Current US President Donald Trump said he was hopful that he would be the next US president on the same day Republican Party's assertion of election fraud was rejected by US Supreme Court. In spite of ample indication of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in US Presidential election 2020, Trump has continued to make unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud.

"Hopefully the next administration will be the Trump administration, a continuation -- which has led us to the highest stock markets we've ever had, the best employment numbers we've ever had, a rebuilt military," Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday (local time) during a vaccine summit.

Trump was responding to a question on why he did not invite members of the Biden transition team to the meeting, which deliberated on his plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccine in the US.

Trump said because of the "great work" he did, he was "rewarded" with a victory.

On Tuesday itself, Republican Party's attempts to invalidated election results in Pennsylvania were thwarted by US Supreme Court

The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law.

Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-throws-out-trumps-claim-of-election-fraud-in-pennsylvania-348430">US Supreme Court throws out Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania</a>

Pennsylvania has already certified election results in favour of US President-elect Joe Biden.

Trump's attempt to invalidate elections results via legal routes has not been successful and he or Republican Party have suffered defeat after defeats in various courts in the US.

(With agency inputs)

Current US President Donald Trump said he was hopful that he would be the next US president on the same day Republican Party's assertion of election fraud was rejected by US Supreme Court.

Current US President Donald Trump said he was hopful that he would be the next US president on the same day Republican Party's assertion of election fraud was rejected by US Supreme Court. In spite of ample indication of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in US Presidential election 2020, Trump has continued to make unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud. "Hopefully the next administration will be the Trump administration, a continuation -- which has led us to the highest stock markets we've ever had, the best employment numbers we've ever had, a rebuilt military," Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday (local time) during a vaccine summit. Trump was responding to a question on why he did not invite members of the Biden transition team to the meeting, which deliberated on his plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccine in the US. Trump said because of the "great work" he did, he was "rewarded" with a victory. On Tuesday itself, Republican Party's attempts to invalidated election results in Pennsylvania were thwarted by US Supreme Court The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law. Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes. Also Read | US Supreme Court throws out Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has already certified election results in favour of US President-elect Joe Biden. Trump's attempt to invalidate elections results via legal routes has not been successful and he or Republican Party have suffered defeat after defeats in various courts in the US. (With agency inputs)

Hopeful I'll remain US president, says Trump on same day of legal defeat in US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court gave a blow to Republicans seeking to throw out 2.5 milliion mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and undo Joe Biden's election victory. The court refused to block the state from formalising Joe Biden's victory there.

The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law.

Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes.

The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state`s constitution.

Trump`s campaign and his allies have lost in a stream of lawsuits in key states won by Biden, also including Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others. Judges have rejected sweeping assertions of voting irregularities.

Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to 232 for Trump in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election`s outcome, while also winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hopeful-ill-remain-president-says-trump-on-same-day-of-legal-defeat-in-us-supreme-court-348441">Hopeful I'll remain president, says Trump on same day of legal defeat in US Supreme Court</a>

However, Trump is yet to concede and instead chosen to make baseless allegations about election fraud and has not provided any evidence.

"This election is over. We must continue to stop this circus of `lawsuits` and move forward," Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter.

(With Reuters inputs)

US Supreme Court gave a blow to Republicans seeking to throw out 2.5 milliion mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and undo Joe Biden's election victory. The court refused to block the state from formalising Joe Biden's victory there.

US Supreme Court gave a blow to Republicans seeking to throw out 2.5 milliion mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and undo Joe Biden's election victory. The court refused to block the state from formalising Joe Biden's victory there. The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law. Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes. The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state`s constitution. Trump`s campaign and his allies have lost in a stream of lawsuits in key states won by Biden, also including Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others. Judges have rejected sweeping assertions of voting irregularities. Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to 232 for Trump in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election`s outcome, while also winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes. Also Read | Hopeful I'll remain president, says Trump on same day of legal defeat in US Supreme Court However, Trump is yet to concede and instead chosen to make baseless allegations about election fraud and has not provided any evidence. "This election is over. We must continue to stop this circus of `lawsuits` and move forward," Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter. (With Reuters inputs)

US Supreme Court throws out Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

The move follows the Pennsylvania state supreme court's rejection Saturday of a suit challenging expanded mail-in voting in the key northeastern state.

In the motion filed Thursday the top US court is not asked to rule on the merits of the case at this point.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/strong-support-from-president-trump-saudi-arabia-says-final-agreement-with-qatar-within-reach-347759">'Strong support from President Trump': Saudi Arabia says final agreement with Qatar 'within reach'</a>

Rather, the plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to halt any remaining steps in the election certification, which was actually done last week, so the plaintiffs can develop their arguments. They include Mike Kelly, a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

The court is expected to respond quickly in writing and is not obliged to explain whatever ruling it makes.

Trump is still refusing to concede defeat in the November 3 election, alleging without providing evidence that there was widespread fraud in both voting and vote counting and that the election was stolen from him.

The Trump campaign and Trump allies have filed a flurry of lawsuits in battleground states that he lost, seeking to overturn the results. In some 20-odd cases, however, the courts have rejected these suits.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-us-senate-majority-in-the-pot-parties-bring-out-big-guns-for-georgia-elections-347720">With US Senate majority in the pot, parties bring out big guns for Georgia elections</a>

On Tuesday Attorney General Bill Barr, a close ally of the president, broke with Trump and said there was no evidence of significant fraud to invalidate Biden's win.

Trump appointed three conservatives to the nine-member court during his presidency and said right after the November election he was prepared to go all the way to that tribunal to defend what he called his re-election victory.

In the 2000 presidential election, the high court halted a recount in Florida while George W. Bush held a 537-vote lead over Al Gore, handing Bush the presidency.

This time is different: There is not just one but several states that Trump is disputing and the margins of victory for Biden there are much larger than Bush's was.

The Supreme Court is considered unlikely to risk its reputation by getting involved in the Pennsylvania suit, which would not change the overall outcome of the election anyway.

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden. The move follows the Pennsylvania state supreme court's rejection Saturday of a suit challenging expanded mail-in voting in the key northeastern state. In the motion filed Thursday the top US court is not asked to rule on the merits of the case at this point. Also read| 'Strong support from President Trump': Saudi Arabia says final agreement with Qatar 'within reach' Rather, the plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to halt any remaining steps in the election certification, which was actually done last week, so the plaintiffs can develop their arguments. They include Mike Kelly, a Republican member of the House of Representatives. The court is expected to respond quickly in writing and is not obliged to explain whatever ruling it makes. Trump is still refusing to concede defeat in the November 3 election, alleging without providing evidence that there was widespread fraud in both voting and vote counting and that the election was stolen from him. The Trump campaign and Trump allies have filed a flurry of lawsuits in battleground states that he lost, seeking to overturn the results. In some 20-odd cases, however, the courts have rejected these suits. Also read| With US Senate majority in the pot, parties bring out big guns for Georgia elections On Tuesday Attorney General Bill Barr, a close ally of the president, broke with Trump and said there was no evidence of significant fraud to invalidate Biden's win. Trump appointed three conservatives to the nine-member court during his presidency and said right after the November election he was prepared to go all the way to that tribunal to defend what he called his re-election victory. In the 2000 presidential election, the high court halted a recount in Florida while George W. Bush held a 537-vote lead over Al Gore, handing Bush the presidency. This time is different: There is not just one but several states that Trump is disputing and the margins of victory for Biden there are much larger than Bush's was. The Supreme Court is considered unlikely to risk its reputation by getting involved in the Pennsylvania suit, which would not change the overall outcome of the election anyway.

Donald Trump allies take Pennsylvania vote complaint to US Supreme Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a question that goes to the heart of American democracy: Must the government count everyone living in the country, citizens or not, in the census totals that the House of Representatives uses to reallocate its 435 seats among the states?

For more than two centuries, the answer has been “yes.” Both Article 1 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment require that House seats be allotted according to “the whole number” of persons in each state.

That phrase has long been read to include all the nation’s residents, whether American citizens, foreigners admitted here on visas or immigrants with no documents at all. But President Donald Trump signalled in a memorandum this summer that he intends to exclude immigrants in the country illegally from the 2020 census totals that he hopes to send to the House next year for use in reapportionment.

Federal courts have ruled in three separate lawsuits that Trump lacks that authority, saying in one case that the question was not even close. But the Supreme Court will have the final say. Here’s a rundown of some of the basics behind the issue:

What’s at stake in the case?

First and foremost, the allocation of political power. No precise count of immigrants in the country illegally exists. Trump has ordered the Census Bureau to come up with an estimate, but many experts put the number at about 11 million.

Many are concentrated in states with large immigrant populations, such as New York and Texas, and in states like California and Florida where immigrants in the country illegally also are in demand for farm work. Some of those states and a few others could lose House seats if those immigrants were excluded from census totals.

Conversely, some states with few immigrants in the country illegally could pick up those seats. Alabama, for example, appears set to lose one of its seven House seats in the next reapportionment; the state is arguing in a separate lawsuit that such immigrants are illegally depriving its citizens of fair representation.

Many experts feel that restricting the count to citizens would tend to benefit states that are rural and Republican at the expense of ones that are urban and Democratic. But the Republican Party’s gains probably would be small, most say, given that big Republican states like Texas would be among those that could be affected by the change.

What is the legal argument for excluding immigrants in the country illegally from reapportionment totals?

While the Constitution required House seats to be equally apportioned among the states based on population, the Justice Department argues, federal law gives the president discretion to make policy judgments about whom the census counts. The discretion includes the definition of an “inhabitant” or “usual resident” of the United States, two terms that have historically been used to determine which people qualify to be counted in a census.

The president’s lawyers say federal law gives “virtually unfettered discretion” to the Commerce Department — the federal agency that oversees the Census Bureau — to decide what data is used in counting individual residents of states.

What is the legal argument for continuing to count immigrants in the country illegally?

History, for one: Noncitizens have been counted in every census — and used in every reapportionment of the House — since the very first census was conducted in 1790. In the nation’s early history, a substantial share of the population had migrated from other countries, and for many decades thereafter, some states actively recruited foreigners, legally or not, to provide labor and boost political representation. Both the framers of the Constitution and the drafters of the 14th Amendment debated whether to count all immigrants for apportionment purposes and elected in the end to do so.

Opponents of the president’s plan also say that the Constitution explicitly requires that the decennial census be used for reapportionment and that Trump has no authority to deduct unauthorized immigrants from that census before sending population totals to the House.

How have federal courts ruled on the issue so far?

Three courts — in New York, Maryland and California — have ruled against the White House on varying grounds and in some cases barred the Commerce Department from sending a count of immigrants in the country illegally to the White House. The California court ruled that excluding noncitizens violated both federal law and the Constitution.

In New York, a panel of three judges, two appointed by President George W. Bush and one by President Barack Obama, said unanimously that “the merits of the parties’ dispute are not particularly close or complicated.”

The panel said federal law requires the government to produce a single set of population figures for reapportionment, making Trump’s plan for a separate estimate of such immigrants moot. The judges also said that “so long as they reside in the United States, illegal aliens qualify as ‘persons’ in a ‘state’ as Congress used those words.”

Because of that, the judges said, there was no need to take up the question of whether the president’s plan also violated the Constitution.

Is it even possible to count the number of immigrants in the country illegally?

It would be extremely hard, if only because many of them are trying their best to avoid being seen for fear of deportation.

The Trump administration had ordered the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census in an attempt to come up with a tally, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Commerce Department had failed to offer a plausible explanation of why the question was needed.

On the president’s order, a Census Bureau task force is working to provide a count anyway, mostly by sifting through federal and state records that show conclusively who is a citizen — and by implication, who is not.

A handful of records, such as compilations of people marked for deportation, do identify people who are in the county illegally, but those tallies are a small fraction of the entire population of such immigrants.

It appears unlikely that the bureau will produce an estimate by the Dec. 31 statutory deadline for sending population totals to the White House. Its experts are racing to complete a count in time to accompany the delivery of preliminary census figures to Congress in early January.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a question that goes to the heart of American democracy: Must the government count everyone living in the country, citizens or not, in the census totals that the House of Representatives uses to reallocate its 435 seats among the states?

