shareblue--2020-10-14--Sen. Cory Gardner clings to Trump as polls show both of them losing

Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner said `` yes '' during a debate Tuesday in response to the question , `` Do you believe that President Trump is a moral and ethical man ? ''
showing that the GOP lawmaker still wo n't criticize Donald Trump , even as Trump is dragging down his chances at reelection .
Gardner 's comment , which came during his final debate with the Democratic challenger for his Senate seat , former Gov .
John Hickenlooper , was panned by columnists in the state .
Dave Perry , an editor at the Sentinel , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` moral and ethical '' : `` Besides Trump , no one can realistically believe he is . ''
`` If Gardner was being honest on Tuesday , telling all of Colorado that Trump behaves ethically in anything he does as president or in his personal life , then Gardner is either a stooge or as daft as Trump about how naive the American public is , '' Perry wrote .
He added : `` If Colorado ’ s junior senator was just shooting from the lip on Tuesday to keep Trump from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidential Twitter account later that night , then he 's just as unscrupulous and callow as Trump . ''
Gardner 's support for Trump ( he votes with Trump 89.1 % of the time , according to FiveThirtyEight ) is dragging down his chances at reelection .
Aside from saying that the serially lying Trump is moral and ethical , Gardner has also refused to condemn Trump for the pressure campaign he ran against Ukraine that ultimately ended up with Trump 's impeachment by the House of Representatives .
Gardner later voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate .
Trump is toxic in Colorado , with polls showing him losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden by nearly 13 points , according to the FiveThirtyEight average .
If that holds , it would be a large increase in support for the Democratic ticket over 2016 , when Hillary Clinton carried the state by 5 points .
Yet Gardner is still embracing Trump , vowing to vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett , Trump 's nominee to the Supreme Court , even though polls show voters want the winner of the presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
In fact , sharing a ballot with Trump has made Gardner the most vulnerable Republican Senator up for reelection in 2020 , according to Roll Call .
A new Morning Consult poll released on Tuesday found Gardner losing to Hickenlooper by 10 points , with Hickenlooper hitting 50 % .
That tracks with a 9NEWS/Colorado Politics poll from earlier this month showing Hickenlooper up 9 points .
The race has gotten little attention outside of Colorado this cycle , as nonpartisan political handicappers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slim due to Trump 's unpopularity in the state .
Inside Elections predicts Gardner 's seat will flip , rating the contest `` tilts Democratic . ''
Gardner is n't the only Republican being dragged down by Trump 's flailing reelection bid .
Sen. Susan Collins ( ME ) is facing her toughest reelection ever thanks to her ties to Trump , which she has demonstrated by backing Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and voting to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges he faced .
As with Gardner , Inside Elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats need to pick up a net total of three Senate seats to win control of the chamber if Biden wins the election , as in that case the Democratic vice president be the tie-breaking vote in the chamber .
If Biden loses , Democrats would need to net four seats .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner said “yes” during a debate Tuesday in response to the question, “Do you believe that President Trump is a moral and ethical man?” showing that the GOP lawmaker still won’t criticize Donald Trump, even as Trump is dragging down his chances at reelection.
Gardner’s comment, which came during his final debate with the Democratic challenger for his Senate seat, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, was panned by columnists in the state.
Dave Perry, an editor at the Sentinel, said of Gardner’s reply that Trump is “moral and ethical”: “Besides Trump, no one can realistically believe he is.”
“If Gardner was being honest on Tuesday, telling all of Colorado that Trump behaves ethically in anything he does as president or in his personal life, then Gardner is either a stooge or as daft as Trump about how naive the American public is,” Perry wrote.
He added: “If Colorado’s junior senator was just shooting from the lip on Tuesday to keep Trump from assassinating Gardner’s political career from the Presidential Twitter account later that night, then he’s just as unscrupulous and callow as Trump.”
Gardner’s support for Trump (he votes with Trump 89.1% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight) is dragging down his chances at reelection. Aside from saying that the serially lying Trump is moral and ethical, Gardner has also refused to condemn Trump for the pressure campaign he ran against Ukraine that ultimately ended up with Trump’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. Gardner later voted to acquit Trump of the charges in the Senate.
Trump is toxic in Colorado, with polls showing him losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden by nearly 13 points, according to the FiveThirtyEight average. If that holds, it would be a large increase in support for the Democratic ticket over 2016, when Hillary Clinton carried the state by 5 points.
Yet Gardner is still embracing Trump, vowing to vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, even though polls show voters want the winner of the presidential election on Nov. 3 to choose the replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In fact, sharing a ballot with Trump has made Gardner the most vulnerable Republican Senator up for reelection in 2020, according to Roll Call.
A new Morning Consult poll released on Tuesday found Gardner losing to Hickenlooper by 10 points, with Hickenlooper hitting 50%. That tracks with a 9NEWS/Colorado Politics poll from earlier this month showing Hickenlooper up 9 points.
The race has gotten little attention outside of Colorado this cycle, as nonpartisan political handicappers have viewed Gardner’s chances of reelection as slim due to Trump’s unpopularity in the state. Inside Elections predicts Gardner’s seat will flip, rating the contest “tilts Democratic.”
Gardner isn’t the only Republican being dragged down by Trump’s flailing reelection bid.
Sen. Susan Collins (ME) is facing her toughest reelection ever thanks to her ties to Trump, which she has demonstrated by backing Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and voting to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges he faced. As with Gardner, Inside Elections predicts Collins will lose her Senate seat.
Democrats need to pick up a net total of three Senate seats to win control of the chamber if Biden wins the election, as in that case the Democratic vice president be the tie-breaking vote in the chamber. If Biden loses, Democrats would need to net four seats.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--Kelly Loeffler to make 'major announcement' with QAnon-backing racist

Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R ) will hold a `` major announcement '' on Thursday with conspiracy theorist and GOP House nominee Marjorie Taylor Greene .
Local media expect Greene to endorse Loeffler at the Paulding County press conference .
Greene , who won the Republican nomination for Georgia 's 14th District in August , has publicly embraced QAnon , a widely debunked conspiracy theory involving a cabal of powerful politicians — most of them Democrats — running an international child trafficking ring and working to undermine Donald Trump .
The FBI has labeled QAnon a domestic terrorism threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist , and Islamophobic views .
Videos obtained by Politico in June showed her arguing that Muslim people do not `` belong in our government , '' equating anti-racism protesters with Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members , claiming there is no systemic racism in the United States because `` slavery is over , '' and suggesting that Black people are `` lazy '' and make `` bad choices . ''
In 2018 , Greene also repeated a debunked conspiracy theory about the September 11 attacks , suggesting that no plane ever crashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she was wrong , blaming the `` Deep State '' for her confusion .
Some House Republican leaders condemned Greene 's views before she won the nomination and 146 House Republicans voted earlier this month to condemn QAnon and its dangerous conspiracy theories .
But Loeffler has refused to join them , praising Greene in August for articulating `` a clear choice between socialism and democracy '' and painting her as a fellow `` political outsider '' who will stand with Donald Trump .
Spokespeople for Loeffler and Greene did not immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In September , the two appeared together at a pro-gun rally in Catoosa County , Georgia .
Loeffler , who was chosen by Republican Gov .
Brian Kemp in December to fill former GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson 's vacant seat , has attempted to walk a fine line on racial issues herself .
She has repeatedly attacked the Black Lives Matter movement , while claiming that `` the lives of every African American matter , and there 's no place for racism in our country . ''
After WNBA players — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team Loeffler co-owns — wore shirts supporting Rev .
Raphael Warnock , one of her Democratic opponents , she decried it as an example of `` cancel culture '' trying to silence her views .
The WNBA has been vocal in the Black Lives Matter movement for years and its athletes frequently use their platform to speak out on civil rights issues .
Recently , Loeffler also threatened to retaliate against China for giving COVID-19 to Trump — echoing a racist trope popular with the GOP that has led to a surge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and recently demanded that Joe Biden submit to a drug test before the presidential debate , citing a baseless theory pushed by Trump himself that Biden is taking performance enhancing drugs .
Loeffler is facing Republican Rep. Doug Collins , Warnock , and several other candidates in a November special election for the Senate seat she currently holds .
Collins has also praised Greene , saying she 'll make `` a wonderful congresswoman . ''
If no candidate receives a majority , the top two finishers will face off in a January .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two most popular candidates in the race .
Despite her extremist views , Greene is heavily favored to win her House race .
Her Democratic opponent , Kevin Van Ausdale , withdrew from the race last month but remains on the ballot .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) will hold a “major announcement” on Thursday with conspiracy theorist and GOP House nominee Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Local media expect Greene to endorse Loeffler at the Paulding County press conference.
Greene, who won the Republican nomination for Georgia’s 14th District in August, has publicly embraced QAnon, a widely debunked conspiracy theory involving a cabal of powerful politicians — most of them Democrats — running an international child trafficking ring and working to undermine Donald Trump. The FBI has labeled QAnon a domestic terrorism threat.
Greene has also expressed anti-Semitic, racist, and Islamophobic views. Videos obtained by Politico in June showed her arguing that Muslim people do not “belong in our government,” equating anti-racism protesters with Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members, claiming there is no systemic racism in the United States because “slavery is over,” and suggesting that Black people are “lazy” and make “bad choices.”
In 2018, Greene also repeated a debunked conspiracy theory about the September 11 attacks, suggesting that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon. She later acknowledged that she was wrong, blaming the “Deep State” for her confusion.
Some House Republican leaders condemned Greene’s views before she won the nomination and 146 House Republicans voted earlier this month to condemn QAnon and its dangerous conspiracy theories.
But Loeffler has refused to join them, praising Greene in August for articulating “a clear choice between socialism and democracy” and painting her as a fellow “political outsider” who will stand with Donald Trump.
Spokespeople for Loeffler and Greene did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story.
In September, the two appeared together at a pro-gun rally in Catoosa County, Georgia.
Loeffler, who was chosen by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in December to fill former GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson’s vacant seat, has attempted to walk a fine line on racial issues herself. She has repeatedly attacked the Black Lives Matter movement, while claiming that “the lives of every African American matter, and there’s no place for racism in our country.”
After WNBA players — including those on the Atlanta Dream, the team Loeffler co-owns — wore shirts supporting Rev. Raphael Warnock, one of her Democratic opponents, she decried it as an example of “cancel culture” trying to silence her views. The WNBA has been vocal in the Black Lives Matter movement for years and its athletes frequently use their platform to speak out on civil rights issues.
Recently, Loeffler also threatened to retaliate against China for giving COVID-19 to Trump — echoing a racist trope popular with the GOP that has led to a surge in attacks on those of Asian descent — and recently demanded that Joe Biden submit to a drug test before the presidential debate, citing a baseless theory pushed by Trump himself that Biden is taking performance enhancing drugs.
Loeffler is facing Republican Rep. Doug Collins, Warnock, and several other candidates in a November special election for the Senate seat she currently holds. Collins has also praised Greene, saying she’ll make “a wonderful congresswoman.”
If no candidate receives a majority, the top two finishers will face off in a January. Recent polls show Warnock and Loeffler as the two most popular candidates in the race.
Despite her extremist views, Greene is heavily favored to win her House race. Her Democratic opponent, Kevin Van Ausdale, withdrew from the race last month but remains on the ballot.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--Trump is trying to 'buy votes' from seniors with taxpayer dollars

