy-2020-celebs-who-slayed-the-virtual-red-carpet-while-staying-at-home-329052" hreflang="en">Emmy 2020: Celebs who slayed the virtual red carpet while staying at home</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/emmy-awards-2020-key-highlights-from-this-years-pandemic-hit-ceremony-329122" hreflang="en">Emmy Awards 2020: Key highlights from this year's pandemic-hit ceremony</a>

Like every year, the 2020 Emmys also witnessed winners, host and presenters adrressing political issues and Donald Trump. 'Black Lives Matter' movement, the upcoming US Presidential elections, the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg- all were reflected at this year's ceremony.

Like every year, the 2020 Emmys also witnessed winners, host and presenters adrressing political issues and Donald Trump. 'Black Lives Matter' movement, the upcoming US Presidential elections, the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg- all were reflected at this year's ceremony. 'Go, vote!' Almost every winner urged fans to get out and vote in the upcoming US Presidential elections. “For any of you who have not registered to vote, please do so, and then go out and vote, because that is the only way we are going to have some love and acceptance out there,” said Daniel Levy while accepting an award for 'Schitt’s Creek'. “I’m so sorry for making this political, but I had to.” “Vote for love and compassion and kindness,’ said Mark Ruffalo, winning for 'I Know This Much Is True.' 'Un-than you' Jeese Armstrong, while accepting his award for best drama for 'Succession' called out leaders for failing to manage the coronavirus crisis and said a number of 'un-thank yous'. “To President Trump, for his crummy and uncoordinated response (to COVID-19),” he said. “Un thank you to Boris Johnson and his government for doing the same in my country. Un thank you to the nationalist and quasi nationalist governments in the world doing sort of the opposite of what we need right now. Un thank you to the media moguls who do so much to keep them in power" Host of the evening Jimmy Kimmel too took a jibe at pandemic and Trump and at one point said, "Of course we don’t have an audience. This isn’t a MAGA rally. It’s the Emmys." Racial injustice, Police brutality Many addressed racial injustice and police brutality in America, which has been a point of discussion for a long time. There was a rebewed call for greater diversitry and representation in TV industry as well as Hollywood. Sterling K Brown wore a BLM shirt, Uzo Aduba wore a Breonna Taylor one to drive home a point. Anthony Anderson chanted "Black Lives Matter," and made host Kimmel join him as well and said, “Say it so that Mike Pence can hear it: Black Lives Matter.” Remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg The show also gave tribute the Justice Ginsburg as Kimmel pointed how the impact she has had as a cultural figure. Regina King, while urging people to vote, said, "“Rest in power, RBG.” From Regina King to Zendaya, big win for Black artists this Emmys Emmy 2020: Celebs who slayed the virtual red carpet while staying at home Emmy Awards 2020: Key highlights from this year's pandemic-hit ceremony

Politics at Emmys: From remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg to 'Un Thank You' for Trump

US Election 2020: Joe Biden slams Trump's plan to push for Supreme Court nominee

US: Heated fight over US' highest court's next justice ahead of election

'Rest in power': Americans mourn the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a feminist icon, who became the court’s second female justice, died at the age of 87 this week in Washington. Her death upends the nations bitter politics.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's judicial legacy of striking dissent

US President Donald Trump said he is considering the selection of a Supreme Court Justice "without delay" after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died on Friday.

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-top-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87-328636/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices," Trump said, adding, "We have this obligation, without delay!"

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/GOP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GOP</a> We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/supreme-court-judge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87-wanted-to-see-trump-lose-in-us-elections-328526">Also Read:&nbsp;Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to see Trump lose in US elections</a>

However, Democrats have said they want a judge to appointed until after the elections even as Trump lags Biden in various opinion polls with less than two months to go for the national elections which take place on November 3.

Trump had earlier appointed two conservative judges Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 to the US Supreme Court. Trump's move comes as Republicans control 53 of the Senate's 100 seats making his nomination a favourite to win even before the US goes to polls.

According to reports, Trump's nominee's included Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.&nbsp;

Trump had said last month that he was open to naming a new Supreme Court justice before the US elections and had named 20 possible choices.

US President Donald Trump said he is considering the selection of a Supreme Court Justice "without delay" after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died on Friday.

US President Donald Trump said he is considering the selection of a Supreme Court Justice "without delay" after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died on Friday. Watch: "We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices," Trump said, adding, "We have this obligation, without delay!" .@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2020 × Also Read: Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to see Trump lose in US elections However, Democrats have said they want a judge to appointed until after the elections even as Trump lags Biden in various opinion polls with less than two months to go for the national elections which take place on November 3. Trump had earlier appointed two conservative judges Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 to the US Supreme Court. Trump's move comes as Republicans control 53 of the Senate's 100 seats making his nomination a favourite to win even before the US goes to polls. According to reports, Trump's nominee's included Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. Trump had said last month that he was open to naming a new Supreme Court justice before the US elections and had named 20 possible choices.

Trump pushes for Ginsburg's successor in US Supreme Court 'without delay'

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a feminist icon, who became the court’s second female justice, died at the age of 87 on Friday in Washington. Her death upends the nations bitter politics.

US top Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87