艾米·科尼·巴雷特被提名填补最高法院席位由...空着已故自由派偶像鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格大法官周四在没有民主党支持的情况下顺利通过了参议院司法委员会，为组建完整的参议院奠定了基础确认投票在时间线上还没有这么接近选举在美国历史上。
民主党委员会抵制了投票而是放置在海报大小的美国人的照片，他们说这些照片会被巴雷特法官伤害，巴雷特法官可能会投下决定性的一票，否决《平价医疗法案》及其对先前有疾病的人的强制覆盖。
最高法院将于11月10日听取18名共和党州检察长对奥巴马时代法律的挑战，特朗普政府已经加入了这场诉讼，民主党人试图在巴雷特上周的确认听证会上提出他们的中心问题。
“我们做到了，”主席林赛·格雷厄姆在投票后对他的共和党成员说。“巴雷特法官要发言了。我希望你回顾一下这个时候的委员会，然后说，‘重要的时候我在场。’你也是。"
“我们做到了。我们做到了。巴雷特法官要发言了。”
参议员林赛·格雷厄姆在参议院司法委员会一致投票提前提名艾米·科尼·巴雷特法官后发言。民主党抵制了投票。https://t.co/3ncDNXc5cw pic.twitter.com/quIW1bN7YP
——美国广播公司新闻政治(@美国广播公司政治)2020年10月22日
在随后不久举行的另一场抗议国会大厦台阶的新闻发布会上，民主党人为他们抵制他们所谓的“非法”投票的决定进行了辩护。
参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默(Chuck Schumer)表示:“民主党人不会为司法委员会的虚假投票提供任何合法性。”。“我们用脚投票。就在选举前几天，我们站在一起，反对这种前所未有的疯狂行为，这种行为阻碍了最高法院的提名。”
"我们抵制这次非法听证会!"pic.twitter.com/IGEuPmKmFb
—埃文·麦克默里(@evanmcmurry)2020年10月22日
尽管民主党人反对，参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔预计将在周日进行一次关键的程序性测试投票，最终确认投票预计在周一晚上进行。
民主党人一直在努力减缓提名速度，他们认为接替金斯伯格的人应该由赢得11月大选的人来选择，他们说这是参议院共和党人开创的先例，他们在2016年阻止了巴拉克·奥巴马总统的提名人进入法院。在选举日的八个月前，奥巴马任命梅里克·加兰法官接替已故的保守派明星法官安东宁·斯卡利亚，但麦康奈尔坚决拒绝考虑提名人，理由是离投票很近。麦康奈尔和参议院共和党人甚至不会会见加兰。
舒默周三在谈到麦康奈尔决定对巴雷特进行投票时表示:“你不可能设计出比这更虚伪的一系列情况。”“事实是，在最高法院提名的漫长历史中，共和党多数派正在实施最仓促、最具党派性、最不合法的程序。”
但共和党人辩称，共和党对参议院和白宫的控制使得巴雷特的提名程序与加兰的不同，这使得他们必须迅速采取行动。
通常，对于最高法院任命的人来说，从正式提名到参议院完全确认，参议院平均需要大约70天的时间。唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统的第一位提名人尼尔·戈鲁奇(Neil Gorsuch)在65天内得到确认。相比之下，巴雷特的提名——如果她像预期的那样在周一得到确认——将需要30天。
根据委员会的规定，民主党周四的抵制将使共和党领导的小组没有必要数量的成员到场投票，但格雷厄姆表示他将放弃这些规则并举行投票，不管是否有少数成员在场。
格雷厄姆已经承诺在10月22日对巴雷特进行投票数周了，预计民主党人的任何抗议都不会阻止他。这位南卡罗来纳州参议员在家乡面临着激烈的连任竞选，他在竞选中承诺“填补席位”。
在周四的会议上，格雷厄姆指责民主党在2013年修改了参议院规则，减少了确认总统候选人所需的参议员人数。
“我记得告诉舒默参议员，你会后悔的。今天他会后悔的，”格雷厄姆说。“他们开始这不是我。如果由我来决定，今天参议院将需要60票。”
麦康奈尔在2017年降低了最高法院提名者的投票门槛。
几周以来，自由派团体一直呼吁民主党人进行更多的抗议，推动立法者抵制听证会。但是参议院的规定很少给少数人留下拖延诉讼或投票的工具。
司法委员会的最高民主党人、加利福尼亚州参议员黛安娜·范斯坦周四为民主党人出席听证会的决定进行了辩护，民主党人反而将巴雷特描绘成对医疗保健、堕胎权、投票权、公民自由甚至民主本身的威胁。
范斯坦说:“上周，民主党人参加了提名听证会，因为我们想表明，如果艾米·科尼·巴雷特被证实，美国将面临什么样的风险。我们提出了负担得起的医疗风险的理由。”
87岁的范斯坦上周受到自由派团体的抨击，此前她称赞格雷厄姆主持了“我参加过的最好的听证会之一”，并拥抱了格雷厄姆。
愤怒的情绪促使舒默告诉记者，他已经与范斯坦进行了“长时间的严肃谈话”。
格雷厄姆在周四的投票中称对范斯坦的回应是“可耻的”。