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a question that goes to the heart of American democracy: Must the government count everyone living in the country, citizens or not, in the census totals that the House of Representatives uses to reallocate its 435 seats among the states? For more than two centuries, the answer has been “yes.” Both Article 1 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment require that House seats be allotted according to “the whole number” of persons in each state. That phrase has long been read to include all the nation’s residents, whether American citizens, foreigners admitted here on visas or immigrants with no documents at all. But President Donald Trump signalled in a memorandum this summer that he intends to exclude immigrants in the country illegally from the 2020 census totals that he hopes to send to the House next year for use in reapportionment. Federal courts have ruled in three separate lawsuits that Trump lacks that authority, saying in one case that the question was not even close. But the Supreme Court will have the final say. Here’s a rundown of some of the basics behind the issue: What’s at stake in the case? First and foremost, the allocation of political power. No precise count of immigrants in the country illegally exists. Trump has ordered the Census Bureau to come up with an estimate, but many experts put the number at about 11 million. Many are concentrated in states with large immigrant populations, such as New York and Texas, and in states like California and Florida where immigrants in the country illegally also are in demand for farm work. Some of those states and a few others could lose House seats if those immigrants were excluded from census totals. Conversely, some states with few immigrants in the country illegally could pick up those seats. Alabama, for example, appears set to lose one of its seven House seats in the next reapportionment; the state is arguing in a separate lawsuit that such immigrants are illegally depriving its citizens of fair representation. Many experts feel that restricting the count to citizens would tend to benefit states that are rural and Republican at the expense of ones that are urban and Democratic. But the Republican Party’s gains probably would be small, most say, given that big Republican states like Texas would be among those that could be affected by the change. What is the legal argument for excluding immigrants in the country illegally from reapportionment totals? While the Constitution required House seats to be equally apportioned among the states based on population, the Justice Department argues, federal law gives the president discretion to make policy judgments about whom the census counts. The discretion includes the definition of an “inhabitant” or “usual resident” of the United States, two terms that have historically been used to determine which people qualify to be counted in a census. The president’s lawyers say federal law gives “virtually unfettered discretion” to the Commerce Department — the federal agency that oversees the Census Bureau — to decide what data is used in counting individual residents of states. What is the legal argument for continuing to count immigrants in the country illegally? History, for one: Noncitizens have been counted in every census — and used in every reapportionment of the House — since the very first census was conducted in 1790. In the nation’s early history, a substantial share of the population had migrated from other countries, and for many decades thereafter, some states actively recruited foreigners, legally or not, to provide labor and boost political representation. Both the framers of the Constitution and the drafters of the 14th Amendment debated whether to count all immigrants for apportionment purposes and elected in the end to do so. Opponents of the president’s plan also say that the Constitution explicitly requires that the decennial census be used for reapportionment and that Trump has no authority to deduct unauthorized immigrants from that census before sending population totals to the House. How have federal courts ruled on the issue so far? Three courts — in New York, Maryland and California — have ruled against the White House on varying grounds and in some cases barred the Commerce Department from sending a count of immigrants in the country illegally to the White House. The California court ruled that excluding noncitizens violated both federal law and the Constitution. In New York, a panel of three judges, two appointed by President George W. Bush and one by President Barack Obama, said unanimously that “the merits of the parties’ dispute are not particularly close or complicated.” The panel said federal law requires the government to produce a single set of population figures for reapportionment, making Trump’s plan for a separate estimate of such immigrants moot. The judges also said that “so long as they reside in the United States, illegal aliens qualify as ‘persons’ in a ‘state’ as Congress used those words.” Because of that, the judges said, there was no need to take up the question of whether the president’s plan also violated the Constitution. Is it even possible to count the number of immigrants in the country illegally? It would be extremely hard, if only because many of them are trying their best to avoid being seen for fear of deportation. The Trump administration had ordered the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census in an attempt to come up with a tally, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Commerce Department had failed to offer a plausible explanation of why the question was needed. On the president’s order, a Census Bureau task force is working to provide a count anyway, mostly by sifting through federal and state records that show conclusively who is a citizen — and by implication, who is not. A handful of records, such as compilations of people marked for deportation, do identify people who are in the county illegally, but those tallies are a small fraction of the entire population of such immigrants. It appears unlikely that the bureau will produce an estimate by the Dec. 31 statutory deadline for sending population totals to the White House. Its experts are racing to complete a count in time to accompany the delivery of preliminary census figures to Congress in early January.

A census case that goes to the heart of American democracy

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump`s unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the population totals used to allocate U.S. House of Representatives districts to states. 
 
The challengers to Trump`s July directive include various states led by New York, cities, counties and immigrant rights groups. They have argued that the Republican president`s move could leave several million people uncounted and cause California, Texas and New Jersey to lose House seats, which are based on a state`s population count in the decennial census. 
 
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Trump, is scheduled to hear an 80-minute oral argument by teleconference. 
 
Trump lost his bid for re-election on Nov. 3. This case focuses on one of several policy moves his administration is rushing to complete before Democratic President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20. 
 
The census in mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The challengers argued that Trump is prohibited by the Constitution`s text from excluding illegal immigrants from the population count. The Constitution requires that the apportionment of House seats be based upon the "whole number of persons in each state." 
 
The challengers said Trump`s plan, undertaken as part of the government`s responsibility to administer the 2020 census, also violates a federal law called the Census Act that outlines how a census must be conducted. 
 
They said Trump`s plan would weaken the political power of states with larger numbers of illegal immigrants, including heavily Democratic California, by undercounting their true populations and depriving them of House seats. If California loses House districts, that likely would mean Democrats lose House seats, benefiting Trump`s fellow Republicans. 
 
There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Until now, the government`s practice was to count all people regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. 
 
"That`s what everyone has always thought," said Dale Ho, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents immigrant groups in the case. 
 
Ho said he is optimistic the court`s conservatives, who often tout the importance of interpreting laws as written, would view this one as a "rather easy case." 
 
Trump`s lawyers argued in court papers that the president acted within his authority and that the challengers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case. Trump`s administration "has virtually unfettered discretion as to what data will be used in enumerating individual persons in each state for purposes of the decennial census and apportionment," Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote. 
 
The court is deciding the case on a expedited schedule, with a ruling due before the end of the year. That would make it difficult for the incoming Biden administration to revisit Trump`s plan if it is upheld. 
 
Trump`s hardline stance toward immigration has been a hallmark of his presidency. 
 
The Supreme Court last year ruled 5-4 against Trump`s effort to add a citizenship question to the census. Critics said the question was intended to frighten immigrants from taking part in the population count and artificially reduce population numbers in heavily Democratic areas, also to benefit Republicans. 
 
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in that ruling. But the addition of Trump`s third appointee Amy Coney Barrett to the court changes its dynamics, as seen in action by the justices on Wednesday in a case in which they backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship that challenged New York state`s latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. 
 
Roberts dissented along with the court`s three liberals but Barrett`s vote in favor of the religious groups proved decisive. 
 
LOWER COURTS BACK CHALLENGERS 
 
A three-judge panel in New York ruled against the administration in September in the current case and the justices agreed to take up the appeal on Oct. 16. Federal courts in California and Maryland have reached the same conclusion in other cases though one court in Washington ruled for Trump. 
 
By statute, the president is due to send Congress a report in early January with the population of each of the states and their entitled number of House districts. 
 
Once states are allocated their districts, they themselves draw the boundaries for the districts, which will be used first in the 2022 congressional elections. The number of House seats for each state also determines how many votes that state gets in the Electoral College, the system used to determine the winner of presidential elections. In a close election, one or two electoral votes could swing the outcome. 
 
The census itself does not gather data on a person`s citizenship or immigration status. Trump`s administration would base its numbers on data gathered elsewhere. The U.S. Census Bureau, a spokesman said, "will make public the methods used to provide state-level counts once we have them finalized." 
 
Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at New York University`s Brennan Center for Justice, said it is not yet clear if the administration will even be able to come up with usable numbers. 
 
"This is not the way a transparent constitutional democracy is supposed to be run," Wolf added. 
 
Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University`s Antonin Scalia Law School in Virginia who filed a brief opposing Trump, said although the challengers have a strong case, one wrinkle could be that some conservative justices embrace a broad view of presidential powers. 
 
"We can`t be too definitive about what the justices will do with it," Somin said.

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump`s unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the population totals used to allocate U.

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump`s unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the population totals used to allocate U.S. House of Representatives districts to states. The challengers to Trump`s July directive include various states led by New York, cities, counties and immigrant rights groups. They have argued that the Republican president`s move could leave several million people uncounted and cause California, Texas and New Jersey to lose House seats, which are based on a state`s population count in the decennial census. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Trump, is scheduled to hear an 80-minute oral argument by teleconference. Trump lost his bid for re-election on Nov. 3. This case focuses on one of several policy moves his administration is rushing to complete before Democratic President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20. The census in mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The challengers argued that Trump is prohibited by the Constitution`s text from excluding illegal immigrants from the population count. The Constitution requires that the apportionment of House seats be based upon the "whole number of persons in each state." The challengers said Trump`s plan, undertaken as part of the government`s responsibility to administer the 2020 census, also violates a federal law called the Census Act that outlines how a census must be conducted. They said Trump`s plan would weaken the political power of states with larger numbers of illegal immigrants, including heavily Democratic California, by undercounting their true populations and depriving them of House seats. If California loses House districts, that likely would mean Democrats lose House seats, benefiting Trump`s fellow Republicans. There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Until now, the government`s practice was to count all people regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. "That`s what everyone has always thought," said Dale Ho, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents immigrant groups in the case. Ho said he is optimistic the court`s conservatives, who often tout the importance of interpreting laws as written, would view this one as a "rather easy case." Trump`s lawyers argued in court papers that the president acted within his authority and that the challengers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case. Trump`s administration "has virtually unfettered discretion as to what data will be used in enumerating individual persons in each state for purposes of the decennial census and apportionment," Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote. The court is deciding the case on a expedited schedule, with a ruling due before the end of the year. That would make it difficult for the incoming Biden administration to revisit Trump`s plan if it is upheld. Trump`s hardline stance toward immigration has been a hallmark of his presidency. The Supreme Court last year ruled 5-4 against Trump`s effort to add a citizenship question to the census. Critics said the question was intended to frighten immigrants from taking part in the population count and artificially reduce population numbers in heavily Democratic areas, also to benefit Republicans. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in that ruling. But the addition of Trump`s third appointee Amy Coney Barrett to the court changes its dynamics, as seen in action by the justices on Wednesday in a case in which they backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship that challenged New York state`s latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. Roberts dissented along with the court`s three liberals but Barrett`s vote in favor of the religious groups proved decisive. LOWER COURTS BACK CHALLENGERS A three-judge panel in New York ruled against the administration in September in the current case and the justices agreed to take up the appeal on Oct. 16. Federal courts in California and Maryland have reached the same conclusion in other cases though one court in Washington ruled for Trump. By statute, the president is due to send Congress a report in early January with the population of each of the states and their entitled number of House districts. Once states are allocated their districts, they themselves draw the boundaries for the districts, which will be used first in the 2022 congressional elections. The number of House seats for each state also determines how many votes that state gets in the Electoral College, the system used to determine the winner of presidential elections. In a close election, one or two electoral votes could swing the outcome. The census itself does not gather data on a person`s citizenship or immigration status. Trump`s administration would base its numbers on data gathered elsewhere. The U.S. Census Bureau, a spokesman said, "will make public the methods used to provide state-level counts once we have them finalized." Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at New York University`s Brennan Center for Justice, said it is not yet clear if the administration will even be able to come up with usable numbers. "This is not the way a transparent constitutional democracy is supposed to be run," Wolf added. Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University`s Antonin Scalia Law School in Virginia who filed a brief opposing Trump, said although the challengers have a strong case, one wrinkle could be that some conservative justices embrace a broad view of presidential powers. "We can`t be too definitive about what the justices will do with it," Somin said.

US Supreme Court weighs Trump bid to bar illegal immigrants from census totals

The US Supreme Court has backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship challenging New York state's latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots.

On Wednesday, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations.

The order marked one of the first consequential actions on the court of incumbent president Donald Trump's new appointee, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who cast a deciding vote in favour of the religious groups. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts dissented along with the court's three liberals.

An October 6 decision by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down non-essential businesses in targetted areas where infections have spiked, including some Brooklyn neighbourhoods. It limited gatherings at religious institutions to 10 people in some areas and 25 in others.

The houses of worship say that the limits violated religious freedoms protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment, and that their facilities were singled out for more stringent restrictions than essential businesses, such as food stores. The Orthodox congregations Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills and Agudath Israel of Madison, as well as nationwide Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America.

A federal judge in Brooklyn rejected separate requests made by the religious groups on October 9. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declined emergency requests filed by both sets of challengers on November 9.

In two previous cases this year, the court on 5-4 votes turned away similar requests by churches in Nevada and California.

Those votes occurred before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and saw her and her three liberal colleagues joined by Roberts in the majority.

(with inputs) 
&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court has backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship challenging New York state's latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. On Wednesday, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations.

The US Supreme Court has backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship challenging New York state's latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. On Wednesday, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations. The order marked one of the first consequential actions on the court of incumbent president Donald Trump's new appointee, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who cast a deciding vote in favour of the religious groups. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts dissented along with the court's three liberals. An October 6 decision by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down non-essential businesses in targetted areas where infections have spiked, including some Brooklyn neighbourhoods. It limited gatherings at religious institutions to 10 people in some areas and 25 in others. The houses of worship say that the limits violated religious freedoms protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment, and that their facilities were singled out for more stringent restrictions than essential businesses, such as food stores. The Orthodox congregations Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills and Agudath Israel of Madison, as well as nationwide Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America. A federal judge in Brooklyn rejected separate requests made by the religious groups on October 9. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declined emergency requests filed by both sets of challengers on November 9. In two previous cases this year, the court on 5-4 votes turned away similar requests by churches in Nevada and California. Those votes occurred before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and saw her and her three liberal colleagues joined by Roberts in the majority. (with inputs)

US Supreme Court backs religious groups over New York coronavirus curbs

US election 2020: In US elections 2020, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are running neck-and-neck. Trump even declared his victory before the official count ended, while Joe Biden announced that he will emerge victorious after all the votes are counted, especially in battleground states that are still counting votes.&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-result-live-update-donald-trump-joe-biden-votes-tally-president-predictions-begins-vote-count-how-to-follow-the-2020-us-election-results-from-india-Trump-wins-Kentucky-joe-Biden-Vermont-340293">Live updates on US election</a>

US election 2020: Trump wants Supreme Court to intervene

Trump recently claimed that his administration would involve the US Supreme Court in a bid to halt counting of votes, which according to the incumbent Republican president is causing election fraud in the country.

