world

Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has no agenda on Obamacare, abortion

58 Comments
By Lawrence Hurley, Patricia Zengerle and Andrew Chung

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

"I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law."

And to do what the Federalist Society and other right wing groups backed by dark money brought her to DC to do.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse used all 30 minutes of his time at Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday to reveal how Donald Trump and the Republican party have harnessed a quarter of a billion dollars in conservative dark money to appoint federal judges who will dismantle Obamacare, gay marriage, and abortion rights.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sheldon-whitehouse-amy-coney-barrett-trump-scotus-gay-marriage-abortion-obamacare-b1016461.html

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Typical non-answers we get from every nominee from either party.

She will be confirmed and the court will begin to chip away at the rights to privacy, equal protection, and the separation of church and state. It’s sad that conservatives want to turn back the clock and make our country regressive instead of allowing us to continue leading the way.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Hilarious when non-lawyers feel they can determine what is “judicial genius.” Then again, we’ll likely get the claim they are lawyers given they have a personal anecdote to provide as “evidence” on every topic.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

What’s even funnier is liberals (non-lawyers and lawyers) thinking this woman is a pegged, a pushover and they got her boxed in, don’t know whether to laugh or shake my head.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

No rational adult thinks they have Barrett pegged or boxed in. We know she’s going to be confirmed. Weird how rightists think they can read people’s minds.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Yes, they do, that’s why when they asked to see her notes, she had nothing on them. Just a blank piece of paper, this woman has a serious deep memory recall. Man, couldn’t stop laughing, this woman is just awesome!

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Asking to see notes is evidence if thinking you have someone pegged or boxed in? Sure, that makes sense.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Anybody applying for a position in the USSC political theater who comes "without an agenda" ought to be dismissed for their disingenuousness and for lacking the courage of their convictions. "Originalists" like Scalia and his ideological spawn are a priori right-wing agendamongers. The Dems must drain the swamp of these phony mind-readers of those men who constructed the now out-dated US Constitution by making clear to the American people the probable adverse consequences of hiring ACB and, to the hypocritical Republicans, the high political cost they will be made to pay for packing the court with their dutiful "handmaid".

4 ( +8 / -4 )

It does and we have two more days where Dems think they can box her in, but at this point, don’t see it happening, can’t wait until she’s on bench, seems like this is going to be a breeze.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

She looks quite good to me, I hope Trump doesn’t believe he can use her as a puppet because from what I saw and read, it’s unlikely she will. I don’t think there will be anything going backward on abortion and same sex marriage - it would be as explosive as reinstating segregation in the southern states.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

She looks quite good to me, I hope Trump doesn’t believe he can use her as a puppet

Trump is Not the problem, he chose her exactly for that, her independent mind and her being a constitutional textualist.

because from what I saw and read, it’s unlikely she will. I don’t think there will be anything going backward on abortion and same sex marriage - it would be as explosive as reinstating segregation in the southern states.

I agree.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

How about TrumpCare?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Hearing is ridiculous parade of personal stories about Obamacare etc. Like they are trying to,predict how she might rule. Just watching Harris being smug and ridiculous again. Politicians of both sides really are ridiculous.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Typical non-answers we get from every nominee from either party. 

"I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act," Barrett said. "I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law."

If this is somehow unclear to you, then I recommend some “intellectual” exercises. Your reaction is a common occurrence these days when the “new” MSM needs to always express their “feelings” when they’re not supposed to. That’s not the journalism and thats not the law.

invalid CSRF

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

She is making all these Dem senators look really dumb by comparison.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Based on Barrett’s previous legal decisions and arguments, she’s like a republican dream come true. Trump failed at protecting the American people, and he’s made matters worse by what he’s done to the courts. Elections have consequences.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Democrats should make abortion a national law, taking out of the hand of the state and let it be regulated by the Federal government, since it only a medical procedure

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Money Vs No Money, most cases has no meaning in somebody life, but the life it affected

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The law make insurers pay the majority of their premium to patient

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act," Barrett said. "I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law."

