Harris blasts GOP for confirming Amy Coney Barrett: 'We won't forget this'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Harris blasts GOP for confirming Amy Coney Barrett: 'We won't forget this'
Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris admonished Senate Republicans for confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, vowing that Democrats "won't forget" a move they have described as a power grab.
© Getty Images Harris blasts GOP for confirming Amy Coney Barrett: 'We won't forget this'
"Today Republicans denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process - all in their effort to gut the Affordable Care Act and strip health care from millions with pre-existing conditions," Harris said Monday minutes after Barrett was officially confirmed to the court. "We won't forget this."
Barrett was confirmed along a party-line vote on the Senate floor following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month.
Republicans spent her confirmation hearings praising Barrett for her experience as a federal judge and stated commitment to constitutional originalism. Democrats painted her as a danger to women's reproductive rights and politically beholden to President Trump and his allies, an assertion GOP senators have widely rejected.
"I don't see her overturning the decision in Roe v. Wade, based on - based on the weighting of the reliance factors," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who had expressed wariness over the timing of the confirmation process so soon before an election but who voted for Barrett in the end.
During Barrett's confirmation hearings, Harris, a former prosecutor and attorney general of California, grilled the justice about her stance on climate change.
"Do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?" Harris asked Barrett.
"I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial," the justice responded.
"Thank you Judge Barrett," Harris said. "You've made your point clear that you believe it's a debatable point."
A ceremony swearing Barrett in is planned for Monday evening at The White House.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours.
Tags
Who is online
493 visitors
Seems like a perfect illustration that Kamala Harris might not understand how government works, or the damn difference between legitimate and illegitimate, which is very strange for a lawyer.
More likely you don't understand all the uses of the word illegitimate. I'm going to try and help you a little bit. I'm going to direct you to definition 1c from the American Heritage Dictionary
In this usage the word illegitimate does not refer to mere legality such as whether or not the Republicans had a legal right to confirm Barrett. This definition uses illegitimate in the sense of not defensible by normal standards of action.
Now you may disagree with Harris saying the actions of the Republicans as regard Barrett are not defensible, you may think the Republicans actions are defensible, but Harris did not use the wrong word or a word that was not applicable to what she wanted to say.
Now you know.
Thanks for your unenlightening, condescension-laden post.
The appointment of ACB was in every way possible completely legitimate.
The Republicans need no defense for doing their job of appointing someone qualified to a vacancy on SCOTUS.
Very strange for a lawyer? I don't think her use of the word was strange at all, taking into consideration the circumstances. And I say that not only as a lawyer, but as a person who was Editor-in-Chief of my university newspaper as well as a person who taught high school English for a number of years.
I guess it’s not strange for the kind of lawyer who likes to grandstand for the cameras, and misrepresent people and events for her own gain. Not strange at all.
There was absolutely nothing illegitimate about ACB being nominated and confirmed.
Democrats just didn't like it, so they are pulling out all the stops in order to make it look nefarious, when it was just business as usual--- SCOTUS had a vacancy, it was filled in the usual manner.
That is your opinion . Kamala Harris has a different opinion. You said that she should have known what illegitimate means because she is a lawyer. She does know what it means and that was not in doubt.
Yes, it is, because ACB's appointment was COMPLETELY legitimate, despite the whining from the left.
Maybe they'll eventually get over it, maybe they never will.
Who gives a damn whether they do or not?
It is fixing to get real for the damn gop. Real Bad...
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
The only wonder is how often you and YOU alone can repeat the same sad statement over and over and over and over again and again and again.
I fully understand why the Republicans considered it necessary for Barrett to be confirmed immediately - here are two reasons:
1. Roberts has already proven that his decisions are made apolitically, and an equally divided court might not be impressed by Trump's arguments about voter fraud when there is ample experience and evidence that it hardly ever happens and is inconsequential at best.
2. A split count might still accept the arguments of the Democrats that Trump's buddy the postmaster (processing machinery already dismantled and irreplacible in time) and vote-suppressing Republican lawmakers and their minions who burned ballot collection boxes and carried out other criminal acts concerning the ballots and voter intimidation during a time of critical necessity had improperly provided wins to Trump and other Republicans, if such should occur.
Man, that is one hell of a crystal ball you have there--to know in advance how Justices will decide cases not even brought before them yet.