But many analysts have posited that the US SC may not be the final arbiter in this election.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-donald-trump-criticises-surprise-ballot-dumps-for-lagging-behind-joe-biden-340569" hreflang="en">Trump criticises 'surprise ballot dumps' for lagging behind Joe Biden</a>

With a fierce battle in key states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump had claimed that the delay in counting increases the chances of fraud voting.&nbsp;This was the first time in history that so many Americans exercised&nbsp;their franchise, with many voting early, and others voting through mail-in ballots, which the Republicans have tried to invalidate multiple times.

Fraud is rare in US elections, and there is no evidence of any cheating happening due to mail-in voting. "This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we'll be going to the US&nbsp;Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop”, Trump had announced.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-election-what-happens-next-340615/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Without divulging any details of what Trump administration intends to do in terms of litigation, Trump’s team is attempting to throw open a pending case which seeks to block mail-in ballots that are showing up late in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. In Michigan too, the Trump admin wants counting to stop.

US election 2020: Can the court do much?

Many analysts told Reuters that such objections to voting may not have a role to play in the final outcome.

An election law expert at the Ohio State University - Ned Foley believe that as opposed to the 2000 presidential race, a SC intervention will most probably will not end in the favour of Trump. In 2000, the Supreme Court announced George W Bush victorious after a recount of votes.

"It’s extremely early on but at the moment it doesn’t seem apparent how this would end up where the US Supreme Court would be decisive," Foley told Reuters.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-world-leaders-react-on-the-presidential-election-340509" hreflang="en">US election 2020: World leaders react on the presidential election</a>

Given how close the race is, and with Trump’s ongoing threats, both Biden and Trump’s legal teams are ready to step up if the situation demands it.

"If we have to go through these legal challenges, that's not unprecedented," Trump’s attorney Jenna Ellis told Fox Business Network in an interview on Wednesday. “He wants to make sure that the election is not stolen”, Ellis added.

A Pennsylvania top court recently allowed votes arriving upto 3 days after Election Day to be counted in the final tally, much to Trump’s dismay, who wanted the results to be declared on the same day. Earlier, the SC had refused to fast-track a Republican appeal.

US election 2020: What if Pennsylvania case is opened?

Even if the court reopened the case, it may not play a major role in deciding the final vote in Pennsylvania.

David Boies, who represented Al Gore in 2000, told Reuters it is unlikely that the Trump campaign would succeed in a possible effort to halt the counting of votes coming in after November 3. "I think that it’s more posturing and hope than anything else," Boies said.

Boies also claimed that Pennsylvania’s outcome could be rendered irrelevant based on the outcome in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-ritchie-torres-first-openly-gay-afro-latino-member-of-congress-340525" hreflang="en">Ritchie Torres — First openly gay, Afro-Latino member of Congress</a>

Legal experts also added how if Biden wins 270 electoral votes, he wouldn’t need to pursue a legal case in the state anyway.

"I think the Court would summarily turn away any effort by the President or his campaign to short-circuit the ordinary legal process," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, told Reuters.

"Even Bush v. Gore went through the Florida state courts first”, he added.

US election 2020: In US elections 2020, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are running neck-and-neck. Trump even declared his victory before the official count ended, while Joe Biden announced that he will emerge victorious after all the votes are counted, especially in battleground states that are still counting votes.

US election 2020: In US elections 2020, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are running neck-and-neck. Trump even declared his victory before the official count ended, while Joe Biden announced that he will emerge victorious after all the votes are counted, especially in battleground states that are still counting votes. | Live updates on US election US election 2020: Trump wants Supreme Court to intervene Trump recently claimed that his administration would involve the US Supreme Court in a bid to halt counting of votes, which according to the incumbent Republican president is causing election fraud in the country. But many analysts have posited that the US SC may not be the final arbiter in this election. Also read: Trump criticises 'surprise ballot dumps' for lagging behind Joe Biden With a fierce battle in key states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump had claimed that the delay in counting increases the chances of fraud voting. This was the first time in history that so many Americans exercised their franchise, with many voting early, and others voting through mail-in ballots, which the Republicans have tried to invalidate multiple times. Fraud is rare in US elections, and there is no evidence of any cheating happening due to mail-in voting. "This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we'll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop”, Trump had announced. Without divulging any details of what Trump administration intends to do in terms of litigation, Trump’s team is attempting to throw open a pending case which seeks to block mail-in ballots that are showing up late in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. In Michigan too, the Trump admin wants counting to stop. US election 2020: Can the court do much? Many analysts told Reuters that such objections to voting may not have a role to play in the final outcome. An election law expert at the Ohio State University - Ned Foley believe that as opposed to the 2000 presidential race, a SC intervention will most probably will not end in the favour of Trump. In 2000, the Supreme Court announced George W Bush victorious after a recount of votes. "It’s extremely early on but at the moment it doesn’t seem apparent how this would end up where the US Supreme Court would be decisive," Foley told Reuters. Also read: US election 2020: World leaders react on the presidential election Given how close the race is, and with Trump’s ongoing threats, both Biden and Trump’s legal teams are ready to step up if the situation demands it. "If we have to go through these legal challenges, that's not unprecedented," Trump’s attorney Jenna Ellis told Fox Business Network in an interview on Wednesday. “He wants to make sure that the election is not stolen”, Ellis added. A Pennsylvania top court recently allowed votes arriving upto 3 days after Election Day to be counted in the final tally, much to Trump’s dismay, who wanted the results to be declared on the same day. Earlier, the SC had refused to fast-track a Republican appeal. US election 2020: What if Pennsylvania case is opened? Even if the court reopened the case, it may not play a major role in deciding the final vote in Pennsylvania. David Boies, who represented Al Gore in 2000, told Reuters it is unlikely that the Trump campaign would succeed in a possible effort to halt the counting of votes coming in after November 3. "I think that it’s more posturing and hope than anything else," Boies said. Boies also claimed that Pennsylvania’s outcome could be rendered irrelevant based on the outcome in Michigan and Wisconsin. Also read: Ritchie Torres — First openly gay, Afro-Latino member of Congress Legal experts also added how if Biden wins 270 electoral votes, he wouldn’t need to pursue a legal case in the state anyway. "I think the Court would summarily turn away any effort by the President or his campaign to short-circuit the ordinary legal process," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, told Reuters. "Even Bush v. Gore went through the Florida state courts first”, he added.

US election 2020: Can United States Supreme Court be the final arbiter?

President Donald Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “We want all voting to stop.”

The first statement was premature. The second did not make sense.

The Supreme Court decides actual disputes, not abstract propositions, and then only after lower courts have made their own rulings. While there have been countless election cases filed around the nation, it is not clear which of them might reach the court in the coming days.

But one candidate is already on the court’s docket. Last month, the court refused to put a case from Pennsylvania on a fast track, but three justices indicated that the court might return to it later if need be.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Trump campaign asked the Supreme Court for permission to participate in the case alongside Republican state lawmakers and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The court has not said whether it would hear the case or when it might decide whether to grant review.

As far as voting is concerned, it stopped on Election Day. But some states allow votes cast by mail on or before Election Day to be counted if they are received up to several days afterward. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state Supreme Court extended the deadline for receiving ballots from Election Day to three days later.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/the-hail-mary-keep-counting-us-presidential-election-340871">The Hail-Mary Keep-Counting US Presidential Election</a>

Should the vote in Pennsylvania have the potential to determine the outcome in the Electoral College and should those late-arriving ballots have the potential to swing the state — two big ifs — the U.S. Supreme Court might well intercede.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a three-day extension for ballots clearly mailed on or before Election Day and for those with missing or illegible postmarks “unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.”

Late last month, on Oct. 28, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-election-2020-joe-biden-needs-six-electoral-votes-to-win-340882/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The court’s refusal to move more quickly came a little more than a week after it deadlocked, 4-4, on an emergency application in the case Oct. 19.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. On the other side were Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court Oct. 27, did not take part in the decision not to fast-track the case. A court spokesperson said Barrett had not participated “because of the need for a prompt resolution” and “because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has not hesitated to block orders from federal judges that sought to alter state rules for conducting elections. Rulings from state courts present more difficult questions because the Supreme Court generally defers to them in cases concerning interpretations of state law, while the Constitution empowers state legislatures to set the times, places and manner of congressional elections.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-result-2020-trumps-campaign-files-lawsuit-in-georgia-asking-to-pause-vote-count-340622">US Election result 2020: Trump's campaign files lawsuit in Georgia asking to pause vote count</a> 
 
In a statement issued when the court refused to speed the Pennsylvania case, Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized his court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”

“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” he wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.”

“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the state Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

But there was not enough time, he wrote. Still, Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case.

“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

Pennsylvania officials have instructed county election officials to segregate ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on Election Day through 5 p.m. three days later. That would as a practical matter allow a ruling from the Supreme Court to determine whether they were ultimately counted.

Alito’s statement in the Pennsylvania case echoed an earlier concurring opinion by Kavanaugh in a voting case from Wisconsin. Kavanaugh also said that state legislatures, rather than state courts, have the last word in setting state election procedures.

Taken together, the Oct. 17 deadlock and statements from four justices suggest that Barrett could cast the decisive vote if the Pennsylvania dispute holds the key to the election.

President Donald Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.

President Donald Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “We want all voting to stop.” The first statement was premature. The second did not make sense. The Supreme Court decides actual disputes, not abstract propositions, and then only after lower courts have made their own rulings. While there have been countless election cases filed around the nation, it is not clear which of them might reach the court in the coming days. But one candidate is already on the court’s docket. Last month, the court refused to put a case from Pennsylvania on a fast track, but three justices indicated that the court might return to it later if need be. On Wednesday afternoon, the Trump campaign asked the Supreme Court for permission to participate in the case alongside Republican state lawmakers and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The court has not said whether it would hear the case or when it might decide whether to grant review. As far as voting is concerned, it stopped on Election Day. But some states allow votes cast by mail on or before Election Day to be counted if they are received up to several days afterward. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state Supreme Court extended the deadline for receiving ballots from Election Day to three days later. Also Read | The Hail-Mary Keep-Counting US Presidential Election Should the vote in Pennsylvania have the potential to determine the outcome in the Electoral College and should those late-arriving ballots have the potential to swing the state — two big ifs — the U.S. Supreme Court might well intercede. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a three-day extension for ballots clearly mailed on or before Election Day and for those with missing or illegible postmarks “unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.” Late last month, on Oct. 28, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully. × The court’s refusal to move more quickly came a little more than a week after it deadlocked, 4-4, on an emergency application in the case Oct. 19. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. On the other side were Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court Oct. 27, did not take part in the decision not to fast-track the case. A court spokesperson said Barrett had not participated “because of the need for a prompt resolution” and “because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.” The U.S. Supreme Court has not hesitated to block orders from federal judges that sought to alter state rules for conducting elections. Rulings from state courts present more difficult questions because the Supreme Court generally defers to them in cases concerning interpretations of state law, while the Constitution empowers state legislatures to set the times, places and manner of congressional elections. Also Read | US Election result 2020: Trump's campaign files lawsuit in Georgia asking to pause vote count In a statement issued when the court refused to speed the Pennsylvania case, Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized his court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.” “The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” he wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.” “It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the state Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.” But there was not enough time, he wrote. Still, Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case. “The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.” Pennsylvania officials have instructed county election officials to segregate ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on Election Day through 5 p.m. three days later. That would as a practical matter allow a ruling from the Supreme Court to determine whether they were ultimately counted. Alito’s statement in the Pennsylvania case echoed an earlier concurring opinion by Kavanaugh in a voting case from Wisconsin. Kavanaugh also said that state legislatures, rather than state courts, have the last word in setting state election procedures. Taken together, the Oct. 17 deadlock and statements from four justices suggest that Barrett could cast the decisive vote if the Pennsylvania dispute holds the key to the election.

Supreme Court and the election: What we know

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson in his ongoing effort to avoid a lawsuit filed by a police officer injured during a 2016 protest in Louisiana triggered by the police killing of a Black man.

The justices threw out a lower court ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed and said that more analysis was needed on whether Louisiana state law allows for such a claim.

McKesson has argued that the rights of freedom of speech and assembly under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment should shield him from the lawsuit that accused him of negligence for leading the protest in Baton Rouge, but the court did not resolve that issue.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/black-lives-matter-after-george-floyd-jacob-blake-becomes-next-victim-of-police-brutality-323047" hreflang="en">Black Lives Matter: After George Floyd, Jacob Blake becomes next victim of police brutality</a>

"The constitutional issue, though undeniably important, is implicated only if Louisiana law permits recovery under these circumstances in the first place," the court said in the unsigned ruling.

The officer sustained serious injuries after being struck in the face by a rock or piece of concrete thrown by an unknown person, not by McKesson.

Litigation will now continue in lower courts.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, the ruling said.

The officer, whose identify was not disclosed in the lawsuit, sued the Black Lives Matter organization and McKesson seeking monetary damages over an incident at a July 2016 protest in Baton Rouge. The negligence lawsuit argued that McKesson should have known that violence would result from his actions leading the protest, which was one of many around the country that year arising from incidents involving police and Black individuals.

The protest took place outside the police department in the aftermath of the police killing of Alton Sterling, a Black man, after a struggle outside a convenience store where he was selling homemade CDs. The incident was caught on video.

McKesson, a civil rights activist who was one of the leading voices in the Black Lives Matter movement, said that his First Amendment rights outweigh any potential liability for negligence he could face under Louisiana law.

His lawyers said that if protest organizers can be sued for actions taken by others without their involvement, it could enable opponents to effectively block future demonstrations because activists would have to direct resources to battling litigation and could face monetary damages at trial.