What is so ridiculous about the use of Obamacare as a cudgel against ACB is that her participation in the case can only do harm to those wanting it struck down. The current opinion of record is to strike it down. Should there be a 4-4 tie the lower court decision will stand and Obamacare is toast. However should ACB pull a Roberts she could potentially save the law from what otherwise would be certain defeat. As we all know, Republican appointed judges rule against Republican politics all the time. If that weren’t the case Obamacare would have been gone a long time ago.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Learn what the actuarial term "adverse selection" means and you will understand the reasons for the requirement to carry health insurance and the ACA marketplaces. Adverse selection works to remove the highest risk (sickest) and lowest risk (healthiest) members from the pool of those paying for insurance. And as the size of the risk pool declines, costs rise, chasing out still more of the sickest and healthiest members of the risk pool. Requiring everyone to carry health insurance, just as drivers must carry auto insurance and home buyers must pay for homeowners insurance as part of their mortgage, short circuits adverse selection, maximizing the size of the risk pool costs are spread across and thus keeping prices minimal. It works for auto and homeowners insurance. The market places are there because so many places in the US had effectively competition to drive prices down. Much of the US was covered by only one or two insurers. The idea with the state market places was to bring in more firms so the resulting competition would drive prices down. What happened instead was many firms decided to merge instead of competing and neither Congress nor the FTC did anything to stop these mergers under the nation's anti trust laws. Too many members of Congress are owned by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I should have said much of the US had effectively no competition to drive prices down. No way to correct a post after posting so my apologies. Lack of competition in health care is one of the big drivers of high health care costs. When only one or two firms offer insurance in a region you have oligopoly, higher prices and fewer choices than would be the case if you had six or more firms with roughly equal market share competing for business.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As we all know, Republican appointed judges rule against Republican politics all the time.

You guys have been telling us for four years that judges are partisan. Now you’re saying they’re not. The blatant hypocrisy continues.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Watched John Kennedy and Marsha Blackburn and they were embarrassing !!!!

Intentional or not, they came across looking stupid!!

Though Kennedy was the one who said he doesn't want to wear a mask in the shower!!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sen Harris was just brilliant!!!!

My wish is to see her question trump some day!!!

She'll wipe the floor with him!!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has no agenda on Obamacare, abortion

And Trump says he's never watched a Stormy Daniels movie...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Trump's Supreme Court nominees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both voted to end ACA. There is no suspense here people. It is imperative we take the Senate and not let Republicans back in.

Vote no on Amy Covid Barrett....for democracy, justice and America.

Tell your Senator to vote no.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Anyone claiming they don't have an agenda is either a liar, fool, or both.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Amy Coney Barret has all the identity qualifications that should have Democrats very eager to approve her nomination. As a female with a successful career it would mean another woman on the court. She's obviously not racist or she would not have adopted 2 black children from Haiti. So that's good.

Women's empowerment and anti racism are two of the Democrat's most promoted issues so I would imagine they would be thrilled with Amy Comey Barret.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Amy Coney Barret has all the identity qualifications that should have Democrats very eager to approve her nomination. As a female with a successful career it would mean another woman on the court.

Ahh Republicans. You guys looove your identity politics. What the person believes doesn't matter, who they are is all that matters.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It's why the elected a reality TV star to president.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Kennedy was classic as usual, crushed and embarrassed the Democrats with more facts and logic, to the point and without all of the liberal shock of melodrama.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

re-elected, in 3 weeks.

It's why the elected a reality TV star to president.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Congress has the power to create clear, unambiguous, Constitutional laws. If they did that, the Supreme Court wouldn't back anything those laws don't say. Courts "interpret the law", they aren't supposed to make up laws, regardless of what activist judges believe.

If the ACA gets watered down further, it is because the law violates the US Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitutions about providing health care to anybody, so if that is desired, then it is a power "reserved for the states." Let me look up that clause:

Found it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If citizens of the USA want health care at the national level, then pass an amendment to the US Constitution. Otherwise, it is reserved to the States ... or to the people.

Those pesky laws keep getting in the way. There's a way to fix that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

She comes across very well and from what I've read of her she would probably be an excellent choice for the U.S. The opposition has a duty to try box her in before selection, the GOP would do exactly the same in that position.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As usual the political left is intentionally muddling up what should be a smooth and efficient process.

https://youtu.be/EWLpee8dcek

Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with Barrett's appointment.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham appearing in person, without masks, should be prosecutable.

Kennedy was a joke , embarrassing not only himself but Barret too, asking her questions she didn't know the answer to.

I would have laughed but knowing that there is a danger of millions of Americans losing access to healthcare I can only dread.

We need to tolerate this clueless administration another few months, that's something to look forward to.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Remember if you confirm Amy Barret, we confirm a woman who is against the rights of other women!!!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Obamacare will be fine.

Abortion rights advocates fear Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about the ruling, Barrett said she would consider the usual factors on whether to overturn a precedent.

Not sure why people still want to go after abortion. A majority of Americans support it nowadays, including tons more independents and Republicans than in the past.

It would be a shame if the minority held everyone else hostage.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

And she has a bridge for sale as well....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

She's too sharp for the senators. Also, they can't read her mind. Dems would be nominating judges to work in their favour... why are they complaining?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Democrats should make abortion a national law, taking out of the hand of the state and let it be regulated by the Federal government, since it only a medical procedure

Health care isn't within the current power of Congress to control at the national level.

A Constitutional amendment would be needed and there just isn't the will to make that happen or at least I don't think there is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No agenda? Yeah right...she most certainly does have an agenda. Her agenda is to lie to the committee and swear to them that she has no agenda.