Donald Trump is trying to repair his flagging popularity with American seniors with his own fast-cash scheme , according to top Democrats and consumer advocates .
Last month , Trump abruptly announced a plan to distribute $ 200 drug-discount cards to seniors , which they would be able to redeem at pharmacies .
Medicare beneficiaries are expected to receive the debit cards as early as this week .
Trump announced the `` America First Healthcare Plan '' on Sept. 24 .
`` Under my plan , 33 million Medicare beneficiaries will soon receive a card in the mail containing $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay for prescription drugs .
Nobody has seen this before .
These cards are incredible .
The cards will be mailed out in coming weeks , '' Trump said at the time .
The debit cards would be paid for by dipping into the country 's Medicare Trust Fund , which covers health services for Medicare beneficiaries and is funded with tax revenue .
Trump 's plan would cost taxpayers an estimated $ 7.9 billion .
`` The Medicare Trust Funds are not the Administration ’ s personal piggybank — they are taxpayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a specific purpose , '' three top Democrats wrote in a letter to Trump administration officials last month .
On Tuesday , the same three Democratic leaders accused Trump of trying to `` buy votes '' from seniors .
Rep. Richard Neal ( D-MA ) , chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means , Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. ( D-NJ ) , chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce , and Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) , ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance , sent two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar .
`` After four years of empty promises to lower drug prices for the American people , the president now appears to be attempting to buy votes just weeks before the election using taxpayer dollars , '' the lawmakers wrote .
The lawmakers said the Trump administration does not have the authority to proceed with the drug cards , citing Section 402 of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 .
`` Exploiting the health needs of Medicare beneficiaries in the midst of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not only cruel , but raises serious legal questions about the misuse of taxpayer dollars to improperly influence the approaching election , '' the letter continued .
The Democrats wrote a second letter to the Government Accountability Office , calling for an `` expedited review '' of Trump 's plan and requesting the agency 's `` prompt attention '' by Oct. 19 .
An HHS spokesperson confirmed the agency had received the letter from Democrats , but declined to comment further , adding only that the Trump administration `` would respond directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Citizen , a consumer advocacy nonprofit , called Trump 's $ 200 cash card plan a `` transparent and pathetic attempt to bribe votes . ''
`` The solution to high pharma prices is not giving people money to offset extortionate drug prices ; the solution is to end price gouging altogether , '' the watchdog group tweeted .
Trump 's reelection chances will be in jeopardy if he ca n't retain the senior vote .
In 2016 , 53 % of voters over the age of 65 voted for Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
Recent polling has shown Biden opening a double-digit lead with seniors .
Voters over the age of 60 historically have the highest turnout rate of any age group .
People over the age of 65 make up 79 % of all deaths related to the coronavirus , which has claimed the lives of more than 215,000 Americans .
One recent CNN poll found that 78 % of respondents from that age group listed the coronavirus outbreak as an `` extremely important '' factor in deciding their @ @

Donald Trump is trying to repair his flagging popularity with American seniors with his own fast-cash scheme, according to top Democrats and consumer advocates.
Last month, Trump abruptly announced a plan to distribute $200 drug-discount cards to seniors, which they would be able to redeem at pharmacies. Medicare beneficiaries are expected to receive the debit cards as early as this week.
Trump announced the “America First Healthcare Plan” on Sept. 24.
“Under my plan, 33 million Medicare beneficiaries will soon receive a card in the mail containing $200 that they can use to help pay for prescription drugs. Nobody has seen this before. These cards are incredible. The cards will be mailed out in coming weeks,” Trump said at the time.
The debit cards would be paid for by dipping into the country’s Medicare Trust Fund, which covers health services for Medicare beneficiaries and is funded with tax revenue. Trump’s plan would cost taxpayers an estimated $7.9 billion.
“The Medicare Trust Funds are not the Administration’s personal piggybank — they are taxpayer funds that are to be used for a specific purpose,” three top Democrats wrote in a letter to Trump administration officials last month.
On Tuesday, the same three Democratic leaders accused Trump of trying to “buy votes” from seniors.
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, sent two letters on Tuesday.
The first letter was addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
“After four years of empty promises to lower drug prices for the American people, the president now appears to be attempting to buy votes just weeks before the election using taxpayer dollars,” the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers said the Trump administration does not have the authority to proceed with the drug cards, citing Section 402 of the Social Security Amendments of 1967.
“Exploiting the health needs of Medicare beneficiaries in the midst of a pandemic that has claimed 210,000 American lives is not only cruel, but raises serious legal questions about the misuse of taxpayer dollars to improperly influence the approaching election,” the letter continued.
The Democrats wrote a second letter to the Government Accountability Office, calling for an “expedited review” of Trump’s plan and requesting the agency’s “prompt attention” by Oct. 19.
An HHS spokesperson confirmed the agency had received the letter from Democrats, but declined to comment further, adding only that the Trump administration “would respond directly to Congress.”
Last month, Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, called Trump’s $200 cash card plan a “transparent and pathetic attempt to bribe votes.”
“The solution to high pharma prices is not giving people money to offset extortionate drug prices; the solution is to end price gouging altogether,” the watchdog group tweeted.
Trump’s reelection chances will be in jeopardy if he can’t retain the senior vote. In 2016, 53% of voters over the age of 65 voted for Trump, compared to 44% who voted for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Recent polling has shown Biden opening a double-digit lead with seniors. Voters over the age of 60 historically have the highest turnout rate of any age group.
People over the age of 65 make up 79% of all deaths related to the coronavirus, which has claimed the lives of more than 215,000 Americans. One recent CNN poll found that 78% of respondents from that age group listed the coronavirus outbreak as an “extremely important” factor in deciding their vote.


shareblue--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett really doesn't want to say what she thinks about voting rights

