Judge Amy Coney Barrett faced a second round of questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the third day of her confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on Tuesday also endured a marathon day of questioning from the committee's 22 senators, including Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris.
Democrats on the committee asked her to explain her positions on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, the upcoming election and other contentious issues that she might need to rule on if she is confirmed.
Read the latest updates below:
Barrett hearings end with Senate moving toward FBI eval and vote
The hourslong hearings for Barrett wrapped up shortly before 6 p.m. ET after she was again grilled by lawmakers over policies and her judicial philosophy. It is the end of the hearings part of the confirmation process.
The lawmakers then moved to a closed-door meeting to go over her FBI background check, which is standard for appointees.
Over the past several days, Barrett was questioned on a variety of legal topics and pressed by Democrats, who excoriated their GOP colleagues for rushing Trump’s nomination in an election year. Republicans also criticized Democrats for their questions.
Graham, the committee’s chairman, however, ended the hearing on a light note.
"It is over. The hearing part is over. You can have two glasses of wine tonight if you'd like,” he told Barrett.
Graham praised Barrett as a highly-qualified jurist, and he thanked the Democrats for asking “challenging and probing” questions, but said “elections have consequences,” noting that she is a Republican nominee.
Following the hearing, Senate Democrats also plan to hold a press conference later Wednesday to highlight what’s at stake for the American people with this nomination.
The Senate will reconvene Thursday at 9 a.m.
Kennedy ends questions by asking Barrett about laundry
Harris, Barrett spar over climate change
Harris and Barrett had another testy exchange involving climate change.
It began with Harris asking Barrett if she believed the coronavirus is infectious. "Yes, I do accept that Covid-19 is contagious. It is an obvious fact. Yes," Barrett answered.
Harris then asked if she believed smoking causes cancer. Barrett said "I'm not sure where you're going with this," but answered, "Yes."
Harris then asked if she believed "that climate change is happening and threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink."
Barrett demurred, saying the other questions had been "completely uncontroversial" and Harris was trying to solicit an opinion on "a very contentious matter of public debate. And I will not do that. I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that is inconsistent with the judicial rule as I have explained."
Harris concluded the line of questioning by saying, "Thank you, Judge Barrett. You've made your point clear. You believe it's a debatable point."
Harris, Barrett have testy exchange on voting rights
Sen. Kamala Harris began her questioning by focusing on voting rights and paying tribute to the late civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis before getting into a testy exchange with Barrett.
The vice presidential nominee and former prosecutor asked the judge whether she agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts that "voting discrimination still exists and no one doubts that."
"I'm not going to make a comment," Barrett told the Democratic vice presidential nominee, who noted that 23 states "have passed restrictive voting laws" since the Voting Rights Act was gutted in in 2013.
"These are very charged issues" that are likely to come before the high court, Barrett told Harris. The judge did offer that, "Racial discrimination still exists in the United States."
Barrett declines to answer whether child separation is 'wrong'
During questioning from Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Barrett refused to say whether she thought separating children from their parents at the border is "wrong."
Saying he considered the answer "obvious," Booker asked, "Do you think it is wrong to separate children from their parents" in order to deter "immigrants from coming to the United States?"
Barrett told him, "That has been a matter of policy debate" and "hot political debate in which I cannot express a view or be drawn into as a judge."
Booker kept pressing, asking, "As a human being, do you believe that is wrong?"
Barrett again declined to answer, saying she would not comment on the morality of the position and "cannot be drawn into a debate about the administration's immigration policy."
Hirono pays tribute to RBG with mask, pin
Barrett says Supreme Court's election role would be to keep it 'fair'
After dodging questions about the upcoming election earlier in the hearing, Barrett said the Supreme Court's role should only to be ensure a "fair" election.
Asked by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., if the Supreme Court would elect the next president, Barrett said its role would be to make sure the results are protected.
"While it's impossible to predict what aspect [of the election] would be challenged," Barrett said, election laws "are designed to protect the right to vote."
She was then asked by Tillis if she agreed that every registered voter in the country should vote on Nov. 11, which is eight days after the Nov. 3, Election Day. "Of course," she answered.