格雷厄姆说:“仅仅赞同你不得不恨那些他们希望你恨的人的理由是不够的。”。
在听证会上，巴雷特回避了民主党人一再试图让她承诺回避与选举有关的问题，如果2020年选举的结果如特朗普所预测的那样由最高法院决定的话。
康涅狄格州参议员理查德·布卢门塔尔(Richard Blumenthal)在听证会上对巴雷特(Barrett)说:“让我直言不讳地说，你在任何涉及唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)当选的案件中的参与，都会立即对法院的合法性和你自己的可信度造成爆炸性的、持久的损害。”“你必须回避。”
巴雷特说，她会“考虑一下”，但暗示她可能仅仅因为总统提名她就为总统做出有利的裁决，但她拒绝了。
巴雷特说:“我当然希望委员会的所有成员对我的正直有更多的信心，而不是认为我会允许自己被用作决定美国人民选举的棋子。”。
继巴雷特委员会周四投票后，民主党参议员帕特里克·莱希。说巴雷特是在向特朗普总统发出有利的信号
莱希说:“特朗普总统在听，他认为这是他想做什么就做什么的绿灯。”
与选举有关的问题是民主党人的首要和中心问题，他们担心特朗普希望在11月3日之前在法庭上获得对他有利的正义。他们就更简单的问题向巴雷特施压，比如总统是否可以单方面推迟选举日期——根据法律，只有国会才能这样做——以及总统是否应该承诺和平离任，特朗普似乎对此提出了质疑。
但是法官躲开了。正如她在委员会前三天所做的那样，巴雷特说她不能干涉可能提交法院的事项。她说，她只是遵循“金斯堡规则”，提供“没有暗示，没有预览，没有预测”，就像已故法官在20世纪90年代自己的确认听证会上所做的那样。
然而，这并没有阻止民主党人向巴雷特施压，要求他考虑一系列自由主义优先事项，其中最主要的是《平价医疗法案》的命运。
委员会民主党人反复向巴雷特进行学术批评，巴雷特当时是圣母大学的教授，他在2012年做出了首席大法官罗伯茨支持该法案的决定。
“在填补金斯伯格法官的席位时，无论是短期还是未来几十年，美国人民的赌注都非常高，”加州参议员黛安娜·范斯坦说。"最重要的是，这项提名关系到数百万美国人的医疗保险."
但是巴雷特坚持她最初的法律哲学，她说她只能承诺彻底审查摆在她面前的医疗保健案例的优点。
“我对反腐败局没有敌意，”巴雷特一再向立法者坚持。“我应用法律，我遵循法律。你制定政策。”
巴雷特也引起了轩然大波，她说她不相信Roe诉Wade案，这是一个里程碑式的案件，允许妇女获得堕胎护理，不是所谓的“超级先例”，这是一个如此确定的事情，很可能永远不会被推翻。
但是法官一再反对，令人担忧的堕胎权利团体。
范斯坦问她是否同意她的导师斯卡利亚的意见，即罗伊诉韦德案是错误的决定，巴雷特不肯举手。
“如果我以这样或那样的方式表达对这个先例的看法，无论我说喜欢还是讨厌它，这都向诉讼当事人发出了信号，在一个悬而未决的案件中，我可能会倾向于这样或那样的方式，”她说，同时还声称，尽管她对斯卡利亚很钦佩，但她会在最高法院规划自己的道路。
共和党人利用听证会支持巴雷特，一位虔诚的天主教徒和七个孩子的母亲，作为保守女性的先驱和合格的候选人，并一再试图吸引民主党人加入到她的信仰斗争中。但是民主党拒绝了。
田纳西州民主党参议员玛莎·布莱克本(Marsha Blackburn)说:“对我在过道对面的朋友们来说，我想说，美国人民并不害怕天主教妇女的想法，也不害怕自由派妇女举着的抗议海报上飞溅的文字。”
共和党人希望消除对巴雷特的天主教信仰可能对她公正统治能力的影响的担忧。
"你能把你对任何问题的天主教信仰放在一边吗?"格雷厄姆问。
“我在第七巡回赛的时候就这样做过。如果我留在那里，我会继续这样做，”巴雷特说。“如果我得到最高法院的确认，我仍然会这么做。”
周四的司法委员会投票将使参议院有望在选举日之前确认巴雷特，参议院多数党领袖表示共和党有责任这样做。
麦康奈尔说:“我们听到民主党人试图劫持我们的政府机构，阻止这一有先例支持的进程向前发展，但没有一种扭曲甚至会开始掩盖这位候选人令人难以置信的资格。”"整个参议院将在巴雷特法官的提名一出委员会就开始考虑。"
Senate Republicans move Barrett Supreme Court nomination toward final vote
Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to fill the Supreme Court seatleft vacant bythe late liberal icon, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday with no Democratic support, setting the stage for a full Senateconfirmation voteon a timeline not seen this close to anelectionin U.S. history.
Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycott the committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States during a Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business meeting on Oct. 22, 2020 in Washington, D.C.
Committee Democrats boycotted the vote andinstead placedposter-size pictures of Americans who they say would be hurt by a Justice Barrett who might potentially cast a deciding vote striking down the Affordable Care Act and its mandated coverage for those with preexisting conditions.
A poster is placed in the seat of Sen. Chris Coons as Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycott the committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States during a Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business meeting in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2020.
The Supreme Court is poised to hear a challenge from 18 GOP state attorneys general to the Obama-era law on Nov. 10, a suit that the Trump administration has joined and Democrats sought to make their central line of questioning during Barrett’s confirmation hearings last week.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, meets with Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Oct. 21, 2020.
"We did it," Chairman Lindsey Graham said to his fellow Republican members after the vote. "Judge Barrett is going to the floor. I hope you look back at this time on the committee and say, 'I was there when it mattered.' And you were."
"We did it. We did it. Judge Barrett's going to the floor."
Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks after the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Democrats boycotted the vote.https://t.co/3ncDNXc5cwpic.twitter.com/quIW1bN7YP
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics)October 22, 2020
At a separate press conference, held in protest on the Capitol steps shortly afterward, Democrats defended their decision to boycott what they called the "illegitimate" vote.
"Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the Judiciary Committee," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "We are voting with our feet. We are standing together and we are standing against this unprecedented mad rush to jam through a Supreme Court nomination just days, days before an election."
"We are boycotting this illegitimate hearing!"pic.twitter.com/IGEuPmKmFb
— Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry)October 22, 2020
Despite objections from Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to tee up a key procedural test vote for Sunday, with a final confirmation vote expected Monday night.
Democrats have fought to slow the nomination, arguing that the person who replaces Ginsburg should be selected by whoever wins the November election, a precedent they say was set by Senate Republicans who in 2016 blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to the court. Obama appointed Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative star, eight months before Election Day, but McConnell steadfastly refused to consider the nominee, citing the proximity to the vote. McConnell and Senate Republicans would not even meet with Garland.
"You could not design a set of circumstances more hypocritical than this," Schumer said Wednesday of McConnell's decision to move forward with a vote on Barrett. "The truth is that the Republican majority is perpetrating the most rushed, most partisan, least legitimate process in the long history of Supreme Court nominations."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks about the negotiations over the next COVID-19 relief package in the US Capitol in Washington, Oct. 20, 2020.
But Republicans have argued that GOP control of both the Senate and the White House makes Barrett's nomination proceedings different from Garland's, giving them an imperative to act quickly.
Normally, on average, it takes the Senate about 70 days from formal nomination to full Senate confirmation for a Supreme Court appointee. President Donald Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed in 65 days. By comparison, Barrett’s nomination -- if she is confirmed Monday, as expected -- will have taken 30 days.
The Democrats' Thursday boycott will deny the Republican-led panel the necessary number of members present to cast a vote, according to committee rules, butGrahamhas indicated that he would waive those rules and hold the vote, regardless of whether any member of the minority is present.
Graham has been committed to an Oct. 22 vote on Barrett for weeks now, and no level of protest by Democrats is expected to deter him. The South Carolina senator, facing a tight reelection race back home, has campaigned on a promise to "fill the seat."
During the meeting Thursday, Graham blamed Democrats for making changes to Senate rules in 2013 that lowered number of senators needed to confirm a presidential nominee.
"I remember telling Sen. Schumer you will regret this. Today he will regret it," Graham said. "They started this not me. If it were up to me there would be a 60 vote requirement in the Senate today."
McConnell lowered the vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees in 2017.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, seated left, presides next to an image of people who've been helped by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) occupying the seat of Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who along with fellow Democratic committee members, boycotted the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, Oct. 22, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
Liberal groups have clamored for more of a protest from Democrats for weeks, pushing lawmakers to boycott the hearings altogether. But Senate rules leave very few tools open to the minority to delay proceedings or a vote.
