President Trump’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, is refusing to buckle under pressure from congressional Democrats and Progressives to promise she won’t engage in any questions that may come before the court regarding the 2020 General Election.
Barrett, in responding to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, identified a number of potential conflicts, which she indicated on a “recusal list.” Absent on that list were any cases related to the 2020 election.
While Barrett’s recusal list didn’t specifically identify any categories of cases from which she would absolve herself, she indicated that she would recuse herself from cases where her husband Jesse Barrett and her sister Amanda Coney Williams – both attorneys – were involved, and in any stage of the proceedings.
She also indicated that she would also recuse herself in cases involving Notre Dame University and affiliated entities. Barrett is currently an adjunct professor at the university.
Additionally, Barrett said she would not engage in cases she had participated in as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court.
As Democrat Senators Corey Booker (D-NJ), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) indicated they would like to see Barrett promise to recuse herself in any questions that might arise before the High Court pertaining to the 2020 General Election, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said there is no mandate for a recusal.
US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), called the notion of Barrett’s recusal in cases before the court an “astonishingly dumb idea,” because the reason for nominating a replacement for the vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death was to have a full court in the event there was a conflict arising from the election.
Astonishingly dumb idea. One of the biggest reason we will confirm the nominee BEFORE Election Day is to ensure a full 9-Justice majority to resolve any (inevitable) election disputes.
Dems desperately, desperately don’t want that. https://t.co/2QcudzvwO8
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 26, 2020
Calling it a “ridiculous” idea that a confirmed and seated Supreme Court justice wouldn’t be able to hear an election-related cases because she was confirmed in an election year, Graham said, “There is no legal disqualification. She doesn’t have a legal conflict. She doesn’t decide the election. She’s just a vote like everybody else.”
Barrett’s confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin later this month.