Barrett sidesteps question on pandemic restrictions involving churches and protests
Barrett sidestepped a question from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., on her views on pandemic restrictions against protests as opposed to religious worship.
"Those aren't things I'd be able to comment on," she told him.
Asked how she'd evaluate such cases, Barrett said, "The general position is the government has a compelling interest in responding to” a public health crisis, but "First Amendment concerns would “come into play as well.”
Graham blames technical problems on 'the curse of the Astros'
After Graham announced a break while they worked on the audio problems, the mics briefly flickered on at a little after 3 p.m. ET, but still didn't work properly.
Graham then gaveled the hearing back in at 3:14 p.m. ET after waiting for Barrett to return while the mic issues were being fixed; he had been waiting for the nominee to come back to her seat for quite some time.
“Can someone go find Judge Barrett? Let’s go while we can go,” Graham said.
The chairman jokingly blamed the mic problem on “the curse of the Astros” — a reference to a lighthearted exchange earlier in the day among Sens. Sasse, Cornyn and Cruz.
Sen. Tillis, whose turn had only just come up when the mics went out, is returning to his questions now.
Graham says after more audio problems, “Are we not paying the bills?”
After the mics in the hearing room apparently stopped working a second time, Graham, visibly annoyed, asked, “Are we not paying the bills?”
Graham had only gaveled the hearing back in a little while earlier after a roughly 40-minute unexpected break due to the technical issues.
Barrett deflects more questions on birth control case
Barrett was pressed for her views on the precedent set in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which protects the right to buy and use contraception for married couples, where she declined to answer and suggested the inquiry was irrelevant.
"I would be surprised if people were afraid birth control was going to be criminalized," Barrett told Blumenthal.
As for how she would have ruled had she been on the high court at the time the case was decided, she said, "I can't give a yes or no answer."
Coons had asked Barrett about the case earlier in the day, and she wouldn't say whether she thought it was correctly decided.
"I think Griswold isn't going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples or all people from using birth control ... It seems unthinkable that any legislature would pass such a law," Barrett told Coons.
Hearing paused a second time after technical problem
The hearing was paused for a second time after a technical problem made microphones stop working.
Barrett hearing resumes after technical problem
The Barrett hearing has resumed following an unscheduled almost 40-minute break after technicians solved a sound issue that deadened the microphones.
The sound cut out shortly after Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., had begun questioning the judge.
"Sorry about the interruption," Judiciary Chair Sen. Lindsey Graham said as the hearing resumed.
Senators spent the break milling around the hearing room and chatting in their masks until the sound issue was resolved. Barrett spent some of the time in a separate holding room.
Technical difficulties lead to unscheduled Barrett break
Graham called a 10-minute break at Barrett's hearing after her microphone went dead while she was being questioned by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
The problem also seemed to strike all the senators, leading Graham to jokingly call out that "the Russians" were responsible. He called a recess while they try to fix the problem.
Hawley's comment about 'Borking' Barrett falls flat
Hawley was making a reference to Democrats' attacks on Judge Robert Bork, which ultimately torpedoed his 1987 Supreme Court nomination.
Barrett refuses to answer Sen. Hawley's 'hypothetical' question about a former vice president's son
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asked Barrett a "hypothetical" question about whether a vice president's son who "sold access" to his father who took action on his case would constitute "foreign corruption."
Hawley said "I think it's only fair that I ask, hypothetically speaking, just hypothetically" about the case, a clear reference to debunked allegations against Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.
"I can't answer hypotheticals," Barrett said.
Barrett says it would be 'unthinkable' for a legislature to pass a law challenging contraception ruling
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked Barrett about the case Griswold v. Connecticut, which protects the right to buy and use contraception for married couples, and whether it was correctly decided.
Barrett declined to answer the question, saying that she can't express a view on that issue just as she hasn't on a number of other cases.
"I think Griswold isn't going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples or all people from using birth control... It seems unthinkable that any legislature would pass such a law," Barrett added.
States have considered laws to limit access to emergency contraceptives like Plan B.
