Trump’s Supreme Court aspirant, Amy Coney Barrett, floats around the hearing. Your confirmation appears to have already been agreed.
NEW YORK taz | Amy Coney Barrett repeats a sentence for three days: “I can’t comment on that.” Whenever a Democrat in the Judiciary Committee asks her about one of her many reactionary statements in recent years, she hides behind the fact that she is in the Colonel Court will hear, examine and decide each case.
Barrett cannot comment on same-sex marriage. Not about how she thinks about healthcare reform. And not about whether she will defend the right to abortion. Nor does she want to say whether she will declare herself biased if, as expected, the outcome of the presidential election is challenged in November.
She has “no firm views” on the issue of climate change. And it doesn’t even answer questions that there is no doubt about in the US Constitution. These include whether the president has the right to postpone elections. The answer is: He didn’t. Setting the date of the election is a privilege of Congress. But Barrett cannot comment.
Barrett remains taciturn for a long time. She lets the democrats come up with their questions. She indulges in the praise of the Republicans, who do not ask her, but praise her achievements. Barrett does so knowing that her confirmation to the Supreme Court has long since seemed like a deal, and that all major authorities know where she stands.
“Treating homosexuality away”
For example, both LGBTQ groups, who fear for their legal equality (not just marriage), and radical right-wing organizations like the National Organization for Marriage, which are working to end this equality, know that Barrett sees marriage as a link between Man and woman looking at it. Both sides also understand what Barrett means when she speaks of “sexual preferences”. The term implies that homosexuality is a choice or a playful decision. It is used, among other things, by those who want to treat them away.
In the White House, US President Donald Trump, who nominated Barrett for the Supreme Court, can laugh up his sleeve. Together with Senate chief Mitch McConnell, who knows he has the majority needed to approve Barrett, they both played skillfully.
At the hearing, the Democrats no longer even attempt to prevent Barrett’s confirmation. Few of them indicate that the Republicans did exactly what Obama nominated to the Supreme Court with Judge Merrick Garland in the last presidential election year. The Republicans argued that the Supreme Court could not be re-appointed in an election year.
That was months before the elections in 2016. This time they want to report execution to several Republican voter groups a few days before the vote with Barrett’s confirmation: The evangelical Christians, to whom Trump had promised that he would only be “life protectors” will send to the Supreme Court and other courts. With the gun enthusiast: inside who want to keep their pistols and assault rifles. And with the pharmaceutical and insurance companies that still want the end of Obama’s health care reform.
Barrett stands for all of that. She doesn’t comment on it in her hearing. But in her long career as a professor at Notre Dame Catholic University, with speeches, decisions, and dissent during her three years as a federal judge, she has left a more prominent trail of opinions than most of the chief judges: inside before her.
If what 48-year-old Barrett has written and said in her life so far gives any indication of her future positions in the Supreme Court, there is little doubt that she is vehemently defending the second amendment to the constitution (the right to firearms), health reform Turn back and further undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade judgment that gave women the right to self-determination over their bodies in 1973.
At the hearing, the Democrats put one topic in the foreground. The health care reform, the “Obamacare” once hated among the republican grassroots, is even there today (barely) able to win a majority and is one of the most important issues in the democratic election campaign.
Barrett’s other specialties – including her position against government regulations on jobs, the environment and the climate – were only briefly discussed. Almost everything at the three-day hearing revolved around US domestic policy.
But a Supreme Court with Barrett can also have an impact on foreign policy. Her late mentor Antonin Scalia and other libertarian and conservative judges like her regard international law and international treaties as fundamentally subordinate to US law.
As soon as the conservative majority in the Supreme Court is increased to six to three with the 48-year-old Barrett, Trump and the Republicans can be certain that their nationalism – regardless of the outcome of future elections – has a bright future.