Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., talks during Tuesday's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Klobuchar questioned Barrett on why, in past writing, she didn't consider the abortion rights decisionSupreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has, like many of the recent nominees before her, been unwilling to tip her hand as to how she might rule on potential high-profile cases if confirmed to the high court.
But she also has left some hints as to her leanings, especially on the topic of abortion rights. As a University of Notre Dame Law School professor, Barrett signed an ad that stated,"It's time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of" referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
During Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., referred to a law review article Barrett wrote, outlining her views on"super-precedents" and questioned why Barrett didn't considerThe way they're defined in scholarship, Barrett said, are"cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions aboutdoesn't fall in that category.
"I think the American people have to understand that you would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg," Klobuchar said. If confirmed, Barrett would replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg."She and Justice Scalia were friends," Klobuchar said, referring to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett was a law clerk."But she never embraced his legal philosophy," Klobuchar said.
Prosecute Democrat baby murderers.
I believe Amy Covid Barrett is thinking about 'super-spreader' rather than 'super-precedent', since super-precedent doesn't exist.
I'd be willing to bet that you cannot find a single case that 'everyone has accepted.' Brown v. Board? You're kidding, right? Gore v. Bush? Hahahahahah McCulloch v. Maryland? I don't think so. This woman does NOT belong on SCOTUS
The fact that we're still debating it proves her point.
She is lying
She’s insane!!
'Super-precedent' is a made up concept invented to overturn laws.
fun fact: evangelicals were slow to join the pro-life movement... on mass, the evangelicals up to 1970s believed that life begins at birth and they would not petition, lobby or demand from their politicians to take a 'pro-life' stance.
One more day with these idiots Amy.....Your in and doing great.
She also cited brown v board as a super precedent stating no one would want to overturn it which isn’t true, many racists would love to overturn it. Raising 2 black children while ruling slurs aren’t workplace harassment. Disgusting
Grasping at (paper) straws.
exactly why she is sitting there now, she was put there to hurt this country in so many ways, she can do as much damage as Trump has, I HATE REPUBLICANS, WHAT THEY STAND FOR AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEM!
Where in the Constitution do we find the phrase “super-precedent”? Or the USCA? Or the FRAP? It’s a made up concept and she is using it as a way to get around the well defined judicial rule of stare decisis
If I was one of the senators I would ask Judge Barrett what question(s) she would ask if she was a senator questioning a nominee.
Ask Amy about the fact that roe v. Wade falls under The'Vested rights doctrine' and any law made after that decision is unconstitutional.
She’s correct
If you also listen to hear, like the latest GOP judges, Brown vs. Bd.of Education is not a 'super' precedent. Still looking for the word 'super' in the constitution. Welcome to the introduction of our future GOPapartheid
She’s being put there to tear roe v. Wade down. That’s her exact purpose. She’s in their pockets. Any back and forth about this is just more drivel to distract
Klobuchar, the public is watching the tracks. It’s apparent your party is trying to twist ACB words. Typical of the lefts agenda.
Define everyone.
As an independent, it’s entertaining to watch congressman, and their supporters, on both sides make arguments throughout this hearing that they would absolutely flip on and argue the other side if the other party was in power.
Sorry Klobuchar, the media does not report fair and unbiased news. That is why it is called fake news because they report and twist the news to fit their liberal agenda. At one point news was real, long gone now.
Amy means the republicans haven’t accepted
Coney Barrett doesn't seem to know the words 'yes' or 'no'. Everything is equivocated, and she's openly hostile and argumentative. She. Is. Shady. And arrogant -- no notes, gee what a badge of honor.
The public needs to know that ACB is not a political puppet, you nor your democrats can make her look like one. Real jurist don’t make laws they interpret it and follow it.
Dumb tweets
What?
she does know it was 7-2....not 5-4. right?
If Amy Coney Barrett would live in XIX century we would still have slavery because 'it's not a case that everyone has accepted.'
Basically what she’s saying is that a woman’s body is just chattel. In her views, in her actions, and how she’ll plan to interpret the law.
The simple fact of how polarizing the issue is shows how this issue is still open for healthy debate.
It’s been repeatedly upheld despite direct and repeated challenge. She’s not being forthright about this.
Can she name ONE case in U.S. history that 'everyone has accepted'?
I had to Google “super-precedent.” She basically said “it won’t be too difficult to overturn?! As in she intends to do it?
Roe v wade is a squishy decision. Most who support it have’t read it
She isn’t that bad I’m coming out of this hearing liking Whitehouse a lot more as well.
