Trump's Supreme Court nominee won't say whether president can pardon himself

Thursday, 15 Oct, 2020

"It would actually be wrong - a violation of the canons - for me to do that as a sitting judge", Barrett said.

The conservative judge repeatedly refused to be drawn on abortion, healthcare and LGBTQ rights.

"I have no agenda", Barrett replied. "I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey". "Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can".

But some resistance has remained, including on the Supreme Court. She said, "It's not one that I can offer a view".

"I can not say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews", Ginsburg said during her 1993 confirmation hearings.

During 11 hours of questioning on Tuesday, she sidestepped questions on contentious social issues and told the committee she had no agenda on issues such as the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

In the second day of hearings on her hurried nomination, Barrett, who if approved will tilt the high court decisively to the right, told lawmakers she would put personal and religious beliefs aside when deciding landmark cases. And she responded to a question from Democratic Sen.

In Barrett's case, the focus was on the Affordable Care Act cases and Roe v Wade. Barrett previously has criticized Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s reasoning in upholding the law. "It is not", she said.

"It's a case that's on the court's docket, and the canons of judicial conduct would prohibit me from expressing a view", Barrett told Senator Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday. "I am not hostile to any statute that you pass".

Barrett said she and her husband didn't have much time to consider the nomination but decided what would likely be an "excruciating" process was worth it.

"I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people".

While Barrett gave credit to Scalia, her former mentor, in her opening statements, she stated multiple times during Tuesday's questioning that she would be her own judge.

"I understand why you're asking the question".

They pointed to comments made by Trump last month, when he said he believed the election would "end up in the Supreme Court" and that he thought it was "very important that we have nine Justices".

"It is striking that as we sit here right now, in this committee room, there are only two Democratic senators in the room", Cruz said. She sat on the board of an IN private school that barred children of unmarried couples when same-sex marriage was illegal IN the state, The New York Times reported.

Klobuchar: "Well I'll make it easier: USC-594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the person for the goal of interfering with the right of such person to vote. It's a hard one for us, like it is for Americans all over the country".

After Democrats attacked Barrett for using the phrase, Webster's Dictionary literally updated the definition of "preference" to include what Democrats now claim: that it is "offensive" when used in the context of sex. "It's the law of the American people".

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) also used the term in a 2012 floor speech, as did Sen. We don't even know what case might come.