Can you predict accurately who will win the next Superbowl, too?
I may not be as accomplished at posting opinions as you are, but I try, using a mixture of common sense, higher education, intelligence, life experience and a little guesswork to write mine. Crystal balls are for fakes, and fake news is pretty common these days.
Your entire post was speculation on what you think MIGHT happen.
That is evidence of anything.
Correct. You MIGHT notice that I used the word MIGHT in both scenarios. I assume you know that DOES indicate speculation, so your "crystal ball" and "predict" comments were out of line.
Well, gee, Buzz, a meteor MIGHT hit us tomorrow, rendering all arguments useless.
Maybe Joe Biden or DJT will withdraw from the race, too.
Pigs MIGHT fly.
Liberals MIGHT be smarter than the average bear, too, Yogi!
Did my original comment embarrass you, hurt you, insult you, anger you, confuse you, that it was SO necessary for you to put me down so excessively as you have done? I didn't mention you in my comment, did I.
Never, don't be ridiculous!
And the same to you.
Forget what, exactly? That the Senate exercised its legal authority under the Constitution to confirm a judicial appointment? Or that Democratic toddlers have been threatening to pack the court with judges who will promise them in advance how they will vote on certain topics?
What a liar.
Geez, Harris really is toxic. Irrespective of what the judge personally thinks on the topic, it is a fact that it is a matter of public policy, and a politically controversial one. She never said she supported the controversy.
Harris is nasty and is showing once again why she was rated the most liberal Senator in the US senate.
Only thing she give a shit about is more power .....
Some observations I've made and the conclusions I've come to regarding such observations:
1) R v W is a hot topic, but will never be overturned by anyone. People freaking out over nothing... although it seems that political parties use it as leverage in every single election.
2) 2nd Amendment is another hot topic... while certain cities and states have extremely strict rules regarding concealed carry of guns, they're never going to take our guns. We have the right, as "the people" to defend ourselves and our families; yes, that includes against the government. Again, used by politicians as leverage.
3) Harris asked Judge Barrett only a few questions in the roughly 1/2 hour "interview" I watched, which to me indicated that she already had her mind made up about Barrett. Moreover, it appeared to me that Harris was doing more "campaigning" than she was in performing the task in front of her. One would think that Harris would ask more questions if she were truly interested in Barrett's ability to perform her job objectively; however, that didn't seem to be the case at all.
4) The ACA is another hot topic, used as leverage, and is only affordable for those that don't have a job or have a job paying minimum wage. For others, mainly the working middle class, it's not so affordable. The working middle class makes just enough money that we don't see discounts, we're paying out the ass when we have to go to the ER, and "employer-paid" healthcare is not 100% paid for and in many instances, is a downright joke in regard to cost and coverage. While I'm lucky enough to have the majority of our healthcare costs paid for by the company I work for, it's not like that for all companies. Moreover, you have to jump through hoops just to get covered and stay covered. None of that occurred until after the ACA went into effect. Prior to 2010, if I had to take one of the kids to the ER or go to the ER myself, it cost me $100 copay. The last time I had to go to the ER (June 2016), it cost $240 for a doctor I never saw, $600 for a 12 block ride in an ambulance, $1200 for 45 min. of "space usage" in the hospital and $100 for the anti-inflammatory meds they gave me just before making me leave. It's also very difficult and a constant battle to get the meds I need for my sleep disorder; I've been on them for more than 11 years now and it's a struggle every month.
We should not be nearly as obsessed as we are with who sits on the Court. In generations past, we weren't. In recent decades, though, a handful of cases have been decided by close votes on arguably fragile legal grounds, so there is a fear that they could be reversed. Even liberals know in their hearts that Roe lies uneasy or they wouldn't be worried about it.
The cure for this is not getting the right people on the Court. The cure is that Congress does its job and crafts legislation that resolves the issues for all time. Some of that legislation might need to be in the form of Constitutional amendments. They should write the amendments and make the case to the people. They will also have to reach consensus with their political opponents. That implies some statesmanship is needed.
And that requires an effort most of Congress has been unwilling to make for a long time. Instead, they push through marginally popular legislation when they control the House, Senate, and White House; or they obstruct the majority when they don't have that power. Then they rely on the Court to do their dirty work for them.
Exactly.
Good points all!