On the third day of the Senate Judiciary Committee 's hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's nomination to the Supreme Court , Barrett refused to answer yet another question about voting rights , this time posed to her by Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) .
`` [ The ] 15th Amendment : The right of citizens in the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race , '' Durbin said .
`` For an originalist and a textualist , that is clear text as I see it , but when asked whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny that right to a vote to a person based on race or even gender — are you saying you ca n't answer that question ? ''
Barrett responded by acknowledging that the Constitution does indeed contain provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race in voting .
`` But whether a president can unilaterally deny — you 're not going to answer yes or no ? ''
Durbin asked .
Barrett said that Durbin has asked several different questions about what a president might be able to unilaterally do .
`` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything more than I 'm not going to answer hypotheticals , '' she added .
Durbin pointed out that Barrett would be a `` strange originalist '' if the `` clear wording of the Constitution establishes a right '' and she refused to acknowledge it .
`` It would strain the canons of conduct , which do n't permit me to offer off-the-cuff reactions or any opinions outside of the judicial decision-making process , '' Barrett replied .
`` It would strain Article 3 , which prevents me from deciding legal issues outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Justice Ginsburg said , it would display disregard for the whole judicial process . ''
This was n't the first time during the confirmation hearing process that Barrett refused to answer a voting rights question .
Asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) on the second day of the hearing if voter intimidation was prohibited by federal law , Barrett refused to answer , claiming that she could n't `` characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation '' or `` apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they come to me , litigated by parties on the full record , after fully engaging precedent , talking to colleagues , writing an opinion , '' Barrett said .
`` And so I ca n't answer questions like that . ''
Also on the second day of the hearing , ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( CA ) asked the SCOTUS nominee whether the Constitution allowed for the general election to be delayed .
`` President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances ?
Does federal law ? ''
Barrett again demurred , saying that she would `` need to hear arguments with the litigants , '' read briefs , consult with law clerks and colleagues , and `` go through the opinion-writing process . ''
She added that she wanted to come to these issues with an `` open mind '' rather than give `` off-the-cuff answers '' like a pundit .
But the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 general election date of Nov. 3 , and there is no statute allowing for a sitting president to move or delay it .
Barrett 's own judicial record gives troubling glimpses of her positions on voting rights .
In Kanter v. Barr , a case decided last year by the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , Barrett argued unsuccessfully that the right to bear arms was more fundamental than the right to vote .
The 7th Circuit upheld a lower court 's decision that Rickey Canter , who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from owning a firearm by federal and Wisconsin state law , could not purchase a gun .
The vote was 2-1 .
Of the three sitting judges , Barrett alone dissented .
She penned a 38-page dissent arguing that the Founding Fathers did not intend to prohibit all those convicted of felonies from gun ownership , just those convicted of violent felonies .
In it , she drew a distinction between civic rights and individual rights , arguing that individuals convicted of felonies should be able to own guns ( deemed by Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote ( deemed a civic right ) .
Barrett doubled down on minimizing voting rights later in her dissent , writing that unlike gun rights , the `` rights to vote and serve on juries '' are rights that belong `` only to virtuous citizens . ''
In another case heard by the 7th Circuit in 2019 , Acevedo v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board , Barrett sided with the majority , ruling against a plaintiff running for sheriff who could not appear on a ballot in the primaries due to not having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold of signatures set at 0.5 % , which in Cook County was more than 8,200 votes .
While the candidate had met the state 's lower threshold of 5,000 votes , he did not have the number required by the county .
In Acevedo , Barrett applied what 's known as Anderson-Burdick balancing , a standard that holds that the government can not impose `` extreme '' burdens that impede an individual 's right to vote , but that slight burdens might be acceptable if in the interest of the state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming the plaintiff 's burdens did not rise to the level of `` extreme . ''
For Barrett , what constitutes an `` extreme '' burden on voting rights seems to be a high bar to clear .
And , on the cusp of a potentially contested election , it 's not hard to imagine that voting questions may come before the Supreme Court that involve the constitutionality of signature matching , notary public requirements , closed polling sites , and limits on drop-off boxes .
Published with permission of The American Independent @ @

On the third day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer yet another question about voting rights, this time posed to her by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
“[The] 15th Amendment: The right of citizens in the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race,” Durbin said. “For an originalist and a textualist, that is clear text as I see it, but when asked whether the president has any authority to unilaterally deny that right to a vote to a person based on race or even gender — are you saying you can’t answer that question?”
Barrett responded by acknowledging that the Constitution does indeed contain provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race in voting.
“But whether a president can unilaterally deny — you’re not going to answer yes or no?” Durbin asked.
Barrett said that Durbin has asked several different questions about what a president might be able to unilaterally do.
“I think that I really can’t say anything more than I’m not going to answer hypotheticals,” she added.
Durbin pointed out that Barrett would be a “strange originalist” if the “clear wording of the Constitution establishes a right” and she refused to acknowledge it.
“It would strain the canons of conduct, which don’t permit me to offer off-the-cuff reactions or any opinions outside of the judicial decision-making process,” Barrett replied. “It would strain Article 3, which prevents me from deciding legal issues outside the context of cases and controversies and, as Justice Ginsburg said, it would display disregard for the whole judicial process.”
This wasn’t the first time during the confirmation hearing process that Barrett refused to answer a voting rights question.
Asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on the second day of the hearing if voter intimidation was prohibited by federal law, Barrett refused to answer, claiming that she couldn’t “characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation” or “apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.”
“I can only decide cases as they come to me, litigated by parties on the full record, after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion,” Barrett said. “And so I can’t answer questions like that.”
Also on the second day of the hearing, ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) asked the SCOTUS nominee whether the Constitution allowed for the general election to be delayed.
“President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election,” Feinstein said. “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?”
Barrett again demurred, saying that she would “need to hear arguments with the litigants,” read briefs, consult with law clerks and colleagues, and “go through the opinion-writing process.”
She added that she wanted to come to these issues with an “open mind” rather than give “off-the-cuff answers” like a pundit.
But the law is clear: Federal statute mandates the 2020 general election date of Nov. 3, and there is no statute allowing for a sitting president to move or delay it.
Barrett’s own judicial record gives troubling glimpses of her positions on voting rights.
In Kanter v. Barr, a case decided last year by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett argued unsuccessfully that the right to bear arms was more fundamental than the right to vote.
The 7th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that Rickey Canter, who had been convicted of a felony and was barred from owning a firearm by federal and Wisconsin state law, could not purchase a gun.
The vote was 2-1. Of the three sitting judges, Barrett alone dissented.
She penned a 38-page dissent arguing that the Founding Fathers did not intend to prohibit all those convicted of felonies from gun ownership, just those convicted of violent felonies.
In it, she drew a distinction between civic rights and individual rights, arguing that individuals convicted of felonies should be able to own guns (deemed by Barrett an individual right), but not vote (deemed a civic right).
Barrett doubled down on minimizing voting rights later in her dissent, writing that unlike gun rights, the “rights to vote and serve on juries” are rights that belong “only to virtuous citizens.”
In another case heard by the 7th Circuit in 2019, Acevedo v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, Barrett sided with the majority, ruling against a plaintiff running for sheriff who could not appear on a ballot in the primaries due to not having enough signatures.
The county had a threshold of signatures set at 0.5%, which in Cook County was more than 8,200 votes. While the candidate had met the state’s lower threshold of 5,000 votes, he did not have the number required by the county.
In Acevedo, Barrett applied what’s known as Anderson-Burdick balancing, a standard that holds that the government cannot impose “extreme” burdens that impede an individual’s right to vote, but that slight burdens might be acceptable if in the interest of the state.
Barrett cited Anderson-Burdick in her opinion, claiming the plaintiff’s burdens did not rise to the level of “extreme.”
For Barrett, what constitutes an “extreme” burden on voting rights seems to be a high bar to clear.
And, on the cusp of a potentially contested election, it’s not hard to imagine that voting questions may come before the Supreme Court that involve the constitutionality of signature matching, notary public requirements, closed polling sites, and limits on drop-off boxes.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--Watch: Barrett can't name all five freedoms of the First Amendment

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday , Judge Amy Coney Barrett was unable to list the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment .
`` What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment ? ''
Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) asked the nominee .
`` Speech , religion , press , assembly .
Speech , press , religion , assembly , I do n't know , what am I missing ? ''
she responded .
Sasse explained to her that she had failed to mention the right to protest .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791 , defines freedom of religion , speech , press , assembly , and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .
Barrett 's failure to answer came as Sasse was discussing with Barrett that the Bill of Rights enumerates rights to U.S. citizens , and that Barrett has taught students how the Constitution works in her previous role as a law professor .
Senate Republicans have used the confirmation hearing to repeatedly offer up easy questions for Barrett to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate Judiciary Committee : Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was unable to list the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
“What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) asked the nominee.
“Speech, religion, press, assembly. Speech, press, religion, assembly, I don’t know, what am I missing?” she responded. Sasse explained to her that she had failed to mention the right to protest.
The First Amendment, which as part of the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, defines freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Barrett’s failure to answer came as Sasse was discussing with Barrett that the Bill of Rights enumerates rights to U.S. citizens, and that Barrett has taught students how the Constitution works in her previous role as a law professor.
Senate Republicans have used the confirmation hearing to repeatedly offer up easy questions for Barrett to answer.
From an Oct. 14 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
SEN. BEN SASSE: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment? AMY CONEY BARRETT: Speech, religion, press, assembly. Speech, press, religion, assembly, I don’t know, what am I missing? SASSE: Redress, or protest. BARRETT: OK.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--Trump begs Pennsylvania women to like him as Biden's winning them by 30 points

