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

Pro-life & pro-opinion clash in Washington DC as US President Donald Trump publically announces conservative judge Amy Barrett his nominee.

Pro-life, pro-choice proponents clash in response to Trump's SC pick

US is towards the November polls but Donald Trump is very quickly trying to fill the vacant position in the Supreme Court before the election happens.

Donald Trump picks conservative Amy C. Barrett for top court judge

Donald Trump picks conservative Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

Republicans are expecting US President Donald Trump to announce Amy Coney Barret as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump may select Amy Barrett as new Supreme Court judge

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been shortlisted by US President Donald Trump as one of the candidate for the nine member Supreme Court bench, has been generating a lot of curiosity for reasons not related to her work. 
 
According to reports, Barrett has been a part of a ultraconservative Christian community called People Of Praise which has freakish similarities to the male-dominated socity of Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Handmaid's Tale'. 
 
Set in a dystopian world, 'The Handmaid's Tale' explores themes of subjugated women in a patriarchal society and the various means by which these women resist and attempt to gain individuality and independence. 
 
Many term the group as an unusual mix of Roman Catholic and and Pentecostal traditions. In factm until 2018, it used the term ‘handmaid’ for its female leaders. 
 
There has been a renewed interest in the group ever since Trump named Barrett as one of his shortlisted candidates for the elevation to the Supreme Court. 
 
So far, the conservative group has not confirmed or deniyed whether Barrett was a member. &nbsp; 
 
The group’s spokesman, Sean Connolly, told Reuters that women were not considered subservient in People of Praise and that many hold leadership roles, such as directing schools and ministries. 
 
Barrett did not respond on Tuesday to requests for comment about her membership in People of Praise made through a clerk at the Chicago-based 7th Circuit. 
 
Sharon Loftus, a judicial assistant to Barrett, said in an email the judge`s policy was not to give interviews or comments to the media. 
 
Trump has said he plans to nominate a Supreme Court justice this week to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last Friday. He said he is considering Barrett as well as Barbara Lagoa of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. 
 
People of Praise has about 1,700 members in 22 cities in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean, according to its website, and was founded in 1971 in South Bend, Indiana, also the home of the Catholic-led University of Notre Dame. 
 
"We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community," the website says, tracing its origins to the late 1960s when students and faculty at Notre Dame experienced "a renewal of Christian enthusiasm and fervor, together with charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues and physical healing." 
 
Its most devoted members make a lifelong commitment to the group, known as a covenant. 
 
From 1970, women with leadership roles in the organization were called handmaids, but that changed following the popular 2017-to-present Hulu television series "The Handmaid`s Tale," based on a 1985 book by Margaret Atwood. The dystopian story is set in a future United States where the rules of the male-dominated society are based on the leaders` twisted interpretation of Old Testament scriptures. 
 
"Recognizing that the meaning of this term has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years, we no longer use the term handmaid," the group said in 2018, without specifically attributing the change to the show. 
 
Coral Anika Theill, a former People of Praise member, has been strongly critical of the group, calling it a "cult" and saying in an interview women are expected to be completely obedient to men and independent thinkers are "humiliated, interrogated, shamed and shunned." 
 
Theill, who last year wrote a blog post entitled "I lived the Handmaid`s Tale," said she planned to call every US senator to oppose Barrett should she become Trump`s nominee. 
 
Reuters could not independently verify her account. When asked about Theill`s allegations, People of Praise spokesman Connolly said the group followed Christian teachings that "men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God`s image." 
 
"We value independent thinking," Connolly said. 
 
Thomas Csordas, a scholar of comparative religion at the University of California, San Diego, said People of Praise was "very conservative" but that he would not consider it a cult, adding that some of the charismatic Christian communities he has researched were more authoritarian than People of Praise. 
 
In popular culture, the word cult can connote brainwashing and authoritarianism, he said. 
 
"My position to the press was that People of Praise is best described not as a cult but as a religiously-based `intentional community,`" Csordas said in an email. 
 
