To justify her refusal to answer, Amy Coney Barrett quoted ... Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The federal judge appointed by Donald Trump to succeed the magistrate who died last month referred to her to explain to senators why she refused to give her opinions on certain subjects on which she could be called upon to pronounce in the Court: “Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic brevity, described how an appointee should behave at a hearing. No clues, no criticism, no forecast. This was the practice of the nominees before it. But everyone calls it the "Ginsburg Rule" because it presented it so clearly, "said Amy Coney Barrett, omitting the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, in 1993, given her opinion on a number of subjects. "I did not engage with anyone to decide on any case", however assured the judge.
Among the issues that Amy Coney Barrett has avoided is that of the right to abortion. In the past, she has signed a text evoking Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling federally allowing abortion, and her "barbaric legacy," but she declined to say how she would vote in court. What Kamala Harris did not like: "I suggest that we do not pretend what this named thinks of the right of a woman to choose and to make decisions for her own health", asserted the senator of California, running mate by Joe Biden. As during the debate against Mike Pence, the Democrat insisted on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare whose repeal could be voted by the Supreme Court: "The Trump administration and the Republican senators urge the Court supreme to kill the Affordable Care Act and all patient protections. The Republicans are looking to have this nominee confirmed as quickly as possible because they need another Trump judge in place by November 10 to take down the ACA. This is not hyperbole. It is not a hypothesis. It's happening. ” On November 10, in fact, the Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal on the ACA. "It is not my mission to destroy the ACA," replied the judge.
A short and long term calculation for conservatives
Sheltering behind the political neutrality of the judges, Amy Coney Barrett also refused to answer simple questions. Asked about the possibility of delaying the elections, mentioned by Donald Trump, she retreated when it is constitutionally impossible: "If this question arose to me, I would need to hear the arguments of the litigants and read documents ... I don't think we want judges to be legal commentators, ”she said. She drew the wrath of an association for the defense of LGBT + rights with a response on same-sex marriage, made legal in the country after a Supreme Court decision in 2015: “I have no program , and I want to be clear that I have never discriminated against anyone because of their sexual preference and will never discriminate against anyone because of their sexual preference. ” “I certainly didn't want to use a term that would shock the LGBTQ community,” she replied to those who criticized her for the term “sexual preference” instead of using “sexual orientation”.
The importance of his appointment is crucial: thanks to the Republican majority in the Senate, this would permanently unbalance the balance within the Supreme Court. Donald Trump was able to appoint three judges (including Amy Coney Barrett pending), which would bring to 6 judges considered conservative against 3 progressives. And this could have consequences on several levels. If we have recently seen that this does not guarantee Donald Trump a victory in court - the latter considered in July that justice was entitled to demand his tax returns, which he refuses to transmit in the as part of an investigation into possible violations of campaign finance laws - the Supreme Court could help him as he has already assumed his intention to appeal the outcome of the election to the courts in case of defeat. In the long term, this conservative majority could reverse certain societal gains (the right to abortion, marriage between people of the same sex), or even slow down the adoption of new ones.