Trump has been begging suburban women in Pennsylvania to vote for him , but polls are showing they have no plans to do so .
At his Johnstown , Pennsylvania , campaign rally on Tuesday , Trump went on a bizarre rant about someone who told him suburban women do not like him because of how he talks .
`` I 'm about law and order .
I 'm about having you safe .
I 'm about having your suburban communities .
I do n't want to build low-income housing next to your house , OK , '' he bragged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do me a favor ?
Suburban women , will you please like me , please , please ?
I saved your damn neighborhood , OK ? ''
he continued .
`` The other thing , I do n't have that much time to be that nice .
You know , I can do it , but I got ta go quickly .
We do n't have that much time . ''
Trump predicted his request would work : `` I think we 're gon na see that the women really like Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last time , remember ?
Remember last four years ago ?
Four years ago , they said women will never vote for him .
I said , Why , am I so bad ?
They said the women will never vote , then I got 52 % . ''
An exit poll in 2016 showed that Trump won 52 % of white women — he got just 41 % of the vote from women overall ) — but Trump has often made this dishonest claim , seemingly pretending nonwhite women do not exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Pennsylvania women this time around , and that is why he is trailing badly in the state .
FiveThirtyEight 's polling average indicates that he trails Joe Biden by more than 7 points overall in the important swing state .
But a closer look at recent polls shows that Trump 's doing much worse than that with women .
A Quinnipiac University poll from October gave Biden a 30-point lead among likely Pennsylvania women voters , 63 % to 33 % .
Another poll published in October by Monmouth University found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support Biden and just 35 % support Trump — a 26-point Biden edge.. A Washington Post/ABC News poll from late September found that , among Pennsylvania women voters , Biden had a 23-point advantage : 61 % to 38 % .
Several of the state 's women told CNN this week that they had voted for Trump in 2016 but were backing Biden this time around .
`` I think he 's a bully , '' one explained .
`` He represents everything that I do n't want my children to grow up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's botched handling of the coronavirus pandemic as `` the absolute last straw . ''
Asked about Trump 's claims that he is preserving suburban neighborhoods , another rolled her eyes .
`` It irritates me that he thinks that I and other people like me are stupid enough to believe that .
It 's insulting , '' she told the network .
A third noted that she had incorrectly believed Trump would take the job seriously .
`` I honestly thought that if elected , he would calm down , and act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case , '' she recalled .
`` But from the gate , it was n't .
He lied about his inauguration parade and the attendance right away . ''
Trump won Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes by less than 1 % in 2016 , with a margin of fewer than 45,000 votes .
Exit polls showed Democrat Hillary Clinton won the state 's women by 13 points , 55 % to 42 % .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Trump has been begging suburban women in Pennsylvania to vote for him, but polls are showing they have no plans to do so.
At his Johnstown, Pennsylvania, campaign rally on Tuesday, Trump went on a bizarre rant about someone who told him suburban women do not like him because of how he talks.
“I’m about law and order. I’m about having you safe. I’m about having your suburban communities. I don’t want to build low-income housing next to your house, OK,” he bragged.
“So can I ask you to do me a favor? Suburban women, will you please like me, please, please? I saved your damn neighborhood, OK?” he continued. “The other thing, I don’t have that much time to be that nice. You know, I can do it, but I gotta go quickly. We don’t have that much time.”
Trump predicted his request would work: “I think we’re gonna see that the women really like Trump a lot. That’s what happened last time, remember? Remember last four years ago? Four years ago, they said women will never vote for him. I said, Why, am I so bad? They said the women will never vote, then I got 52%.”
An exit poll in 2016 showed that Trump won 52% of white women — he got just 41% of the vote from women overall) — but Trump has often made this dishonest claim, seemingly pretending nonwhite women do not exist.
But Trump is struggling mightily among all Pennsylvania women this time around, and that is why he is trailing badly in the state. FiveThirtyEight’s polling average indicates that he trails Joe Biden by more than 7 points overall in the important swing state.
But a closer look at recent polls shows that Trump’s doing much worse than that with women.
A Quinnipiac University poll from October gave Biden a 30-point lead among likely Pennsylvania women voters, 63% to 33%.
Another poll published in October by Monmouth University found that 61% of women in the state support Biden and just 35% support Trump — a 26-point Biden edge..
A Washington Post/ABC News poll from late September found that, among Pennsylvania women voters, Biden had a 23-point advantage: 61% to 38%.
Several of the state’s women told CNN this week that they had voted for Trump in 2016 but were backing Biden this time around.
“I think he’s a bully,” one explained. “He represents everything that I don’t want my children to grow up to be.” She cited Trump’s botched handling of the coronavirus pandemic as “the absolute last straw.”
Asked about Trump’s claims that he is preserving suburban neighborhoods, another rolled her eyes.
“It irritates me that he thinks that I and other people like me are stupid enough to believe that. It’s insulting,” she told the network.
A third noted that she had incorrectly believed Trump would take the job seriously.
“I honestly thought that if elected, he would calm down, and act presidential. I really thought that was the case,” she recalled. “But from the gate, it wasn’t. He lied about his inauguration parade and the attendance right away.”
Trump won Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes by less than 1% in 2016, with a margin of fewer than 45,000 votes. Exit polls showed Democrat Hillary Clinton won the state’s women by 13 points, 55% to 42%.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--GOP's latest virus relief bill doesn't even protect essential workers

After months of failing to pass a second stimulus package , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Tuesday that Republicans would try to pass yet another piecemeal relief bill when the Senate reconvenes next week .
Republicans ' proposed $ 500 billion in aid is less than a quarter of what Democrats are seeking , and well under what Donald Trump has sought for coronavirus-related relief funds .
Republicans ' latest lowball offer will likely force Democrats to vote against a stimulus bill that falls more than a trillion dollars short of their estimates for what is needed to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winter .
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has said there is little risk of `` overdoing it '' when it comes to stimulus spending .
`` Too little support would lead to a weak recovery , creating unnecessary hardship for households and businesses , '' Powell said .
`` By contrast , the risks of overdoing it seem , for now , to be smaller .
Even if policy actions ultimately prove to be greater than needed , they will not go to waste . ''
Even the plan offered to House Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin came to $ 1.8 trillion — more than triple what McConnell ( R-KY ) is willing to offer .
Trump himself has clashed with McConnell over the increased stimulus spending , which could help improve Trump 's reelection chances .
As Trump put it on Tuesday : `` STIMULUS !
Go big or go home !
!
! ''
But Pelosi slammed Trump 's negotiations with Democrats over the stimulus funding in a statement to House Democrats on Tuesday .
`` A fly on the wall or wherever else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells me that the President only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up , '' Pelosi said in the statement .
`` The American people want us to have an agreement to protect lives , livelihoods and the life of our American Democracy .
Democrats are determined to do so ! ''
But since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's death last month , McConnell has been laser-focused on confirming Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , while declining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What Republicans have included in their most recent relief package is less important than what they 've left out of it .
The bill that House Democrats passed on Oct. 1 included $ 600 per week in unemployment benefits through February 2021 , along with another round of $ 1,200 stimulus checks , $ 436 billion for state and local governments , increased spending for Paycheck Protection Program loans , $ 25 billion for airline payroll spending , and more than $ 275 billion for education and child care .
By contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill would barely cover the state aid , let alone extended unemployment benefits or individual stimulus checks .
While McConnell has promised liability protections for employers in his latest bill , what is n't included are employment protections for the millions of essential workers struggling in hazardous conditions , or state governments struggling under the weight of economic decline .
During a debate on Monday , McConnell laughed at his Democratic challenger , Amy McGrath , when she pressed him on his own responsibility for the Senate 's lack of stimulus spending and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As stimulus talks drag on , the stage is set for one of the biggest dustups between Trump and a Republican Party grown increasingly weary of the president 's electoral outlook .
Unlike Trump , McConnell does n't seem to believe he has anything to gain from passing the life-saving stimulus bill .
`` What I hear from Sen. McConnell is once again take a little piece and be satisfied , '' Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) told reporters on Tuesday .
`` What I hear from president just the opposite .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agree ?
Would n't that be a breakthrough ? ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