I watched this video. This isn’t what she said. fakenews
ACB is looking rough in that picture.
One thing I've learned in this hearing is.... THANK GOD, I'm not married to or have to work around Senator Klobuchar...
She is also saying that if a judgement is not accepted by everyone, the Supreme Court's judgement should be questioned.
Define super precedent and give me examples of cases you define as super precedent.
Casey proves she's right on this.
If you think that answer means that she won’t vote to over turn Roe, there’s a bridge that I would like to sell you.
Roe V Wade is more about personal privacy from the gov than republicans seem to realize
Barrett’s not wrong.
THEY'RE LYING TRUMP'S THE ONLY ONE THAT PLAYS HIS HAND THAT SAYS THE S*** QUIETLY OUT LOUD EVERYBODY ELSE IS STILL PLAYING BY THE PLAYBOOK
There's no such thing as a super-precedent, she's just making up BS to justify her bad views
LOL LOL Yes, she's THAT smart
'super-precedent' is not a real thing. It's either precedent or it's not.
She looks exactly like Klobocop in that photo 🤔🤔🤔
,AS POTUS I Promise ON MY FIRST DAY The Federal Government Will PROVIDE FULL Health Care Coverage for ALL Taxpayers AT NO COST A SONG 4U VOTE Writing ON BALLOT Paul RunngHorse Vigil for POTUS
A textualist should not be coming up with terms such as 'super precedent.' Either it's a precedent or it is not. I call bs. StareDecisis
Her originalism quackery would have upheld separate but equal. She will ignore originalism on corporate personhood (esp. religious liberties extended to corporations), campaign finance laws, gun rights, etc. She’ll emphasis originalism in overturning individual rights. No thanks.
That Barrett in essence stated that she doesn't believe Roe V Wade is ' well settled'. That tells us all we need to know about her stance.
This is so disingenuous. She has been criticized for failing to consider Brown v Board in prior rulings (see EEOC v AutoZone), and has actively supported the doctrine of separate but equal. Further, she denies the entire 14th Amendment has a place in modern jurisprudence.
Did anyone catch AmyKlobuchar pull out a corn cob during the proceedings? SupremeCourtConfirmation
NO. She said the judicial world believes that it is not. 🤦🏻♀️ I never realised until 2020 what blatant liars you guys were. Such a shame too. It’s pretty easy to report neutral honest news, if you tried.
And she would be correct. It's a new day. Let's stop killing babies.
I have a sinking feeling, in my gut, that pure evil will be joining the SCOTUS.
Maybe I’m making too large of an inference but I feel by that logic, she’s stating that if it weren’t so unanimously agreed upon, she would be open to changing that decision of Brown v BOE? Am I reading to much into that...what you think kelleygwithanE
NPR - Reread that first part and then try - really try - to apply some rational thinking as to why the second makes perfect sense.
I so look forward to a Biden victory when 2 SC judges are added to erase Moscow Mitch's years of court packing!
Who are these 'political actors' & pushy 'people' defining 'super precedent'? Congress? The President? Lobbyists? Voters?
NPR has stooped to an all time historic low. Sickening.
This handmaiden is not worthy of being on the supreme court
Red fucking flag
Again, a “super precedent” decision is one in which discussion on overturning is not regularly had. For RVW, overturning it is discussed fairly regularly.
Outraged
Why are they even asking those questions as if they're binding? Once confirmed she will flip flop, just like she happily accepted the nomination although in 2016 she was against election year SCOTUS replacements. I wouldn't trust my pet mouse to her let alone the law of the land!
Republicans will pay politically and in the courts. This lady needs to run for a church office not in the supreme court. Keep you religion out of our lives.
You posted a pic of the wrong Amy yo
PaulDereume Yeah especially since 70%Plus of Americans support Roe v wade ! Huh 🤔
A 'conservative originalist' on the Supreme Court helps no one when cases involving personal privacy rights & technology come bubbling up from the lower courts & they start chipping away at the 'penumbra of privacy rights' cast by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
Here is my full position on the topic of abortion: 1) Abortion is a valid medical procedure for the reduction of pain, suffering and the saving of life.
Because half the country would want it over rules. Brown v. Board is accepted by 99% of the country. So roe v. Wade is not super-precedent since there are still a mass number of people that would want it over rules.
Correct. The mere volume of debate over Roe shows it cannot be a “super-precedent”. There are vast numbers of people on both sides of that issue.
