Blumenthal accuses Barrett of ‘dodging and ducking’

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., questioned Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett about her views on abortion and gun laws Tuesday, but throughout her all-day hearing Barrett refused to critique current law or forecast how she might rule on specific cases.

“She’s really become expert at, in effect, dodging and ducking clear questions where there is a right answer and she ought to just give it,” Blumenthal said after his questioning.

Democrats have little to no power to slow down or stop Barrett’s confirmation, so Blumenthal and other Democratic senators used their questioning Tuesday to portray Barrett as harmful to elements of American life — such as health care, reproduction rights and gun regulations — in an appeal to voters to oppose the Republicans advancing her confirmation. Barrett, 48, is a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Blumenthal said he believed President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court for two missions: overturning Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act. Again and again, he evoked the names and stories of Connecticut residents — from beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act to victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting — to suggest Barrett would damage the lives of real people.

Blumenthal launched his questioning by explaining he was “disappointed” that she would not commit to recuse herself in cases involving the 2020 election results because Trump nominated her.

“If you were to participate in decisions involving that election, it would do enduring, explosive damage to the court,” Blumenthal claimed. “I think you know it would be wrong. Not because of anything you’ve done. In fact, I’m not raising the issue of whether you’ve made any sort of deal or commitment — because of what Donald Trump has done and my Republican colleagues.”

Barrett said she could not pre-commit to recusing herself on election cases during the hearing because that is a legal decision made by a judge. She promised the senators that she was never asked by the White House to promise how she would rule on any case — nor did she offer such a commitment — and said she approached the job with no “agenda.”

Barrett’s responses followed a tradition in which opposition senators try to pin down a nominee, who steadfastly avoids committing to any position on any political issue.

Blumenthal sought to highlight Barrett’s pro-life views and suggested she would seek to overturn the landmark abortion case

Roe v. Wade. Blumenthal stated he opposes any “religious test” for her confirmation, but wanted her legal opinion on matters of abortion. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., suggested Democrats were trying to impose a religious test on the job by questioning her views.

A devout Catholic, who in the past has signed two petitions affirming pro-life views, Barrett declined to say whether the U.S. Constitution protects a right to abortion. She repeatedly pointed to the “Ginsburg rule” that judges should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” of how she would decide cases during the confirmation process.

“Now I’m a judge so I cannot publicly express views,” she said.

Barrett said legal scholars identified Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation decision, as a “super precedent” that is unlikely to be challenged. By contrast, she said in the hearing that Roe v. Wade did not have so settled a nature and faced many challenges.

Blumenthal also claimed Barrett’s dissent in a case involving guns for felons was “radical” and could be used to dismantle Connecticut’s gun laws. Barrett maintained her dissent had no applicability to other gun regulations such as background checks and red flag laws. She also expressed her “deepest sympathy” to the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.

For a few tense minutes, Blumenthal also chastised Barrett for failing to include two pro-life petitions that she signed in the materials that she disclosed the U.S. Senate ahead of her confirmation.

“We know about it only because the Guardian made it public, I believe,” Blumenthal said of one of the petitions Barrett signed. He remarked that he did not have it when reviewing Barrett’s record in 2017 for her U.S. Appeals Court position.

“I assure you I was not trying to hide it from you,” Barrett said, noting she supplied over 1,800 pages of documents to the Senate and previous nominees have supplemented their disclosures as well.

Blumenthal said these pro-life documents she signed “show where she is going.”