By: Eilis O’Neil | Staff-Writer and Social Media Management
Disclaimer: Political Op-Eds are independently written and do not reflect the views of the Mosaic Student Newspaper.
Who needs a civics lesson as a senator? You’d be surprised to find out some on the Senate Judiciary Committee, especially after the ongoing Supreme Court nominee hearings. If you haven’t been keeping up with the news lately, the hearings for the new nominee of the Supreme Court of the United States has taken place the week of October 12, 2020. Amy Coney Barrett, who is a judge on the seventh circuit in Chicago and a professor at Notre Dame Law School, was nominated by President Trump to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who passed away in September. Many have claimed that filling the seat is unconstitutional, risky, and wrong. Especially since it is an election year, along with how close the election is. What many seem to not recognize is the fact that many presidents, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan did the same thing. What is wrong with President Trump doing the same thing, especially if it is in the Constitution? Keep in mind, a presidential term is four years, not three and a half, not three and three quarters. Four.
On Capitol Hill, Barrett took hits every day from the Senate Judicial Committee in regard to if she is “fit for the seat.” Whether it was about climate change, the Constitution, Obamacare, or abortion, Barrett came out on top, answering in all honesty while remaining poised and calm, unlike the committee. Let’s dive in and see what major topics were discussed and how Barrett plans to handle them if she is sworn in as the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Day One – Monday October 12, 2020
When a nominee comes through the Senate Judiciary Committee, the hearings act like an actual session in court. Day one started with opening statements. Immediately, the Democratic senators made it all about healthcare. If you don’t know, opening statements are basically seen as a road-map to where a hearing will go. In one of my administration of justice classes, I was taught that an opening statement cannot be argumentative. Guess some senators never learned that. Many times, Barrett had to explain that the Supreme Court does not handle policy, like the Affordable Healthcare Act. I felt as though most of day one was a civics lesson, which was a complete waste of time on Capitol Hill. This time could have been used for Barrett to give some insight as to what her plan was as the next justice so the committee could prepare questions for the following days. To sum up day one in a quote, Senator John Cornyn could not have said it any better. “You stand accused of violating your oath before you even take it,” something we saw during 2018 with Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Day Two – Tuesday October 13, 2020
Three main talking points that were brought up during day two: abortion, healthcare, and race. The Committee started off the day with Barrett telling them how her and her husband adopted two black children from Haiti. She states that the George Floyd incident was very rough for the family since it affected them to a personal level. Barrett does agree that there is persistent racism in our country. But Barrett decided not to “put her finger on the nature of the problem” instead the ongoing racism is “hotly contested policy questions.” The Supreme Court’s function is to interpret the law and defend the Constitution. Not create any policies, just rulings. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”
Day Three – Wednesday October 14, 2020
The last day was for senators to ask Barrett questions about her legal philosophy and any possible issues that might come up during her time serving on the court. Senator Amy Klobuchar talked about the pandemic that is still going on and voting for the upcoming election. She accused Barrett of risking the health of the voters and potentially forcing them not to vote in regard to absentee and mail-in ballots. Isn’t it funny that these same voters are going out into highly populated areas like the grocery store and spending much more time there than going to a poll for not even ten minutes? The hypocrisy makes me laugh. The 2000 presidential election was brought up, Bush vs. Gore. Ironically Barrett and Kavanaugh were both young associates clerking for the Supreme Court: “trying to elicit a question about whether it would be appropriate for justices who participated in that litigation to sit on a case rather than recuse”. These situations that the senators have brought to the table are hypotheticals and Barrett cannot have a say because she would be pre-committing to something and have to recuse herself.
Day Four – Wednesday October 15, 2020
Wednesday started off by the democrats wanting to delay any action in moving the nomination to confirmation. Why? Baffles me. Weren’t the Democrats pushing that agenda on Barrett for the Republicans? Once again, the hypocrisy is unfathomable. The date for the nomination was supposed to be Thursday October 22, 2020, but now it is uncertain when the vote will be. If Barrett is approved before election day, Barrett will have a say in any dispute about the election in the Supreme Court.
On any issue that was brought to Barrett, she has to take into consideration every aspect. Sitting in front of the committee, she cannot just blurt out what she feels and thinks about a certain topic. “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. So, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit. I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits.”
My favorite moment of all hearings was when Senator Cornyn was talking about how all the senators have multiple notes, notebooks, and binders in order to keep up with these hearings and make sure they ask what is most important in their eyes. Cornyn proceeds to ask Barrett what she is using to refer to and take notes with. She then holds up a blank notepad. The only thing written on it was the letterhead that wrote United States Senate. If this does not prove how smart Barrett is, I do not know what else does. These senators are deliberately coming in with piles of notes and questions about complex legal issues to make her look unintelligent and she fires back with no notes. An absolute mic-drop.
Many of the questions and topics that were asked by Senators were somewhat confusing due to the fact that these were policies the House of Representatives and the Senate voted on, even talking about postponing the election, voter intimidation, and President Trump’s Twitter page; nothing that had to do with Barrett’s prior rulings or what she would do on the Supreme Court. A complete waste of their time that made progress in the hearings go nowhere. These hearings in my opinion were awful; it was more of an anti-Trump agenda rather than doing their jobs and focusing on the Supreme Court of the United States. We see everywhere, Democrats preaching for feminism and how there should be more women in power. Now that Amy Coney Barrett is up for a powerful position, the democrats are in an uproar? How is this logical? Amy Coney Barrett is a strong and intelligent conservative woman. She opens the door for many young women like me, hoping to be in that chair one day.
Cover Image: “President Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court” by The White House is marked with CC PDM 1.0