The issue is not religion; it’s LOYALTY. Does it lie with the constitution? Or not with GOD, but with religion? One cannot bear true faith and allegiance to God OR the constitution if their loyalty lies elsewhere. Any attempt to discredit this concern is deceitful GOPCult
But she also thinks it's not clear evidence of discrimination to call a Black employee the n-word.
Is that a false statement?! AbortionIsBIGMONEYforDemocrats
She’s right. Cry more.
Which makes sense considering how wishy washy it is and how constant it is. More idiotic reporting.
Amy can bite me........
She's yet another Trump-appointed disaster.
Even though it was adjudicated in 1973? What then makes a super-precedent? RoevWade is TheWillOfThePeople. There’s no more super-precedent than that. AmyConeyBarrett represents an ultra minority. There’s really no place for her on SCOTUS. ThePeopleAreSpeaking with their vote
Because it doesn't meet the definition do to being continuously challenged and not being a settled issue, unlike Brown v. Board of Education... If it met the definition the Democrats wouldn't be constantly trying to get her to to make a statement regarding her position on it.
Killing babies is not protected by the Constitution.
She just picks and chooses to suit her prejudices.
'I am using a term from the scholarly literature. It was developed by scholars who are certainly not conservative scholars, who take a more progressive approach to the Constitution, and as Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not a super precedent but that does not mean...
This is a completely disingenuous headline. Barret said the term 'super precedent' in this context was developed by scholars (not her) and it is those scholars who say Roe does not fall under the scholarly definition of super precedent.
She has been sent to overturn Roe V Wade. And we will stack the court.
Because it isn’t, or we’d not have this debate.
With that line of logic, white supremacists could get elected to the state legislatures, pass school segregation laws to challenge Brown v. Board of Ed. Thus, demoting Brown to merely precedent, not super-precedent, making it open to being overturned.
Duh, that's a given. Otherwise better than half, if not all of the Democratic Senators would not have brought up the subject.
Wait... are you trying to tell me this is a controversial issue?
Nah. She is a coward. Not one to be on the Supreme Court. Her answers were cowardly and dishonest. She will not say that voter intimidation is illegal? She will fuss around about the question regarding use of violence in case Trump loses? These things are unforgivable. She sucks.
tomforemancnn She was appointed to a judgeship by Trump 3 years ago. 11 months later she was fast tracked to the SCJ position by Trump. She was groomed by Trump for this position. She’s here because of him and will do his bidding for him. Period.
Well she’s right. And if it was well settled we wouldn’t still be debating it or discussing it over and over during her confirmation hearing.
Absolutely shameful. She has no place in the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter. How brainwashed does one have to be actively advocate against other woman as a woman? Disgusting and pathetic.
Wait, the same Coney Barrett who doesn't know that voter intimidation is AGAINST THE LAW? The same Barrett who doesn't know that CONGRESS sets the date of elections, not a president? Who's more 'forgetful' than Ronald Reagan when it comes to the anti-women screeds she signed?
That’s some rigorous, incisive judicial reasoning there: “We can only overturn stuff if enough random people want stuff overturned.” Another spectacular pick by Trump.
If youre grilled about roe v wade all day, then its clearly not that well settled. Otherwise theyd stop bringing it up. ACB says this herself when that question is brought up. If roe wasnt brought up by dems all day, the Answer would be ddifferent, but they push it non stop.
As the High Court once overturned a previous ruling of non-personhood of minorities it will again do the same for children in the womb
Her belief in magic at conception alone concerns me. Add in her unwillingness to uphold peaceful transfer of power and criminality of voter intimidation and you have exactly what Trump wants.
So dems, you guys get why this shit matters yet or we still gonna keep infighting over bullshit?
Does anyone trust a SCOTUS candidate who “forgot” to include documents that paint that candidate in a bad light to the majority of voters in the US? If Trump was reinstalled & Brown v Board of Ed. was challenged, first the DoJ would take their side & then ACB would be salivating.
Roe and Brown are landmark Supreme Court decisions that should not be interfered with.
Shocker
She’s making up shit that has no legal basis.
A woman destroying other women’s bodily autonomy is the most 2020 thing ever.
-_-
Sooooo Brown is super secret probation but Roe is not? What exactly is the difference?
'Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett is the equivalent of replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Making a mockery of meaningful representation with the worst possible version of tokenism available.' KaivanShroff
Amy is a little girl with limited life experiences
Fun fact: abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Full stop.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Source: MarketWatch - 🏆 3. / 97 Read more »