"There’s really no need for “an open mind” when it comes to questions about whether Trump or any other president can delay the election, because the law is clear: The president doesn’t have this power." - @atrupar https://t.co/ipxuBBuG2I— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) October 13, 2020
Wow. Under questioning from Booker, Coney Barrett won't even say that she thinks presidents should commit to the peaceful transfer of power pic.twitter.com/C7JveeawKZ— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
Under questioning from Amy Klobuchar, Amy Coney Barrett refuses to acknowledge the fact that voter intimidation is illegal pic.twitter.com/go58T4AY77— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
WATCH: Senator @amyklobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls.— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) October 13, 2020
Barrett refused to answer. Then Klobuchar read her the law. Astonishing. pic.twitter.com/cxoIaXTP9e
Shorter Every Amy Coney Barrett answer: As a law professor, I wrote some things to make me attractive to conservatives who wish to destroy the ACA, Roe, and gay rights. Now I would like to pretend that I may not do those things and I don't understand why you're not letting me.— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) October 13, 2020
Feinstein asks Barrett if she agrees with Scalia's criticism of the same-sex marriage ruling. Barrett says she won't express her views. She then notes she would not discriminate based on "sexual preference," an offensive term that suggests sexuality is a choice, which it is not.— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 13, 2020
Judge Barrett won’t say whether criminalizing IVF treatment would be constitutional.— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2020
Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT) calls her response “chilling” and says “millions of women, potential parents, would be horrified …” pic.twitter.com/gxiw5G7qru
To be more specific, Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer whether IVF was "manslaughter."— Kate Smith (@byKateSmith) October 13, 2020
One in three Americans have either used some kind of fertility treatment or know someone who has. https://t.co/hfcoDgDKKe
Amy Coney Barrett won't answer Feinstein's questions about whether she thinks Roe was wrongly decided pic.twitter.com/kgSQ3rckux— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
Where Judge Barrett questions whether being called a "nigger" by your supervisor really "alters the conditions" of your workplace. The unvarnished face of what we are up against, folks... https://t.co/nMqEXFHCR4— Keeanga-Yamahtta T. (@KeeangaYamahtta) October 13, 2020
Barrett refused to say whether she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia when he dissented in the 2015 decision that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. https://t.co/dPZUnqYh5N— Linda Hill (@bulldoghill) October 13, 2020
"I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." This is actually false: Barrett sat on the board of a school that refused to accept the children of same-sex couples. https://t.co/cHP7E92eh9— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 13, 2020
The Supreme Court nominee served on a school board that reportedly discriminated against children of same-sex couples. https://t.co/S5DpGBFF85— HuffPost Queer Voices (@huffpostqueer) October 13, 2020
Senator Hirono going after Judge Barrett for her language on LGBTQ rights: Sexual preference is an offense and outdated term and I don’t think you using it was an accident. Sexual orientation is a key part of people’s lives.— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) October 13, 2020
It’s not a sexual “preference,” Judge Barrett. A preference is something you choose. I’ll give you and example: “I have a preference for non-radical, non-fundamentalist justices on the Supreme Court.” Are we clear?— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) October 13, 2020
Senators attempted to get to the bottom of Amy Coney Barrett’s legal views on the Affordable Care Act, same-sex marriage, and Roe v. Wade.— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2020
She skirted question after question — and cited Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the process. pic.twitter.com/sUeUB0ssFw
Under questioning from Chris Coons, Amy Coney Barrett refuses to commit herself to recusing from 2020 election-related cases (Trump has publicly said he thinks seating her is important in case an election-related case comes before SCOTUS) pic.twitter.com/7nwYYoBJ7t— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
The groups point to Barrett suggesting in 2017 that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, and her signature on a 2006 advertisement in an Indiana newspaper calling for the end of the legal right to abortion. In 2016, Barrett also appeared to criticize Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court decision that resulted in marriage equality for same-sex couples. . . .In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone, Barrett ruled against an African-American worker whose employer involuntarily transferred him to another store as part of a practice of assigning African-American employees to stores in African-American neighborhoods. In Doe v. Purdue University, Barrett wrote an opinion that allowed a male student who was credibly accused of committing sexual assault and suspended from the university to advance a Title IX lawsuit against the university, alleging he was discriminated against because he was a man.
announced its objection to the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court. A report outlining the organization's objection to the process undertaken by the President and the Senate since the death of Justice Ginsburg, and the stakes of this confirmation for core civil rights protections, accompanied the statement opposing Judge Barrett's confirmation. . . .
"This process should not occur until the next president has been inaugurated and the next session of Congress has been seated in January 2021," said Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF's President and Director-Counsel. "The fact that the United States Senate is prepared to rush through a confirmation hearing and vote to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while millions of voters are engaged in early voting and casting absentee votes, and less than one month before the general election for the President and for Senate seats across 34 states – one in which millions of ballots have already been cast – is an unconscionable political power grab. It taints the process, the nominee, and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
"The troubling record of Judge Barrett makes the prospects of this confirmation even more objectionable. From voting rights to affirmative action, to health care and abortion rights, the record and judicial philosophy of Judge Barrett constitutes a threat to the protection of core civil rights. Our report outlines the gravity of our concerns about this process and Judge Barrett's judicial record." . . .
On five separate occasions, Judge Barrett was a paid speaker of the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of its support for the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; defense of state-sanctioned sterilization of transgender people abroad; and its contentions that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia. In addition, Judge Barrett, in a 2016 speech, contended that Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, does not protect transgender persons from discrimination because, in her view, "no one . . . would have dreamed of that result" at the time the law was enacted. . . .
Although many have described Judge Barrett as being in the mold of Justice Scalia, her judicial philosophy is even more extreme than that of Justice Scalia.
Judge Barrett has advocated for a concerning approach to following judicial precedent (otherwise known as "stare decisis") and has described constitutional stare decisis as especially weak. She believes judges should generally decide cases as they see fit, rather than based on reliance interests or other stare decisis considerations – a notion which places longstanding civil rights protections in grave danger.
Judge Barrett's adherence to an extreme version of constitutional originalism, a doctrine which purports that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its understood meaning at the time of ratification, appears to be fundamentally inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's express commitment to equal citizenship under law.
The judge's writings suggest that . . . she believes [Brown v. Board of Education] may have been incorrectly decided in accordance with her interpretation of originalism. Judge Barrett has also suggested that, while she does not think it would ever be invalidated by a court, the Fourteenth Amendment [which outlawed slavery] may also be "possibly illegitimate." . . .
"People are mean on Twitter sometimes" is definitely the level of discourse and analysis I've come to expect from the GOP.— bob (@huntthesnark) October 13, 2020
Lindsey Graham has jokes about golfing with Trump and their discussions about killing people pic.twitter.com/Oqi6wHU1NZ— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
"She has family members with preexisting conditions" is the new "I have black friends" pic.twitter.com/Y88UDBteqM— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
Durbin notes that the implications of Coney Barrett's views seems to be that people have more of a right to possess firearms than they do to vote pic.twitter.com/0SuxGtJfgj— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
This was a masterful presentation by Senator Whitehouse in breaking down the dark money influence on SCOTUS and exposing the secret recipe of selecting and packing the courts for the conservative right and corporate interests.— Chris "Good Trouble" 2020 (@CChang1124) October 13, 2020
It is remarkable that Barrett has out Kavanaughed Kavanaugh in awfulness and unfitness for this lifetime appointment. I wonder if she likes beer?? 🍺— Robin (@RobinLammon) October 13, 2020