The top Democrat on the Judiciary committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday defended Democrats' decision to appear at the hearings which Democrats used, instead, to paint Barrett as a threat to health care, abortion access, voting rights civil liberties and even democracy itself.
Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee hold a news conference after boycotting the vote by the Republican-led panel to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court, Oct. 22, 2020, in Washington.
"Last week Democrats participated in the nomination hearings because we wanted to show what was at stake for America if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed we made our case about risks to affordable care," Feinstein said.
The 87-year-old Feinstein has come under fire from liberal groups last week after she praised Graham for running "one of the best hearings I've participated in" and hugged Graham.
The outraged prompted Schumer to tell reporters that he had had a "long serious talk" with Feinstein.
Graham, during the vote on Thursday, called the response to Feinstein a "shame".
"It's not enough to agree with the cause you've got to hate the people they want you hate," Graham said.
During her hearing, Barrett dodged repeated attempts by Democrats to get her to commit to recusing herself from election-related matters if the outcome of the 2020 election were to be decided by the Supreme Court, as Trump has predicted.
"Your participation -- let me be very blunt -- in any case involving Donald Trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said to Barrett during her hearings. "You must recuse yourself."
Barrett said she would "consider it" but pushed back on the insinuation that she might rule favorably for the president merely because he nominated her.
"I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people," Barrett said.
Following Barrett's committee vote on Thursday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that Barrett was signaling favorably to President Trump
"President Trump was listening and he sees this as a green light to do whatever he wants," Leahy said.
Issues related to the election were front and center for Democrats who fear Trump is looking to secure a justice favorable to him on the court before Nov. 3. They pressed Barrett on simpler questions, like whether the president could unilaterally delay the date of the election -- something that, by law, only Congress can do -- and whether the president should commit to leave office peacefully, something Trump has appeared to question.
But the judge dodged. As she did throughout her three days before the committee, Barrett said that she could not weigh in on matters that might come before the court. She said she was merely following the "Ginsburg rule," providing "no hints, no previews, no forecasts,” as the late justice had famously done at her own confirmation hearings in the 1990’s.
Still, this didn't stop Democrats from pressing Barrett on a slate of liberal priorities, chief among them the fate of the Affordable Care Act.
Committee Democrats repeatedly drilled Barrett on an academic critique Barrett -- then a Notre Dame professor -- made of Chief Justice Roberts' decision to uphold the Act in 2012.
"In filling Judge Ginsburg's seat, the stakes are extraordinarily high for the American people both in the short term and for decades to come," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said. "Most importantly, health care coverage, for millions of Americans, is at stake with this nomination."
But Barrett, sticking to her originalist legal philosophy, said she could only commit to thoroughly reviewing the merits of health care cases that came before her.
"I am not hostile to the ACA," Barrett repeatedly insisted to lawmakers. "I apply the law, I follow the law. You make the policy."
Barrett also made waves when she said she did not believe that Roe v. Wade, the landmark case allowing for women to access abortion care, was not so-called "super precedent," something so established that it would likely never be overturned.
But the judge -- over and over -- demurred, alarming abortion rights groups.
Asked by Feinstein if she agreed with her mentor, Scalia, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, Barrett wouldn't show her hand.
"If I express a view on the precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or hate it, it signals to litigants I might tilt one way or another in a pending case," she said, while also claiming that she would chart her own course on the highest court, despite her admiration for Scalia.
Republicans used the hearings to champion Barrett, a devout Catholic and mother of seven, as a trailblazer for conservative women and a well-qualified nominee, and repeatedly sought to draw Democrats into a fight about her faith. But Democrats refused.
"To my friends across the aisle, I would say that the American people are no more afraid of the ideas of a Catholic woman than they are of the words splattered on a protest poster being held by a liberal woman," Sen. Marsha Blackburn, D-Tenn., said.
Republicans looked to dispel concerns about the impact that Barrett's Catholic faith might have on her ability to rule impartially.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds a face mask while participating in a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Oct. 20, 2020.
"Can you set aside whatever Catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you?" Graham asked.
"I have done that in my time on the 7th Circuit. If I stay there I'll continue to do that," Barrett said. "If I'm confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will do that still."
Thursday's Judiciary Committee vote will put the Senate on track to confirm Barrett before Election Day, something the Senate majority leader said Republicans have a duty to do.
"We've heard Democrats try to take hostage our very institutions of government to stop this precedent-backed process from moving forward, but none of the distortions could even begin to cloud the incredible qualifications of the nominee," McConnell said. "The full Senate will turn to Judge Barrett's nomination as soon as it comes out of committee."
