Can Amy Coney Barrett, a candidate for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court, forgive himself, adding that the U.S. Supreme Court is “out of control” whether the president will comply with that decision? He said it was an “unanswered question” about what to do.
On the third day of her four-day Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Barrett will also be an automatic vote to strike the Obamacare Medical Care Act in a case to be discussed on November 10. I tried to ease the fear of democracy. .. “
Judge Barrett avoided questions from senators about the president’s ability to avoid efforts to be accountable.
Mr. Trump said he had “absolute power” to forgive himself, who is part of his executive authority. “This question has never been filed,” said Judge Barrett, who was asked by Democratic senator Patrick Leahy if the president had such powers.
“The question may or may not occur, but it requires a legal analysis of what the scope of amnesty is. So I have a judicial process to determine it. It’s not something I can give an opinion on, because when it’s not gone, it will comment on open questions, “Judge Barrett added.
Mr. Trump faces a criminal investigation into himself and his business behavior by a New York City prosecutor seeking his financial records and tax returns. Mr. Trump also gave executive pardons to political alliance and friends.
Judge Barrett, a conservative federal appeal judge, is Republican President’s third choice for lifelong work in the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump asked the Senate, which is managed by his fellow Republicans, to confirm her before the US elections on November 3.
Judge Barrett said “no one is beyond the law,” but when Mr. Leehee asked her if the president, who refused to comply with court orders, was a threat to the US Constitution’s check and balance system. Refused to answer directly twice. government.
“The Supreme Court has no control over whether the president follows,” Judge Barrett said.
According to Judge Barrett, the Supreme Court’s ruling has “the power of law,” but the court lacks enforcement power and relies on other departments of government.
“The court can declare the law and make a judgment, but it lacks control over how the political sector responds,” Judge Barrett added.
Judge Barrett refused to discuss whether Mr. Trump violated the “compensation” clause of the US Constitution in his business transactions and opposed the characterization of Mr. Lee Hee’s anti-corruption provisions. The President of the Provisioning Bar prohibits receiving gifts or payments from foreign or state governments without the approval of Congress.
“I don’t know if this is considered an anti-corruption clause,” Judge Barrett added, adding that it was designed to “prevent foreign influence.”
Judge Barrett helps Mr. Trump and a Republican-led state challenge millions of Americans to get health insurance by challenging a 2010 law, officially called the Affordable Care Act (ACA). And-existing conditions.
If Judge Barrett can save the law in response to a democratic proposal to vote to strike the entire Affordable Care Act if some are found to be illegal, then doing so would be the judge’s. He said it was an obligation.
Judge Barrett said he favors broadly reading the “principle of separability” that the court envisions that if one provision of the law is illegal, Congress will leave the rest of the law in place. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken such an approach.
“I think it’s working together with the courts and Congress as long as it tries to do what Congress wants,” Judge Barrett said of the doctrine.
When the judge addressed the legal issues raised in the Obamacare case, the “estimation” was that Congress did not intend to disrupt the entire statute, Judge Barrett added.
“If I was in court and an ACA case came before me, I would open my heart and approach it,” Judge Barrett told Republican Senator John Cornyn.
Judge Barrett criticized the previous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Obamacare.
Right to abortion
Judge Barrett faced questions about controversial social issues, including abortion. Abortion is her personal opposition as a devout Catholic.
“This is a history made by people,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the panel.
“It’s the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is shy and professional and accepts her faith without apologizing, and she’ll go to court.”
Judge Barrett, 48, is the fifth woman to serve in court and will never overturn the groundbreaking 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion nationwide. He repeated Tuesday’s comment that it was not a “super precedent.” She said she had an “open mind” on whether to allow television coverage of the Supreme Court proceedings.
Judge Barrett’s confirmation will give the court a conservative majority of 6-3. The Republican Party makes up the majority of the 53-47 Senate, and her confirmation is virtually certain.
Democrats said the presidential election winner should be able to fill the court vacancy left by the death of liberal Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The four-day hearing ends Thursday with testimony from outside witnesses. Republicans are preparing for a committee vote next week and a final confirmation vote for the Senate by the end of October. Mr. Trump nominated Judge Barrett for a lifetime post in court on September 26.
Camera in court
But Judge Barrett said she At least one drastic change for the country’s highest judiciary-for the first time in 230 years of history you can put a camera in a room.
“I certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court.” Judge Barrett He said under a question by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who has long advocated such a step.
“Many of us believe that allowing cameras in court will open the court to the public and give us a better understanding of the judiciary,” Grasley said.
Proponents of court cameras argue that enabling transparency in the judicial process is an important step. Some US state and district courts allow cameras and live broadcasts of certain proceedings, but federal courts rarely.
Grasley has been promoting the introduction of cameras in the Supreme Court for at least 15 years and has introduced a law that allows video coverage of proceedings.
Neither video cameras nor still cameras are allowed by the Supreme Court. However, unlike precedent, the court allowed live audio of oral argument at the end of the most recent term and during the current term to hear the case in a coronavirus pandemic conference call.
At the hearing, Republican Senator Ben Sasse said: Barrett He opposes the camera in court. Because it leads to “theatre”.
“I think Michael Avenatti’s nonsense would be even greater if there was a camera in court,” Sasse said in a lawsuit against Trump, referring to a convicted lawyer on behalf of adult film actress Stormy Daniels. ..
Supreme Court candidates had previously expressed tolerance for the camera, but the sitting judge was opposed. They argue that allowing video coverage makes it difficult for discussions to take place effectively and encourages attorneys to play in front of them.