"When I first encountered Atwood`s book, I was frankly jolted by the similarity of terminology to that prevalent in some of the Catholic charismatic `covenant communities` I had been studying," Csordas wrote in a 1996 paper called `A Handmaid`s Tale,` without specifically referencing People of Praise.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been shortlisted by US President Donald Trump as one of the candidate for the nine member Supreme Court bench, has been generating a lot of curiosity for reasons not related to her work.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been shortlisted by US President Donald Trump as one of the candidate for the nine member Supreme Court bench, has been generating a lot of curiosity for reasons not related to her work. According to reports, Barrett has been a part of a ultraconservative Christian community called People Of Praise which has freakish similarities to the male-dominated socity of Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Set in a dystopian world, 'The Handmaid's Tale' explores themes of subjugated women in a patriarchal society and the various means by which these women resist and attempt to gain individuality and independence. Many term the group as an unusual mix of Roman Catholic and and Pentecostal traditions. In factm until 2018, it used the term ‘handmaid’ for its female leaders. There has been a renewed interest in the group ever since Trump named Barrett as one of his shortlisted candidates for the elevation to the Supreme Court. So far, the conservative group has not confirmed or deniyed whether Barrett was a member. The group’s spokesman, Sean Connolly, told Reuters that women were not considered subservient in People of Praise and that many hold leadership roles, such as directing schools and ministries. Barrett did not respond on Tuesday to requests for comment about her membership in People of Praise made through a clerk at the Chicago-based 7th Circuit. Sharon Loftus, a judicial assistant to Barrett, said in an email the judge`s policy was not to give interviews or comments to the media. Trump has said he plans to nominate a Supreme Court justice this week to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last Friday. He said he is considering Barrett as well as Barbara Lagoa of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. People of Praise has about 1,700 members in 22 cities in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean, according to its website, and was founded in 1971 in South Bend, Indiana, also the home of the Catholic-led University of Notre Dame. "We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community," the website says, tracing its origins to the late 1960s when students and faculty at Notre Dame experienced "a renewal of Christian enthusiasm and fervor, together with charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues and physical healing." Its most devoted members make a lifelong commitment to the group, known as a covenant. From 1970, women with leadership roles in the organization were called handmaids, but that changed following the popular 2017-to-present Hulu television series "The Handmaid`s Tale," based on a 1985 book by Margaret Atwood. The dystopian story is set in a future United States where the rules of the male-dominated society are based on the leaders` twisted interpretation of Old Testament scriptures. "Recognizing that the meaning of this term has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years, we no longer use the term handmaid," the group said in 2018, without specifically attributing the change to the show. Coral Anika Theill, a former People of Praise member, has been strongly critical of the group, calling it a "cult" and saying in an interview women are expected to be completely obedient to men and independent thinkers are "humiliated, interrogated, shamed and shunned." Theill, who last year wrote a blog post entitled "I lived the Handmaid`s Tale," said she planned to call every US senator to oppose Barrett should she become Trump`s nominee. Reuters could not independently verify her account. When asked about Theill`s allegations, People of Praise spokesman Connolly said the group followed Christian teachings that "men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God`s image." "We value independent thinking," Connolly said. Thomas Csordas, a scholar of comparative religion at the University of California, San Diego, said People of Praise was "very conservative" but that he would not consider it a cult, adding that some of the charismatic Christian communities he has researched were more authoritarian than People of Praise. In popular culture, the word cult can connote brainwashing and authoritarianism, he said. "My position to the press was that People of Praise is best described not as a cult but as a religiously-based `intentional community,`" Csordas said in an email. "When I first encountered Atwood`s book, I was frankly jolted by the similarity of terminology to that prevalent in some of the Catholic charismatic `covenant communities` I had been studying," Csordas wrote in a 1996 paper called `A Handmaid`s Tale,` without specifically referencing People of Praise. (With inputs from Reuters)

Is there a link between Trump's Supreme Court candidate and 'The Handmaid's Tale'?

Mourners quietly filed past the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the white marble court building on Wednesday as the United States began three days of tributes to the liberal icon.

Hundreds of people lined up outside the court for a chance to pay their respects to the pioneering women's rights advocate, who died on Friday at age 87. Inside the court, Ginsburg's fellow justices celebrated her life in a private ceremony.

"Her voice in court and in our conference room was soft. But when she spoke, people listened," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/trump-to-nominate-a-woman-to-replace-ginsburg-stating-he-likes-women-more-328748" hreflang="en">Trump to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg stating he likes 'women more'</a>

Ginsburg's casket was then moved under the neoclassical court building's massive Corinthian columns for a public viewing due to last two days.

"It's almost like I felt the hand of God on my shoulder saying you have got to come and pay your respects to this person who was a fierce champion of women's voices and women's rights," said Cecelia Ryan, 64, who drove 12 hours from suburban Chicago.

President Donald Trump is moving quickly to nominate Ginsburg's replacement, and his fellow Republicans in the Senate say they could hold a vote before the Nov. 3 election. That would seal a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.

