Posts: 37,640
Threads: 3,257
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
58
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., opted not to question Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, instead treating the Senate Judiciary Committee to a nearly half-hour presentation on how big-money donors have influenced both the Republican Party and the Supreme Court.
Whitehouse tied issues like abortion and health care to large donations to conservative judicial groups and statements from Republicans about court selections, such as a quote from President Trump that is related to an Affordable Care Act case that will go before the Supreme Court in November.
"In this litigation, he said, 'We want to terminate health care under ObamaCare.' That is the president's statement," Whitehouse said.
He then referred to briefs from Republican senators arguing that courts should eliminate the Affordable Care Act, as well as the claim often made by Democrats that Trump specifically chose Barrett for the Supreme Court to rule against the health care law.
"Why is it surprising for us to be concerned that you want this nominee to do what you want nominees to do?†Whitehouse asked his GOP colleagues.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., speaks during a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., speaks during a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
“A lot of this has to do with money,†Whitehouse continued, discussing large contributions and alleging that they have influenced court cases.
"National Federation of Independent Businesses, until it filed the NFIB v. Sebelius case, had its biggest donation ever of $21,000," Whitehouse said, referring to the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that ultimately led to a 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the law. "In the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care Act, 10 wealthy donors gave $10 million. Somebody deserves a thank you."
Whitehouse went on to bring up abortion cases and the Republican Partyâ€s 2016 platformâ€s call for judicial appointments who would “reverse the long line of activist decisions – including Roe.†He also referenced Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., quoting him as saying that he would only vote for judicial nominees who think Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly.
Whitehouse then delved into what he called “the scheme†that he believes is at play.
“In all cases, thereâ€s big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity,†he said, holding up a sign bearing the names of the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, along with a reference to legal “groups,†all of whom receive millions in anonymous donations as they influence judicial nominations and court cases.
“Eighty cases under Chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics. One, they were decided 5-4, by a bare majority. Two, the 5-4 majority was partisan, in the sense that not one Democratic appointee joined the five. I refer to that group as the Roberts Five, it changes a little bit as with Justice Scaliaâ€s death, for instance, but there has been a steady Roberts Five that has delivered now 80 of these decisions. And the last characteristic of them is that there is an identifiable Republican donor interest in those cases, and in every single case that donor interest won.â€
Make America Honest Again
Posts: 15,172
Threads: 267
Joined: May 2020
Reputation:
32
ACB is going to be a much better judge than RBG it isn't funny and I say that as someone who respected RGB, but disagreed with her fat left ideas.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Posts: 37,640
Threads: 3,257
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
58
A major theme of Democrats†attacks on Barrett appeared to be the idea that President Trump nominated her due to her attitude towards the Affordable Care Act — also known as ObamaCare — with oral arguments coming up in November in a case that could potentially spell the end of it.
FoxLiveBlogTeam
6 minutes ago
Sen. Cory Booker asks Barrett if she condemns white supremacy -- and she does.
Booker says he's glad to hear that, and adds that 'I wish our president would say that so resolutely and unequivocally as well."
Share
FoxLiveBlogTeam
27 minutes ago
Hirono hits Barrett for using the phrase "sexual preference" in an earlier answer.
"Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term, it is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice -- it is not," she says.
She says the LGBTQ community should be concerned whether she would uphold Obergefell.
Share
FoxLiveBlogTeam
35 minutes ago
Hirono now drawing attention to comments made by Republicans that Barrett meets their standard of seeing Roe v Wade as badly decided.
She asks Barrett if Trump was wrong to believe she would overturn Roe v Wade.
Barrett says she has "made no promises, I have no agenda."
Share
FoxLiveBlogTeam
45 minutes ago
Hirono asks Barrett: "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature."
Share
FoxLiveBlogTeam
52 minutes ago
Sen. Hirono again blasts Republicans for holding the hearing instead of working for COVID relief.