After months of failing to pass a second stimulus package, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Tuesday that Republicans would try to pass yet another piecemeal relief bill when the Senate reconvenes next week.
Republicans’ proposed $500 billion in aid is less than a quarter of what Democrats are seeking, and well under what Donald Trump has sought for coronavirus-related relief funds.
Republicans’ latest lowball offer will likely force Democrats to vote against a stimulus bill that falls more than a trillion dollars short of their estimates for what is needed to help millions of Americans get through a long winter.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has said there is little risk of “overdoing it” when it comes to stimulus spending.
“Too little support would lead to a weak recovery, creating unnecessary hardship for households and businesses,” Powell said. “By contrast, the risks of overdoing it seem, for now, to be smaller. Even if policy actions ultimately prove to be greater than needed, they will not go to waste.”
Even the plan offered to House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin came to $1.8 trillion — more than triple what McConnell (R-KY) is willing to offer.
Trump himself has clashed with McConnell over the increased stimulus spending, which could help improve Trump’s reelection chances. As Trump put it on Tuesday: “STIMULUS! Go big or go home!!!”
But Pelosi slammed Trump’s negotiations with Democrats over the stimulus funding in a statement to House Democrats on Tuesday.
“A fly on the wall or wherever else it might land in the Oval Office tells me that the President only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up,” Pelosi said in the statement. “The American people want us to have an agreement to protect lives, livelihoods and the life of our American Democracy. Democrats are determined to do so!”
But since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death last month, McConnell has been laser-focused on confirming Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, while declining to deliver aid to his struggling constituents.
What Republicans have included in their most recent relief package is less important than what they’ve left out of it.
The bill that House Democrats passed on Oct. 1 included $600 per week in unemployment benefits through February 2021, along with another round of $1,200 stimulus checks, $436 billion for state and local governments, increased spending for Paycheck Protection Program loans, $25 billion for airline payroll spending, and more than $275 billion for education and child care.
By contrast, Senate Republicans’ version of the bill would barely cover the state aid, let alone extended unemployment benefits or individual stimulus checks. While McConnell has promised liability protections for employers in his latest bill, what isn’t included are employment protections for the millions of essential workers struggling in hazardous conditions, or state governments struggling under the weight of economic decline.
During a debate on Monday, McConnell laughed at his Democratic challenger, Amy McGrath, when she pressed him on his own responsibility for the Senate’s lack of stimulus spending and the unchecked spread of the coronavirus.
As stimulus talks drag on, the stage is set for one of the biggest dustups between Trump and a Republican Party grown increasingly weary of the president’s electoral outlook. Unlike Trump, McConnell doesn’t seem to believe he has anything to gain from passing the life-saving stimulus bill.
“What I hear from Sen. McConnell is once again take a little piece and be satisfied,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters on Tuesday. “What I hear from president just the opposite. Can the two have them sit down and agree? Wouldn’t that be a breakthrough?”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett says your right to birth control is safe. She's wrong.

On Wednesday , the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings , Judge Amy Coney Barrett continued to bob and weave , dodging questions about voting rights and whether Medicare is constitutional .
But her refusal to address a decades-old case may have been the most alarming , highlighting that birth control , not just abortion , is at risk if she joins the court .
Barrett was asked by Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) whether she would agree that Griswold v. Connecticut was correctly decided .
The Griswold Court held it was unconstitutional for Connecticut to ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It did so by finding that the Constitution , though it does not directly mention a right to privacy , protects privacy via reading several amendments together .
Eight years later , the right to privacy established in Griswold became one of the foundations of Roe v. Wade .
Roe found a constitutional right to abortion in part because there 's a fundamental right to marital , familial , and sexual privacy .
The fact Griswold leads to Roe is likely why Barrett refused to answer Coons .
Instead , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would pass such a law '' banning the use of contraception .
She went on to say that she `` could n't opine on '' Griswold because it `` does lie at the foundation of that line of precedent , '' leading to the decision in Roe .
After Coons , Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Nebraska picked up the thread , asking Barrett if she was aware of any case challenging the constitutionality of Griswold in the last several decades .
Barrett indicated she was not .
Hawley 's questioning , likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is incoherent about Barrett 's response .
Hawley appeared to be trying to help bolster the notion that no one is litigating over Griswold , and these concerns are misplaced .
However , that line of questioning undercuts Barrett 's answer to Coons , which is that she ca n't answer questions about Griswold because it forms the basis of a live controversy in abortion cases .
They ca n't have it both ways .
Further , Hawley and Barrett are both wrong that there have n't been attempts to criminalize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ohio , fully one-fifth of the Statehouse lined up behind a bill that would have banned `` drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum . ''
Jaime Miracle , the deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio , pointed out that definition would include birth control pills and IUDs , which arguably can stop a fertilized egg from implanting .
Similarly , in 2019 , researchers at progressive group One Wisconsin Now learned that two dozen of that state 's legislators had endorsed the aims of Pro Life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraception other than `` natural family planning , '' one of the least effective methods according to research .
In 2011 , Mississippi put a `` personhood '' amendment before voters , seeking to define a `` person '' as `` every human being from the moment of fertilization , cloning , or the functional equivalent thereof . ''
A spokesperson for one of the groups pushing the bill , Personhood USA , said that `` any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would include the birth control pill .
And in 2017 , Kristan Hawkins , the president of anti-choice group Students for Life , told MSNBC 's Joy Reid she thinks birth control pills and IUDs should be illegal .
It 's demonstrably false that conservative anti-abortion groups and legislators have n't made moves to ban birth control .
Moreover , there 's no need to speculate as to whether Barnett agrees with the `` personhood '' idea .
In 2006 , she publicly supported St. Joseph County Right to Life , which believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Notre Dame students leaving for the March for Life in 2013 , Notre Dame magazine wrote about Barrett speaking to them about `` her own conviction that life begins at conception . ''
In 2015 , she signed an open letter talking about `` the value of human life from conception to natural death . ''
Barrett 's also spoken at events sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom , a group that believes that allowing doctors to talk about birth control options to patients is the same as `` bullying women into not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's views have also filed lawsuit after lawsuit seeking to limit birth control access .
This past summer , the Trump administration prevailed at the Supreme Court when it upheld a regulation allowing employers with any moral or religious objections to opt out of Obamacare 's requirement that they provide birth control coverage .
Conservatives are smart to be cagey about their goal of outlawing birth control — because it 's is wildly popular .
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that , from 2015 to 2017 , almost 65 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use birth control .
And over 99 % of all women aged 15-44 who 've had sex report using at least one method of contraception .
If Barrett is confirmed , she 'll join Justice Brett Kavanaugh , who is on record saying that birth control and emergency contraception are `` abortion-inducing drugs . ''
The views of both Barrett and Kavanaugh are far outside the mainstream , but that does n't matter .
Conservatives have engaged in a decadeslong crusade to demonize birth control by saying it is the same as abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that crusade .
Couple that with her refusal to state that Griswold was rightly decided , and it 's clear that birth control , not just abortion , is at stake .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On Wednesday, the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett continued to bob and weave, dodging questions about voting rights and whether Medicare is constitutional. But her refusal to address a decades-old case may have been the most alarming, highlighting that birth control, not just abortion, is at risk if she joins the court.
Barrett was asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) whether she would agree that Griswold v. Connecticut was correctly decided. The Griswold Court held it was unconstitutional for Connecticut to ban the use of contraception by married couples. It did so by finding that the Constitution, though it does not directly mention a right to privacy, protects privacy via reading several amendments together.
Eight years later, the right to privacy established in Griswold became one of the foundations of Roe v. Wade. Roe found a constitutional right to abortion in part because there’s a fundamental right to marital, familial, and sexual privacy.
The fact Griswold leads to Roe is likely why Barrett refused to answer Coons. Instead, she said it was “unthinkable that any legislature would pass such a law” banning the use of contraception.
She went on to say that she “couldn’t opine on” Griswold because it “does lie at the foundation of that line of precedent,” leading to the decision in Roe.
After Coons, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Nebraska picked up the thread, asking Barrett if she was aware of any case challenging the constitutionality of Griswold in the last several decades. Barrett indicated she was not.
Hawley’s questioning, likely accidentally, got at the heart of what is incoherent about Barrett’s response. Hawley appeared to be trying to help bolster the notion that no one is litigating over Griswold, and these concerns are misplaced. However, that line of questioning undercuts Barrett’s answer to Coons, which is that she can’t answer questions about Griswold because it forms the basis of a live controversy in abortion cases.
They can’t have it both ways.
Further, Hawley and Barrett are both wrong that there haven’t been attempts to criminalize the use of birth control. In 2019 in Ohio, fully one-fifth of the Statehouse lined up behind a bill that would have banned “drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”
Jaime Miracle, the deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, pointed out that definition would include birth control pills and IUDs, which arguably can stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
Similarly, in 2019, researchers at progressive group One Wisconsin Now learned that two dozen of that state’s legislators had endorsed the aims of Pro Life Wisconsin, which opposes all forms of contraception other than “natural family planning,” one of the least effective methods according to research.
In 2011, Mississippi put a “personhood” amendment before voters, seeking to define a “person” as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”
A spokesperson for one of the groups pushing the bill, Personhood USA, said that “any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure” and went on to agree that would include the birth control pill. And in 2017, Kristan Hawkins, the president of anti-choice group Students for Life, told MSNBC’s Joy Reid she thinks birth control pills and IUDs should be illegal.
It’s demonstrably false that conservative anti-abortion groups and legislators haven’t made moves to ban birth control. Moreover, there’s no need to speculate as to whether Barnett agrees with the “personhood” idea.
In 2006, she publicly supported St. Joseph County Right to Life, which believes life begins at fertilization. Prior to Notre Dame students leaving for the March for Life in 2013, Notre Dame magazine wrote about Barrett speaking to them about “her own conviction that life begins at conception.” In 2015, she signed an open letter talking about “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”
Barrett’s also spoken at events sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that believes that allowing doctors to talk about birth control options to patients is the same as “bullying women into not reproducing.”
Conservatives who share Barrett’s views have also filed lawsuit after lawsuit seeking to limit birth control access. This past summer, the Trump administration prevailed at the Supreme Court when it upheld a regulation allowing employers with any moral or religious objections to opt out of Obamacare’s requirement that they provide birth control coverage.
Conservatives are smart to be cagey about their goal of outlawing birth control — because it’s is wildly popular. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that, from 2015 to 2017, almost 65% of all women of reproductive age use birth control. And over 99% of all women aged 15-44 who’ve had sex report using at least one method of contraception.
If Barrett is confirmed, she’ll join Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is on record saying that birth control and emergency contraception are “abortion-inducing drugs.”
The views of both Barrett and Kavanaugh are far outside the mainstream, but that doesn’t matter. Conservatives have engaged in a decadeslong crusade to demonize birth control by saying it is the same as abortion. Barrett has been a part of that crusade. Couple that with her refusal to state that Griswold was rightly decided, and it’s clear that birth control, not just abortion, is at stake.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-15--Ted Cruz continues his bold crusade against masks

Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) on Thursday refused a reporter 's request that he wear a mask during a break on the final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's Senate confirmation hearing .
Cruz had participated virtually in the hearing on Monday due to recent exposure to several senators who 'd tested positive for coronavirus , but returned in person Tuesday .
Video footage showed Cruz removing his mask Thursday as he and Sen. Lindsay Graham ( R-SC ) walked toward the reporter pool .
Asked by a CNN reporter if he would put his mask back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no . ''
He said that he was `` standing six feet apart '' and claimed that 's what the `` CDC guideline is . ''
Graham , for his part , kept his mask on .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in fact recommends that individuals both socially distance and wear masks , particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation .
Cruz 's track record of respect for CDC guidelines on mask-wearing is shaky at best .
In September , when Donald Trump contradicted CDC Director Robert Redfield on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confused '' and saying he had `` misunderstood '' the effects of wearing masks , Cruz chalked the controversy up to political posturing .
Cruz said he could not control what Trump does or does not say , but that `` 47 days out from a presidential election ... every word that everyone utters is viewed through the political lens '' and `` used by his political enemies to attack him . ''
He added that Trump 's response to the crisis had been `` extraordinary . ''
Cruz 's aversion to mask-wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In July , a photo of the Texas senator went viral when he was snapped without a mask on an American Airlines flight , prompting an investigation into the matter by the airline , which requires all passengers to wear face coverings unless eating or drinking .
Soon after , Cruz did an interview with Dana Loesch , former National Rifle Association spokesperson , in which he complained that it was a `` Democratic political operative '' that photographed him .
`` Goodness gracious , he does n't have a mask !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ He claimed he was wearing a mask for the entire rest of the flight and had simply removed it to have a cup of coffee .
`` It 's awfully hard to get coffee in your mouth while wearing a mask , '' he said .
He went on to complain that everything has `` become so politicized . ''
Cruz said he employed common sense and wore a mask sometimes , if he `` go ( es ) out to a grocery store or something , '' but that he does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political statement . ''
`` You see people on the left , where wearing a mask is this 'virtue signal , '' Cruz added .
He then openly mocked a colleague for wearing a mask while giving a speech on the Senate floor .
Asked by Loesch to weigh in on Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott 's mask mandate , newly imposed at the time , Cruz said he `` tried to hold back '' from `` throwing rocks at the governor , '' but that he was opposed to the mask mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisting another lockdown , '' however .
Cruz , like many other senators , was recently exposed to COVID-19 during an outbreak at the White House and on Capitol Hill .
He self-quarantined due to close contact with Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) , who had tested positive .
Having just emerged from quarantine , Cruz 's response to reporters at the Barrett hearing was startling .
His anti-science posturing is far from isolated among GOP figures , however .
Sen. Lee as well as North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in person at the Barrett hearing and spoke without masks .
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows also refused to speak to reporters Monday if he was required to wear a mask .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Thursday refused a reporter’s request that he wear a mask during a break on the final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing.
Cruz had participated virtually in the hearing on Monday due to recent exposure to several senators who’d tested positive for coronavirus, but returned in person Tuesday.
Video footage showed Cruz removing his mask Thursday as he and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) walked toward the reporter pool. Asked by a CNN reporter if he would put his mask back on, Cruz flatly told the reporter “no.”
He said that he was “standing six feet apart” and claimed that’s what the “CDC guideline is.”
Graham, for his part, kept his mask on.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in fact recommends that individuals both socially distance and wear masks, particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation.
Cruz’s track record of respect for CDC guidelines on mask-wearing is shaky at best.
In September, when Donald Trump contradicted CDC Director Robert Redfield on the efficacy of masks, calling Redfield “confused” and saying he had “misunderstood” the effects of wearing masks, Cruz chalked the controversy up to political posturing.
Cruz said he could not control what Trump does or does not say, but that “47 days out from a presidential election … every word that everyone utters is viewed through the political lens” and “used by his political enemies to attack him.”
He added that Trump’s response to the crisis had been “extraordinary.”
Cruz’s aversion to mask-wearing goes back much earlier in the pandemic.
In July, a photo of the Texas senator went viral when he was snapped without a mask on an American Airlines flight, prompting an investigation into the matter by the airline, which requires all passengers to wear face coverings unless eating or drinking.
Soon after, Cruz did an interview with Dana Loesch, former National Rifle Association spokesperson, in which he complained that it was a “Democratic political operative” that photographed him.
“Goodness gracious, he doesn’t have a mask!” Cruz mocked the original photographer.
He claimed he was wearing a mask for the entire rest of the flight and had simply removed it to have a cup of coffee.
“It’s awfully hard to get coffee in your mouth while wearing a mask,” he said.
He went on to complain that everything has “become so politicized.” Cruz said he employed common sense and wore a mask sometimes, if he “go(es) out to a grocery store or something,” but that he doesn’t “understand why it’s such a political statement.”
“You see people on the left, where wearing a mask is this ‘virtue signal,” Cruz added.
He then openly mocked a colleague for wearing a mask while giving a speech on the Senate floor.
Asked by Loesch to weigh in on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s mask mandate, newly imposed at the time, Cruz said he “tried to hold back” from “throwing rocks at the governor,” but that he was opposed to the mask mandate.
He did praise Abbott for “resisting another lockdown,” however.
Cruz, like many other senators, was recently exposed to COVID-19 during an outbreak at the White House and on Capitol Hill. He self-quarantined due to close contact with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who had tested positive.
Having just emerged from quarantine, Cruz’s response to reporters at the Barrett hearing was startling.
His anti-science posturing is far from isolated among GOP figures, however. Sen. Lee as well as North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who both recently tested positive, also appeared in person at the Barrett hearing and spoke without masks.
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows also refused to speak to reporters Monday if he was required to wear a mask.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-15--Things just got even worse for Sen. Joni Ernst's campaign

Democratic businesswoman Theresa Greenfield outraised Iowa 's incumbent Republican Sen. Joni Ernst by more than $ 21 million in the third quarter of 2020 .
Greenfield 's record $ 28.7 million haul was about four times Ernst 's $ 7.2 million total , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
In 2014 , Ernst defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley for the seat left open by the retirement of Sen. Tom Harkin by a margin of 52 % to 44 % .
In that entire race , the candidates ' combined donations totaled $ 24 million .
Prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14.4 million and Greenfield $ 11.6 million .
But with the third-quarter numbers added , Greenfield now has nearly doubled Ernst 's fundraising totals .
Greenfield 's new money lead has corresponded with her polling advantage .
Since the beginning of August , Greenfield has been ahead of Ernst in every major Iowa poll , according to RealClear Politics , and has a 4.8 point average lead .
Ernst 's poll numbers in the swing state are even worse than those of Donald Trump , who is running behind Democratic presidential nominee Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa .
Trump won the state and its six electoral votes by nearly 10 points in 2016 , but has struggled this time around .
On Wednesday , Trump admitted during a campaign rally in Des Moines , citing different polling numbers : `` For me , to only be up six , I 'm a little bit concerned .
I 'll tell you that because nobody is going to do for Iowa or what I did for Iowa . ''
He added : `` I may never have to come back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa .
I 'll never be back . ''
It is unclear why Ernst is even less popular in Iowa than Trump : According to FiveThirtyEight , she has voted with him more than 91 % of the time , including votes in favor of his Supreme Court nominees , his tax cuts for the rich and corporations , his proposed Obamacare repeal , and his siphoning of funds intended for military families to pay for his southern border wall .
In recent weeks , Ernst has come under fire for lying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preexisting health conditions and for breaking her promise never to ram through a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Democratic businesswoman Theresa Greenfield outraised Iowa’s incumbent Republican Sen. Joni Ernst by more than $21 million in the third quarter of 2020. Greenfield’s record $28.7 million haul was about four times Ernst’s $7.2 million total, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In 2014, Ernst defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley for the seat left open by the retirement of Sen. Tom Harkin by a margin of 52% to 44%. In that entire race, the candidates’ combined donations totaled $24 million.
Prior to June 30, Ernst had raised $14.4 million and Greenfield $11.6 million. But with the third-quarter numbers added, Greenfield now has nearly doubled Ernst’s fundraising totals.
Greenfield’s new money lead has corresponded with her polling advantage.
Since the beginning of August, Greenfield has been ahead of Ernst in every major Iowa poll, according to RealClear Politics, and has a 4.8 point average lead.
Ernst’s poll numbers in the swing state are even worse than those of Donald Trump, who is running behind Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by an average of 1.2% in Iowa. Trump won the state and its six electoral votes by nearly 10 points in 2016, but has struggled this time around.
On Wednesday, Trump admitted during a campaign rally in Des Moines, citing different polling numbers: “For me, to only be up six, I’m a little bit concerned. I’ll tell you that because nobody is going to do for Iowa or what I did for Iowa.” He added: “I may never have to come back here again if I don’t get Iowa. I’ll never be back.”
It is unclear why Ernst is even less popular in Iowa than Trump: According to FiveThirtyEight, she has voted with him more than 91% of the time, including votes in favor of his Supreme Court nominees, his tax cuts for the rich and corporations, his proposed Obamacare repeal, and his siphoning of funds intended for military families to pay for his southern border wall.
In recent weeks, Ernst has come under fire for lying about her record on protecting insurance coverage for preexisting health conditions and for breaking her promise never to ram through a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-15--Here's what Amy Coney Barrett hid from the Senate

