SCOTUS Vacancy, 2020 |
---|
Nominee |
Former Justice |
Coverage |
See also |
Supreme Court vacancy, 2018 Supreme Court vacancy, 2017 Supreme Court of the United States |
Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett were held between October 12, 2020, and October 15, 2020. All nominees to the court are subject to the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Judicial nominations from the president are referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the time of Barrett's hearing, 22 senators sat on the committee, including 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The committee chairman was Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the ranking member was Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
On October 22, 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 to advance Barrett's nomination to the full Senate.[1] Democratic senators did not attend the vote in protest of the proceedings. The full Senate voted on Barrett's nomination on October 26, 2020.[2]
The entries below are listed in reverse chronological order. Click here for day one, here for day two, here for day three, and here for day four.
Click the names below to access a transcript of each witness' testimony during the hearings, if available.[3]
The topics below were comprised from a number of analysis and summary articles.
Abortion
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) asked Barrett whether Griswold v. Connecticut (which affirmed a person's right to buy and use contraception) was correctly decided.[4]
Barrett responded, "I think Griswold is not going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples, all people, from using birth control."[5] She further stated, "I think the only reason that it's even worth asking that question is to lay a predicate for whether Roe was rightly decided...I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere."[4]
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) questioned Barrett on her decision to rule in favor of a Chicago law that places a buffer zone between pro-life protesters and abortion clinics.
According to the Deseret News, "Barrett said she followed a binding Supreme Court precedent in deciding that case."[6]
Election administration
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Barrett whether "the president has the right to deny a person the right to vote based on their race."[7]
Barrett cited the 15th Amendment of the Constitution and said, "The Constitution contains provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and voting."[7]
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked Barrett whether she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts on the existence of voter discrimination.[8]
Barrett answered, "I will not comment on what any justice said in an opinion, whether an opinion is right or wrong or endorse that proposition."[8] Barrett also said, "Racial discrimination still exists in the United States, and I think we've seen evidence of that this summer."[8]
Immigration
According to The Washington Post, Barrett wrote a dissent that upheld the public charge rule, an immigration regulation requiring that migrants demonstrate that they are not reliant on government support in order to be considered for citizenship.[5][9] Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) questioned Barrett on her dissent.[5]
Barrett responded, "Yes, I said there was fear and there was disenrollment [in government benefits], but that the rule did not apply to anyone currently eligible...I said in my dissent that it would be better to send that back to the District Court."[5]
Presidential power
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Barrett whether a president could ignore a court order or pardon himself from a crime.[5]
Barrett answered, "The Supreme Court can’t control what the president obeys...So far as I know, that question has never been litigated...That question may or may not arise, but it’s one that calls for legal analysis about what the scope of the pardon power is."[5]
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) asked Barrett if anyone was above the law.[8]
Barrett responded, "No one is above the law in the United States."[8]
The topics below were comprised from a number of analysis and summary articles.
Abortion
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Barrett whether she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia's belief that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided.[10]
Barrett said, she was “not going to grade” decisions or “give a thumbs up or thumbs down."[10] When pressed further on the abortion issue, Barrett said, "I can’t pre-commit or say ‘yes, I’m going in with some agenda.’...I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey (Supreme Court case that affirmed Roe v. Wade)...I have an agenda to decide cases as they come."[10]
Further questions on abortion focused on an ad Barrett signed in 2006.[11] Originally published in The South Bend Tribune, the ad read, "We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion."[12]
Affordable Care Act
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Barrett if she had promised anyone that she would vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.[10]
Barrett said, "Absolutely not...I was never asked. And if I had been, that would have been a short conversation."[10] She further answered, "Just as I didn't make any prior commitments and was not asked to make any commitments on the executive branch side, I can't make any prior commitments to this body either. It would be inconsistent with judicial independence."[10]
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) asked Barrett about, "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty," a book review in which she stated, "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute."[13]
Barrett said, I'm not "looking for a way to take it down. I have no hostility to the ACA or any other law."[10]
Election disputes
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) asked whether Barrett would recuse herself from any cases involving the 2020 presidential election.
Barrett said, "I will consider all factors that are relevant to that question that requires recusal when there’s an appearance of bias...I can’t commit to you right now, but I do assure you of my integrity, and I do assure you that I would take that question very seriously."[10]
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Barrett if the Constitution gave the president unilateral authority to delay an election, Barrett said, "Well, senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read the briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process...If I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit. And I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind."[14]
Legal access to firearms
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Barrett about her dissenting opinion in Kanter v. Barr, in which she argued that the Constitution does not allow the government to ban all felons from owning firearms.[10]
Barrett said, "I concluded based on that history that one couldn’t take the right away simply because one was a felon. There had to be a showing of dangerousness...We could all agree that we ought to be careful saying that just because someone is a felon, they lose any of their individual rights."[10]
While discussing District of Columbia v. Heller, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked, "Is that true no matter what the issue is, whether it’s gun, abortion, health care, campaign finance? Does that process [appeals process] hold true for everything?"[15]
Barrett answered, "...Judges can’t 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. You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process."[15]
Same-sex marriage
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked, "Do you agree with this particular point of Justice Scalia’s view that the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry?"
Barrett answered, "I don’t think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision a certain way that I would, too...and I’m sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow Justice Scalia’s position, but I really can’t do that on any point of law."[16]
The first day of Amy Coney Barrett's Senate confirmation hearings began at 9:00 a.m. EST. Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) provided opening statements, followed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.) then introduced Barrett. After the introductions, Barrett gave her opening statement. Professor Patricia O'Hara ended the day with her introduction of Barrett, as O'Hara experienced technical difficulties during the initial introductions.[17]
Click the links below to access the opening statements made by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Statements were obtained from senators' websites and the media.
The video below shows Amy Coney Barrett's opening statement. Click here for the transcript of her speech.
|
The Senate Judiciary Committee provided Barrett with a questionnaire to fill out prior to her October 12 confirmation hearing. She returned the completed questionnaire September 29.
|