This is her chance to leave her mark on the world.

If you don't think Trump asked for her "loyalty" then you are extremely naive.

She's a Scalia clone. It's well-known she's against abortion and gay marriage.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Actions speak louder than words. That is what matters... her choices and the judgements she makes will determine if she's telling the truth or lying.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has no agenda on Obamacare, abortion

"I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act," Barrett said. "I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law."

Amy Coney Barrett appears to be an excellent choice for a Supreme Court Justice. Barrett believes that the legislatures should be making the laws, and that judges should rule according to the laws that the legislatures have created. A judge is not responsible for what a legislation intended to create, judges are only responsible for applying the law as that law was written. What a shock that seems to be to the elected democrats who are currently questioning Barrett's ability to do her new job (she's going to be confirmed, folks) correctly. If elected democrats crafted poorly worded, poorly thought out, or unconstitutional laws, it's not supposed to be the job of a judge to rewrite that law correctly, or rewrite that law in an actually comprehensive matter.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

ulysses - Remember if you confirm Amy Barret, we confirm a woman who is against the rights of other women!!!

"you confirm", "we confirm"??? Seriously? What does that mean? Meanwhile, there is absolutely no evidence that Barrett is against the rights of other women. As you requested, I will try and remember what you have written, for as long as I think it's necessary.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Lack of competition in health care is one of the big drivers of high health care costs.

So how do you keep prices down when the government monopolizes the health care market? Rationing? Removing choice for treatments considered too expensive but appropriate for certain types of patients? There is no easy answer and the government is the worst of them all.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I watched some of the hearings yesterday and today. The misogyny coming from the Democrat party was astounding. They were lecturing her about being female. A woman with seven children is not woman enough for them. A woman with seven children, a husband, a charitable and giving private life who is also at the pinnacle of her profession - is not a real woman to these neanderthals. Their attacks on her- especially by Harris - were mean spirited and straight out of the Marxist anti anyone who can be hatefully mislabeled an oppressor. ACB made them look like children fighting over toys. Way too intelligent for the Lefts mob of sycophants spouting critical race theory dogma and other such Marxist tripe.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Somewhat concerning that someone has made it to her age and level in the judiciary and apparently doesn't have any opinions about any laws or anything at all ever.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Way too intelligent for the Lefts mob of sycophants spouting critical race theory dogma and other such Marxist tripe.

Please learn what Marxism is. It's super easy. You can just read Capital Volumes I-III. I know that you guys on the right hate reading (one user said that they don't think they need to read a study to understand it, another said he prefers to look at the covers, and one notoriously clearly doesn't read anything he posts), but I promise you that reading things is not only fun, but also highly useful to you.

I promise. Just try reading a book. One time. For me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And she has a bridge for sale as well....

Yeah, amazing how honest this woman is and No notes, Dems can’t believe she’s telling the truth and she’s running circles around them and yet, Biden and Harris don’t want to be honest about court packing. Just wow.....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So how do you keep prices down when the government monopolizes the health care market?

I bet if you asked the Americans who need to (but currently can’t) buy medicine in Canada because it’s too expensive in America, they’d be able to give you some ideas.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So how do you keep prices down when the government monopolizes the health care market?

Better bargaining power as a result of a single central buyer means you can negotiate prices to be far lower. this is why other countries pay far less for medicine than we do.

Rationing?

Medicine is rationed now. But the rationing is based not on need, but on how wealthy you are.

Removing choice for treatments considered too expensive but appropriate for certain types of patients?

Yes. Bankrupting yourself for treatment that doesn't work is bad, actually.

There is no easy answer and the government is the worst of them all.

There are easy answers. Singe payer healthcare is the cheapest and most effective way of providing healthcare, saving money and providing the best outcomes. Private-only healthcare is a trash idea for idiot babies.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yeah, amazing how honest this woman is and No notes

You don't need notes when all you say is "I don't know anything and I have no opinions. Make me a Supreme Court Justice lol".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

You don't need notes when all you say is "I don't know anything and I have no opinions.

well that’s not true, because with the amount of tax that she has received from the Democrats she could log down to remember those arguments and give a rebuttal if she didn’t she kept them all in her head, but exceptionally smart people can easily do that and she did it with great finesse.

Make me a Supreme Court Justice lol".

Exactly, which will happen. Kudos.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

well that’s not true, because with the amount of tax that she has received from the Democrats she could log down to remember those arguments and give a rebuttal if she didn’t she kept them all in her head, but exceptionally smart people can easily do that and she did it with great finesse.

Rule 19.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Amy Comey Barret comes across as highly qualified, sincere, intelligent, humble and dedicated. She promised to rule strictly in accordance with the law as written regardless of personal bias. What more could be asked of a judge?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

 What more could be asked of a judge?

Honesty.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites