Donald Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett To Fill Supreme Court docket Emptiness – .
President Donald Trump officially announced Amy Coney Barrett as his candidate to fill the Supreme Court post following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This will solidify the Supreme Court’s right turn.
Barrett has been an appeals judge since 2017 and appeared on Saturday with her husband Jesse and their seven children in a rose garden ceremony at the White House.
Her selection is far from certain after reporters stationed outside her Indiana home watched her and her family leave and then tracked a flight from South Bend, IN to Washington.
If so confirmed, Barrett will be the sixth Conservative in court and could be a casting vote when judges hear oral submissions on November 10th on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, a fact the Democrats made in the final weeks of the year want to highlight the presidential elections. She had criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in 2012, which upheld the Health Act.
Dennis Quaid, CeCe Winans gospel singer Appears in the White House’s $ 300 Million COVID Ad Campaign – Report
At Barrett’s verification hearing, which is expected to begin the second week of October, she is likely to have questions about whether or not she can see Roe Vs. Wade, as she previously voted for restrictions. She’s also likely to have questions about comments she made about same-sex marriage after defending judges who voted against Hodges’ landmark Obergefell judgment in 2015. She has also questioned whether federal protection under Title IX extends to transgender Americans.
The most controversial focus of her nomination is that she will appear before the Senate hearings in the first place, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Barack Obama’s nomination on the grounds that there was a vacancy in an election year. Obama had nominated Merrick Garland to fill a position after Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, but McConnell even refused to give his candidate a hearing.
Trump’s election of Barrett was widely seen as a way to buttress support among the socially conservative but also among women. At the ceremony, he stated that Barrett would be the first female judiciary in court to have school-age children.
Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame University from 2002 to 2017 and previously worked in private practice and worked as an employee at Scalia, one of her mentors. Like Scalia, she said she was an originalist.
In her remarks in the White House, she praised Ginsburg. “If I am confirmed, I will pay attention to who came before me.”
However, a few days before her death, Ginsburg dictated to her granddaughter that “my dearest wish is not to be replaced until a new president is installed”.
Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN that the differences in legal philosophy between Barrett and Ginsburg “couldn’t be more different.” While he said Barrett’s record and personal story are impressive, Garland’s was too.
Democrats signaled that they wanted to focus their opposition to their nomination by focusing on the threat posed by the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration supports challenging the law, and overturning it in its entirety would jeopardize protection from pre-existing conditions.
“A vote for Judge Amy Comey Barrett is a vote to eradicate health care for millions in the midst of a pandemic,” wrote Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Minority, shortly after her nomination was announced on Twitter.
Democratic candidate Joe Biden also focused his comments on the potential health care implications.
“The American people know that the decisions of the US Supreme Court affect their daily lives,” said Biden. “The United States Constitution should give voters a chance to hear their voice about who serves in court.”
Recent polls show that a majority of the public would like a seat to be occupied by the November 3rd election winner. But Democrats still face potential lines of error when it comes to shaping the opposition to Barrett. Republicans have already accused opponents of the nomination of being anti-religious or anti-Catholic, despite largely basing their claim on a comment made by Senator Dianne Feinstein during Barrett’s appeals court hearing in 2017. Interview about Roe Vs. Wade, said Feinstein, “the dogma lives loudly in you.”
Others, however, have opposed the idea that criticism of Barrett’s views is anti-Catholic, especially given the fact that practicing Catholics in the country dominate the ideological spectrum. Biden, for example, would only be the second Catholic president in history if elected.
James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor of America magazine, wrote: “Something to be debated when it comes to Senate questions #AmyConeyBarrett. On the one hand, anti-Catholicism is very real. On the other hand, not every question addressed to a Catholic or every criticism of the Church is anti-Catholicism. “
Trump predicted Barrett’s affirmation “will be easier than you might think”. He wants confirmation before the election and even suggested that if the results are challenged, the court would need all nine members.
What attracts less attention are Barrett’s views on business and regulation, as the court’s conservative stance has favored the corporate world and undermined the power of the unions.
Barrett doesn’t have extensive legal experience, so it is unclear how she views issues like net neutrality. The long debate over traffic rules for internet services could end in the Supreme Court as the Justice Department challenges a robust net neutrality law passed in California.
However, the Trump administration wanted to take a stronger hand when it comes to dictating how social media platforms moderate third-party content, arguing that websites are biased against conservative voices, even when right-wing websites consistently drive traffic on Facebook exceed. The administration has proposed changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that will remove some of the immunity platforms have when dealing with third party content. Any amendment to this law would likely face a challenge to the first amendment that could ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court.