"I'm gay and I feel she has done more for equal rights than anyone else," said Christopher Balma, 47, who waited in line to file past the casket, which was surrounded by flowers.

"I'm terrified" now that Ginsburg is no longer on the court, Balma said.

Ginsburg ruled in favor of LGBT rights in several important cases including the landmark 2015 decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/supreme-court-judge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87-wanted-to-see-trump-lose-in-us-elections-328526" hreflang="en">Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections</a>

Her popularity prompted officials to set aside two days for public viewing, rather than the one day allowed for other justices, said Barbara Perry, the director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.

"She became a pop icon in the last decade," Perry said.

Ginsburg will on Friday become the first woman to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol when her casket is placed in National Statuary Hall.

The Capitol held a similar ceremony for civil-rights pioneer Rosa Parks in 2005, but she lay "in honor" as she did not hold government or military office.

Both historic events for Ginsburg, however, come with modifications due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Capitol ceremony will be limited to invited guests only, and at the courthouse social distancing and face coverings will be required.

Flowers and other offerings are forbidden on the court's plaza or its great flight of steps.

With the courthouse closed to the public, the justices are due to hear oral arguments by teleconference next month. Ginsburg's courtroom chair and the bench in front of it were draped with black wool crepe to mark the occasion, a tradition that dates back at least to 1873. A black drape also hung over the courtroom doors.

Dozens of her former clerks stood at attention when the coffin arrived at the courthouse.

"On a personal level, she was such an amazing person. She had a mind like a steel trap," said Jill Alexander, 59, whose husband served as a clerk for Ginsburg when she was an appeals-court judge.

Ginsburg's coffin rested on the Lincoln catafalque, a pine board platform draped in black cloth that was used to support President Abraham Lincoln's coffin when he lay in state in the Capitol's Rotunda after his assassination in 1865.

Public viewing runs until 10 p.m. on Wednesday and between 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on Thursday. A private interment service is planned for next week at Arlington National Cemetery. Ginsburg's husband, Martin Ginsburg, was buried there in 2010.

Mourners quietly filed past the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the white marble court building on Wednesday as the United States began three days of tributes to the liberal icon.

Mourners quietly filed past the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the white marble court building on Wednesday as the United States began three days of tributes to the liberal icon. Hundreds of people lined up outside the court for a chance to pay their respects to the pioneering women's rights advocate, who died on Friday at age 87. Inside the court, Ginsburg's fellow justices celebrated her life in a private ceremony. "Her voice in court and in our conference room was soft. But when she spoke, people listened," Chief Justice John Roberts said. Also read: Trump to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg stating he likes 'women more' Ginsburg's casket was then moved under the neoclassical court building's massive Corinthian columns for a public viewing due to last two days. "It's almost like I felt the hand of God on my shoulder saying you have got to come and pay your respects to this person who was a fierce champion of women's voices and women's rights," said Cecelia Ryan, 64, who drove 12 hours from suburban Chicago. President Donald Trump is moving quickly to nominate Ginsburg's replacement, and his fellow Republicans in the Senate say they could hold a vote before the Nov. 3 election. That would seal a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. "I'm gay and I feel she has done more for equal rights than anyone else," said Christopher Balma, 47, who waited in line to file past the casket, which was surrounded by flowers. "I'm terrified" now that Ginsburg is no longer on the court, Balma said. Ginsburg ruled in favor of LGBT rights in several important cases including the landmark 2015 decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide. Also read: Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections Her popularity prompted officials to set aside two days for public viewing, rather than the one day allowed for other justices, said Barbara Perry, the director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "She became a pop icon in the last decade," Perry said. Ginsburg will on Friday become the first woman to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol when her casket is placed in National Statuary Hall. The Capitol held a similar ceremony for civil-rights pioneer Rosa Parks in 2005, but she lay "in honor" as she did not hold government or military office. Both historic events for Ginsburg, however, come with modifications due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Capitol ceremony will be limited to invited guests only, and at the courthouse social distancing and face coverings will be required. Flowers and other offerings are forbidden on the court's plaza or its great flight of steps. With the courthouse closed to the public, the justices are due to hear oral arguments by teleconference next month. Ginsburg's courtroom chair and the bench in front of it were draped with black wool crepe to mark the occasion, a tradition that dates back at least to 1873. A black drape also hung over the courtroom doors. Dozens of her former clerks stood at attention when the coffin arrived at the courthouse. "On a personal level, she was such an amazing person. She had a mind like a steel trap," said Jill Alexander, 59, whose husband served as a clerk for Ginsburg when she was an appeals-court judge. Ginsburg's coffin rested on the Lincoln catafalque, a pine board platform draped in black cloth that was used to support President Abraham Lincoln's coffin when he lay in state in the Capitol's Rotunda after his assassination in 1865. Public viewing runs until 10 p.m. on Wednesday and between 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on Thursday. A private interment service is planned for next week at Arlington National Cemetery. Ginsburg's husband, Martin Ginsburg, was buried there in 2010.

