A flag&nbsp;reading&nbsp;‘Appeal to Heaven,’ was flown by some of the Capitol attackers on January 6, 2021 Virginia justices's house. This same flag was seen flying over Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's home last summer, the New York Times reported on Wednesday (May 22).

The second flag, which is a symbol for a religious strand of the “Stop the Steal” campaign, was raised over Alito's New Jersey vacation home in July and September of 2023, the NYT report said.

The Times had previously reported that an upside-down American flag flew over the house of Virginia justices in January of 2021.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nikki-haley-says-she-will-vote-for-donald-trump-724423">Nikki Haley says she will vote for Donald Trump</a>

Alito told the Times his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, raised the inverted flag in response to a dispute with a neighbor and he “had no involvement whatsoever."

Alito declined to respond to questions about the beach house flag.

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comments on the latest episode.

The high court is deliberating on two cases concerning former President Donald Trump and his supporters' attempts to overturn the election results. These decisions will impact the criminal election interference charges currently pending against Trump.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-opposes-recognition-of-palestinian-state-israel-calls-it-reward-for-terror-724381">US opposes recognition of Palestinian state, Israel calls it reward for terror</a>

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, renewed his call for Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

"This episode will further erode public faith in the court," Durbin said in a statement in which he also urged Chief Justice John Roberts to add an enforcement mechanism to the court's ethics code.

Durbin has been advocating for Congress to enforce stricter ethics rules on the court, supported by an enforcement process, but has faced opposition from Republicans.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has displayed the flag outside his congressional office.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-general-elections-to-be-held-in-july-reports-724367">UK PM Rishi Sunak springs a surprise, announces general elections on July 4</a>

The Freedom from Religion Foundation calls the flag a "sectarian symbol that indicates government endorsement of Christianity."

Delivering the commencement address at a Catholic University this month, Alito said that the freedom of religion is "imperiled."

(With inputs from agencies)

A flag reading ‘Appeal to Heaven,’ was flown by some of the Capitol attackers on January 6, 2021 Virginia justices's house. This same flag was seen flying over Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's home last summer, the New York Times reported on Wednesday (May 22).

A flag reading ‘Appeal to Heaven,’ was flown by some of the Capitol attackers on January 6, 2021 Virginia justices's house. This same flag was seen flying over Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's home last summer, the New York Times reported on Wednesday (May 22). The second flag, which is a symbol for a religious strand of the “Stop the Steal” campaign, was raised over Alito's New Jersey vacation home in July and September of 2023, the NYT report said. The Times had previously reported that an upside-down American flag flew over the house of Virginia justices in January of 2021. Also read: Nikki Haley says she will vote for Donald Trump Alito told the Times his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, raised the inverted flag in response to a dispute with a neighbor and he “had no involvement whatsoever." Alito declined to respond to questions about the beach house flag. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comments on the latest episode. The high court is deliberating on two cases concerning former President Donald Trump and his supporters' attempts to overturn the election results. These decisions will impact the criminal election interference charges currently pending against Trump. Also read: US opposes recognition of Palestinian state, Israel calls it reward for terror Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, renewed his call for Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection. "This episode will further erode public faith in the court," Durbin said in a statement in which he also urged Chief Justice John Roberts to add an enforcement mechanism to the court's ethics code. Durbin has been advocating for Congress to enforce stricter ethics rules on the court, supported by an enforcement process, but has faced opposition from Republicans. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has displayed the flag outside his congressional office. Also read: UK PM Rishi Sunak springs a surprise, announces general elections on July 4 The Freedom from Religion Foundation calls the flag a "sectarian symbol that indicates government endorsement of Christianity." Delivering the commencement address at a Catholic University this month, Alito said that the freedom of religion is "imperiled." (With inputs from agencies)

Controversial flag flown over US Supreme Court Justice Alito's home: Report

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.&nbsp;

Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement.&nbsp;

The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-more-than-110-people-have-been-killed-after-earthquake-in-gansu-province-671082">China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province</a>

Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18).&nbsp;

The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-to-cough-700mn-as-part-of-antitrust-settlement-week-after-defeat-against-epic-games-671324">Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games</a>

In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.”

Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old.

According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-loyalists-placed-in-pentagon-state-department-may-reshape-us-foreign-policy-report-671254">Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report</a>

<h2>Sidhwaney’s arrest</h2>

The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings. Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement. The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show. ALSO READ | China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18). The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts. “The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida. ALSO READ | Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.” Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old. According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment. ALSO READ | Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report Sidhwaney’s arrest The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Florida man pleads guilty to threatening to kill Supreme Court justice

A man in his 20s was arrested outside the home of United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland on Wednesday after the police found a handgun, knife and pepper spray in his possession. Upon questioning, the man admitted that he was there to kill Kavanaugh and according to Reuters, the authorities have confirmed that he is not from Maryland. According to the report, the man arrived near Kavanaugh’s house in a taxi but he was detained by the police outside the residence.