McKesson's lawyers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling involving Black civil rights activists in Mississippi that limited liability for protest leaders over the conduct of others when they are involved in actions protected by the First Amendment.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/black-lives-matter-movement-takes-political-colour-as-us-elections-near-317335" hreflang="en">Black Lives Matter movement takes political colour as US elections near</a>

The officer, according to the lawsuit, suffered loss of teeth, a jaw injury, a brain injury and a head injury.

The Black Lives Matter movement was formed after the high-profile killing of a Black 17-year-old named Trayvon Martin by a man named George Zimmerman in Florida in 2012. Its activists have criticized overly aggressive policing particularly against Black Americans. The movement attained further prominence following the May police killing of a Black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In 2017, a federal judge ruled that neither McKesson nor the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole could be sued over the Baton Rouge incident.

The officer appealed and in 2019 the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the claim against McKesson, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit left in place the judge's ruling dismissing Black Lives Matter from the case.

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson in his ongoing effort to avoid a lawsuit filed by a police officer injured during a 2016 protest in Louisiana triggered by the police killing of a Black man.

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson in his ongoing effort to avoid a lawsuit filed by a police officer injured during a 2016 protest in Louisiana triggered by the police killing of a Black man. The justices threw out a lower court ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed and said that more analysis was needed on whether Louisiana state law allows for such a claim. McKesson has argued that the rights of freedom of speech and assembly under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment should shield him from the lawsuit that accused him of negligence for leading the protest in Baton Rouge, but the court did not resolve that issue. Also read: Black Lives Matter: After George Floyd, Jacob Blake becomes next victim of police brutality "The constitutional issue, though undeniably important, is implicated only if Louisiana law permits recovery under these circumstances in the first place," the court said in the unsigned ruling. The officer sustained serious injuries after being struck in the face by a rock or piece of concrete thrown by an unknown person, not by McKesson. Litigation will now continue in lower courts. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, the ruling said. The officer, whose identify was not disclosed in the lawsuit, sued the Black Lives Matter organization and McKesson seeking monetary damages over an incident at a July 2016 protest in Baton Rouge. The negligence lawsuit argued that McKesson should have known that violence would result from his actions leading the protest, which was one of many around the country that year arising from incidents involving police and Black individuals. The protest took place outside the police department in the aftermath of the police killing of Alton Sterling, a Black man, after a struggle outside a convenience store where he was selling homemade CDs. The incident was caught on video. McKesson, a civil rights activist who was one of the leading voices in the Black Lives Matter movement, said that his First Amendment rights outweigh any potential liability for negligence he could face under Louisiana law. His lawyers said that if protest organizers can be sued for actions taken by others without their involvement, it could enable opponents to effectively block future demonstrations because activists would have to direct resources to battling litigation and could face monetary damages at trial. McKesson's lawyers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling involving Black civil rights activists in Mississippi that limited liability for protest leaders over the conduct of others when they are involved in actions protected by the First Amendment. Also read: Black Lives Matter movement takes political colour as US elections near The officer, according to the lawsuit, suffered loss of teeth, a jaw injury, a brain injury and a head injury. The Black Lives Matter movement was formed after the high-profile killing of a Black 17-year-old named Trayvon Martin by a man named George Zimmerman in Florida in 2012. Its activists have criticized overly aggressive policing particularly against Black Americans. The movement attained further prominence following the May police killing of a Black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis. In 2017, a federal judge ruled that neither McKesson nor the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole could be sued over the Baton Rouge incident. The officer appealed and in 2019 the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the claim against McKesson, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit left in place the judge's ruling dismissing Black Lives Matter from the case.

US Supreme Court hands narrow win to Black Lives Matter activist over protest incident

The U.S. senate is not the only institution divided over Amy Coney Barrett. Protests were held outside the Supreme Court during Barrett's swearing-in. Pro-life & pro-choice activists faced off outside SCOTUS . WION reports

Pro-life & pro-choice protests outside Supreme Court | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

In a lightning-fast senate approval, Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Handing a pre-poll SCOTUS victory to Donald Trump. For the first time in 151 years, a justice got confirmed without a single support from minority party. What next?

Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

In the midst of a polarised election in the history of America, SCOTUS is going through a parallel reality. Final confirmation vote on Amy Coney Barrett is on the horizon with choosing a Supreme Court Justice so close to US Election 2020. WION reports

Final vote for judge Barrett's confirmation | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has vocally opposed filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court so close to an election, said on Saturday that she would nonetheless vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this coming week.

“While I oppose the process that has led us to this point,” Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor, “I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility.”

Her unexpected turnabout gave a boost to Senate Republicans looking to quiet intraparty dissent in the face of unified Democratic opposition. They already had the votes they needed to confirm Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, but Murkowski’s support means that only one Republican — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — is likely to defect when the roll is called on Monday.

The development came as a divided Senate slogged through another day of debate over Barrett, 48, an appeals court judge whose confirmation would lock in a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Democrats again turned to parliamentary tactics to draw out the process and needle Republicans for confirming a justice so close to Election Day.

Amid the scripted partisan theatrics, Murkowski’s 16-minute speech stood out as a rare moment of suspense. An iconoclast willing to occasionally buck her party, Murkowski had been one of the lone voices in her party joining Democrats last month to push back against the decision to quickly fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Murkowski repeated those concerns Saturday, warning that the rush by her fellow Republicans to fill the seat would “reinforce the public perception about political influence on the court.” She lamented decades of partisan escalation in the Senate over judicial nominations.

“Moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could — I don’t think that this will help our country become a better version of itself,” she said.

Murkowski said she would still join Democrats in trying to filibuster the nomination Sunday.

But after meeting with Barrett in recent days, Murkowski said she came away impressed and concluded she was unwilling to punish a qualified nominee because her party insisted on moving ahead.

“Frankly,” she added, “I lost that procedural fight.”

Murkowski, who is up for reelection in Alaska in 2022, has frequently broken with Republicans on significant votes in the last four years. She was the only member of her party in 2018 to oppose Trump’s last nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, earning her the vitriol of the president and some of his staunchest supporters.

Like Collins, Murkowski voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act and is a proponent of abortion rights. With her latest decision, Murkowski now risks stirring up a backlash from the left, which believes Barrett’s confirmation threatens those very issues.

It could be forceful. After Collins supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2018, she became the top target of liberals across the country, who poured millions of dollars into her Democratic opponents’ coffers. Two years later, polls suggest she could lose reelection next month thanks in large part to that vote.

The comparison to Collins is not a perfect one, though. The fight over Kavanaugh was a bitter affair that consumed the nation in a debate over general and sexual violence after he was accused during the proceedings of sexual assault. In this case, polling suggests a majority of the public, including many Democrats, support confirming Barrett. What’s more, Alaska tends to be a more conservative state than Maine, and Murkowski is so well known that in 2010 she won a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the group was “deeply disappointed” by Murkowski’s intended vote in support of Barrett.

“Her extreme views should be disqualifying for anyone who claims to be a champion for women and families,” Hogue said.

Murkowski made only glancing comments about abortion rights or the Affordable Care Act during her floor speech, but they suggested she had been reassured by Barrett about how the two issues would fare by the nation’s highest court in the future. She dodged reporters in the Capitol after the speech.

“It was important for me to hear and to better understand her views on precedence and her evaluation process, specifically the weight that she affords reliance on decisions that have been in place for decades, such as Roe v. Wade,” she said in her remarks.

She said she also discussed with the nominee the issue of “severability,” a legal doctrine that could lead to the preservation of the Affordable Care Act when the Supreme Court hears a challenge seeking to invalidate it just after the election.

“I do not believe Judge Barrett will take her seat on the bench with a predetermined agenda or with a goal of putting a torch to every volume of the United States Reports,” she said, referring to the official bound volumes of Supreme Court opinions.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has vocally opposed filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court so close to an election, said on Saturday that she would nonetheless vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this coming week.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has vocally opposed filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court so close to an election, said on Saturday that she would nonetheless vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this coming week. “While I oppose the process that has led us to this point,” Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor, “I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility.” Her unexpected turnabout gave a boost to Senate Republicans looking to quiet intraparty dissent in the face of unified Democratic opposition. They already had the votes they needed to confirm Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, but Murkowski’s support means that only one Republican — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — is likely to defect when the roll is called on Monday. The development came as a divided Senate slogged through another day of debate over Barrett, 48, an appeals court judge whose confirmation would lock in a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Democrats again turned to parliamentary tactics to draw out the process and needle Republicans for confirming a justice so close to Election Day. Amid the scripted partisan theatrics, Murkowski’s 16-minute speech stood out as a rare moment of suspense. An iconoclast willing to occasionally buck her party, Murkowski had been one of the lone voices in her party joining Democrats last month to push back against the decision to quickly fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Murkowski repeated those concerns Saturday, warning that the rush by her fellow Republicans to fill the seat would “reinforce the public perception about political influence on the court.” She lamented decades of partisan escalation in the Senate over judicial nominations. “Moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could — I don’t think that this will help our country become a better version of itself,” she said. Murkowski said she would still join Democrats in trying to filibuster the nomination Sunday. But after meeting with Barrett in recent days, Murkowski said she came away impressed and concluded she was unwilling to punish a qualified nominee because her party insisted on moving ahead. “Frankly,” she added, “I lost that procedural fight.” Murkowski, who is up for reelection in Alaska in 2022, has frequently broken with Republicans on significant votes in the last four years. She was the only member of her party in 2018 to oppose Trump’s last nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, earning her the vitriol of the president and some of his staunchest supporters. Like Collins, Murkowski voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act and is a proponent of abortion rights. With her latest decision, Murkowski now risks stirring up a backlash from the left, which believes Barrett’s confirmation threatens those very issues. It could be forceful. After Collins supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2018, she became the top target of liberals across the country, who poured millions of dollars into her Democratic opponents’ coffers. Two years later, polls suggest she could lose reelection next month thanks in large part to that vote. The comparison to Collins is not a perfect one, though. The fight over Kavanaugh was a bitter affair that consumed the nation in a debate over general and sexual violence after he was accused during the proceedings of sexual assault. In this case, polling suggests a majority of the public, including many Democrats, support confirming Barrett. What’s more, Alaska tends to be a more conservative state than Maine, and Murkowski is so well known that in 2010 she won a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary. Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the group was “deeply disappointed” by Murkowski’s intended vote in support of Barrett. “Her extreme views should be disqualifying for anyone who claims to be a champion for women and families,” Hogue said. Murkowski made only glancing comments about abortion rights or the Affordable Care Act during her floor speech, but they suggested she had been reassured by Barrett about how the two issues would fare by the nation’s highest court in the future. She dodged reporters in the Capitol after the speech. “It was important for me to hear and to better understand her views on precedence and her evaluation process, specifically the weight that she affords reliance on decisions that have been in place for decades, such as Roe v. Wade,” she said in her remarks. She said she also discussed with the nominee the issue of “severability,” a legal doctrine that could lead to the preservation of the Affordable Care Act when the Supreme Court hears a challenge seeking to invalidate it just after the election. “I do not believe Judge Barrett will take her seat on the bench with a predetermined agenda or with a goal of putting a torch to every volume of the United States Reports,” she said, referring to the official bound volumes of Supreme Court opinions.

Murkowski, in a turnabout, says she will vote to confirm Barrett

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl.

Lacking the votes to block Barrett’s installation, Democrats hoped to put an indelible stain on her confirmation and brand the process of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an illegitimate power grab. Their efforts appeared to be squarely aimed at revving up the party’s base just 11 days before the election.

“The Republicans, as we all know, as the nation knows, are running the most partisan, most hypocritical, least legitimate process in the history of Supreme Court nominations,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “We are not going to have business as usual.”

After Schumer demanded, unusually, that all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business, though, Republicans roundly rejected each move. In time, they succeeded in beginning formal debate on Barrett’s nomination and setting the Senate on course for a final confirmation vote Monday.

Most senators were expected to remain in Washington through the weekend to debate Barrett’s nomination, missing some of their last opportunities to campaign in favor of a push to install Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by Election Day. Democrats promised more delay tactics but conceded they were powerless to actually block or delay the vote.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trump-biden-press-on-in-the-final-leg-of-campaigning-337583">US Election 2020: Trump, Biden press on in the final leg of campaigning</a> 
 
“Might does not make right,” Schumer said again and again, referring to Republicans’ decision to backtrack on earlier promises not to confirm a new justice so close to the election.

Friday’s exchanges, heavy with references to three decades of escalating warfare over the courts, suggested an already polarized Senate was growing only more bitter as Republicans closed in on a singular achievement: a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court that could well outlast Trump’s presidency or their own Senate majority.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the majority leader, briefly tried to refocus attention on Barrett herself, an appeals court judge in Chicago who, at 48, could serve on the court for decades. Like Democrats, Republicans are counting on the confirmation of a young, conservative judge on the court to excite their base and close a dangerously wide polling gap.

“This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited for this job — period,” McConnell said. “And I know we all know that.”

Later, after rehashing decades of tit-for-tat confirmation fights with Democrats, he added, “The good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate, we will have a third new justice to the Supreme Court.”

But mostly, Barrett receded to the background as Democrats and Republicans traded complaints and defenses about the confirmation process itself. Democrats trained fury on Republicans for filling the seat at all so close to an election, especially after they refused to fill a similar vacancy in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight months before the election. Then, Republicans insisted that voters should be allowed to have a say in filling the seat.

