SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett listens during the second day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill on October 13, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Greg Nash via Pool/Getty Images)
Asked About Trump Effort to 'Unilaterally Delay Election,' Barrett Says She Would Approach It With 'An Open Mind'
"This shouldn't be a hard question. The fact that she would not answer it is deeply troubling."
Oct 13, 2020
When Judge Amy Coney Barrett was asked Tuesday during her second day of confirmation hearings if it would be constitutional for the president of the United States to "unilaterally delay an election," the right-wing Supreme Court nominee refused to answer the question except in vague terms, saying that judges should "approach cases with an open mind."
"Holy smokes. We are in danger," said Genevieve Guenther, founder and director of End Climate Silence, in response to Barrett's apparent openness to allowing President Donald Trump--who recently nominated her to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court--to unilaterally postpone the 2020 election.
\u201cFEINSTEIN: Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?\n\nCONEY BARRETT: "If that question ever came before me, I'd need to hear arguments from the litigants & read briefs... I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits"\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1602596360
"This shouldn't be a hard question," tweeted Demand Justice, a progressive organization opposed to the Republican Party's anti-democratic court-packing efforts. "The fact that she would not answer it is deeply troubling."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) highlighted the hypocrisy of Barrett's equivocation, saying that anyone with a so-called "originalist" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution should have been able to answer with a definitive "No."
In addition to Barrett's ambiguous and legally dubious response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) question about the constitutionality of a unilateral presidential postponement of Election Day, Trump's pro-corporate Supreme Court nominee also refused to commit to recusing herself from any cases arising from election disputes.
Republicans, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Trump, have explicitly stated their desire to expedite Barrett's confirmation in order to ensure that a solidly conservative judiciary is in place to assist the GOP in the case of a contested election, as Common Dreams reported last month.
"There's really no need for 'an open mind' when it comes to questions about whether Trump or any other president can delay the election," explained Vox journalist Aaron Rupar, "because the law is clear: the president doesn't have this power."
"Barrett's refusal to say so," Rupar added, "doesn't speak well for her willingness to stand up to the president in the event that the Supreme Court ends up hearing a challenge to the results of an election that it looks like Trump is increasingly unlikely to win at the ballot box."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
When Judge Amy Coney Barrett was asked Tuesday during her second day of confirmation hearings if it would be constitutional for the president of the United States to "unilaterally delay an election," the right-wing Supreme Court nominee refused to answer the question except in vague terms, saying that judges should "approach cases with an open mind."
"Holy smokes. We are in danger," said Genevieve Guenther, founder and director of End Climate Silence, in response to Barrett's apparent openness to allowing President Donald Trump--who recently nominated her to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court--to unilaterally postpone the 2020 election.
\u201cFEINSTEIN: Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?\n\nCONEY BARRETT: "If that question ever came before me, I'd need to hear arguments from the litigants & read briefs... I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits"\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1602596360
"This shouldn't be a hard question," tweeted Demand Justice, a progressive organization opposed to the Republican Party's anti-democratic court-packing efforts. "The fact that she would not answer it is deeply troubling."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) highlighted the hypocrisy of Barrett's equivocation, saying that anyone with a so-called "originalist" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution should have been able to answer with a definitive "No."
In addition to Barrett's ambiguous and legally dubious response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) question about the constitutionality of a unilateral presidential postponement of Election Day, Trump's pro-corporate Supreme Court nominee also refused to commit to recusing herself from any cases arising from election disputes.
Republicans, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Trump, have explicitly stated their desire to expedite Barrett's confirmation in order to ensure that a solidly conservative judiciary is in place to assist the GOP in the case of a contested election, as Common Dreams reported last month.
"There's really no need for 'an open mind' when it comes to questions about whether Trump or any other president can delay the election," explained Vox journalist Aaron Rupar, "because the law is clear: the president doesn't have this power."
"Barrett's refusal to say so," Rupar added, "doesn't speak well for her willingness to stand up to the president in the event that the Supreme Court ends up hearing a challenge to the results of an election that it looks like Trump is increasingly unlikely to win at the ballot box."
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
When Judge Amy Coney Barrett was asked Tuesday during her second day of confirmation hearings if it would be constitutional for the president of the United States to "unilaterally delay an election," the right-wing Supreme Court nominee refused to answer the question except in vague terms, saying that judges should "approach cases with an open mind."
"Holy smokes. We are in danger," said Genevieve Guenther, founder and director of End Climate Silence, in response to Barrett's apparent openness to allowing President Donald Trump--who recently nominated her to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court--to unilaterally postpone the 2020 election.
\u201cFEINSTEIN: Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?\n\nCONEY BARRETT: "If that question ever came before me, I'd need to hear arguments from the litigants & read briefs... I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits"\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1602596360
"This shouldn't be a hard question," tweeted Demand Justice, a progressive organization opposed to the Republican Party's anti-democratic court-packing efforts. "The fact that she would not answer it is deeply troubling."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) highlighted the hypocrisy of Barrett's equivocation, saying that anyone with a so-called "originalist" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution should have been able to answer with a definitive "No."
In addition to Barrett's ambiguous and legally dubious response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) question about the constitutionality of a unilateral presidential postponement of Election Day, Trump's pro-corporate Supreme Court nominee also refused to commit to recusing herself from any cases arising from election disputes.
Republicans, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Trump, have explicitly stated their desire to expedite Barrett's confirmation in order to ensure that a solidly conservative judiciary is in place to assist the GOP in the case of a contested election, as Common Dreams reported last month.
"There's really no need for 'an open mind' when it comes to questions about whether Trump or any other president can delay the election," explained Vox journalist Aaron Rupar, "because the law is clear: the president doesn't have this power."
"Barrett's refusal to say so," Rupar added, "doesn't speak well for her willingness to stand up to the president in the event that the Supreme Court ends up hearing a challenge to the results of an election that it looks like Trump is increasingly unlikely to win at the ballot box."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.