Politics Opinions | It’s up to John Roberts to save his court
Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court hearings lacked the drama that Brett Kavanaugh's proceedings had. Here's why.
Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings lacked the drama of Brett Kavanaugh's proceedings. Here's why.Democrats warned of the precedent set if Republicans rushed through a nominee in the middle of a pandemic and presidential election, arguing no nominee should be considered until after voters cast ballots. They rattled off threats to slow the process, teasing a host of tools that could bog down the hearings, with some lawmakers even publicly suggesting launching impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Now the ball is in the court’s court.
Monday’s Senateto the Supreme Court, preceded by a pell-mell scramble to seat her before next week’s election and scheduled to be followed by an unseemly campaign-style celebration at the White House, shreds whatever remained of the high court’s integrity and independence.
Whether the court regains its independence or cements itself as a third partisan branch of government is now largely up to Chief Justice John Roberts. If he does not act, and fast, to mitigate the court’s politicization, Democrats will be fully justified in expanding the court’s membership to restore balance — and indeed will face a public outcry if they don’t.
Fact check: True claim about Harris failing bar exam on first try and Barrett's law school rank
A post compares the early career qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and Sen. Kamala Harris. We rate this claim true.One user took to Facebook to compare the qualifications of the conservative Supreme Court nominee and the Democratic vice presidential nominee.
The Barrett spectacle could not have been uglier. It began with a superspreader event at the White House after which a dozen people, including President Trump, contracted covid-19. Trump insisted on naming a replacement even before Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in her grave, and hethe late justice’s granddaughter for conveying the women’s rights icon’s dying wish that Trump not replace her. (Mercifully, the White House shelved a plan to have Vice President Pence, whose staff is having a covid-19 outbreak, preside over Monday evening’s confirmation vote.)
Senate Republicans rammed through Barrett eight days before an election Trump seems likely to lose, and even though Trump has made clear he’s counting on the Supreme Court to overturn the result. They did this in an extraordinary public display of hypocrisy, four years after refusing to seat an Obama nominee to the high court because, they said then, that doing so more than eight months before an election was too soon. And they did this after abolishing the minority’s right to filibuster.
The Supreme Court Is Waging War on Democracy — and Voters Approve
A 6-to-3 conservative court would work to entrench minority rule. Polls suggest it could have majority support while doing so.In Texas, as in many other states, officials can reject a mail-in ballot if the signature on it does not match the signature on a voter’s registration. The officials who evaluate these signatures almost never have any training in signature verification, and the state does not provide them with any standards to guide their signature reviews. Which is to say: Election officials can disenfranchise voters on the basis of their own subjective, inexpert impressions about whether two cursive scribbles were drawn by the same hand.
Barrett, in her confirmation hearing, made a mockery of the supposed “originalism” and “textualism” she professes to practice. She conspicuouslywhether a president could unilaterally postpone an election and whether voter intimidation is illegal — matters unarguable under the clear words of the Constitution and statutes.
In the long, desultorybefore Barrett’s inevitable Senate confirmation Monday, few even pretended they were engaged in some historic or noble tradition. The debate sounded more like a medical conference as Democrats warned about the many conditions that might not be covered if Barrett strikes down the Affordable Care Act after it .
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)about“sleep apnea, asthma, pre-diabetes, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and hypothyroidism.”
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) spoke of “cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, behavioral health disorders, high cholesterol, asthma, chronic lung disease, heart disease.”
Fact check: Post online misquotes Biden on court-packing amid debate over size of Supreme Court
Joe Biden never said the “day after” he’s elected, people will “know what he stands for.” A Google search of the exact quote turned up no results. He did make a similar comment on Oct. 8 regarding the topic of court-packing, which is the idea of expanding the size of the Supreme Court. It was most famously suggested by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 1930s, according to the New York Times.
“Muscular dystrophy,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) contributed. “Endometriosis.”
“Cystic fibrosis,” added Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.) countered with a speech about breast-cancer awareness. “The primary risk factor for breast cancer is being a woman,” he informed the chamber. He encouraged women to examine themselves for “the change in the look or feel of a breast, or possible discharge from the nipple, the presence of a lump, swelling, discoloration.”
Breast health is important, but for the matter immediately at hand — the health of the Supreme Court — this Senate and this president have administered only toxins.
If the chief justice wishes to restore dignity to the Roberts Court, it’s clear enough what needs to be done:
He can lean heavily on Barrett tofrom any case arising from the presidential election next week.
He can use his influence to make sure the court upholds the Affordable Care Act after it hears arguments next month — not a legalistic punt on technical matters of “severability” but a ruling that puts an end to the constant assaults on Obamacare.
See Harry Styles' Wildly Different Hairstyles Through the Years
We’ve seen Harry Styles grow from an adorable member of One Direction to a sexy rockstar. Throughout this process, he’s always looked trendy and stylish but there’s one thing in particular that has always looked above and beyond fabulous no matter what he’s wearing — his hair. The Best Celebrity Hair Transformations of 2020: Miley Cyrus, Barbie Ferreira, Jada Pinkett Smith and More! Read article The 26-year-old singer has worn his lovely brown curls in all kinds of different styles. Though it’s hard to choose a favorite — after all, they’re all pretty incredible — there are a handful of standouts that we can’t help but point out. In 2013, the British stud attended the Burberry fashion show rocking a full-blown pompadour that put his handsome face to be on full display. However, that’s not to say we also didn’t love his long, below-the-shoulder strands that he had throughout 2014 and 2015. This only lasted until he got a role in the 2017 war film Dunkirk, in which he had to get his hair chopped into a cut that was short on the sides and long on the top. It was very Peaky Blinders and a very good look for the “Watermelon Sugar” singer. See Met Gala Host Harry Styles’ Sexiest Looks Through the Years Read article Then there was the shocking‘70s-inspired facial hair that had fans up in arms. After coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic quarantine, the X Factor winner was spotted running in Rome with a thick mustache. And fans had a lot of conflicting thoughts on the matter.
He can persuade his conservative colleagues to join him in upholding the rights of LGBTQ Americans as established in the 2015 Obergefell, by rejecting a to it by Catholic Social Services that will be argued the morning after the election next week.
He can forge a majority to reject Trump’s latest tired attempt to use the Supreme Court to further delay handing over his financial records to New York prosecutors.
And he and his colleagues can agree to hear one of the many challenges to Roe v. Wade now making their way through lower courts — and vote to uphold Roe for now. That would be the surest sign that the Roberts Court is not going to turn (immediately at least) into the reactionary caricature that most expect.
If Roberts and his conservative allies on the court don’t do at least some of this in the next few months, they can count on being joined next year by a whole batch of new colleagues. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court: Your move.
Sign up to.
New Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett could have immediate impact on American democracy .
It won't take long for Republicans to learn if Barrett is the reliable conservative upon whom they raced to bestow a seat on the Supreme Court.Upon taking her judicial oath from Chief Justice John Roberts Tuesday, Barrett became the person who could tip the balance on challenges to state election procedures that could determine who wins the White House and control of Congress a week later.