Lawyer News
Today's Legal News Lawyer Website Design by Law Promo
Senate Judiciary sets vote on Barrett, Dems decry ‘sham’
Attorney Career | 2020/10/14 06:46
The Senate Judiciary Committee set Oct. 22 for its vote to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court on Thursday as Democrats threw pointed objections but were unable to stop the Republicans’ drive to confirm President Donald Trump’s pick before the Nov. 3 election. The panel’s action clears a key hurdle to recommend Barrett’s nomination to the full Senate for a final vote by month’s end.

“A sham,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. “Power grab,” decried Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “Not normal,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “You don’t convene a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, in the middle of a pandemic, when the Senate’s on recess, when voting has already started in the presidential election in a majority of states,” declared Sen. Chris Coon, D-Del.

But Republicans countered that Trump is well within bounds as president to fill the court vacancy, and the GOP-held Senate has the votes to push Trump’s nominee to confirmation. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he understands Democrats’ “disappointment, but I think their loss is the American people’s gain.” Barrett’s confirmation to take the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  is on track to lock a conservative majority on the court for years to come. The shift would cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court and would be the most pronounced ideological change in 30 years, from the liberal icon to the conservative appeals court judge.

The committee’s session Thursday was without Barrett after two long days of public testimony in which she stressed that she would be her own judge and sought to create distance between herself and past positions critical of abortion, the Affordable Care Act and other issues.  Facing almost 20 hours of questions from senators, the 48-year-old judge was careful not to take on the president who nominated her. She skipped past Democrats’ pressing questions about ensuring the date of next month’s election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and the peaceful transfer of presidential power.


[PREV] [1] ..[430][431][432][433][434][435][436][437][438].. [2503] [NEXT]
All
Lawyer News
Court News
Court Watch
Attorney Career
Lawyer Interview
Legal Center
Press Releases
Arizona prosecutors ordered ..
Justice Dept moves to cancel..
What to know about the Supre..
Budget airline begins deport..
Jury begins deliberating in ..
Judge bars deportations of V..
Judge to weigh Louisiana AG..
Court won’t revive a Minnes..
Judge to weigh Louisiana AG..
Trump says he’s in ‘no rus..
Supreme Court sides with the..
Ex-UK lawmaker charged with ..
Court sides with the FDA in ..
US immigration officials loo..
Appeals court rules Trump ca..
   Lawyer News Links
Raleigh, NC Business Lawyer
www.rothlawgroup.com
Chicago Work Accident Lawyer
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
Family Law in East Greenwich, RI
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
Los Angeles Immigration Documents Service
New Vision Immigration
www.immigrationnew.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
 
 
© Lawyer News Net. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Lawyer News Media as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Bar Associations Web Design