Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated for the Supreme Court by Donald Trump, has spoken about the case challenging Affordable Care Act as well as a possible disagreement in the presidential elections.
The unexpected death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg resulted in the Senate engaging in an election year confirmation battle.
Barrett was nominated shortly after this. She claims that at the time of her nomination, she did not discuss or give any conclusive answers to specific cases.
At the confirmation hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was questioned on whether or not she had promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act. She responded firmly stating that she was never asked about this and even if she was, she would not agree to have the discussion.
However, the duration of the hearing was 11 hours and throughout the discussion, Barret refused to comment when she was asked by Democrats about different laws including the Affordable Care Act, same-sex marriage legalization, and Roe v. Wade.
In addition to this, Barrett also refused to answer whether she would withdraw herself from judging upcoming cases such as the election disputes.
The questioning lasted for two days, where the Democrats repeatedly questioned Barret about controversial subjects, for example, same-sex marriage, gun rights, health care, voting rights, and abortion.
She, however, refused to comment, explaining that she understood why they were concerned but it wouldn’t be in the best interest to pre-commit as she did not have any prior agenda for the future cases.
The Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat expressed that it was extremely upsetting not getting any straightforward answers from her.
The Democrats, however, did avoid asking her questions about whether her religious affiliations, as a devout Catholic, would result in biased views.
An upcoming hearing will take place concerning repealing the Affordable Care Act and Barret could potentially be present on the bench if she is appointed before the elections.
The Republicans have constantly endorsed her and spoke about her competency time and again. They emphasized the fact that she believes the role of a judge is only to interpret the law rather than making policies.
She speaks on this matter, explaining that for her to impose her policy preferences would be going against democracy.