Sasse, Cruz spar over baseball and the Houston Astros
During Sasse's line of questioning, he began talking about the Houston Astros and called the major league team "miserable cheaters" because he said "they steal signs."
"They've done a whole bunch of miserable things historically and they deserve to be punished probably more than they had been," Sasse said.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn interjected, "Thank goodness the First Amendment protects that erroneous opinion."
Cruz then said that he was tempted to make a parliamentary inquiry in the "unjustified broadside from the senator from Nebraska" and whether it violates a committee rule.
"I decided not to when I came to the realization that Nebraska lacks a professional baseball team," Cruz said, describing the attack as a "cry for help" while criticizing the state's college football team.
Barrett tries to list the 5 freedoms in the First Amendment
When Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was questioning Barrett, he asked her to list the five freedoms laid out in the First Amendment.
"Speech, religion, press, assembly...," said Barrett, who then tried to count them on her hand and she said, "I don't know, what am I missing?"
"Redress or protests," Sasse said.
Klobuchar asks if it's a coincidence Barrett would be third justice who worked on Bush v. Gore
Klobuchar asked Barrett if absentee ballots, "better known as mail-in ballots," are an essential way to vote for millions of people right now in the middle of the current pandemic.
"That's a matter of policy on which I can't express a view," Barrett said.
"To me, that just feels like a fundamental part of our democracy," Klobuchar responded.
Klobuchar then pointed out that if confirmed, the Supreme Court would have three justices who worked on behalf of the Republican Party on the pivotal Bush v. Gore case in 2000 that resulted in George W. Bush winning that year's presidential election after a recount in Florida. She said that would include Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Asked if she thinks that's a coincidence, Barrett said, "Senator Klobuchar, if you're asking me whether I was nominated for this seat because I worked on Bush versus Gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate, that doesn't make sense to me."
Barrett says she did not 'cut a deal with the president' on any cases
In an exchange with Klobuchar, Barrett reiterated comments that she made in her testimony before the committee on Tuesday about not making any pre-commitments about any cases — including the Affordable Care Act case.
"You're suggesting that I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president and I was very clear yesterday that that isn't what happened," Barrett said.
Klobuchar says Barrett's 'tracks' signal that she could vote to strike down 'Obamacare'
Klobuchar said that Barrett's record signals that she could vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the upcoming Supreme Court case.
"I've been following the tracks and the only way for the American people to figure out how you might roll is to follow your record and follow the tracks," said Klobuchar, who noted that Barrett has said she considers Scalia a mentor, has criticized Chief Justice John Roberts upholding the ACA and praised the dissent by Scalia in that ruling.
"To me, these tracks lead us to one place, and that is that you will have the polar opposite judicial philosophy of Justice Ginsburg, and to me, that would change the balance of this court," Klobuchar added.
Hearing has resumed after quick lunch break
The hearing has resumed after a 30-minute lunch break. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is up for her second round of questioning.
Committee takes 30-minute lunch break
The committee is taking a lunch break and will return at 12:30 p.m. ET, Graham said. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., will begin her questions for Barrett when the senators return. Lawmakers are on their second round of questions and their third day of the hearing. Each senator has been given up to 20 minutes to ask questions of the nominee.
Cruz attacks absent Democrats, Durbin responds by pointing to pandemic
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, began his round of questions by criticizing Democrats for not being inside the hearing room throughout the day, claiming it indicates they "don't have substantive criticism."
Durbin, however, interjected, raising a point of personal privilege to say the country is in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, "and some members are in their offices following this on television, and to suggest their absence here means they're not following or participating is incorrect."
Cruz then noted that all but two Democrats on the committee were in the hearing room at one point during the first round of questions Tuesday.
The second round of questions is taking place Wednesday before the panel goes into closed session with Barrett. Many senators generally pop into hearings when it comes time for them to speak and don't sit in the room throughout.
Barrett says she didn't know justices are subject to lower ethics standards
Whitehouse spoke about how Supreme Court justices are not subject to some of the codes of ethics that apply to lawmakers or judges of lower courts and about the lower reporting requirements that the justices have.
