Washington, Oct. 14, (dpa/GNA) – Democratic senators were stymied by Amy Coney Barrett on a range of issues, including abortion, gay rights and health care protections, as US President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court declined to say how she would rule on future cases.
On the first of two days of interrogation by lawmakers, Barrett committed to separating her private beliefs, including her religious convictions, from any judicial decisions.
“I have a life brimming with people who have made different choices, and I have never tried in my personal life to impose my choices on them, and the same is true professionally,” Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She also refused to commit to recuse herself from any case involving a contested presidential election involving Trump, saying she would not be “used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people.”
Supreme Court nominees for decades have declined to say how they would vote on cases before the court, and Barrett repeatedly relied on that precedent.
“I can’t express views on cases or pre-commit to approaching a case any particular way,” she said repeatedly, insisting she has no “agenda” other than a belief in the rule of law.
However, Barrett’s past writings and associations have raised specific questions.
One issue that came up was her signing a document that supported the idea of the right to life from conception. Similarly, media reports have shown that she had ties to a school that kept out the children of same-sex couples.
“My personal views don’t have anything to do with how I would decide cases,” she said when asked about abortion rights, after earlier confirming she is a devout Catholic.
The issue came up repeatedly, in many different ways, without a firm answer on how she might rule from the bench or whether she sees existing rulings on allowing abortion as absolutely binding.
When pressed about gay rights, she compared discrimination to racism, calling both “abhorrent,” but sidestepping specific judicial answers.
“I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference,” she said. However, her use of the term was seized on by liberals, who feared she sees sexual orientations as a choice and might therefore narrow rights for gays and other groups.
“I certainly didn’t mean and, you know, would never mean to use a term that would cause any offence in the LGBTQ community. So, if I did, I greatly apologize for that,” she later clarified, using the abbreviation for the sexual minorities community.
Democrats are further hammering home a message that Barrett would strip away health care protections under the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
“I am not hostile to the ACA,” she said, despite having in the past made specific legal criticisms about a previous Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments in a Republican-led case against Obamacare. Trump has long campaigned on reversing the 2010 law that includes protections for people with pre-existing conditions, a major issue for some 20 million people.
The first day of hearings, which was reserved for opening statements, saw Democrats almost uniformly focused on health care, with an election just weeks away. Democrats have long campaigned on the issue.
Republicans largely hailed Barrett’s adherence to a judicial philosophy known as originalism, seeing it as a view that restricts the courts and prevents judges from effectively legislating from the bench.
“I’ve got to go with what you guys have chosen,” she told lawmakers, saying judges should not make policy.
Republicans also appeared to embrace her lifestyle and religious faith, indicating they see her as a conservative.
From the outset, Democrats – who lack the numbers to block the nomination – have opposed the Republicans’ push to get Barrett seated on the court before the November 3 presidential election. They argue the election winner should decide on filling the vacancy.
Barrett, 48, would replace former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, who died last month. She would give the court a 6-3 conservative majority, if confirmed, though the court’s rulings are often not along strict ideological lines.
The hearings will run through Thursday before the committee votes on October 22, sending her nomination to the full Senate, which must confirm her appointment. The 100-member Senate will likely vote by October 27.
GNA