She accuses Republicans of ramming through "another ideologically-driven justice" onto the court.
Make America Honest Again
Posts: 37,640
Threads: 3,257
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
58
Quote: <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Make America Honest Again
Posts: 5,342
Threads: 58
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
19
(10-13-2020, 05:48 PM)zigbee Wrote: Quote: <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
His own mother probably can't stand him. Nuff said.
Posts: 21,567
Threads: 252
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
30
(10-13-2020, 04:24 PM)davebucknut Wrote: ACB is going to be a much better judge than RBG it isn't funny and I say that as someone who respected RGB, but disagreed with her fat left ideas.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Spot on.....
No longer GroupThink 'woke'. but it was fun while it lasted.
Posts: 21,567
Threads: 252
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
30
Why use notes when the senator is going to bloviate for 99% of their time?
No longer GroupThink 'woke'. but it was fun while it lasted.
Posts: 2,174
Threads: 118
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
19
I almost puked when Harris was talking about “the great John McCain†saving Obamacare.
I saw some clips of ACB on Fox News.  She is impressive.
Posts: 5,342
Threads: 58
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
19
(10-13-2020, 07:55 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: Why use notes when the senator is going to bloviate for 99% of their time?
On the other side of the coin, these idiot senators could not bloviate without notes. Not one of them knows what they are going to say without their notes. It's hilarious to watch.  She is mentally heads and shoulders above the scum that are questioning her (pretty much both sides of the isle).
Posts: 37,640
Threads: 3,257
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
58
Quote: <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Quote: <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Critics piled on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. over his conduct at the confirmation hearing of SCOTUS nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Barrett was repeatedly grilled by Democratic lawmakers over her past comments about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which another legal challenge to the Obama-era legislation is set to be heard by the Supreme Court just one week after the election.
Booker pressed Barrett if it's "unreasonable for people to fear" that the ACA would be overturned with her on the bench following President Trump's previous commitments to select appointees who would reverse its legality.
DEMOCRATS ATTACK AMY CONEY BARRETT FOR SAYING 'SEXUAL PREFERENCE,' BUT BIDEN USED SAME TERM IN MAY
"Well Senator, I want to stress to you, Senator Booker, as I have stressed to some of your colleagues today that I am my own person," Barrett responded. "Independent under Article Three. And I don†t take orders from the executive branch or the legislative branch-"
"I understand that," Booker interrupted. "Can I restate my question because I don't think you're understanding it... I'm just asking you as an act of empathy, can you understand the fears exhibited by the people we put up?"
The Hill media reporter Joe Concha observed that Booker "interrupted Barrett 9 times in less than 20 minutes."
Make America Honest Again
Posts: 29,161
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
10-14-2020, 08:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2020, 08:39 AM by ScarletHayes.)
The only way hipster dolts will realize how absurd this stuff is is when their side gets called for "mansplaining."  Libs, how many more years to I have to hear this idiocy? Do you see it now? Please just stop. All of you. Interrupting is interrupting. It isn't "mansplaining." (Oh excuse me, "manterrupting.") Depending on the context it's simply just annoying
Can ACB take Trump's place on the Republican ticket? She is an example of an intelligent, well spoken person who is capable of refuting the stupidity of the Woke/Left/MSM without looking like a dickbag or behaving like a child. I wonder how many times a day she tweets or consults Fox News for her information.
And she has much better hair.
Posts: 37,640
Threads: 3,257
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
58
"I'm really impressed, thank you," Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein told Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday as the marathon hearing for the potential future justice continues to focus on how she might rule on an upcoming challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Feinstein's comment came after Barrett went into a detailed definition of "severability," which Barrett on Tuesday described as the central issue in California v. Texas, the ACA challenge set to be argued before the court on Nov. 10. Democrats on Tuesday repeatedly asked Barrett to weigh in on that case and whether she was asked by President Trump to rule in a certain way on the case.