Mourners pay respects to Ginsburg at US Supreme Court

US President Donald Trump is racing to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court before the November 3 election, telling reporters he planned by Saturday to reveal his pick to succeed liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Democrats' hope of keeping the seat empty faded when two Republican senators, Chuck Grassley and Cory Gardner, signalled their support for moving forward quickly.

Trump on Monday said he was zeroing in on one or two candidates among five who are under consideration. He called on the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to vote on confirmation before the election in which he is seeking a second term.

"I'd much rather have a vote before the election," he said. "We have plenty of time to do it." 
Two federal appeals court judges appointed by Trump are clear front-runners: Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump met with Barrett at the White House on Monday, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Ginsburg died on Friday of complications from pancreatic cancer at age 87.

Trump's announcement would come before Ginsburg is due to be buried privately at Arlington National Cemetery next week.

Officials have arranged for a public viewing of her body outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday and inside the U.S. Capitol on Friday.

Ginsburg's death gives Trump and his party an opportunity to establish a 6-3 conservative majority on a court whose decisions influence many spheres of American life including abortion, healthcare, gun rights, voting access, presidential powers and the death penalty.

With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority in the Senate, it would require at least four of them to break ranks to stop the nomination from going through. Two Republican senators - Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski - said over the weekend that the chamber should not move forward with a Trump nominee before the election.

Democrats had hoped to get similar support from Gardner, who faces a tough re-election race in Colorado, and Grassley. But both men said on Monday they would vote to confirm a qualified Trump pick.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who has clashed with Trump and is seen by Democrats as a potential holdout, avoided questions about the Supreme Court seat on Monday.

“Before I have any comment, I’m going to meet with my colleagues, which I'll be doing tomorrow," Romney, the party's 2012 presidential nominee, told reporters.

Democrats have accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of hypocrisy for being eager to bring a Trump nominee to a confirmation vote. In 2016, he refused even to consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to fill a vacancy on the court left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, saying it would be inappropriate to do so during an election year.

McConnell, who has prioritized confirming Trump's judicial appointments, said he would usher through a vote this year, although he did not say exactly when.

"The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

A new Congress will not be sworn in until Jan. 3. Democrats are hoping to win control of the Senate in the election.

Trump has already named two conservative justices to the high court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said any vote should take place next year. 
"That was Justice Ginsburg's dying wish. And it may be the Senate's only, last hope," Schumer said.

Trump said without evidence that he did not believe the National Public Radio report that Ginsburg had told her granddaughter she did not want the Senate to consider a successor until next year, when either Trump will begin a second term or Democratic rival Joe Biden, who leads in opinion polls, will take office.

"It was just too convenient," Trump said.

Speaking of the possible candidates, Trump said: "They're all outstanding but I have one or two that I have in mind." He called Barrett "very respected."

He said he might meet with Lagoa in Miami later this week, adding: "I don't know her but I hear she's outstanding."

Obstacles loom for either candidate in the bitterly divided Senate.

Barrett could face opposition from Collins and Murkowski over concerns that she would roll back abortion rights, said a source familiar with the confirmation process who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Lagoa, a Cuban American from the battleground state of Florida, is not as well known, which could slow down the confirmation process.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, Vice President Mike Pence, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, are leading the selection process, the source said. Outside of White House officials, Leonard Leo, the former executive vice president of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, is playing a central advisory role.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump is racing to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court before the November 3 election, telling reporters he planned by Saturday to reveal his pick to succeed liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