Democrats began making trouble as soon as the Senate gaveled into session just after noon. When McConnell tried to begin the day’s business, Schumer made an unusual demand: Democrats would insist that a quorum of senators be present to do so. Typically, both parties ignore that requirement, and only a few senators are present at any one time.

By the time the Senate wrapped up business three hours later, he had forced six roll call votes, including on whether to indefinitely delay consideration of the nomination, to send it back to the Judiciary Committee and to adjourn the Senate altogether until after the election. Most of the votes fell along party lines, but Democrats did pick up occasional support from Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans, who oppose filling the seat before Election Day.

The decision to go into closed session, though, was the most unusual. Not since 2010 has the Senate met in secret in that way. Cameras that broadcast proceedings in the chamber were shut off. Reporters and even most Senate staff were cleared from the chamber. Senators who remained were sworn to secrecy.

Schumer framed it as a last-ditch effort for senators to have a heart-to-heart discussion about the confirmation process and push off the vote before it was too late.

“The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting,” he said. “So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.”

Republicans wanted no such discussion. They voted within a matter of minutes to reopen the proceedings and move ahead with considering Barrett.

“It’s just harassment,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “It’s not about substance.”

But it was left to McConnell, the architect of Republicans’ takeover of the federal courts, to offer a fuller response. Turning away from the cameras to speak directly to Republican members seated at their desks, he offered a selectively curated history of the devolving judicial nominations process in the Senate, reaching back to Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork, a conservative nominee, in 1987.

McConnell argued that the decision to block Garland had been consistent with history and so was the decision to confirm Barrett because now, unlike then, the same party controls the White House and the Senate. Democrats view the Garland blockade as a serious escalation from which the chamber has not recovered.

“This is not spin. This is fact,” McConnell said. Referring to Democrats, he added, “Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent — every one of them was initiated over there. No exceptions.”

In a sign of how toxic the relationship between the two leaders had become four years after Schumer assumed his leadership post, McConnell suggested his counterpart was merely reaping what he had sown.

“I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he’s built,” McConnell said. “I hope he’s happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.”

Schumer was just as withering.

“We have just heard a tit-for-tat, convoluted version of history that the majority leader uses to justify steering the Senate toward one of the lowest moments in its history,” he said in reply. McConnell’s actions, he added, would “forever defile the Senate.”

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl.

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl. Lacking the votes to block Barrett’s installation, Democrats hoped to put an indelible stain on her confirmation and brand the process of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an illegitimate power grab. Their efforts appeared to be squarely aimed at revving up the party’s base just 11 days before the election. “The Republicans, as we all know, as the nation knows, are running the most partisan, most hypocritical, least legitimate process in the history of Supreme Court nominations,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “We are not going to have business as usual.” After Schumer demanded, unusually, that all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business, though, Republicans roundly rejected each move. In time, they succeeded in beginning formal debate on Barrett’s nomination and setting the Senate on course for a final confirmation vote Monday. Most senators were expected to remain in Washington through the weekend to debate Barrett’s nomination, missing some of their last opportunities to campaign in favor of a push to install Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by Election Day. Democrats promised more delay tactics but conceded they were powerless to actually block or delay the vote. Also Read | US Election 2020: Trump, Biden press on in the final leg of campaigning “Might does not make right,” Schumer said again and again, referring to Republicans’ decision to backtrack on earlier promises not to confirm a new justice so close to the election. Friday’s exchanges, heavy with references to three decades of escalating warfare over the courts, suggested an already polarized Senate was growing only more bitter as Republicans closed in on a singular achievement: a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court that could well outlast Trump’s presidency or their own Senate majority. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the majority leader, briefly tried to refocus attention on Barrett herself, an appeals court judge in Chicago who, at 48, could serve on the court for decades. Like Democrats, Republicans are counting on the confirmation of a young, conservative judge on the court to excite their base and close a dangerously wide polling gap. “This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited for this job — period,” McConnell said. “And I know we all know that.” Later, after rehashing decades of tit-for-tat confirmation fights with Democrats, he added, “The good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate, we will have a third new justice to the Supreme Court.” But mostly, Barrett receded to the background as Democrats and Republicans traded complaints and defenses about the confirmation process itself. Democrats trained fury on Republicans for filling the seat at all so close to an election, especially after they refused to fill a similar vacancy in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight months before the election. Then, Republicans insisted that voters should be allowed to have a say in filling the seat. Democrats began making trouble as soon as the Senate gaveled into session just after noon. When McConnell tried to begin the day’s business, Schumer made an unusual demand: Democrats would insist that a quorum of senators be present to do so. Typically, both parties ignore that requirement, and only a few senators are present at any one time. By the time the Senate wrapped up business three hours later, he had forced six roll call votes, including on whether to indefinitely delay consideration of the nomination, to send it back to the Judiciary Committee and to adjourn the Senate altogether until after the election. Most of the votes fell along party lines, but Democrats did pick up occasional support from Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans, who oppose filling the seat before Election Day. The decision to go into closed session, though, was the most unusual. Not since 2010 has the Senate met in secret in that way. Cameras that broadcast proceedings in the chamber were shut off. Reporters and even most Senate staff were cleared from the chamber. Senators who remained were sworn to secrecy. Schumer framed it as a last-ditch effort for senators to have a heart-to-heart discussion about the confirmation process and push off the vote before it was too late. “The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting,” he said. “So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.” Republicans wanted no such discussion. They voted within a matter of minutes to reopen the proceedings and move ahead with considering Barrett. “It’s just harassment,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “It’s not about substance.” But it was left to McConnell, the architect of Republicans’ takeover of the federal courts, to offer a fuller response. Turning away from the cameras to speak directly to Republican members seated at their desks, he offered a selectively curated history of the devolving judicial nominations process in the Senate, reaching back to Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork, a conservative nominee, in 1987. McConnell argued that the decision to block Garland had been consistent with history and so was the decision to confirm Barrett because now, unlike then, the same party controls the White House and the Senate. Democrats view the Garland blockade as a serious escalation from which the chamber has not recovered. “This is not spin. This is fact,” McConnell said. Referring to Democrats, he added, “Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent — every one of them was initiated over there. No exceptions.” In a sign of how toxic the relationship between the two leaders had become four years after Schumer assumed his leadership post, McConnell suggested his counterpart was merely reaping what he had sown. “I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he’s built,” McConnell said. “I hope he’s happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.” Schumer was just as withering. “We have just heard a tit-for-tat, convoluted version of history that the majority leader uses to justify steering the Senate toward one of the lowest moments in its history,” he said in reply. McConnell’s actions, he added, would “forever defile the Senate.”

Democrats try to shut down Senate, seeking to stain Barrett confirmation

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?

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved President Donald Trumps SC nominee Amy Barrett. Watch report.

Your Story: Senate approves Trump's court nominee Amy Barrett

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the legality of one of President Donald Trump`s hardline immigration policies that has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed.

The justices will hear a Trump administration appeal of a 2019 lower court ruling that found the policy likely violated federal immigration law. The program, called Migrant Protection Protocols, remains in effect because the Supreme Court in March put the lower court`s decision to block the policy on hold while the legal battle continues.

The Republican president has said the "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in January 2019, has reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Restricting both illegal and legal immigration has been a central theme of Trump`s presidency. He has sought to reduce asylum claims through a series of policy and rule changes.

Immigration advocacy groups and 11 individual asylum seekers who fled violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were returned to Mexico after entering the United States filed suit to challenge the legality of the policy.

The "remain in Mexico" policy, which represented a fundamental change to previous U.S. practice, is one of the steps Trump has taken to try to prevent large-scale migration from Central America and other countries across the U.S.-Mexican border. His administration has said allowing the thousands of asylum seekers across the border would swamp the U.S. immigration system and damage American relations with Mexico.

A federal judge blocked the program nationwide, saying that forcing these asylum applicants to wait in Mexico was contrary to the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated treaty-based obligations to not send refugees back to the dangerous countries from which they came.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February partially upheld that ruling. The Supreme Court then put the injunction on hold, allowing the Trump administration to continue to carry out the asylum policy.

Migrants in the program, many of them children, have faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the legality of one of President Donald Trump`s hardline immigration policies that has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the legality of one of President Donald Trump`s hardline immigration policies that has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed. The justices will hear a Trump administration appeal of a 2019 lower court ruling that found the policy likely violated federal immigration law. The program, called Migrant Protection Protocols, remains in effect because the Supreme Court in March put the lower court`s decision to block the policy on hold while the legal battle continues. The Republican president has said the "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in January 2019, has reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Restricting both illegal and legal immigration has been a central theme of Trump`s presidency. He has sought to reduce asylum claims through a series of policy and rule changes. Immigration advocacy groups and 11 individual asylum seekers who fled violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were returned to Mexico after entering the United States filed suit to challenge the legality of the policy. The "remain in Mexico" policy, which represented a fundamental change to previous U.S. practice, is one of the steps Trump has taken to try to prevent large-scale migration from Central America and other countries across the U.S.-Mexican border. His administration has said allowing the thousands of asylum seekers across the border would swamp the U.S. immigration system and damage American relations with Mexico. A federal judge blocked the program nationwide, saying that forcing these asylum applicants to wait in Mexico was contrary to the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated treaty-based obligations to not send refugees back to the dangerous countries from which they came. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February partially upheld that ruling. The Supreme Court then put the injunction on hold, allowing the Trump administration to continue to carry out the asylum policy. Migrants in the program, many of them children, have faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults.

US Supreme Court to review legality of Trump's 'remain in Mexico' asylum policy

Women’s March protesters took to the streets of Washington on Saturday, galvanized by their opposition to President Donald Trump and his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Some women dressed in handmaid’s costumes, while others donned clothing reminiscent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court regalia, just days before the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Barrett’s nomination, paving the way for her confirmation. Marching less than a month before Election Day, Women’s March participants sought to call attention to the potential impact that a Justice Barrett, and four more years of the Trump presidency, might have on abortion rights and other issues.

“He’s trying to pack the courts with people who will subvert the will of Americans,” Rachel O’Leary Carmona, the Women’s March executive director, said of the president. “The election is all about the Supreme Court. It’s all about health care. It’s all about COVID.”

During the Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett declined to say whether she believed the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. She has a conservative voting record in abortion-related cases, and her Supreme Court nomination has been championed by conservatives.

“It’s really scary, since Justice Ginsburg passed away, what the future of women in this country looks like, especially when the nominee for her replacement doesn’t care about women’s rights,” said Tiffany Jones, a 37-year-old mortgage loan processor who drove to the march from Charleston, West Virginia.

Many marchers traveled far to attend Saturday’s event, despite the risks posed by the pandemic. Cierra Brooks, 19, drove with two college roommates for nine hours from Cullowhee, North Carolina.

“Our futures are totally affected by what happens,” Brooks said.

The crowd in Washington was far smaller than those at previous marches, which organizers attributed to the pandemic. This year, protesters were required to wear masks.

The march was met with a counterprotest in support of Barrett’s nomination, organized by the Independent Women’s Forum at the steps of the Supreme Court.

“The Women’s March does not represent all women,” said Sandy Chiong, a conservative activist. Barrett, she added, “is a role model for young women everywhere, an independent thinker.”

Women’s March protesters took to the streets of Washington on Saturday, galvanized by their opposition to President Donald Trump and his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Women’s March protesters took to the streets of Washington on Saturday, galvanized by their opposition to President Donald Trump and his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Some women dressed in handmaid’s costumes, while others donned clothing reminiscent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court regalia, just days before the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Barrett’s nomination, paving the way for her confirmation. Marching less than a month before Election Day, Women’s March participants sought to call attention to the potential impact that a Justice Barrett, and four more years of the Trump presidency, might have on abortion rights and other issues. “He’s trying to pack the courts with people who will subvert the will of Americans,” Rachel O’Leary Carmona, the Women’s March executive director, said of the president. “The election is all about the Supreme Court. It’s all about health care. It’s all about COVID.” During the Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett declined to say whether she believed the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. She has a conservative voting record in abortion-related cases, and her Supreme Court nomination has been championed by conservatives. “It’s really scary, since Justice Ginsburg passed away, what the future of women in this country looks like, especially when the nominee for her replacement doesn’t care about women’s rights,” said Tiffany Jones, a 37-year-old mortgage loan processor who drove to the march from Charleston, West Virginia. Many marchers traveled far to attend Saturday’s event, despite the risks posed by the pandemic. Cierra Brooks, 19, drove with two college roommates for nine hours from Cullowhee, North Carolina. “Our futures are totally affected by what happens,” Brooks said. The crowd in Washington was far smaller than those at previous marches, which organizers attributed to the pandemic. This year, protesters were required to wear masks. The march was met with a counterprotest in support of Barrett’s nomination, organized by the Independent Women’s Forum at the steps of the Supreme Court. “The Women’s March does not represent all women,” said Sandy Chiong, a conservative activist. Barrett, she added, “is a role model for young women everywhere, an independent thinker.”

Women take a stand in Washington, both for and against Barrett

The United States Supreme Court's top seat has become the most contested topics in the US election 2020. Watch report.

US Supreme Court nominee upends the US election 2020 | Amy Corney Barrett | World News

Merriam Webster Dictionary deemed the word 'sexual preference' to be 'offensive' after its use by US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett caused a row. Amy Coney Barrett is currently undergoing hearing in the US Senate which would then take the decision to approve Amy Coney Barrett's appointment or not.

Senator Mazie Hirono lashed out at Amy Coney Barrett for using the term 'sexual preference' instead of 'sexual orientation'.

"Even though you didn't give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes," Hirono said. "Not once, but twice, you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term," said Senator Hirono.