Barrett would not answer those questions as the matter is pending before the court, as Democrats further amplified their worries that she would overturn the ACA entirely, as the red states behind the case are asking. But a different angle of questioning by Feinstein, D-Calif., on the issue allowed Barrett to delve deeper on the "severability" issue without weighing in on the specific case. And her answer may indicate that she could be receptive to arguments by blue states that if one part of the ACA is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of it should stand.
Justice Antonin Scalia's son explains the impact his father had on Amy Coney BarrettVideo
DEMS WARN BARRETT CONFIRMATION MEANS DOOM FOR OBAMACARE, BUT 'SEVERABILITY' DOCTRINE MIGHT SAVE IT
"I think I can say without expressing disagreement or agreement for the reasons I said yesterday not being able to grade precedents... even by Justice Scalia's view the issue would be different in California v. Texas for two reasons," Barrett said. "One, Justice Scalia thought two provisions of the [law] were unconstitutional. So if you picture severability being like a Jenga game, it's kind of if you pull one out... will it all stand or if you pull two out will it still stand?"
There is only one potentially unconstitutional provision at issue in California v. Texas.
Barrett added: "I think the doctrine of severability as it's been described by the court serves a valuable function of trying not to undo your work when you wouldn't want a court to undo your work. Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole and say 'would Congress have considered this provision so vital that kind of in the Jenga game, pulling it out, Congress wouldn't want the statute anymore?'"
It's after that answer when Feinstein said she was impressed with Barrett, underscoring the increased civility during the Barrett hearings compared to the 2018 hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Antonin Scalia's son explains the impact his father had on Amy Coney BarrettVideo
LIVE UPDATES: AMY CONEY BARRETT SCOTUS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also asked Barrett about severability, and Barrett said that when judging cases "the presumption is always in favor of severability."
The Wednesday proceedings, of course, were not entirely different from Tuesday's.
Barrett continued to stonewall Democrats when asked directly to opine on laws and cases that might come before her as a justice, specifically when Feinstein asked Barrett about the Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which had to do with the Voting Rights Act.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., also asked Barrett whether President Trump would have a right to pardon himself. Barrett responded that "so far as I know that question has never been litigated... because it would be opining on an open question... it's not one in which I can offer a view."
Leahy asked Barrett about the Emoluments Clause and whether she could express an opinion on it. Barrett responded that "The Emoluments Clause, it's under litigation ... as a matter that's being litigated it's very clear that it's one I can't express an opinion on."
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Barrett about her non-response to the possibility Trump could claim the right to delay an election.
"I've given that response to every hypothetical I've been asked," Barrett said. "I do that because it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment."
Durbin also slammed Barrett over the fact Trump has said he wants a justice on the Supreme Court to overturn the ACA.
"Why, what's the hurry?" Durbin said of the nature of this week's hearings. "Because there is a political agenda here and whether you are privy to it, party of it notwithstanding, it has to do with the Affordable Care Act."
Graham, however, Wednesday defended Barrett's non-answers, which are traditional for Supreme Court nominees during their confirmation hearings, quizzing Barrett on a number of issues that Democrats brought up Tuesday, from in-vitro fertilization to guns to abortion to gay marriage. Barrett continued not to take stances on the issues.
Make America Honest Again
Posts: 29,161
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
(10-14-2020, 09:28 AM)P1tchblack Wrote: Can ACB take Trump's place on the Republican ticket? She is an example of an intelligent, well spoken person who is capable of refuting the stupidity of the Woke/Left/MSM without looking like a dickbag or behaving like a child. I wonder how many times a day she tweets or consults Fox News for her information.
And she has much better hair.
So you want another proper gentleman GOP president to play nice and just roll over to the opposition†s demands?  That stance is precisely why Trump got elected.  Flyover America has just HAD IT.  Enough is enough.  The left gets reeled back in (which won†t happen on their own) then we can discuss decorum, but until then I†ll gobble down popcorn by the bagful enjoying every single minute of it
|
