Takeaways from second Coney Barrett inquiry
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barett faced a second day of questions Wednesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee as Democrats kept up their focus on health care three weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election.
Coney Barett again avoided taking positions on a variety of subjects and rulings, saying it would be inappropriate to comment on cases that may come before her as a justice. Republicans appear on track to push ahead with her confirmation before the election.
Takeaways from Day Three of the hearing:
Health care
Democrats again pressed Coney Barett over her views on the Affordable Care Act, noting that President Donald Trump has made clear he wishes to undo the Obama-era health law. Democrats say Trump and Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm Coney Barett so she can be seated in time to hear a case next month challenging that law.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said there’s an “orange cloud” hanging over Coney Barett’s nomination — a political jab at Trump’s tan and a reference to the president’s oft-stated wish to overturn “Obamacare.”
Coney Barett told senators she is not “hostile” to the law and promised to consider all arguments.
Republicans played down the threat to the health law posed by the court case. “This hearing has been more about Obamacare than it has you,’’ committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C told Coney Barett. He added: “Obamacare is on the ballot’’ next month.
Republicans object to the health law because “it was written and passed on a partisan line,’’ Graham said. ”Most big changes in society have more buy-in (from the public and the two political parties) than that. You’re talking about one-fifth of the American economy.’’
Still, Graham and other Republicans stressed that even if parts of the law are struck down, important aspects such as coverage for preexisting conditions could still be preserved, under a concept known as severability. “The doctrine of severability presumes — and its goal is — to preserve (key parts of) the statute if that is possible,’’ Graham said.
Coney Barett agreed, saying, “The presumption is always in favor of severability.’’
No preview of judicial views
For the second straight day, Coney Barett repeatedly declined to give her personal views, or to preview how she might rule, on issues that could become before the court. Like other Supreme Court nominees, Coney Barett said she was prohibited from expressing those opinions by the “canons of judicial conduct.”
In addition to a possible presidential pardon and whether to overturn the health law, Coney Barett said she could not give an opinion on whether she would withdraw from any election-related litigation involving Trump. He said when he nominated her that he wanted the full nine justices in place before any possible election decisions.
Coney Barett also said she could not answer whether Trump could delay the general election, an idea the president floated earlier this year even though he does not have authority under the Constitution to unilaterally change the date.
Breakthrough for conservative women
Graham opened Wednesday’s hearing by proclaiming Coney Barett’s expected confirmation a historic victory for conservative women. Like “conservatives of color,’’ conservative women, he said, are often “marginalized” in public life.
“This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women,’’ Graham told Coney Barett. “You are going to shatter that barrier.’’
Graham said he has “never been more proud of a nominee” than he is of Coney Barett, a federal appeals court judge from Indiana. “This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she is going to the court. This is history being made, folks.’’
Coney Barett has declined to say how she would rule on a challenge to the Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion rights, but she has made clear she opposes abortion rights and signed a 2006 letter objecting to “abortion on demand.”