Sen. Blumenthal, other democrats refuse to meet with SCJ nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Share:

HARTFORD, CT – During a recent interview on MSNBC, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) stated that he would not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett if she is nominated to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat.

President Donald Trump’s decision to have Barrett fill Ginsburg’s seat has caused Democrats to enter a partisan war over the high court opening- A loud battle that has engaged Connecticut’s Democratic senators, putting Blumenthal on the front line.

Blumenthal said:

“I’m going to oppose her nomination because I think it is part of an illegitimate, sham process, but it also threatens real people, real lives in very real ways. And during a pandemic, the last thing we ought to be considering is a justice who is committed to striking down the Affordable Care Act.”

He added:

“And you can be sure she has passed that ‘strong test’ the president’s words for what the test should be and I will not be meeting with her because I think it would treat this process as legitimate, which it is not.”

The CT Mirror reported that during a brief speech in the White House Rose Garden, Barrett acknowledged that her nomination faces massive Democratic opposition.

She said:

“I have no illusion that the road ahead of me will be easy. Either in the short term or the long haul.”

She also spoke quickly about her approach to being a justice of the court. She said:

“A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they may hold.”

This is not the first time Barrett has faced strong opposition from Senate Democrats, including Blumenthal, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and vigorously fought her ascension to a seat on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

Barrett’s 2017 candidacy was controversial and she was confirmed through a largely party line vote, with both Blumenthal and Senator Chris Murphy voting “no.” Blumenthal said that this time around, his opposition to Trump’s pick to replace Ginsburg is founded on more than character and qualifications of the nominee. He said:

“There is no legitimacy to the process. The American people should have a say, especially since voting has already begun in many states.”

Blumenthal then accused Senate Republicans of “dragging” the Senate “through the mud” by pushing for Barrett’s confirmation by Election Day, which would be the fastest confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice in recent history.

Murphy said in a statement:

“Senate Republicans are predictably reneging on their pledge from four years ago of not appointing a Supreme Court justice during an election year, in order to rush Coney Barrett onto the court in time to end health care for millions.”

Murphy added that Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court would mean that millions of people he represents in Connecticut would be kicked off their health care plans in the middle of a global pandemic.

Trump’s announcement begins a process that is almost certain to result in Barrett’s confirmation. NBC News reported that Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, criticized Barrett’s comments on health care laws and she she would be likely to reverse the Affordable Care Act. Biden said:

“President Trump has been trying to throw out the Affordable Care Act for four years. Republicans have been trying to end it for a decade. Twice, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional.”

He added:

“She (Barrett) has a written track record of disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. The American people know the U.S. Supreme Court decisions affect their everyday lives.”

Barrett received an ice-cold reception from Democratic members of the upper chamber, but a rule change by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell means she will not need the backing of any Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement:

“Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish was that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. Republicans are poised to not only ignore her wishes, but to replace her with someone who could tear down everything that she built. I will strongly oppose this nomination.”

Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most centrist member of the Democratic caucus raised strong objections and said that is no way he would vote for her before the election. He said in a statement:

“Rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee weeks before a presidential election has never been done before in the history of our nation and it will only fan the flames of division. I cannot support a process that risks further division of the American people at a time when we desperately need to come together.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Here’s more on Democrats being vocal on their disdain of President Donald Trump since he was only a candidate in 2015. 

Since then, they have lobbed every attack that they could, including impeachment, to stop him and all attacks, so far, have failed. 

Now, Democrats are threatening full out war if the President dare move to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

Along with threatening to pack the Supreme Court with additional seats that will be filled with liberal judges if they get in full power (both seats in the House as well as the Presidency), they are now talking about adding two states to the Union that would most likely be always filled with democrats. 

In addition, they’d abolish the filibuster rule.  Any one of these moves would almost certainly ensure they have full and complete power forever.

Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Member Richard Blumenthal has said that there are no options that are off limits should President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell go through with filling the vacant seat this close to the election. 

Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, (who is still in the middle of the hairgate scandal) announced that her caucus may consider impeaching President Trump, again, if he follows through. 

Not sure how nominating a Supreme Court Justice would fit a high crime and misdemeanor, but having one did not seem to matter when they impeached the President the first time.

In addition, Pelosi also mentioned that they may try to impeach the Attorney General, William Barr.  Pelosi said:

“Well, we have our options.  We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now.”

Democratic State Representator Joe Kennedy, III, sounded like a spoiled brat not getting the gift that he wanted for his birthday when he threatened to add additional seats to the Supreme Court.  He said:

“If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame-duck session – before a new Senate and President can take office – then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.”

Simply wanting to add more liberal justices to the Supreme Court is not enough. 

To add additional seats, which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was against, would take Presidential approval.  Something that Democratic Presidential Nominee has said in the past he opposes. 

Another option that the democrats have is to abolish the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster from occurring, something that they had recently threatened prior to Ginsberg’s death.  This would ensure that any matter coming up for vote, as long as they are in power, will solely be controlled by the democrats.

Democrats had already started working on ending the filibuster in anticipation of a major victory against Republicans in November.  They fully anticipate sweeping the election and taking power in both seats of the House and the Presidency.  NBC News said

“Veteran party operatives, activist groups and supportive senators are coordinating message and strategy to dial up the pressure to quickly end the 60-vote threshold early next year, fearing that preservation of the rule will enable Republicans to kill Joe Biden’s legislative agenda in its cradle.”

Another option would be to allow Washington DC and Puerto Rico to become a state.  In doing so, they would most assuredly guarantee that senators elected to represent those areas would be democrats.  Thus, giving them the majority, most likely in every single election.  Axios said:

“Democrats are talking anew about pushing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.  Capturing the anything-goes spirit among Democrats amid the Supreme Court fight, one party strategist texted me: ‘Guam want in?”

After Ginsburg’s death, Democrat presidential nominee, Joe Biden called on President Donald Trump to hold off on naming the replacement, as other Democrats draw parallels to the nomination of Garland by former president Barack Obama.

Biden recently tweeted:

“Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.”

Backtracking to 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, both the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that a replacement should not be seated until after the presidential election.

However, in a recent resurfaced 2016 op-ed, then-Vice President Joe Biden wrote that he was “surprised and saddened” that Republicans would not consider a SCOTUS nomination from then-President Barack Obama. Back then he declared that the president had a “constitutional duty” to seat a justice on the high court when a vacancy arises. He said:

“The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.”

Biden added:

“It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear to an oath to uphold and defend. That’s why I was so surprised and saddened to see Republican leaders tell President Obama and me that they would not even consider a Supreme Court nominee this year.”

He continued:

“No meetings. No hearings. No votes. Nothing. It is an unprecedented act of obstruction and it risks a stain on the legacy of all those complicit on carrying out this plan.”

Even in a speech that he gave at Georgetown University, Biden said:

“I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even with a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice and not merely consent of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

Now, in 2020 with Ginsburg’s passing, Biden has made a complete 180-degree turn. He is now echoing the words of his then boss, former president Obama. After Scalia’s death, Obama declared that he had a duty to nominate a successor. Obama wrote back in 2016:

“The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.”

And now, just like Biden, Obama has flip-flopped on the issue solely because a Republican president is in office and the GOP controls the Senate. Obama said in a statement:

“Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.”

Following the death of Justice Scalia, Biden slammed Republicans who said they would not consider a nomination from Obama ahead of the 2016 election. He wrote:

“I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency, but there is nothing in the Constitution or our history to support this view.”

President Trump has said that he will nominate a female judge to replace Ginsburg, adding that Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa are on his short list. He said that he has an “obligation” to fill the seat “without delay.” He said:

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman. A very talented, very brilliant woman.”

He said in a statement:

“We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices.”

 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

 

 

 

Share:
Related Posts