&nbsp;“At approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence. The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh. He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District,” the Supreme Court said in its official statement.

The houses of all the Supreme Court justices have been provided extra security since the protests surrounding the Roe v Wade judgement. With a leaked draft hinting that the rule on abortion rights can change in the United States, a lot of protests have taken place outside the judges’ residences.

The Department of Justice made it clear that the Marshals Service is providing “around-the-clock security” at the homes of all Supreme Court justices.&nbsp; A spokesman for the Marshal Service confirmed told CNBC that directives have not changed and the houses are under their protection.

According to the Washington Post, initial evidence suggests that the man was angry due to the possible overturning of Roe v Wade and also the recent mass shootings in the United States.

A man in his 20s was arrested outside the home of United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland on Wednesday after the police found a handgun, knife and pepper spray in his possession.

A man in his 20s was arrested outside the home of United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland on Wednesday after the police found a handgun, knife and pepper spray in his possession. Upon questioning, the man admitted that he was there to kill Kavanaugh and according to Reuters, the authorities have confirmed that he is not from Maryland. According to the report, the man arrived near Kavanaugh’s house in a taxi but he was detained by the police outside the residence. “At approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence. The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh. He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District,” the Supreme Court said in its official statement. The houses of all the Supreme Court justices have been provided extra security since the protests surrounding the Roe v Wade judgement. With a leaked draft hinting that the rule on abortion rights can change in the United States, a lot of protests have taken place outside the judges’ residences. The Department of Justice made it clear that the Marshals Service is providing “around-the-clock security” at the homes of all Supreme Court justices. A spokesman for the Marshal Service confirmed told CNBC that directives have not changed and the houses are under their protection. According to the Washington Post, initial evidence suggests that the man was angry due to the possible overturning of Roe v Wade and also the recent mass shootings in the United States.

Armed man arrested near US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh's residence

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

President Donald Trump’s pick for the US Apex Court Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in a ceremony at the White House late on Monday.

"I know you will make us all very, very proud," US President Donald Trump said at the swearing-in ceremony.

Earlier on Monday, the US Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to be a Supreme Court justice by a 52-48 vote, strictly along partisan lines, filling the vacancy left by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-judiciary-committee-approves-amy-coney-barrett-nomination-for-supreme-court-337328/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Justice Clarence Thomas administered the first of two required oaths to Barrett on the South Lawn of the White House a short time later with Trump looking on.

"It’s a privilege to be asked to serve my country in this office and I stand here tonight truly honoured and humbled. Thanks also to the Senate for giving its consent to my appointment. I am grateful for the confidence you had expressed in me," Barrett said after taking the oath late on Monday.

(With inputs from agencies)

President Donald Trump’s pick for the US Apex Court Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in a ceremony at the White House late on Monday. "I know you will make us all very, very proud," US President Donald Trump said at the swearing-in ceremony.

President Donald Trump’s pick for the US Apex Court Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in a ceremony at the White House late on Monday. "I know you will make us all very, very proud," US President Donald Trump said at the swearing-in ceremony. Earlier on Monday, the US Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to be a Supreme Court justice by a 52-48 vote, strictly along partisan lines, filling the vacancy left by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the first of two required oaths to Barrett on the South Lawn of the White House a short time later with Trump looking on. "It’s a privilege to be asked to serve my country in this office and I stand here tonight truly honoured and humbled. Thanks also to the Senate for giving its consent to my appointment. I am grateful for the confidence you had expressed in me," Barrett said after taking the oath late on Monday. (With inputs from agencies)

Donald Trump's pick Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court Justice at White House

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

To provide a needed boost to his reelection effort, US President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, to fill a Supreme Court seat vacated after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-us-election-winner-might-not-be-known-for-months-330460">Also read | Trump says US election winner might not be known for months</a> 
 
"Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution, Judge Amy Coney Barrett," Trump said at the White House lawn on Saturday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> announces his intent to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett! <a href="https://t.co/rgQEcSETKk">pic.twitter.com/rgQEcSETKk</a>
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1309966732291960835?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 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>

Amy Coney Barrett, 48, who is a circuit judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, was reportedly the only potential Supreme Court nominee who met with Trump in person.

"This is my third such nomination .... and it is a very proud moment indeed," Trump said. "You are going to be fantastic," Trump added, addressing Amy Coney Barrett who was standing beside him.

The president then thanked Republican senators for their “commitment and to providing a fair and timely hearing”.

Republican Senate leadership has vowed to move ahead with a confirmation vote before the November 3 presidential election. Democrats, meanwhile, have said whoever wins the election should pick the next justice.

“[It] should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation … It’s going to be very quick. I’m sure it’ll be extremely non-controversial,” Trump said about the process.