<h2>Why is 'sexual preference' an offensive word?</h2>

The term is held to be offensive in LGBTQ+ community and activists. The main contention against this word is that it conveys that sexual orientation of a person is a choice. This in many debates, paves way for people to argue that it was just a matter of choice that members of LGBTQ+ community had a sexual orientation they had. This, in many circles, leads to an assertion that being gay or bisexual can be 'cured'.

LGBTQ+ community and people working for their rights are fiercely against the notion that their sexual orientation can be cured.

And that is why, the word 'sexual preference' is offensive.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary did not have this connotation of the word until recently. But it has now been added following the row surrounding Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett has since apologised.

"I certainly didn't mean, and would never mean, to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community," she said. "So if I did, I greatly apologize for that." She was quoted by CNN.

Merriam Webster Dictionary deemed the word 'sexual preference' to be 'offensive' after its use by US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett caused a row. Amy Coney Barrett is currently undergoing hearing in the US Senate which would then take the decision to approve Amy Coney Barrett's appointment or not.

Merriam Webster Dictionary deemed the word 'sexual preference' to be 'offensive' after its use by US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett caused a row. Amy Coney Barrett is currently undergoing hearing in the US Senate which would then take the decision to approve Amy Coney Barrett's appointment or not. Senator Mazie Hirono lashed out at Amy Coney Barrett for using the term 'sexual preference' instead of 'sexual orientation'. "Even though you didn't give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes," Hirono said. "Not once, but twice, you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term," said Senator Hirono. Why is 'sexual preference' an offensive word? The term is held to be offensive in LGBTQ+ community and activists. The main contention against this word is that it conveys that sexual orientation of a person is a choice. This in many debates, paves way for people to argue that it was just a matter of choice that members of LGBTQ+ community had a sexual orientation they had. This, in many circles, leads to an assertion that being gay or bisexual can be 'cured'. LGBTQ+ community and people working for their rights are fiercely against the notion that their sexual orientation can be cured. And that is why, the word 'sexual preference' is offensive. Merriam-Webster Dictionary did not have this connotation of the word until recently. But it has now been added following the row surrounding Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett has since apologised. "I certainly didn't mean, and would never mean, to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community," she said. "So if I did, I greatly apologize for that." She was quoted by CNN.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary deems 'sexual preference' to be 'offensive' after Barrett controversy

Day 3 of the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is underway in Washington. Watch report.

US Supreme Court Nominee: Day 3 of Barrett's conformation hearing

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

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

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

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

A large majority of Indian Americans plan to cast ballots for the Democratic ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, according to a survey released Wednesday, despite elaborate overtures by the Trump White House to win their support.

The survey, by the polling firm YouGov, found that 72% of Indian American voters planned to vote for Biden, with just 22% planning to go for President Donald Trump.

While Indian Americans hold a wide variety of political views, the presence on the Democratic ticket of Harris, whose mother immigrated from Chennai, India, has had a galvanizing effect on a voting bloc that could help Biden in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan.

Their potential impact on the presidential election highlights the growing importance of Indian Americans in U.S. politics: As the second-largest immigrant group in the country, Indian Americans are gaining influence, making political donations, vocally supporting candidates and causes and, most notably, running for office, from the school board to Congress.

“We have arrived,” said Ramesh Kapur, a Democratic Party fundraiser.

Kapur, 72, who owns a gas processing and distributing company in Medford, Massachusetts, and supported Harris’ 2016 Senate race and her run for the 2020 presidential nomination, said that Indian Americans donated $3.3 million to the Biden Victory Fund at a single fundraising event he organized in September.

But Harris isn’t the only reason many Indian Americans support the Democratic ticket this year, Kapur said. They are also turned off by the president’s frequent attacks on immigrants and people of color, despite standing to gain from Trump’s economic policies.

“Even though they are supposedly saving taxes, to the Indian American community, when you get the president of the United States saying to an elected official, ‘Go home,’ that scares the hell out of us,” he said, referring to Trump’s tweet in July 2019 about a group of four minority congresswomen.

While the approximately 2 million Indian American voters comprise less than 1% of the electorate, they are voters who both parties seek to attract. The larger Indian American population is twice as rich as the rest of the country as a whole, and two times as likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.

And at the rate the community is growing — doubling in size every decade since the 1980s — they represent an increasingly formidable force in U.S. politics.

The apparently wide support among Indian Americans for Biden comes despite high-profile efforts by Trump and the Republicans to win their votes.

A year ago, Trump drew 50,000 people to a rally in Houston with India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, an event that organizers called “Howdy, Modi.” The prime minister, a right-wing populist whose bellicose views on two of India’s rivals, Pakistan and China, helped win his party a landslide reelection in 2019, and who has generally received support from the Indian diaspora, lauded Trump’s name as “familiar to every person on the planet.” He returned the favor in February with an even larger spectacle for Trump in India.

The rallies did win Trump some support, said M.R. Rangaswami, the founder of Indiaspora, a nonpartisan group that promotes the interests of Indians in the United States.

“Trump has invested in India, has invested in Indian Americans with the ‘Howdy, Modi’ visit and with going to India, and it has shown results,” Rangaswami said. “The question is: Will it outweigh the Kamala factor?”

Indeed, the survey reported that 45% of respondents said that Harris’ nomination had made them more likely to vote, and 49% said they were more enthusiastic about supporting Biden. It also showed that respondents cared more about health care, the economy and the environment than U.S.-India relations.

YouGov conducted the survey as part of a research project by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania.

Trump has also lost some favor in India, where the news media criticized him for casting doubt on the integrity of Indian government coronavirus statistics during the presidential debate last month.

Rangaswami, who attended the Houston rally and is registered as an independent, said the audience appeared to consist largely of older Indian Americans, who he said leaned conservative and most likely voted for Trump in 2016.

That Indian American voters lean liberal overall is partly because a younger generation, born in the United States, is far less convinced by the conservative cultural mores brought by their parents and grandparents from India, Rangaswami said.

“There’s definitely that schism in the Indian American community,” said Raj Bhutoria, 20, a junior at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, who has dreamed of running for office since working as a volunteer on the successful 2016 campaign of Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., an Indian American.

Khanna’s victory and Harris’ nomination show that “now being Indian is no longer a barrier to run for office or get elected,” Bhutoria said.

Despite wishing that the Democratic nominees were more progressive on some issues, Bhutoria said he was supporting them — though with perhaps less gusto than his parents, Ajay and Vinita Bhutoria, Bay Area tech entrepreneurs in their 40s who, as avowed liberals, are somewhat of an exception for their generation. They have starred in three ads supporting the Biden-Harris campaign, set to Bollywood music and featuring slogans in a variety of Indian languages.

Bhutoria cited Trump’s trade disputes with India, pressure on countries not to trade with Iran — an important source of cheap oil for India — and the suspension of H-1B visas for high-skilled workers, a large number of which go to Indians.

“The ‘Howdy, Modi’ event was wonderful to look at, but they were only beautiful picture moments,” he said. “Trump has not done much for India or Indians Americans.”

A large majority of Indian Americans plan to cast ballots for the Democratic ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, according to a survey released Wednesday, despite elaborate overtures by the Trump White House to win their support.

A large majority of Indian Americans plan to cast ballots for the Democratic ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, according to a survey released Wednesday, despite elaborate overtures by the Trump White House to win their support. The survey, by the polling firm YouGov, found that 72% of Indian American voters planned to vote for Biden, with just 22% planning to go for President Donald Trump. While Indian Americans hold a wide variety of political views, the presence on the Democratic ticket of Harris, whose mother immigrated from Chennai, India, has had a galvanizing effect on a voting bloc that could help Biden in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. Their potential impact on the presidential election highlights the growing importance of Indian Americans in U.S. politics: As the second-largest immigrant group in the country, Indian Americans are gaining influence, making political donations, vocally supporting candidates and causes and, most notably, running for office, from the school board to Congress. “We have arrived,” said Ramesh Kapur, a Democratic Party fundraiser. Kapur, 72, who owns a gas processing and distributing company in Medford, Massachusetts, and supported Harris’ 2016 Senate race and her run for the 2020 presidential nomination, said that Indian Americans donated $3.3 million to the Biden Victory Fund at a single fundraising event he organized in September. But Harris isn’t the only reason many Indian Americans support the Democratic ticket this year, Kapur said. They are also turned off by the president’s frequent attacks on immigrants and people of color, despite standing to gain from Trump’s economic policies. “Even though they are supposedly saving taxes, to the Indian American community, when you get the president of the United States saying to an elected official, ‘Go home,’ that scares the hell out of us,” he said, referring to Trump’s tweet in July 2019 about a group of four minority congresswomen. While the approximately 2 million Indian American voters comprise less than 1% of the electorate, they are voters who both parties seek to attract. The larger Indian American population is twice as rich as the rest of the country as a whole, and two times as likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. And at the rate the community is growing — doubling in size every decade since the 1980s — they represent an increasingly formidable force in U.S. politics. The apparently wide support among Indian Americans for Biden comes despite high-profile efforts by Trump and the Republicans to win their votes. A year ago, Trump drew 50,000 people to a rally in Houston with India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, an event that organizers called “Howdy, Modi.” The prime minister, a right-wing populist whose bellicose views on two of India’s rivals, Pakistan and China, helped win his party a landslide reelection in 2019, and who has generally received support from the Indian diaspora, lauded Trump’s name as “familiar to every person on the planet.” He returned the favor in February with an even larger spectacle for Trump in India. The rallies did win Trump some support, said M.R. Rangaswami, the founder of Indiaspora, a nonpartisan group that promotes the interests of Indians in the United States. “Trump has invested in India, has invested in Indian Americans with the ‘Howdy, Modi’ visit and with going to India, and it has shown results,” Rangaswami said. “The question is: Will it outweigh the Kamala factor?” Indeed, the survey reported that 45% of respondents said that Harris’ nomination had made them more likely to vote, and 49% said they were more enthusiastic about supporting Biden. It also showed that respondents cared more about health care, the economy and the environment than U.S.-India relations. YouGov conducted the survey as part of a research project by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania. Trump has also lost some favor in India, where the news media criticized him for casting doubt on the integrity of Indian government coronavirus statistics during the presidential debate last month. Rangaswami, who attended the Houston rally and is registered as an independent, said the audience appeared to consist largely of older Indian Americans, who he said leaned conservative and most likely voted for Trump in 2016. That Indian American voters lean liberal overall is partly because a younger generation, born in the United States, is far less convinced by the conservative cultural mores brought by their parents and grandparents from India, Rangaswami said. “There’s definitely that schism in the Indian American community,” said Raj Bhutoria, 20, a junior at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, who has dreamed of running for office since working as a volunteer on the successful 2016 campaign of Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., an Indian American. Khanna’s victory and Harris’ nomination show that “now being Indian is no longer a barrier to run for office or get elected,” Bhutoria said. Despite wishing that the Democratic nominees were more progressive on some issues, Bhutoria said he was supporting them — though with perhaps less gusto than his parents, Ajay and Vinita Bhutoria, Bay Area tech entrepreneurs in their 40s who, as avowed liberals, are somewhat of an exception for their generation. They have starred in three ads supporting the Biden-Harris campaign, set to Bollywood music and featuring slogans in a variety of Indian languages. Bhutoria cited Trump’s trade disputes with India, pressure on countries not to trade with Iran — an important source of cheap oil for India — and the suspension of H-1B visas for high-skilled workers, a large number of which go to Indians. “The ‘Howdy, Modi’ event was wonderful to look at, but they were only beautiful picture moments,” he said. “Trump has not done much for India or Indians Americans.”

US election 2020: Indian-Americans overwhelmingly support Joe Biden, new poll shows

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

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

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday at her US&nbsp;Senate confirmation hearing she is not hostile to the Obamacare law, as Democrats have suggested, and declined to specify whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided.

Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge, answered questions from senators for the first time on the second day of her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. It gave Barrett a chance to respond to Democrats who have opposed her because of her potential as a justice to undermine the 2010 healthcare law and its protection for patients with pre-existing conditions.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-election-2020-trump-defends-supreme-court-pick-barrett-331308" hreflang="en">US election 2020: Trump defends Supreme Court pick Barrett</a>

Trump has asked the Senate to confirm Barrett before the Nov. 3 election in which he is seeking a second term in office.

Barrett declined to say if she would step aside from any election-related cases that reach the court. The Republican president has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election's outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Barrett said no one at the White House sought a commitment from her on how she would rule on that or any issue.

"It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case," Barrett told the committee of possible election cases.

Barrett declined to say whether she would consider stepping aside, as Democrats have requested, from an Obamacare case due to be argued at the court a week after Election Day in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Barrett noted that the new case centers upon a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare, which she had criticized. Barrett declined to say how she would approach the new case, but said, "I am not hostile to the ACA."

Barrett also said the White House did not seek her assurance that she would vote to strike down the law.

"Absolutely not. I was never asked - and if I had, that would have been a short conversation," Barrett said.

The Affordable Care Act is Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage. Democrats have blasted Trump for trying to kill Obamacare amid a deadly pandemic.

Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 Supreme Court majority. She is Trump's third Supreme Court appointment.

ABORTION RULING

Like other Supreme Court nominees before her, Barrett opted to sidestep some questions on some matters that could come before the court.