"I think it's anomalous that the highest court should have the lowest standards," Whitehouse said. "I hope you'll keep an open mind about trying to fix that when you're on the court."
Barrett said she didn't realize that justices have lower standards in reporting their financial disclosures.
"I'm surprised because I did think it was a statute that applied to everyone — so I'm surprised," she said. "I've always complied with filling out my financial disclosure reports."
Leahy calls out Cornyn retweet showing dated photo of maskless senators
In a tweet, Leahy called out a post on Twitter from Cornyn, who retweeted a photo of Democratic senators huddled together, free of face coverings, along with the question, "Masks?"
The photo of Booker and Whitehouse surrounding Blumenthal is from the Kavanaugh hearings in 2018, well before the coronavirus pandemic.
Leahy noted that the photo was dated and added that he looks forward to Cornyn "calling out President Trump for not wearing a mask next time."
Barrett doesn’t say if Social Security and Medicare are constitutional
Amy Coney Barrett refrained Wednesday from saying whether she believes the Social Security and Medicare programs are constitutional.
Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Barrett if she agrees with originalist scholars like Mike Rappaport, a law professor at the University of San Diego, who has written to argue that those two programs are unconstitutional.
Barrett, who also describes herself as an originalist, said she hasn’t seen his article and could not comment.
Asked broadly if she agrees with scholars who say Social Security and Medicare exceed the government's power under the Constitution, Barrett said she couldn’t answer because she hadn't reviewed the arguments and that such a lawsuit could become before her.
"I can't answer the question in the abstract," Barrett replied.
Feinstein sounded surprised at her evasion. "It's hard for me to believe that's a real question,” the senator said. “The Medicare program is really sacrosanct in this country."
Committee to take lunch break around noon
Graham announced the committee will take a break for lunch around noon, once Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, finish their questions. Each senator has up to 20 minutes for this round of questions.
How SCOTUS has ruled on severability
During her Q&A with Feinstein, Barrett said the key question in this year's Obamacare case is what the lawyers call severability, which means deciding whether a part of a law that’s determined to be invalid dooms the entire law, or whether the invalid part it can be severed to leave the rest of the law intact.
In a case last term about a federal statute, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion upholding the law and finding an invalid part of it severable. His opinion included a section analyzing how the court makes that kind of decision. That part of his opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who are also among the court’s conservatives.
The Supreme Court's precedents over time have reflected a decisive preference for surgical severance rather than wholesale destruction, even in the absence of a severability clause. From Marbury v. Madison to the present, apart from some isolated detours mostly in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the court’s remedial preference after finding a provision of a federal law unconstitutional has been to salvage rather than destroy the rest of the law.
The presumption manifests the judiciary’s respect for Congress’ legislative role by keeping courts from unnecessarily disturbing a law apart from invalidating the provision that is unconstitutional.
Barrett refuses to say whether a president can deny the right to vote based on a person's race
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., referred to a question asked by Feinstein on Tuesday about whether the president has the authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances, to which Barrett had answered that she wouldn't be a "legal pundit."
Durbin then asked Barrett what her response would be if the president had the authority to unilaterally deny the right to vote to any person based on his or her race. Barrett said the equal protection clause "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race," and the 15th Amendment "protects the right to vote against discrimination based on race."
Pressed again to answer the question, Barrett said, "I just referenced the 14th and 15th amendments, the same ones that you just repeated back to me that do prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and voting. So, as I said, I don't know how else, I can say it, the Constitution contains provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and voting."
"I really can't say anything more than I'm not going to answer hypotheticals," she added.
Can the president pardon himself?
Barrett is right to say the Supreme Court has never considered whether a president can pardon himself or herself.
Because no president has ever been charged with a crime, no president has ever tried to pardon himself, and therefore no one knows whether a president has the power of self-pardon.
Not surprisingly, legal scholars disagree. A 1974 Justice Department memorandum concluded that the answer was no, because of "the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case."
However, that same memo also laid out the following scenario, which it said would probably be legally permissible. A president could invoke the 25th Amendment, declaring himself temporarily unable to discharge the duties of the office, allowing the vice president to become acting president and issue a pardon. The president could then resume the duties of the office, pardon intact. So a president would not have directly issued the pardon, but he’d have it anyway.
