In the second round of questioning of Supreme Court Justice nominee Barrett, Democratic senators continue to try to justify the conservative judge’s potential restrictions on a range of civil rights, including the right to vote, while Republicans want to highlight her impartiality and independence in hearing cases.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Judge Barrett enters its third day. With the November presidential election looming, voting rights were one of the key topics at the hearing.
When asked what she thought of a 2013 ruling that resulted in restrictions on minority voting rights, Barrett said that voting discrimination based on race remains illegal.
She said, “My understanding is that it’s been a long time since I read that ruling, but all the other provisions in the Voting Rights Act are intact, including the prohibition on discrimination based on race in elections.”
Democratic Senator Durbin fielded a question about the president’s authority to restrict the voting rights of some citizens, but Barrett said she couldn’t give an opinion on a legal case that doesn’t yet exist because she would need to give a ruling based on the details of the specific case.
Durbin asked, “But aren’t you going to give a definitive answer to whether a president has the power to unilaterally restrict voting rights?”
Barrett replied, “Senator, you’ve asked several questions about whether the president has the power to do things unilaterally, and I don’t think I can really make any answers because these are virtual scenarios.”
In addition, Barrett did not explicitly say whether the president of the United States must follow the court’s decision, noting only that whatever the Supreme Court decides, it will require the other branches of government to put it into effect.
She said, “The Court has no coercive power, nor does it have the will to do so. In other words, we can’t enforce our own decisions, so what I’m trying to say in this conversation with you is that, from a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has the power to make the final decision, but the Court has no control over what happens after that. The Supreme Court, or any federal court, has no power, no coercive power, no will, and so it requires the other branches of government to respond to the outcome of the trial.”
The Republican senator’s questioning focused more on Justice Barrett’s legal creed, continually emphasizing her admiration for judicial independence and her stance of hearing each case with an open mind.
She made it clear that she differed from the late Justice Ginsburg in her views. Barrett believed that judges should not make decisions based on intuition or personal inclination, but should keep an open mind.
She cited several instances in which she changed her original decision after reading the fine print of a case. She also hinted that her attitude toward the Affordable Care Act might change. Previously, the Democrats had made several attempts in questioning to show that Barrett would help overturn the Act if he became a Justice.
Judge Barrett also referred to the “severability” of judicial decisions, which means that the Court would not necessarily rule the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, but only one particular provision of the Act.
Wednesday was the last day of questioning of Judge Barrett. After more than 10 hours of questioning over two consecutive days, Thursday’s hearing will feature multiple witnesses who will be asked for their recommendations on whether Barrett’s nomination should be approved.
Recent Comments