Abortion rights advocates have expressed concern that Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 ruling called Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about that ruling, Barrett said she would consider the various factors usually applied when justices weigh whether to overturn a precedent. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/white-house-ceremony-for-amy-coney-barrett-was-a-superspreader-event-dr-fauci-334172" hreflang="en">White House ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett was a 'superspreader' event: Dr Fauci</a>

"I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law," Barrett said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, asked Barrett whether she agreed with her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade can was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

After Barrett declined to answer, Feinstein told her, "So on something that is really a major cause with major effects on over half of the population of this country - who are women, after all - it's distressing not to get a straight answer."

Religious conservatives are hoping the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Republican committee chairman Lindsey Graham, asked Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, whether she could set aside her religious beliefs in making decisions as a justice.

"I can," Barrett said, adding that she expected that as a nominee her religious faith would be "caricatured."

During her 2017 confirmation hearing after Trump nominated her to her current post on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein told Barrett that "the dogma lives loudly in you" - a comment that some Republicans said represented anti-religious bigotry.

Questioned by Feinstein, Barrett declined to say whether she agreed with Scalia that the 2015 Supreme Court ruling called Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided.

"I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said.

Asked about George Floyd, a Black man killed by police in Minneapolis in May in an incident that triggered widespread protests, Barrett said the issue was "very, very personal for my family" because of her seven children, two - adopted from Haiti - are Black. Barrett said she and one of her daughters, Vivian, cried together after seeing the video.

"It's a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country," Barrett said.

Barrett said "racism persists" in the United States but declined to give her view on whether it is systemic or how it should be addressed.

Barrett was nominated to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 by Trump to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote by the end of October on Barrett's confirmation.

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday at her US Senate confirmation hearing she is not hostile to the Obamacare law, as Democrats have suggested, and declined to specify whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided.

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday at her US Senate confirmation hearing she is not hostile to the Obamacare law, as Democrats have suggested, and declined to specify whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided. Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge, answered questions from senators for the first time on the second day of her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. It gave Barrett a chance to respond to Democrats who have opposed her because of her potential as a justice to undermine the 2010 healthcare law and its protection for patients with pre-existing conditions. Also read: US election 2020: Trump defends Supreme Court pick Barrett Trump has asked the Senate to confirm Barrett before the Nov. 3 election in which he is seeking a second term in office. Barrett declined to say if she would step aside from any election-related cases that reach the court. The Republican president has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election's outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Barrett said no one at the White House sought a commitment from her on how she would rule on that or any issue. "It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case," Barrett told the committee of possible election cases. Barrett declined to say whether she would consider stepping aside, as Democrats have requested, from an Obamacare case due to be argued at the court a week after Election Day in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Barrett noted that the new case centers upon a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare, which she had criticized. Barrett declined to say how she would approach the new case, but said, "I am not hostile to the ACA." Barrett also said the White House did not seek her assurance that she would vote to strike down the law. "Absolutely not. I was never asked - and if I had, that would have been a short conversation," Barrett said. The Affordable Care Act is Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage. Democrats have blasted Trump for trying to kill Obamacare amid a deadly pandemic. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 Supreme Court majority. She is Trump's third Supreme Court appointment. ABORTION RULING Like other Supreme Court nominees before her, Barrett opted to sidestep some questions on some matters that could come before the court. Abortion rights advocates have expressed concern that Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 ruling called Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about that ruling, Barrett said she would consider the various factors usually applied when justices weigh whether to overturn a precedent. Also read: White House ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett was a 'superspreader' event: Dr Fauci "I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law," Barrett said. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, asked Barrett whether she agreed with her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade can was wrongly decided and should be overturned. After Barrett declined to answer, Feinstein told her, "So on something that is really a major cause with major effects on over half of the population of this country - who are women, after all - it's distressing not to get a straight answer." Religious conservatives are hoping the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. Republican committee chairman Lindsey Graham, asked Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, whether she could set aside her religious beliefs in making decisions as a justice. "I can," Barrett said, adding that she expected that as a nominee her religious faith would be "caricatured." During her 2017 confirmation hearing after Trump nominated her to her current post on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein told Barrett that "the dogma lives loudly in you" - a comment that some Republicans said represented anti-religious bigotry. Questioned by Feinstein, Barrett declined to say whether she agreed with Scalia that the 2015 Supreme Court ruling called Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided. "I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said. Asked about George Floyd, a Black man killed by police in Minneapolis in May in an incident that triggered widespread protests, Barrett said the issue was "very, very personal for my family" because of her seven children, two - adopted from Haiti - are Black. Barrett said she and one of her daughters, Vivian, cried together after seeing the video. "It's a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country," Barrett said. Barrett said "racism persists" in the United States but declined to give her view on whether it is systemic or how it should be addressed. Barrett was nominated to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 by Trump to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote by the end of October on Barrett's confirmation.

Trump's Supreme Court pick says she is not 'hostile' to Obamacare, dodges on abortion

Democratic senators including vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris on Monday painted President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as a threat to the Obamacare healthcare law

Donald Trump's SC nominee Amy Coney Barrett faces democratic opposition on Obamacare law

WASHINGTON — There is, traditionally, a predictable rhythm to the start of a “much-awaited hearing” on Capitol Hill.

There are protesters and counterprotesters, enhanced police and news media presences, insufferable opening statements and an overall sense that something more momentous than usual might be going on.

The start of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Monday had all of that. But like everything else in Washington these days, this was an entirely different kind of pinstripe rodeo.

Start with the hazmat suits.

“We are making a point,” said Jennie Spector, one of a few dozen demonstrators dressed in white hazmat suits convened outside the Hart Senate Office Building.

It was insane to be holding these hearings, Spector said. After all, two Republicans on the committee had recently tested positive for the coronavirus. And the committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was among those at the White House “super spreader” event last month, had refused to get tested in recent days.

But there they all were. Showtime in a potential petri dish.

For the record, Spector said she purchased her hazmat suit at Walgreens. Apparently you can buy hazmat suits at Walgreens these days. How 2020 is that? The white jumpsuits doubled as decent rain gear in the morning drizzle.

Inside, everyone seemed to be remarking upon the senators’ varying degrees of public health diligence or recklessness. Viral vulnerability and co-morbidities were assessed. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Charles E. Grassley are 87!

As a general rule, U.S. Capitol Police officers have been diligent in their enforcement of mask requirements, with blatant exceptions. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who attended the super spreader event — the Rose Garden announcement of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Barrett to the Supreme Court — and tested positive soon after, delivered his opening statement sans mask. He had previously assured everyone that he had been “cleared” by his doctor.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, appeared remotely as he was self-quarantined after coming in contact with an infected party (Lee). Hand sanitizer, disinfecting machines and wipe dispensers are the new candy bowls in Senate offices.

Other novelties were more subtle, but telling. Upon gaveling the proceedings to order, Graham opened what he called “the hearing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court,” a choice of words that pretty much gave away the game at the outset. Usually, the parliamentary term of art is for the chairman to commence a hearing to “consider the nomination” of so and so, not merely rubber stamp, or “confirm,” the nominee.

In other words, this would not be a deliberation as much as a media spectacle convened amid particles that may or may not be lethal.

“This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens,” Graham said. “All the Republicans will vote yes. All the Democrats will vote no.”

It raised an obvious question: Why were we even here?

There was a certain low energy to the whole tableau. Numbers of both pro- and anti-Barrett demonstrators were less than what you’d expect on Opening Day of a big Senate proceeding. It was a holiday. It was raining. It was Monday. Chants were muffled by germ masks.

People seemed to be going through the motions. They seemed tired.

The hearings droned on through a procession of opening statements from the senators — 22 — before Barrett even uttered a word. Fun!

Graham was an obvious person of interest. In addition to his role as chairman and ubiquity in Trump’s orbit, he faces a possible reckoning at the polls next month in a tight reelection campaign.

He also has a habit of spectacular about-faces — all caught on video — on everything from his previous ill feelings toward Trump to whether Senate Republicans should have the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy shortly before a presidential election. No way, he declared in 2018. “You can use words against me,” he thundered at the time, and of course, no one had been waiting for his permission.

Another high-curiosity figure for obvious reasons was Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who is former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate.

“This hearing should have been postponed,” said Harris, who appeared remotely. “The decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and places facilities workers, janitorial staff and congressional aides and Capitol Police at risk.”

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana was a rare Republican senator to subject himself to news media questions outside the hearing room. “This is a solemn occasion,” Kennedy said softly before launching into what has become a key part of the Republican message, bemoaning all of the terrible attacks Barrett was being forced to endure from Democrats over her Christian faith. “Some of my colleagues tried to attack her on her religion,” Kennedy said.

“Wait, who did that?” one reporter asked. For the record, no one on the committee had.

“I’m not going to argue with you guys,” Kennedy said.

It was a simple question: Could he name a colleague who attacked Barrett over her religion?

“I don’t want to go there,” Kennedy demurred. “I understand the point of your question. It’s to try to get me to attack one of my colleagues.”

“Y’all get outside,” he urged reporters as he headed back into the hearing room. “Get a little sun.” Folksy!

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., replaced Kennedy at the standing microphone in front of reporters and immediately pounded on the Democrats’ key theme of the day: Putting Barrett on the Supreme Court would hasten the demise of the Affordable Care Act.

Durbin then pivoted to some Senate math. Keep in mind, Durbin said, that two Republican senators did not support holding the hearing now. Presumably he was referring to Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom said the Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after the next president is selected.

If two more Republican senators could not support Barrett, the Republicans would not have the votes to confirm, and would be forced to put off the vote until after the election. “Which is what we think the right thing to do is,” Durbin said.

It was not immediately clear whether Durbin was suggesting that those elusive two Republican votes might be persuaded not to support Barrett on the merits, or simply might not be able to participate in a vote or quorum for some reason. Illness, perhaps.

This is one of those morbid speculation scenarios that seems to be getting tossed out a lot these days on Capitol Hill.

“I’m not talking about gaming COVID-19,” Durbin said when a reporter asked if that in fact was what he was suggesting. “Not at all,” he reiterated.

That settled, Durbin reentered the hearing room, and Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, parked himself nearby in front of another cluster of reporters. As Meadows began to remove his mask to speak, CNN’s Kristin Wilson asked if he could please keep it on. Meadows had been in close contact with dozens of infected parties over the past two weeks, including Trump.

“I’m not going to talk through a mask,” Meadows, and that was that. He headed off. It was yet another discussion in these dark Washington days that was over before it began.

WASHINGTON — There is, traditionally, a predictable rhythm to the start of a “much-awaited hearing” on Capitol Hill. There are protesters and counterprotesters, enhanced police and news media presences, insufferable opening statements and an overall sense that something more momentous than usual might be going on.

WASHINGTON — There is, traditionally, a predictable rhythm to the start of a “much-awaited hearing” on Capitol Hill. There are protesters and counterprotesters, enhanced police and news media presences, insufferable opening statements and an overall sense that something more momentous than usual might be going on. The start of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Monday had all of that. But like everything else in Washington these days, this was an entirely different kind of pinstripe rodeo. Start with the hazmat suits. “We are making a point,” said Jennie Spector, one of a few dozen demonstrators dressed in white hazmat suits convened outside the Hart Senate Office Building. It was insane to be holding these hearings, Spector said. After all, two Republicans on the committee had recently tested positive for the coronavirus. And the committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was among those at the White House “super spreader” event last month, had refused to get tested in recent days. But there they all were. Showtime in a potential petri dish. For the record, Spector said she purchased her hazmat suit at Walgreens. Apparently you can buy hazmat suits at Walgreens these days. How 2020 is that? The white jumpsuits doubled as decent rain gear in the morning drizzle. Inside, everyone seemed to be remarking upon the senators’ varying degrees of public health diligence or recklessness. Viral vulnerability and co-morbidities were assessed. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Charles E. Grassley are 87! As a general rule, U.S. Capitol Police officers have been diligent in their enforcement of mask requirements, with blatant exceptions. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who attended the super spreader event — the Rose Garden announcement of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Barrett to the Supreme Court — and tested positive soon after, delivered his opening statement sans mask. He had previously assured everyone that he had been “cleared” by his doctor. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, appeared remotely as he was self-quarantined after coming in contact with an infected party (Lee). Hand sanitizer, disinfecting machines and wipe dispensers are the new candy bowls in Senate offices. Other novelties were more subtle, but telling. Upon gaveling the proceedings to order, Graham opened what he called “the hearing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court,” a choice of words that pretty much gave away the game at the outset. Usually, the parliamentary term of art is for the chairman to commence a hearing to “consider the nomination” of so and so, not merely rubber stamp, or “confirm,” the nominee. In other words, this would not be a deliberation as much as a media spectacle convened amid particles that may or may not be lethal. “This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens,” Graham said. “All the Republicans will vote yes. All the Democrats will vote no.” It raised an obvious question: Why were we even here? There was a certain low energy to the whole tableau. Numbers of both pro- and anti-Barrett demonstrators were less than what you’d expect on Opening Day of a big Senate proceeding. It was a holiday. It was raining. It was Monday. Chants were muffled by germ masks. People seemed to be going through the motions. They seemed tired. The hearings droned on through a procession of opening statements from the senators — 22 — before Barrett even uttered a word. Fun! Graham was an obvious person of interest. In addition to his role as chairman and ubiquity in Trump’s orbit, he faces a possible reckoning at the polls next month in a tight reelection campaign. He also has a habit of spectacular about-faces — all caught on video — on everything from his previous ill feelings toward Trump to whether Senate Republicans should have the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy shortly before a presidential election. No way, he declared in 2018. “You can use words against me,” he thundered at the time, and of course, no one had been waiting for his permission. Another high-curiosity figure for obvious reasons was Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who is former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate. “This hearing should have been postponed,” said Harris, who appeared remotely. “The decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and places facilities workers, janitorial staff and congressional aides and Capitol Police at risk.” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana was a rare Republican senator to subject himself to news media questions outside the hearing room. “This is a solemn occasion,” Kennedy said softly before launching into what has become a key part of the Republican message, bemoaning all of the terrible attacks Barrett was being forced to endure from Democrats over her Christian faith. “Some of my colleagues tried to attack her on her religion,” Kennedy said. “Wait, who did that?” one reporter asked. For the record, no one on the committee had. “I’m not going to argue with you guys,” Kennedy said. It was a simple question: Could he name a colleague who attacked Barrett over her religion? “I don’t want to go there,” Kennedy demurred. “I understand the point of your question. It’s to try to get me to attack one of my colleagues.” “Y’all get outside,” he urged reporters as he headed back into the hearing room. “Get a little sun.” Folksy! Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., replaced Kennedy at the standing microphone in front of reporters and immediately pounded on the Democrats’ key theme of the day: Putting Barrett on the Supreme Court would hasten the demise of the Affordable Care Act. Durbin then pivoted to some Senate math. Keep in mind, Durbin said, that two Republican senators did not support holding the hearing now. Presumably he was referring to Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom said the Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after the next president is selected. If two more Republican senators could not support Barrett, the Republicans would not have the votes to confirm, and would be forced to put off the vote until after the election. “Which is what we think the right thing to do is,” Durbin said. It was not immediately clear whether Durbin was suggesting that those elusive two Republican votes might be persuaded not to support Barrett on the merits, or simply might not be able to participate in a vote or quorum for some reason. Illness, perhaps. This is one of those morbid speculation scenarios that seems to be getting tossed out a lot these days on Capitol Hill. “I’m not talking about gaming COVID-19,” Durbin said when a reporter asked if that in fact was what he was suggesting. “Not at all,” he reiterated. That settled, Durbin reentered the hearing room, and Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, parked himself nearby in front of another cluster of reporters. As Meadows began to remove his mask to speak, CNN’s Kristin Wilson asked if he could please keep it on. Meadows had been in close contact with dozens of infected parties over the past two weeks, including Trump. “I’m not going to talk through a mask,” Meadows, and that was that. He headed off. It was yet another discussion in these dark Washington days that was over before it began.

