On Sunday, the US Senate voted 51-48 to limit the time for debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, setting up a vote on her confirmation for Monday night. That means the Democrats have all day Monday to trash Barrett, one of the most qualified nominees for the High Court.
Sunday’s vote limited debate over President Donald Trump’s court appointee to 30 hours, meaning the full Senate will be able to hold a confirmation vote Monday beginning at approximately 7:26 p.m. e.t.
“Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is a stellar nominee in every single respect,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the Senate floor following the vote. “Her intellectual brilliance is unquestioned. Her command of the law is remarkable. Her integrity is above reproach.”
Two Republicans voted against ending debate, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Murkowski has said she will vote to confirm Barrett. Collins is in the political fight of her career over her vote for now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which was the right thing to do.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), fumed against Republicans who he says are quickly moving to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the weeks before a presidential election, after refusing to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia during the final year of President Barack Obama’s presidency when Obama nominated Merrick Garland.
“Republicans promised they’d follow (their own standard if the situation was reversed,” Schumer said. “Guess not.”
Actually, the Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, are following the standard and doing exactly what tradition has expected them to do. You have to go back to 1880 to find a Senate that held a confirmation hearing for a presidential nominee of the opposing party in an election year. It has been understood for one hundred and twenty years that if the Senate and White House are split by party, the American people should decide in the upcoming election who should seat Supreme Court vacancies, but when the Senate and the president are of the same party then the American people have already decided that they should fill vacancies on the High Court. Chuck Schumer knows this, he’s just lying.
Democrats took to Twitter to voice their opposition to Barrett before voting against moving forward with the confirmation process.
“Judge Barrett’s nomination poses a direct threat to members of the LGBT community,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), pointing to an upcoming Supreme Court case dealing with adoption in the LGBT community. This from a woman who threw a religious litmus test at Barrett when she was being confirmed to the appellate court, which is specifically forbidden in the Constitution, so pardon us if we don’t care what this nitwit has to say.
In the past, Supreme Court confirmation hearings needed to clear a 60-vote threshold to advance to the High Court, a tradition that forced nominees to win bipartisan support. McConnell changed things back in 2017 to allow for a simple majority, a move that allowed for the confirmation of President Trump’s first two nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Scumbag-Nev) first eliminated the 60-vote threshold in 2013 to overcome GOP stonewalling of President Obama’s nominations to the lower courts and the executive branch. This move became know as the “nuclear option,” and Reid kept the higher standard in place for the Supreme Court. McConnell warned Reid that he would come to regret that decision sooner than he thinks.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CN), who lied for years about serving in combat in Vietnam, claimed that Barrett’s confirmation would jeopardize the Affordable Care Act, a partisan talking point too many Democrats made during her confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Confirming Amy Coney Barrett—who actively opposes the ACA—would be devastating for millions of Americans,” Blumenthal tweeted. “Just ask my constituents who would face real harm in real ways if the Supreme Court guts the ACA.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats stopped thinking of judges as politicians who can do their dirty work for them when they can’t get something through the legislative process?
Barrett has not indicated one way or the other on how she would rule if given the opportunity to sit on the court if oral arguments are given over the future of the ACA in November. She has criticized the 2012 Supreme Court opinion that upheld the law by deeming the penalty attached to the individual mandate to be a tax, even though the Obama administration repeatedly said that it was not a tax.