Amy Coney Barrett said it was “just not true” that she was predisposed to abolish the ACA.
Washington, United States:
U.S. Supreme Court candidate Amy Coney Barrett insisted on Tuesday she had no fixed point of view on the hot legal issues, with Democrats portraying her as President Donald Trump’s vehicle to end the right to abortion and kill the popular health program Obamacare.
During the second day of hearings on her hasty appointment, Barrett, who if approved would tilt the High Court decisively to the right, told lawmakers she would put personal and religious beliefs aside when of business decision.
But the 48-year-old and devout Catholic judge couldn’t escape accusations by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was chosen to fulfill Trump’s dream of overturning predecessor Barack Obama’s affordable care law. which provided cheap health care to millions of uninsured people. Americans.
Likewise, Democrats said she was also chosen to get the court to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade, who guarantees the right to abortion.
“President Trump has promised to appoint a Supreme Court justice … who will strike down the affordable care law,” Democratic vice-presidential candidate Barrett Kamala Harris told Barrett.
The benefits of ACA, she said, “depend on this seat and the outcome of this hearing.”
But after more than nine hours of questioning, Barrett held on.
“I made no promises to anyone. I have no agenda,” she insisted.
“Judges can’t wake up one day and say, ‘I have a schedule. I love guns, I hate guns, I love abortion, I hate abortion, “and come in like a queen royal and impose their will on the world,” Barrett said.
“It’s not Amy’s law, it’s the law of the American people.”
The choice of curators
After the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month, the nine-member tribunal fell vacant, Trump rushed to fill it at the height of his presidential battle against Democrat Joe Biden .
A respected law professor at Notre Dame, but with just three years as a court of appeal judge, Barrett is backed by Conservatives for his personal opposition to abortion.
Its confirmation by the Republican-controlled committee after two more days of hearings, and by the full Senate before the end of October, has remained almost certain.
“I just want to thank President Trump for creating a seat at the table for someone who is unabashedly pro-life, someone who embraces his faith but also understands the differences between his personal views and judgment.” said Lindsey Graham, chair of the judiciary committee.
George Floyd murder
As some of her seven children sat in the courtroom next to her, Barrett was prepared to distance himself slightly from Trump, condemning extremism and saying racism was rife.
She has also defended LGBTQ rights amid fears she could also tip the court to overturn her earlier approval of same-sex marriage.
In a touching moment, when asked about video of the police murder of African American George Floyd in May that shocked the nation, she referred to her adopted children from Haiti.
“Since I have two black children, it was very, very personal for my family,” she said, saying that she and her 17-year-old daughter Vivian were “crying together”.
But she added that “making broader diagnoses on the problem of racism goes beyond what I am capable of doing as a judge.”
ACA views on abortion
Democrats have focused on the ACA because the court will hear a case challenging its legality on November 10.
Barrett said it was “just not true” that she was predisposed to take down the ACA.
And she rejected Harris’ suggestion that she had to be aware that Trump had openly said he was seeking justice that would overturn the ACA.
“What I would like to say is that I do not recall hearing or seeing such statements,” she said.
On the subject of abortion, Barrett said she did not believe, as the previous court did, that the right to abortion was permanently set in stone by Roe v. Wade.
The Roe case was not among the Supreme Court’s “superprecedents”, nor one that few, if any, think should ever be challenged, she said.
Challenge of an electoral matter?
Barret was also asked what she would do if, as in 2000, a case came to the High Court after November 3 that would decide the winner of the election, given that one of the candidates, Trump, has just come from install it on the court.
She acknowledged that the laws require a judge or judge to recuse themselves when there is an appearance of bias and said she “would consider” doing so, in consultation with other judges.
“I cannot make a commitment to you at this time … but I assure you of my integrity and I assure you that I will take the matter very seriously.”
(Except for the title, this story was not edited by GalacticGaming staff and is posted from a syndicated feed.)