Showtime in a potential petri dish

Democratic Party's presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Thursday that he will air his opinion on increasing number of judges on US Supreme Court if he defeats President Donald Trump in November 3 election. Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She is yet to get a nod from the US Senate for her appointment on the Supreme Court. Republican Party has said that it will push for confiemation from the Senate before November 3 election.

Following Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg`s death on Sept. 18, some Democrats have pressed Biden to consider "packing the court" with liberal justices if Trump`s Republican party fills Ginsburg`s seat ahead of the election and creates a 6-3 conservative majority.

Trump has criticized Biden for repeatedly declining to provide his view on the matter.

On Thursday, Biden told reporters that revealing it now would distract voters from focusing on Trump`s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the top court.

"The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that other than - other than focusing on what’s happening now," Biden said.

It is believed that the Republican Party's push to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett is inanticipation of possble upper hand they will get in case court has to intervene to decide winner of the election. Such a situation has a precedent. In US Presidential Elections 2020, the court intervened to declare winner of the election.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-censors-us-vice-presidential-debate-when-pence-gets-asked-on-the-communist-nation-333731">China censors US vice-presidential debate when Pence gets asked on the communist nation</a>

White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Biden`s comments were a sign he does plan to expand the court. "Voters deserve a clear answer, though we basically already have one," she said on Twitter.

The U.S. Senate, which has the power to confirm presidential nominees to the high court, is currently under Republican control though that could change after November`s elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to start hearings on Barrett on Monday.

The number of justices on the high court has remained at nine since 1869, but Congress has the power to change the size of the bench and did so several times before that.

(With Reuters inputs)

Democratic Party's presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Thursday that he will air his opinion on increasing number of judges on US Supreme Court if he defeats President Donald Trump in November 3 election.

Democratic Party's presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Thursday that he will air his opinion on increasing number of judges on US Supreme Court if he defeats President Donald Trump in November 3 election. Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She is yet to get a nod from the US Senate for her appointment on the Supreme Court. Republican Party has said that it will push for confiemation from the Senate before November 3 election. Following Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg`s death on Sept. 18, some Democrats have pressed Biden to consider "packing the court" with liberal justices if Trump`s Republican party fills Ginsburg`s seat ahead of the election and creates a 6-3 conservative majority. Trump has criticized Biden for repeatedly declining to provide his view on the matter. On Thursday, Biden told reporters that revealing it now would distract voters from focusing on Trump`s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the top court. "The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that other than - other than focusing on what’s happening now," Biden said. It is believed that the Republican Party's push to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett is inanticipation of possble upper hand they will get in case court has to intervene to decide winner of the election. Such a situation has a precedent. In US Presidential Elections 2020, the court intervened to declare winner of the election. Also Read | China censors US vice-presidential debate when Pence gets asked on the communist nation White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said Biden`s comments were a sign he does plan to expand the court. "Voters deserve a clear answer, though we basically already have one," she said on Twitter. The U.S. Senate, which has the power to confirm presidential nominees to the high court, is currently under Republican control though that could change after November`s elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to start hearings on Barrett on Monday. The number of justices on the high court has remained at nine since 1869, but Congress has the power to change the size of the bench and did so several times before that. (With Reuters inputs)

Will talk about Supreme Court expansion after US election results: Joe Biden

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants&nbsp;Google and&nbsp;Oracle has puzzled and divided the&nbsp;Supreme Court of the&nbsp;United States of America.

Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,&nbsp;heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case has been revived after&nbsp;Google's appeal to review&nbsp;a lower court ruling&nbsp;in which&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;sought&nbsp;damages from the company for&nbsp;copying thousands of lines of computer code from its popular Java programming language without a license in order to make Android, a competing platform that has harmed&nbsp;Oracle's business.

To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organisation that's part of Oracle's Java platform.

Google says what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it says there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Oracle says Google committed an ''egregious act of plagiarism''&nbsp;and sued.

A jury cleared Google in 2016, but the US&nbsp;Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision in 2018, finding that Google's inclusion of&nbsp;Oracle's software code in Android was not permissible under US&nbsp;copyright law.

Google lawyer Thomas Goldstein told the justices that the disputed Java code should not receive copyright protection because it was the "the only way" to create new programs using the programming language.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google still should have paid&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;for a license to Java.

"Cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn't mean you can do it," Roberts said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Goldstein on whether Google had simply piggybacked on&nbsp;Oracle's innovation.

Gorsuch asked, "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?"

Oracle&nbsp;and Google, two California-based technology giants with combined annual revenues of about $200 billion, have been feuding since&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;sued for copyright infringement in 2010 in federal court in San Francisco.

Google has said the shortcut commands it copied into Android do not warrant copyright protection because they help developers write programs to work across platforms, a key to software innovation.

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants Google and Oracle has puzzled and divided the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants Google and Oracle has puzzled and divided the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, heard oral arguments on Wednesday. The case has been revived after Google's appeal to review a lower court ruling in which Oracle sought damages from the company for copying thousands of lines of computer code from its popular Java programming language without a license in order to make Android, a competing platform that has harmed Oracle's business. To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organisation that's part of Oracle's Java platform. Google says what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it says there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Oracle says Google committed an ''egregious act of plagiarism'' and sued. A jury cleared Google in 2016, but the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision in 2018, finding that Google's inclusion of Oracle's software code in Android was not permissible under US copyright law. Google lawyer Thomas Goldstein told the justices that the disputed Java code should not receive copyright protection because it was the "the only way" to create new programs using the programming language. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google still should have paid Oracle for a license to Java. "Cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn't mean you can do it," Roberts said. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Goldstein on whether Google had simply piggybacked on Oracle's innovation. Gorsuch asked, "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?" Oracle and Google, two California-based technology giants with combined annual revenues of about $200 billion, have been feuding since Oracle sued for copyright infringement in 2010 in federal court in San Francisco. Google has said the shortcut commands it copied into Android do not warrant copyright protection because they help developers write programs to work across platforms, a key to software innovation.

US Supreme Court puzzled over Google, Oracle high tech copyright clash

Senators of the Republican Party said on Friday that they will continue to press forward the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett in spite of President Trump having been infected with coronavirus. The Judiciary Committee hearings are due to begin on October 3. Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated by Donald Trump for US Supreme Court.

Mitch McConnel, Senate majority leader, said that the Senate would proceed with Barrett's confirmation.

"I think we can move forward. Our biggest enemy, obviously, is ... the coronavirus, keeping everybody healthy and well and in place to do our job," McConnell told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

"Full steam ahead," an aide to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told Reuters when asked if the schedule for hearings due to begin on Oct. 12 could change.

Graham spoke to Trump on Friday morning and said the first thing the president asked about was the Senate`s plan for Barrett`s confirmation, the aide added.

Barrett, who was last with Trump on Saturday, has tested negative for the coronavirus and is following government guidelines on social distancing and other best practices, according to a White House official.

Republican Party has 53-47 majority in the Senate.

Why the hurry

Amy Coney Barrett is known for her conservative views. Republican Party's vote base is conservative Americans. If Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed on the Supreme Court, the conservative judges will have 6-3 majority over judges who are more liberal.

Moreover, the republican party is trying hard to confirm Amy Coney Barrett before November 3 US Presidential Elections.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-has-the-coronavirus-what-risks-does-he-face-332026">Trump has the coronavirus. What risks does he face?</a> 
 
In 2000, US Supreme Court had to resolve US Presidential Elections after the votes had been cast and counted. Republican Party's George Bush was declared winner of the election.

It is being said that by confirming Amy Coney Barrett in Supreme Court, Republicans envisage a possible advantage if Supreme Court needs to get involved to resolve US Elections 2020.

What options do Democrats have?

At the moment very few. Although two Republican Senators have said that they will not support Trump's nominee, another defection from the Republican camp would bring the Senate strength during the vote to 50-50. Vice-President Mike Pence can then exercise casting vote in favour of Amy Coney Barrett.

Biden and his vice presidential running mate Kamala Harris, a member of the Judiciary Committee, blasted Trump's choice of Barrett, focusing in particular on the threat they said she would pose to healthcare for millions of Americans.

Biden noted that even as Trump's administration is seeking to strike down Obamacare in a case the Supreme Court is due to hear on Nov. 10, Barrett has a "written track record" criticizing a pivotal 2012 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts preserving the healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. If quickly confirmed, Barrett could be on the bench to hear that case.

Democrats also fretted that Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, a goal of religious conservatives.

(With Reuters inputs)

Senators of the Republican Party said on Friday that they will continue to press forward the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett in spite of President Trump having been infected with coronavirus.

Senators of the Republican Party said on Friday that they will continue to press forward the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett in spite of President Trump having been infected with coronavirus. The Judiciary Committee hearings are due to begin on October 3. Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated by Donald Trump for US Supreme Court. Mitch McConnel, Senate majority leader, said that the Senate would proceed with Barrett's confirmation. "I think we can move forward. Our biggest enemy, obviously, is ... the coronavirus, keeping everybody healthy and well and in place to do our job," McConnell told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. "Full steam ahead," an aide to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told Reuters when asked if the schedule for hearings due to begin on Oct. 12 could change. Graham spoke to Trump on Friday morning and said the first thing the president asked about was the Senate`s plan for Barrett`s confirmation, the aide added. Barrett, who was last with Trump on Saturday, has tested negative for the coronavirus and is following government guidelines on social distancing and other best practices, according to a White House official. Republican Party has 53-47 majority in the Senate. Why the hurry Amy Coney Barrett is known for her conservative views. Republican Party's vote base is conservative Americans. If Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed on the Supreme Court, the conservative judges will have 6-3 majority over judges who are more liberal. Moreover, the republican party is trying hard to confirm Amy Coney Barrett before November 3 US Presidential Elections. Also Read | Trump has the coronavirus. What risks does he face? In 2000, US Supreme Court had to resolve US Presidential Elections after the votes had been cast and counted. Republican Party's George Bush was declared winner of the election. It is being said that by confirming Amy Coney Barrett in Supreme Court, Republicans envisage a possible advantage if Supreme Court needs to get involved to resolve US Elections 2020. What options do Democrats have? At the moment very few. Although two Republican Senators have said that they will not support Trump's nominee, another defection from the Republican camp would bring the Senate strength during the vote to 50-50. Vice-President Mike Pence can then exercise casting vote in favour of Amy Coney Barrett. Biden and his vice presidential running mate Kamala Harris, a member of the Judiciary Committee, blasted Trump's choice of Barrett, focusing in particular on the threat they said she would pose to healthcare for millions of Americans. Biden noted that even as Trump's administration is seeking to strike down Obamacare in a case the Supreme Court is due to hear on Nov. 10, Barrett has a "written track record" criticizing a pivotal 2012 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts preserving the healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. If quickly confirmed, Barrett could be on the bench to hear that case. Democrats also fretted that Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, a goal of religious conservatives. (With Reuters inputs)

Republicans to push Barrett's confirmation despite Trump's positive COVID-19 test

US President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court to fill up the vacancy following the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Trump's US Supreme Court pick is Judge Amy Coney Barrett

us-supreme-court

Us Supreme Court, News on Us Supreme Court, stories on Us Supreme Court, articles on Us Supreme Court, Us Supreme Court stories at Wion, Us Supreme Court news, Us Supreme Court latest news

us supreme-court