US President Donald Trump is racing to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court before the November 3 election, telling reporters he planned by Saturday to reveal his pick to succeed liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats' hope of keeping the seat empty faded when two Republican senators, Chuck Grassley and Cory Gardner, signalled their support for moving forward quickly. Trump on Monday said he was zeroing in on one or two candidates among five who are under consideration. He called on the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to vote on confirmation before the election in which he is seeking a second term. "I'd much rather have a vote before the election," he said. "We have plenty of time to do it." Two federal appeals court judges appointed by Trump are clear front-runners: Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump met with Barrett at the White House on Monday, according to a source familiar with the situation. Ginsburg died on Friday of complications from pancreatic cancer at age 87. Trump's announcement would come before Ginsburg is due to be buried privately at Arlington National Cemetery next week. Officials have arranged for a public viewing of her body outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday and inside the U.S. Capitol on Friday. Ginsburg's death gives Trump and his party an opportunity to establish a 6-3 conservative majority on a court whose decisions influence many spheres of American life including abortion, healthcare, gun rights, voting access, presidential powers and the death penalty. With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority in the Senate, it would require at least four of them to break ranks to stop the nomination from going through. Two Republican senators - Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski - said over the weekend that the chamber should not move forward with a Trump nominee before the election. Democrats had hoped to get similar support from Gardner, who faces a tough re-election race in Colorado, and Grassley. But both men said on Monday they would vote to confirm a qualified Trump pick. Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who has clashed with Trump and is seen by Democrats as a potential holdout, avoided questions about the Supreme Court seat on Monday. “Before I have any comment, I’m going to meet with my colleagues, which I'll be doing tomorrow," Romney, the party's 2012 presidential nominee, told reporters. Democrats have accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of hypocrisy for being eager to bring a Trump nominee to a confirmation vote. In 2016, he refused even to consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to fill a vacancy on the court left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, saying it would be inappropriate to do so during an election year. McConnell, who has prioritized confirming Trump's judicial appointments, said he would usher through a vote this year, although he did not say exactly when. "The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear," McConnell said on the Senate floor. A new Congress will not be sworn in until Jan. 3. Democrats are hoping to win control of the Senate in the election. Trump has already named two conservative justices to the high court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said any vote should take place next year. "That was Justice Ginsburg's dying wish. And it may be the Senate's only, last hope," Schumer said. Trump said without evidence that he did not believe the National Public Radio report that Ginsburg had told her granddaughter she did not want the Senate to consider a successor until next year, when either Trump will begin a second term or Democratic rival Joe Biden, who leads in opinion polls, will take office. "It was just too convenient," Trump said. Speaking of the possible candidates, Trump said: "They're all outstanding but I have one or two that I have in mind." He called Barrett "very respected." He said he might meet with Lagoa in Miami later this week, adding: "I don't know her but I hear she's outstanding." Obstacles loom for either candidate in the bitterly divided Senate. Barrett could face opposition from Collins and Murkowski over concerns that she would roll back abortion rights, said a source familiar with the confirmation process who spoke on condition of anonymity. Lagoa, a Cuban American from the battleground state of Florida, is not as well known, which could slow down the confirmation process. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, Vice President Mike Pence, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, are leading the selection process, the source said. Outside of White House officials, Leonard Leo, the former executive vice president of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, is playing a central advisory role.

Trump to name US Supreme Court pick by September 26

In considering Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald Trump has turned to a federal appellate judge known for conservative religious views who liberals worry could become instrumental in rolling back abortion rights.

Barrett, if nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime post on the Supreme Court, would replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died at age 87 on Friday. Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 majority.

A devout Roman Catholic, Barrett is a favorite among religious conservatives. Trump in 2017 appointed Barrett to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the regional appeals courts that are one step below the Supreme Court. On the 7th Circuit, she has voted in favor of one of Trump`s hardline immigration policies and shown support for expansive gun rights.

During her 2017 confirmation hearing for her current post, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barrett, "The dogma lives loudly within you." Barrett told the senators that her religious faith would not affect her decisions as a judge.

Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that on the Supreme Court she could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett on the 7th Circuit twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions, voting to have those decisions reconsidered.

In 2018, Barrett was among the 7th Circuit judges who sought reconsideration of a decision that invalidated a Republican-backed Indiana law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion. The Supreme Court in 2019 reinstated the law.

In 2019, Barrett also voted for rehearing of a three-judge panel`s ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law before it went into effect. The measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents, as was allowed under existing law. The Supreme Court in July tossed out the ruling and ordered the matter to be reconsidered.

In June, Barrett dissented when a three-judge panel ruled in favor of a challenge to Trump`s policy to deny legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future. In January, the Supreme Court, powered by its conservative majority, allowed the policy to take effect.

Barrett indicated support for gun rights in a 2019 dissent when she objected to the court ruling that a nonviolent felon could be permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm.

"Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," Barrett wrote.

CONSERVATIVE RECORD

Barrett, born in New Orleans, received her law degree from Notre Dame Law School, a Catholic institution in Indiana.

