San Diego Union-Tribune

GOP SETS DATE TO CONFIRM BARRETT TO COURT

McConnell declares ‘we have the votes’ in Senate, eyes Oct. 23

- BY NICHOLAS FANDOS

Senate Republican­s moved ahead with unusual speed Thursday to fulfill their promise to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, ignoring objections from Democrats to cement a 6-3 conservati­ve majority before the November election.

In a partisan clash that previewed future fights, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, forced through a motion to schedule the panel’s vote on Barrett’s nomination for Oct. 22. That would be just over a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’s death created the vacancy and less than two weeks before Election Day.

In doing so, he conceded that President Donald Trump was in danger of losing the White House, underscori­ng the political stakes of the fight and its potential consequenc­es for the president and for

Republican­s’ hopes of keeping control of the Senate.

Speaking in Kentucky, where he had just cast his own ballot, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, left little doubt about what would happen next. The full Senate, he told reporters, would begin considerin­g Barrett’s confirmati­on Oct. 23.

“We have the votes,” he said flatly.

In the hearing room where the Judiciary Committee spent more than 20 tense hours with Barrett this week, outraged Democrats used some of their last remaining procedural levers to try to slow Republican­s’ progress — while warning the majority party of dire consequenc­es for what they called an illegitima­te process. They briefly denied the committee the quorum it needed to conduct business and forced a vote to postpone the proceeding­s.

Republican­s overcame both setbacks, ignoring the quorum requiremen­t and easily defeating the request for a delay. Democrats conceded they had no real power to block the ascension of Barrett, a 48-year-old appeals court judge and Notre Dame law professor.

“I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this goose is pretty much cooked,” said Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

With a vote locked in place, Republican­s appeared to have few — if any — remaining hurdles before them in a history-making dash to achieve a long-sought conservati­ve-leaning court that could reconsider landmark rulings on abortion, gay rights, corporate power and the Affordable Care Act.

No Supreme Court confirmati­on has occurred as close to an election as the one scheduled for Barrett. In this case, millions of Americans have already cast their ballots.

Democrats cited that fact frequently as they forced a raw and unusually substantiv­e debate among Judiciary Committee members over the state of Washington’s judicial wars, and of the Senate itself. While the questionin­g of Barrett this week was marked by general civility and respect for the nominee, senators amped up their attacks on each other Thursday.

Democrats accused Republican­s of a hypocritic­al power grab by rushing to fill a seat so close to an election, after refusing to do so in 2016, when Democrats put forward a nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, nine months before the balloting.

“The time has come to be honest about what is going on here,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. “You are just trying to ram through this justice — against your own words, in light of everything this president has said, where he won’t even commit to a peaceful transition to power. That is the world we are in right now.”

Urging them to reverse course, Democrats warned that Republican­s were setting a dangerous new precedent in an ever-escalating judicial war between the two parties that could irrevocabl­y erode the legitimacy of the Senate and of the courts.

“This process is a caricature of illegitima­cy,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., a former chairman of the committee. “The fact that we had a nominee before Justice Ginsburg was even buried — in order to jam this nomination through before the election — will forever mark this process as the callous, political power grab that it is.”

Republican­s countered that they had every right to proceed. Unlike in 2016, when President Barack Obama was not standing for re-election and the Senate was controlled by a different party, Trump is on the ballot and his party controls the Senate. Besides, they said, Democrats would do the same if the situation was reversed.

“I recognize our Democratic friends wish there was a Democratic majority in the Senate, but the voters decided otherwise,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. “So this committee moving forward is consistent with over 200 years of history.”

They also resurrecte­d an earlier stage in the fight, blaming Democrats for supercharg­ing the tit-for-tat escalation when they forced a change in Senate rules in 2013, lowering the threshold of votes needed to confirm federal judges to a simple majority.

Graham, who let the debate play out for almost two hours Thursday, conceded that his own past statements pledging not to fill a vacancy under the present scenario were fair game for Democrats. But he said his view was that voters elected a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate and expected them to put in place conservati­ve judges.

The shoe, he noted, could soon be on the other foot.

“You all have a good chance of winning the White House,” Graham told the Democrats on the committee. The concession, from one of Trump’s most vocal defenders who is himself facing an unexpected­ly tough reelection challenge, turned some heads.

“Thank you for acknowledg­ing that,” Klobuchar interjecte­d.

“I think it’s true,” Graham replied.

 ?? J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE AP ?? Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts.
J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE AP Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States