Antelope Valley Press

Democrats ask if more material omitted from Barrett response

-

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are calling on the Justice Department to provide any missing materials from a questionna­ire completed by Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett, who was nominated to the high court last month by President Donald Trump, signed a 2006 newspaper ad sponsored by an anti-abortion group in which she said she opposed “abortion on demand” and defended “the right to life from fertilizat­ion to the end of natural life.”

The ad was not included in materials Barrett provided to the Judiciary Committee for her pending Supreme Court nomination, nor in 2017, when she was nominated to the job she holds as a Chicago-based federal appeals court judge.

In a letter Tuesday signed by all 10 Democrats on the Judiciary panel, lawmakers asked the Justice Department to explain the omission and confirm whether any other materials have been left out from the Senate questionna­ire. If so, the department should immediatel­y provide the materials for committee review, the senators said.

A Justice Department spokeswoma­n said the department has received the letter and is reviewing it.

Democrats don’t have the votes to block Barrett’s nomination, but they are trying to slow it down as Republican­s speed ahead with an aggressive timetable, starting with hearings next week, aimed at confirming her before the election. Trump backs moving ahead quickly and on Tuesday called off negotiatio­ns on further coronaviru­s relief, saying

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should focus “full time” on confirming Barrett.

The 2006 ad, an open letter signed by

Barrett and others,

“opposed women’s reproducti­ve freedoms and explicitly called for overturnin­g Roe v.

Wade,’’ the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion, senators wrote. The ad also referred to “the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.’’

The ad, which had more than 1,200 names attached to it, appears to be the most direct expression of Barrett’s opposition to abortion and has intensifie­d debate over whether she would vote to restrict, if not overturn, abortion rights if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Barrett’s failure to disclose the 2006 letter “leads to additional questions about other potentiall­y missing materials,’’ the Democratic senators wrote in the letter.

It also raises concerns that the process of collecting materials responsive to the Senate questionna­ire, “like the nomination process itself, has been rushed, for no legitimate reason,” the senators wrote.

 ??  ?? BARRETT
BARRETT

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States