Senate Democrats are attempting to delay a floor vote on Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's Supreme Court confirmation in light of more significant disclosures she failed to make to the Senate Judiciary Committee .
CNN reported Wednesday that Barrett failed to disclose at least seven public talks she gave between 2004 and 2013 .
These events were listed on the University of Notre Dame 's public calendars .
According to CNN , her speaking engagements included a talk to the law-school 's anti-abortion organization , a Notre Dame Women 's Legal forum event , and a roundtable conversation about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel on religion in the public sphere .
The Senate Judiciary Committee requires nominees to disclose all public talks given throughout the course of the nominee 's career .
Despite questions raised by the undisclosed documents , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee , has set a hasty floor vote on Barrett 's confirmation for Oct. 22 .
But Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) moved to delay proceedings Thursday , citing a `` rushed process '' that resulted in `` inadequate scrutiny '' given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay these proceedings so that we can do our job and ask , again , for all the documents , '' he said .
The public talks were n't Barrett 's only troubling nondisclosure , however .
Last week , it surfaced that Barrett failed to include in her paperwork two other talks given in 2013 to anti-abortion student groups , one for Notre Dame 's Right to Life club and one for the law school 's Jus Vitae club .
Barrett also failed to disclose to the committee that in 2006 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was part of a two-page spread in a local newspaper .
The ad opposed `` abortion on demand '' and called for an end to the `` barbaric legacy '' of Roe v. Wade .
It was published on the anniversary of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case legalizing abortion .
She also did not share with the committee a second letter signed in 2013 when she was a Faculty for Life member at Notre Dame .
The letter stated her `` full support '' for the university 's `` commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defended her nondisclosures during the course of the hearing , noting that she `` produced 1,800 pages of material '' and that `` all six prior nominees '' also had to supplement with additional documents .
`` Thirty years is a lot to remember , '' she said .
Barrett also refused to answer nearly 100 questions during her confirmation hearing , predominantly those posed by Democratic senators .
With less than three years sitting on the bench of the Seventh Circuit , her brief judicial record has gaps that make it difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisprudence .
Ultimately , with the nomination being rammed through with such haste by the GOP , Barrett 's lack of transparency raises questions since there 's no time to examine all the unknown variables .
Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-VT ) said it 's unsettling how many undisclosed materials from Barrett keep trickling in .
`` I 'm not suggesting that Judge Barrett intentionally failed to disclose all these records in the committee , '' Leahy said .
`` But normally we have enough time to then go back and find ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He added that it was undoubtedly the `` mad rush '' to confirm her that has `` bogged ... up '' the situation .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Senate Democrats are attempting to delay a floor vote on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation in light of more significant disclosures she failed to make to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
CNN reported Wednesday that Barrett failed to disclose at least seven public talks she gave between 2004 and 2013. These events were listed on the University of Notre Dame’s public calendars.
According to CNN, her speaking engagements included a talk to the law-school’s anti-abortion organization, a Notre Dame Women’s Legal forum event, and a roundtable conversation about the Constitution. She also participated in a panel on religion in the public sphere.
The Senate Judiciary Committee requires nominees to disclose all public talks given throughout the course of the nominee’s career.
Despite questions raised by the undisclosed documents, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has set a hasty floor vote on Barrett’s confirmation for Oct. 22.
But Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) moved to delay proceedings Thursday, citing a “rushed process” that resulted in “inadequate scrutiny” given to the nominee.
“I move to delay these proceedings so that we can do our job and ask, again, for all the documents,” he said.
The public talks weren’t Barrett’s only troubling nondisclosure, however.
Last week, it surfaced that Barrett failed to include in her paperwork two other talks given in 2013 to anti-abortion student groups, one for Notre Dame’s Right to Life club and one for the law school’s Jus Vitae club.
Barrett also failed to disclose to the committee that in 2006, she signed her name to a letter that was part of a two-page spread in a local newspaper.
The ad opposed “abortion on demand” and called for an end to the “barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade. It was published on the anniversary of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case legalizing abortion.
She also did not share with the committee a second letter signed in 2013 when she was a Faculty for Life member at Notre Dame. The letter stated her “full support” for the university’s “commitment to the right for life.”
Barrett defended her nondisclosures during the course of the hearing, noting that she “produced 1,800 pages of material” and that “all six prior nominees” also had to supplement with additional documents.
“Thirty years is a lot to remember,” she said.
Barrett also refused to answer nearly 100 questions during her confirmation hearing, predominantly those posed by Democratic senators.
With less than three years sitting on the bench of the Seventh Circuit, her brief judicial record has gaps that make it difficult to form an accurate picture of her jurisprudence.
Ultimately, with the nomination being rammed through with such haste by the GOP, Barrett’s lack of transparency raises questions since there’s no time to examine all the unknown variables.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said it’s unsettling how many undisclosed materials from Barrett keep trickling in.
“I’m not suggesting that Judge Barrett intentionally failed to disclose all these records in the committee,” Leahy said. “But normally we have enough time to then go back and find ones that they did fail to.”
He added that it was undoubtedly the “mad rush” to confirm her that has “bogged … up” the situation.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-15--Republicans suddenly have plenty of free time to throw tantrums about Twitter

Republican Sens .
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , Ted Cruz of Texas , and Josh Hawley of Missouri are up in arms over Twitter 's move to ban its users from sharing a New York Post story about Joe Biden 's son , Hunter — a piece that upon further review has completely fallen apart .
On Thursday , the trio threatened to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to make him explain the decision to block links to the article , which analysts say looks like laundered Russian propaganda to try to influence the election .
They said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all three are members , will vote on Tuesday on whether to subpoena Dorsey , and that Twitter 's actions constitute censorship .
`` This is election interference , and we are 19 days out from an election , '' Cruz said on Thursday .
`` Never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption of one of the two candidates for president . ''
Twitter has already explained its actions , saying the article violates the platform 's policy on spreading hacked materials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established in 2018 , prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization , '' Twitter said in a statement .
`` We do n't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials . ''
But the fact that the GOP lawmakers already teed up a subpoena vote one day after the Post story broke shows just how quickly they can spring into action on something they care about — in this case , the effort to stop Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformation on social media .
Meanwhile , the Republican-controlled Senate has refused to take up coronavirus relief legislation passed by the House months ago that would provide financial assistance to the more than 12 million Americans currently out of work .
Amid the continuing coronavirus economic downturn , 8 million people have fallen into poverty , with the economic recovery now appearing to stall .
The House passed a relief bill on May 15 that would have authorized a new round of direct $ 1,200 payments to many Americans and extend an added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the year .
Republicans refused to take up the bill .
House Democrats passed another virus relief bill earlier this month that also extended the $ 600 weekly payments and authorized another round of $ 1,200 payments , but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has ruled out a vote on the bill .
In fact , McConnell has sat on some 400 bills the House has passed since the Democratic House majority was sworn in in January 2019 .
The priorities of the Senate GOP are posing political problems for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peril of losing their Senate majority , with polls showing voters want the chamber to prioritize coronavirus relief .
Instead , it is working to subpoena tech CEOs for blocking fake news and ramming through Trump 's nominee to the Supreme Court with unprecedented speed ahead of the Nov. 3 election .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Josh Hawley of Missouri are up in arms over Twitter’s move to ban its users from sharing a New York Post story about Joe Biden’s son, Hunter — a piece that upon further review has completely fallen apart.
On Thursday, the trio threatened to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to make him explain the decision to block links to the article, which analysts say looks like laundered Russian propaganda to try to influence the election. They said that the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which all three are members, will vote on Tuesday on whether to subpoena Dorsey, and that Twitter’s actions constitute censorship.
“This is election interference, and we are 19 days out from an election,” Cruz said on Thursday. “Never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption of one of the two candidates for president.”
Twitter has already explained its actions, saying the article violates the platform’s policy on spreading hacked materials and personal information. “The policy, established in 2018, prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization,” Twitter said in a statement. “We don’t want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials.”
But the fact that the GOP lawmakers already teed up a subpoena vote one day after the Post story broke shows just how quickly they can spring into action on something they care about — in this case, the effort to stop Donald Trump and his allies from spreading Russian propaganda and misinformation on social media.
Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Senate has refused to take up coronavirus relief legislation passed by the House months ago that would provide financial assistance to the more than 12 million Americans currently out of work. Amid the continuing coronavirus economic downturn, 8 million people have fallen into poverty, with the economic recovery now appearing to stall.
The House passed a relief bill on May 15 that would have authorized a new round of direct $1,200 payments to many Americans and extend an added $600 weekly unemployment insurance payment through the end of the year. Republicans refused to take up the bill.
House Democrats passed another virus relief bill earlier this month that also extended the $600 weekly payments and authorized another round of $1,200 payments, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has ruled out a vote on the bill.
In fact, McConnell has sat on some 400 bills the House has passed since the Democratic House majority was sworn in in January 2019.
The priorities of the Senate GOP are posing political problems for the party.
Republicans are in serious peril of losing their Senate majority, with polls showing voters want the chamber to prioritize coronavirus relief.
Instead, it is working to subpoena tech CEOs for blocking fake news and ramming through Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court with unprecedented speed ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer Senate questions 95 times

Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's nomination to the Supreme Court , Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee .
In declining , she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993 : `` A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts , no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case , it would display disdain for the entire judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few of the most noteworthy .
The Judiciary Committee 's ranking Democrat , Dianne Feinstein ( CA ) , asked Barrett on the first day whether she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia 's opinion that Roe v. Wade , the landmark case establishing a constitutional right to abortion , was wrongly decided .
`` I think on that question , I 'm going to invoke Justice Kagan 's description , which I think is perfectly put , '' Barrett said .
`` When she was in her confirmation hearing , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down . ''
Barrett added , `` It would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge . ''
Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) and Sen. Mazie Hirono ( HI ) also asked Barrett about Roe and received similar evasive responses .
Feinstein asked Barrett another hot-button issue : `` Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : `` Well , Senator , if that question ever came before me , I would need to hear arguments from the litigants , and read briefs , and consult with my law clerks , and talk to my colleagues , and go through the opinion writing process . ''
Does the Constitution give LGBTQ individuals the right to marry ?
Feinstein and Sens .
Patrick Leahy ( D-VT ) , Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) , and Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) questioned Barrett about the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality as the law of the land .
In every single instance , Barrett refused to answer , telling Leahy : `` I 'm not going to , as Justice Kagan put it , give a thumbs up or thumbs down to any particular precedent , '' Barrett said .
`` It 's precedent of the Supreme Court that gives same-sex couples the right to marry . ''
Asked by Blumenthal about the constitutionality of Lawrence v. Texas , which held that the government can not criminalize same-sex relationships , Barrett said she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her response to Booker 's question on whether businesses could legally deny services to same-sex couples .
Will you overturn the Affordable Care Act ?
Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) , referring to the Affordable Care Act as `` essential to upholding the law '' and protecting the health care of `` a majority of Americans , '' asked Barrett to weigh in on the Supreme Court 's decision upholding Obamacare .
`` So just if you could , do you think the Chief Justice 's ruling upholding the ACA was implausible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett said while she had expressed her opinions on the statutory interpretation , the question of constitutionality was not something she could opine on .
Barrett told several senators that she had no `` hostility '' or `` animus '' towards the ACA , and was unclear as to whether she was aware , when nominated , of Donald Trump 's statements that he intended to appoint a judge who would repeal Obamacare .
Barrett also declined to say whether she though Medicare was unconstitutional .
Do American citizens have the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-IL ) as to whether a president could `` unilaterally '' deny the right to vote to any individual based on race or gender , Barrett had no response to offer .
`` I really ca n't say anything more than I 'm not going to answer hypotheticals , '' Barrett said .
She also refused to answer when Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) asked whether she agreed with Ginsburg that the Constitution empowers Congress to protect the right to vote , nor did she respond to questions about gerrymandering and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express a view on that , as I 've said , because it would be inconsistent with the judicial role , '' Barrett answered .
Coons pressed Barrett on whether she thought that Griswold v. Connecticut , which legalized the use of contraception , was wrongly decided and that states should be able to make the use of contraceptives .
`` As I 've said a number of times , I ca n't express a view , yes or no , A+ or F , '' Barrett said .
She did allow that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger of going anywhere . ''
Is separating children from their parents wrong ?
Booker asked Barrett if she felt it was wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from entering the United States .
`` That 's been a matter of policy debate , '' Barrett said .
`` And obviously , that 's a matter of hot political debate in which I ca n't express a view or be drawn into as a judge . ''
But , Booker asked , does Barrett believe `` as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
`` I think you 're trying to engage me on the administration 's border separation policies , and I ca n't express a view on that , '' Barrett said .
Asked by Sen. John Kennedy ( R-LA ) if she had `` opinions '' on climate change , Barrett hesitated .
`` I 'm certainly not a scientist , '' she said .
`` I 've read things about climate change .
I would not say that I have firm opinions on it . ''
Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate change .
`` Do you believe that climate change is happening and it 's threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink ? ''
asked Harris .
`` I will not express a view on a matter of public policy , especially one that is controversial , '' Barrett said .
Harris thanked Barrett , saying the nominee had made her position quite clear .

Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.
In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
Here are just a few of the most noteworthy.
Was Roe v. Wade wrongly decided?
The Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein (CA), asked Barrett on the first day whether she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion that Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a constitutional right to abortion, was wrongly decided.
“I think on that question, I’m going to invoke Justice Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put,” Barrett said. “When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.”
Barrett added, “It would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI) also asked Barrett about Roe and received similar evasive responses.
Can a sitting president delay an election?
Feinstein asked Barrett another hot-button issue: “Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?”
In refusing to answer, Barrett said: “Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants, and read briefs, and consult with my law clerks, and talk to my colleagues, and go through the opinion writing process.”
Does the Constitution give LGBTQ individuals the right to marry?
Feinstein and Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) questioned Barrett about the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case establishing marriage equality as the law of the land.
In every single instance, Barrett refused to answer, telling Leahy: “I’m not going to, as Justice Kagan put it, give a thumbs up or thumbs down to any particular precedent,” Barrett said. “It’s precedent of the Supreme Court that gives same-sex couples the right to marry.”
Asked by Blumenthal about the constitutionality of Lawrence v. Texas, which held that the government cannot criminalize same-sex relationships, Barrett said she could not answer. That was also her response to Booker’s question on whether businesses could legally deny services to same-sex couples.
Will you overturn the Affordable Care Act?
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), referring to the Affordable Care Act as “essential to upholding the law” and protecting the health care of “a majority of Americans,” asked Barrett to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Obamacare.
“So just if you could, do you think the Chief Justice’s ruling upholding the ACA was implausible and unsound?” Coons asked.
Barrett said while she had expressed her opinions on the statutory interpretation, the question of constitutionality was not something she could opine on.
Barrett told several senators that she had no “hostility” or “animus” towards the ACA, and was unclear as to whether she was aware, when nominated, of Donald Trump’s statements that he intended to appoint a judge who would repeal Obamacare.
Barrett also declined to say whether she though Medicare was unconstitutional.
Do American citizens have the right to vote?
Questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) as to whether a president could “unilaterally” deny the right to vote to any individual based on race or gender, Barrett had no response to offer.
“I really can’t say anything more than I’m not going to answer hypotheticals,” Barrett said.
She also refused to answer when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked whether she agreed with Ginsburg that the Constitution empowers Congress to protect the right to vote, nor did she respond to questions about gerrymandering and voter intimidation.”I can’t express a view on that, as I’ve said, because it would be inconsistent with the judicial role,” Barrett answered.
Is contraception a constitutional right?
Coons pressed Barrett on whether she thought that Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized the use of contraception, was wrongly decided and that states should be able to make the use of contraceptives.
“As I’ve said a number of times, I can’t express a view, yes or no, A+ or F,” Barrett said. She did allow that she didn’t “think Griswold is in danger of going anywhere.”
Is separating children from their parents wrong?
Booker asked Barrett if she felt it was wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from entering the United States.
“That’s been a matter of policy debate,” Barrett said. “And obviously, that’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge.”
But, Booker asked, does Barrett believe “as a human” that the practice is wrong?
“I think you’re trying to engage me on the administration’s border separation policies, and I can’t express a view on that,” Barrett said.
Is climate change real?
Asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) if she had “opinions” on climate change, Barrett hesitated.
“I’m certainly not a scientist,” she said. “I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say that I have firm opinions on it.”
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) later pushed Barrett further on the issue of climate change.
“Do you believe that climate change is happening and it’s threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?” asked Harris.
“I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is controversial,” Barrett said.
Harris thanked Barrett, saying the nominee had made her position quite clear.