Barrett says no man is above the law when asked if a president must follow a court order
Leahy asked Barrett if a sitting president must follow a court order and whether a ruling by the Supreme Court is final.
Barrett said that she agrees no man is above the law — a continual Democratic refrain during their impeachment proceedings and legal challenges to Trump — but she said, "As a matter of law, the Supreme Court may have the final word but the Supreme Court lacks control over what happens after that."
Asked if a president can pardon himself, Barrett said that the question has never been litigated.
"It’s not one in which I can offer a view," she said.
'Look at that line': Leahy holds up image showing long waits at an early voting site in Georgia
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., held up a photo of long voting lines in DeKalb County, Georgia, during his round of questioning when discussing the Voting Rights Act.
"Look at that line. I suspect neither you nor I have ever had to wait in line like that to vote," Leahy said to Barrett. "People talked about, well, are we giving racial entitlement? This is not entitlement for any Americans. This is turning our back on democracy. This is saying you can't vote or we're gonna make it so difficult for you to vote so that you can't."
Asked if Barrett acknowledges that communities of color disproportionately face voting restrictions and obstacles to voting, she said, "I wasn't aware of the statistics that you were citing to me. If it became relevant in any case that was litigated before me and was presented to me, I would of course have an open mind about it."
Barrett says she would keep an 'open mind' about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court
Grassley asked Barrett about the issue of allowing cameras in courtrooms, including the Supreme Court.
"Many of us believe that allowing cameras in the courtroom would open the courts to the public and bring about a better understanding of the judiciary," said Grassley, who added that he's introduced legislation over many years to give judges the discretion for media coverage of federal court proceedings.
Asked what her position is on the issue, Barrett said, "I would certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court."
Barrett says she can't say whether Medicare or Social Security are constitutional
Barrett refused to say during an exchange with Feinstein whether the government's Medicare program is constitutional.
"It's hard for me to believe that's a real question. The Medicare program is really sacrosanct in this country," Feinstein said.
Barrett also wouldn't say whether she agrees with other originalists that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.
"I can't answer the question in the abstract," she said.
Barrett refuses to say whether she agreed with Scalia on Voting Rights Act
During an exchange with Feinstein, Barrett weighed in on the Voting Rights Act and the Shelby County 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted it, but said she couldn't discuss the matter because there could be related cases in the future before the high court.
"I think, Senator Feinstein, the question of how the coverage formula is calculated and the Voting Rights Act and the contours of the Voting Rights Act, and whether Shelby County was rightly decided or not, are all questions on which I can't give an answer because Shelby County has obviously been controversial," Barrett said. "It's likely to be re-litigated. It could come up before me on the court."
Feinstein asked Barrett whether she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia that the Voting Rights Act was a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." Barrett said that the law "was obviously a triumph in the Civil Rights movement."
Barrett offers a definition of severability and 'Obamacare'
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member on the panel, asked Barrett about the severability of the Affordable Care Act and to provide a definition for it.
"I think the doctrine of severability, as it's been described by the court, you know serves a valuable function of trying not to undo your work when you wouldn't want a court to undo your work," Barrett said. "Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole and say, would Congress have considered this provision so vital that, kind of in the Jenga game, pulling it out, Congress wouldn't want the statute anymore."
"It's designed to effectuate your intent, but you know severability is designed to say well, would Congress still want the statute to stand, even with this provision gone? Would Congress have still passed the same statute without it?"
Feinstein responded by saying she was "really impressed" by Barrett's answer.
Democrats announce witnesses for Thursday hearings
Senate Judiciary Democrats announced their outside witnesses for the last day of the hearings Thursday. Democrats and Republicans on the committee both invited witnesses.
The Democrats’ witnesses are a mix of experts and real people who will tell their stories surrounding health care and abortion rights.
According to a Democratic Judiciary Committee aide, the Democrats will focus on health care, reproductive rights and voting rights.
Barrett will not be in attendance.
FACT CHECK: Barrett says polygamy is illegal in 'many places.' It's illegal everywhere.
In answer to Lindsey Graham’s questions about polygamy, Barrett said “Polygamy, obviously, in many places is still illegal.”
In fact, polygamy is illegal in every state.
Utah recently changed its law to downgrade the nature of the offense, but it’s still illegal there.
Barrett says laws to protect integrity of the ballot box can be subject to litigation
Graham asked Barrett if it's appropriate for legislative bodies to protect the integrity of the ballot box. She said that "any specific measures that legislative bodies took to protect the integrity of the ballot box could be subject to litigation, subject to challenge."
One of the reasons, Graham said, that Republicans have not reached an agreement with House Democrats on a Covid-19 relief package is because, he claimed, "they're mandating ballot harvesting as a national policy" — a reference to proposed measures on mail-in ballots.
"I think it's ripe for fraud," he said. "We've seen evidence of ballots being placed in people's cars and dropped in ditches. So I think there will be an effort I hope to protect the integrity of the ballot, and also ensure easy voting."
Democrats have wanted to expand access to voting during the pandemic by expanding mail-in ballot opportunities.
Graham says Democrats have made Barrett hearings all about 'Obamacare'
Graham said that Democrats have made the Barrett confirmation hearings about the threat to the future of "Obamacare."
"Obamacare is on the ballot. If you want socialized, single-payer health care, that’s on the ballot," Graham said.
Democrats fear that Barrett would vote with conservative justices on the Supreme Court to strike down the health care law in an upcoming case that the court will hear Nov. 10.
Graham launches into 2nd round of questions by criticizing Harris for questioning Barrett's candidness
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, started his 20-minute round of questioning by criticizing Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., for suggesting that Barrett was not candid in her answers Tuesday.
"I couldn't disagree more," Graham told Barrett on Wednesday as senators began the second round of questioning.
"This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women," he said. "You're going to shatter that barrier. I have never been more proud of a nominee than I am of you. You've been candid to this body about who you are, what you believe."
Barrett pressed on past Supreme Court rulings in confirmation hearing
ANALYSIS: Barrett reveals formula for reversing landmark rulings
With the help of senators of both parties, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett laid out a roadmap for overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling protecting abortion rights and the Brown vs. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation.
Barrett declined to say Tuesday how she would rule on any future cases, including those involving abortion, racial discrimination, voting rights and the Affordable Care Act.
But she did articulate clear views on the relative susceptibility of Roe and Brown to reversal. She observed that Brown is only settled so long as no one sues the government — federal, state or local — for segregating schools. And she said that Roe, because it is the subject of more controversy, is more open to being thrown out.
Just catching up? Here's what you missed
Highlights from the Senate Judiciary hearings this week:
- Barrett says Roe v. Wade is not a 'super-precedent' protected from reversal
- Barrett dodges question about whether she'd recuse herself from any 2020 election case
- Trump's words haunt Amy Coney Barrett as she vows not to be a 'pawn' on Supreme Court
- Opening statements and tech issues: Highlights from Day 1
Barrett condemns white supremacy, acknowledges 'some implicit bias' in criminal justice system
Asked by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., whether she condemns white supremacy, Barrett said, "Yes."
Booker, in a clear dig at Trump, replied, "I'm sorry that question even had to be asked."
Asked whether there was "implicit racial bias" in the criminal justice system, Barrett said, "Senator, it would be hard to imagine in a criminal justice system as big as ours not having any implicit bias in it."
Asked whether that was a yes, Barrett said, "Yes, in our large criminal justice system it would inconceivable that there wasn't some implicit bias."
While Trump has acknowledged that there are some "bad apples" in police departments, he has railed against anti-discrimination training measures and directed federal agencies to prohibit them.
Barrett also defended her ruling upholding the dismissal of a workplace discrimination case involving a Black man who said he'd been called the N-word by a supervisor.
Barrett told Booker that he was "mischaracterizing" her ruling, noting that she was part of a unanimous three-judge panel. She said that the employee was already being fired when the word was used and that he hadn't tried to tie evidence of the slur into his discrimination claim.