(With inputs from agencies)

To provide a needed boost to his reelection effort, US President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, to fill a Supreme Court seat vacated after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To provide a needed boost to his reelection effort, US President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, to fill a Supreme Court seat vacated after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Also read | Trump says US election winner might not be known for months "Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution, Judge Amy Coney Barrett," Trump said at the White House lawn on Saturday. President @realDonaldTrump announces his intent to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett! pic.twitter.com/rgQEcSETKk — The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 26, 2020 × Amy Coney Barrett, 48, who is a circuit judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, was reportedly the only potential Supreme Court nominee who met with Trump in person. "This is my third such nomination .... and it is a very proud moment indeed," Trump said. "You are going to be fantastic," Trump added, addressing Amy Coney Barrett who was standing beside him. The president then thanked Republican senators for their “commitment and to providing a fair and timely hearing”. Republican Senate leadership has vowed to move ahead with a confirmation vote before the November 3 presidential election. Democrats, meanwhile, have said whoever wins the election should pick the next justice. “[It] should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation … It’s going to be very quick. I’m sure it’ll be extremely non-controversial,” Trump said about the process. (With inputs from agencies)

US President Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to be new Supreme Court Justice

US President Donald Trump mounted an angry defence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Sunday as the controversial judge faced calls for an investigation over fresh allegations of sexual misconduct.&nbsp;

Trump blasted the media and "Radical Left Democrats" after a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh alleged that the jurist -- one of the most senior judges in the land -- exposed himself at a freshman year party before other students pushed his genitals into the hand of a female student.

The latest allegation in The New York Times came after Kavanaugh denied sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him by two women during his confirmation to the Supreme Court last October.

"Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment," Trump tweeted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment. He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1173216300287635456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2019</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>

"He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!"

The new allegations came from Max Stier, who runs a non-profit in Washington. His concerns were reported to the FBI during Kavanaugh's 2018 confirmation process but not investigated, according to the Times.&nbsp;

Stier said he saw his former classmate "with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."&nbsp;

Stier has not spoken publicly about the incident but his story was corroborated by two officials, the Times said.

It is the latest in a string of accusations of unwanted sexual contact or assault against Kavanaugh since Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court.

'Shame'

Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s, while Deborah Ramirez told The New Yorker Kavanaugh had waved his penis in front of her face at a 1980s dormitory party.

The latest allegation surfaced during a 10-month investigation by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, and features in their upcoming book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation."&nbsp;

Trump called on Kavanaugh to take legal action over the claims, suggesting also that the Department of Justice should intervene on the judge's behalf and "come to his rescue."&nbsp;

But Democrats seeking to be Trump's opponent in the 2020 election called for the judge to be investigated.

"Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation is a shame to the Supreme Court. This latest allegation of assault must be investigated," former housing secretary and Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobouchar, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who was involved in a heated exchange with Kavanaugh during his confirmation, described the process as a "sham."

"I strongly opposed him based on his views on executive power, which will continue to haunt our country, as well as how he behaved, including the allegations that we are hearing more about today," she told ABC's "This Week."

Republican Senator Ted Cruz dismissed the new allegation, however, as "the obsession with the far left with trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh by going 30 years back with anonymous sources."

US President Donald Trump mounted an angry defence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Sunday as the controversial judge faced calls for an investigation over fresh allegations of sexual misconduct.

US President Donald Trump mounted an angry defence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Sunday as the controversial judge faced calls for an investigation over fresh allegations of sexual misconduct. Trump blasted the media and "Radical Left Democrats" after a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh alleged that the jurist -- one of the most senior judges in the land -- exposed himself at a freshman year party before other students pushed his genitals into the hand of a female student. The latest allegation in The New York Times came after Kavanaugh denied sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him by two women during his confirmation to the Supreme Court last October. "Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment," Trump tweeted. Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment. He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019 × "He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!" The new allegations came from Max Stier, who runs a non-profit in Washington. His concerns were reported to the FBI during Kavanaugh's 2018 confirmation process but not investigated, according to the Times. Stier said he saw his former classmate "with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student." Stier has not spoken publicly about the incident but his story was corroborated by two officials, the Times said. It is the latest in a string of accusations of unwanted sexual contact or assault against Kavanaugh since Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court. 'Shame' Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s, while Deborah Ramirez told The New Yorker Kavanaugh had waved his penis in front of her face at a 1980s dormitory party. The latest allegation surfaced during a 10-month investigation by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, and features in their upcoming book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation." Trump called on Kavanaugh to take legal action over the claims, suggesting also that the Department of Justice should intervene on the judge's behalf and "come to his rescue." But Democrats seeking to be Trump's opponent in the 2020 election called for the judge to be investigated. "Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation is a shame to the Supreme Court. This latest allegation of assault must be investigated," former housing secretary and Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobouchar, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who was involved in a heated exchange with Kavanaugh during his confirmation, described the process as a "sham." "I strongly opposed him based on his views on executive power, which will continue to haunt our country, as well as how he behaved, including the allegations that we are hearing more about today," she told ABC's "This Week." Republican Senator Ted Cruz dismissed the new allegation, however, as "the obsession with the far left with trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh by going 30 years back with anonymous sources."

Trump defends Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh over fresh misconduct claim