Barrett`s extensive prior writings about religion, the role of judges and how courts should treat important legal precedents made her a favorite among social conservatives and conservative Christian leaders even before she became a judge.

After serving as a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, a stalwart conservative who died in 2016, and working at a couple of law firms, Barrett returned to Notre Dame as a professor until joining the bench.

Through her past writings, some critics have suggested she would be guided by her religious beliefs rather than the law.

In a 1998 law journal article she and another author said that Catholic judges who are faithful to their church`s teachings are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty and should recuse themselves in certain cases.

Abortion rights groups, worried about preserving the 1973 ruling that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion, point to a 2003 law journal article in which Barrett argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent.

Barrett has also spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, according to a 2013 article in Notre Dame Magazine.

She is married to Jesse Barrett, a lawyer in private practice and a former federal prosecutor in Indiana. They have seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti.

Barrett and her family have been members of a Christian religious group called People of Praise, according to other members.

Craig Lent, the group`s overall coordinator, said in 2018 that the organization, which is officially ecumenical but whose membership is mostly Catholic, centers on close Christian bonds and looking out for one another. They also share a preference for charismatic worship, which can involve speaking in tongues.

Certain leadership positions are reserved for men. And while married men receive spiritual and other advice from other male group members, married women depend on their husbands for the same advice, Lent said.

In considering Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald Trump has turned to a federal appellate judge known for conservative religious views who liberals worry could become instrumental in rolling back abortion rights.

In considering Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald Trump has turned to a federal appellate judge known for conservative religious views who liberals worry could become instrumental in rolling back abortion rights. Barrett, if nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime post on the Supreme Court, would replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died at age 87 on Friday. Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 majority. A devout Roman Catholic, Barrett is a favorite among religious conservatives. Trump in 2017 appointed Barrett to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the regional appeals courts that are one step below the Supreme Court. On the 7th Circuit, she has voted in favor of one of Trump`s hardline immigration policies and shown support for expansive gun rights. During her 2017 confirmation hearing for her current post, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barrett, "The dogma lives loudly within you." Barrett told the senators that her religious faith would not affect her decisions as a judge. Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that on the Supreme Court she could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett on the 7th Circuit twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions, voting to have those decisions reconsidered. In 2018, Barrett was among the 7th Circuit judges who sought reconsideration of a decision that invalidated a Republican-backed Indiana law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion. The Supreme Court in 2019 reinstated the law. In 2019, Barrett also voted for rehearing of a three-judge panel`s ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law before it went into effect. The measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents, as was allowed under existing law. The Supreme Court in July tossed out the ruling and ordered the matter to be reconsidered. In June, Barrett dissented when a three-judge panel ruled in favor of a challenge to Trump`s policy to deny legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future. In January, the Supreme Court, powered by its conservative majority, allowed the policy to take effect. Barrett indicated support for gun rights in a 2019 dissent when she objected to the court ruling that a nonviolent felon could be permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm. "Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," Barrett wrote. CONSERVATIVE RECORD Barrett, born in New Orleans, received her law degree from Notre Dame Law School, a Catholic institution in Indiana. Barrett`s extensive prior writings about religion, the role of judges and how courts should treat important legal precedents made her a favorite among social conservatives and conservative Christian leaders even before she became a judge. After serving as a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, a stalwart conservative who died in 2016, and working at a couple of law firms, Barrett returned to Notre Dame as a professor until joining the bench. Through her past writings, some critics have suggested she would be guided by her religious beliefs rather than the law. In a 1998 law journal article she and another author said that Catholic judges who are faithful to their church`s teachings are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty and should recuse themselves in certain cases. Abortion rights groups, worried about preserving the 1973 ruling that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion, point to a 2003 law journal article in which Barrett argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. Barrett has also spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, according to a 2013 article in Notre Dame Magazine. She is married to Jesse Barrett, a lawyer in private practice and a former federal prosecutor in Indiana. They have seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti. Barrett and her family have been members of a Christian religious group called People of Praise, according to other members. Craig Lent, the group`s overall coordinator, said in 2018 that the organization, which is officially ecumenical but whose membership is mostly Catholic, centers on close Christian bonds and looking out for one another. They also share a preference for charismatic worship, which can involve speaking in tongues. Certain leadership positions are reserved for men. And while married men receive spiritual and other advice from other male group members, married women depend on their husbands for the same advice, Lent said.

Potential Trump Supreme Court pick Barrett known for conservative religious views

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