Amy Barrett Hearings: What's Her Stance On Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, Election Fraud?

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday deftly sidestepped Democrats trying to pin down her leanings on likely issues to come before the high court, including abortion rights, on the second day of her confirmation hearing. Nor did she promise to recuse herself from any cases involving the Nov. 3 presidential election.

“I will consider all factors that are relevant to that question that requires recusal when there’s an appearance of bias,” she said in response to questioning by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “I can’t commit to you right now, but I do assure you of my integrity, and I do assure you that I would take that question very seriously.”

The stakes are high. At 48, Barrett could cement the court’s 6-3 conservative majority for a generation – a prospect that has a number of Democrats muttering about expanding the size of the court. With President Donald Trump all-but-guaranteed to challenge the election results should he lose the Nov. 3 presidential election, he has tweeted he's counting on Barrett’s support in any election dispute.

The Wall Street Journal said Barrett should decline to recuse herself from any election dispute, relying instead on her judicial training.

“If confirmed, Justice Barrett and her colleagues can assess the merits of any election lawsuit as they would any other case,” the Journal editorial board said.

It added: “Judge Barrett would be shirking her duty if she did recuse, and she can cite as an authority no less an eminence than her old boss, Justice [Antonin] Scalia.”

Donald B. Ayer, a former Justice Department official, and Alan Charles Raul who served in George W. Bush’s White House counsel’s office, said the rushed nature of Barrett’s confirmation hearing is destroying trust in the Supreme Court.

“The legitimacy of the judicial branch rests on the principle that judges are independent and unbiased interpreters of the law. A fair process for nomination and selection is crucial to preserving a public perception of the justices of the Supreme Court as neutral jurists, rather than pawns of the political process,” the pair wrote in a USA Today op-ed.

Barrett said as a sitting appellate judge on the 7th Circuit, she has never written anything that could reveal her leanings in election disputes and has no intention of being used as a pawn to decide the election.

She also declined to clarify her views on the Affordable Care Act despite tweets from President Donald Trump assuring her ascension to the high court would signal the death knell for President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, which comes up for argument before the court Nov. 10.

Barrett tried to assure lawmakers she has no agenda and would examine every case on its merits.

“I never made any commitments or deals or anything like that,” Barrett said, denying she was “on a mission to destroy” the ACA.

When it comes to abortion rights, Barrett said the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is not a “super-precedent.” In her mind, Barrett said, there are only two “super-precedents”: Marbury v. Madison, which enables the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional laws, and Brown v. Board of Education, which abolished segregation in schools.

The abortion issue is tricky. A recent Pew Research Center survey indicates most Americans say abortion should be at least partially legal. The July 22-Aug. 4 survey of 4,175 adults found little support for overturning Roe, with just 28% saying they would like to see abortion rights abolished, most of them conservative Republicans.

Barrett acknowledged she is an originalist who interprets the Constitution as written, much like Scalia for whom she clerked.

“I interpret the Constitution as a law. The text is text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. It does not change over time, and it is not up to me to update it or infuse my own views into it,” she said.