IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Highlights of Amy Coney Barrett's questioning at Supreme Court confirmation hearing

Democrats grilled Trump's nominee on health care and abortion, among other issues.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett faced questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, the second day of her confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Barrett, nominated by President Donald Trump, on Monday delivered her opening statement to the 22-member committee, explaining her judicial philosophy and paying tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom she would replace if confirmed. The senators also read their opening statements, previewing the key points that each side is likely to put forward during their questioning.

Senate Democrats focused their questions heavily on the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court is set this fall to take up a pivotal case on Obamacare, which Barrett has criticized in the past.

This coverage has ended. Follow the latest on Day 3 of the hearings here.

Read the latest updates below:

Barrett says abortion decision Roe v. Wade is not a 'superprecedent' protected from reversal

Responding to questioning from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade, the decision that helped ensure a woman's ability to obtain an abortion, to be a "superprecedent" protected from reversal.  

Barrett said that she defined "superprecedent" as a case that is "so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling." 

"I am answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that it does not fall in that category," Barrett said, adding that her answers does not mean that Roe should be overturned.

Barrett has written that she feels that Brown v. Board of Education was a superprecedent.

Klobuchar used her time to discuss the "tracks" the Barrett has left throughout her career, arguing that they paint a picture of an extremely conservative judge who would drastically change the shape of the Supreme Court in a way that is out of step with American public opinion. 

"I am then left the looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the American people and I think it leads to a place that is going to have severe repercussions for them," Klobuchar said in conclusion. 

Sen. Gary Peters shares his family's abortion story

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill on Sept. 24, 2020.Tom Williams / Pool via AP

U.S. senator is sharing his family's abortion story.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Elle magazine in an interview published Monday how an abortion may have saved the life of his first wife.

Peters, who is running for re-election to a second term in the Senate, said in the interview that he is speaking out because he is concerned that the confirmation of President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, could result in the court's striking down Roe v. Wade.

Read more on Peters' abortion comments.

Group of 88 Notre Dame faculty pens letter asking Barrett to refuse nomination

A group of 88 faculty members at Notre Dame — none of whom are part of the law school where Judge Barrett teaches — penned a letter asking her to refuse her appointment to the Supreme Court. 

"We’re asking a lot, we know," the opponents wrote. "Should Vice-President Biden be elected, your seat on the court will almost certainly be lost. That would be painful, surely. Yet there is much to be gained in risking your seat." 

Blackburn tweets edited photo of Whitehouse presentation deck

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tweeted an edited photo suggesting the dark money Whitehouse referenced in his questioning was funneled by billionaire George Soros to "fund radical left activists." 

Whitehouse used his allotted time to highlight the influence of dark money in elections, connecting conservative organizations and their role in influencing political appointments. Whitehouse referenced an article on the Federalist Society, by The Washington Post. 

Soros, a major Democratic donor, is a popular target of right-wing conspiracy theories.

Sen. Cruz defends Citizens United

Following Sen. Whitehouse's 30-minute denunciation of dark money, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, used part of his time to defend the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United that allowed for corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political ads and other forms of influence campaigns. 

"Citizens United concerned whether or not it was legal to make a movie criticizing a politician, specifically, Citizens United is a small nonprofit organization based in the — based in D.C. That made a movie that was critical of Clinton," Cruz said. 

Cruz also spoke about the Second Amendment and religious liberty, attacking Joe Biden and Senate Democrats. 

After nearly an hour without any questions being asked, Cruz is now asking Barrett about her family. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Oct. 13, 2020.Pool / Getty Images

Whitehouse decries dark money in court process, does not ask Barrett any questions

Sen. Whitehouse used his time to break down how conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network use their deep pockets to influence the Supreme Court process. 

"This is a pretty big deal. I've never seen this with any court I've been involved with, where there's this much dark money being used," Whitehouse said. "That raises the question, what are they getting for it?" 

Whitehouse did not ask Barrett, who has ties to the Federalist Society, any questions during his time. He thanked Barrett for listening and said it would tee them up for a good conversation Wednesday, the third day of the hearing.

Hearing resumes

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., is now up for questioning after a brief lunch break. 

Committee breaks for lunch

Graham announced a lunch break, which will last until 12:45 p.m. ET. Seven senators have questioned Barrett so far, and there are 15 left to go after the break.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., will be up first when the committee returns. Graham said the panel might take additional breaks later. The hearing could go to 9 p.m. ET or later.

Lee, not wearing mask, goes on at length about judicial philosophy

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, went on a filibuster of sorts, speaking about the Federalist Papers, judicial philosophy and the foundation of the U.S. legal system — all without a mask. 

Lee recently tested positive for Covid-19 but said he was told Monday by his doctor that he could participate in the hearing in person. He spoke for 30 minutes without a mask on. 

One of the few questions he asked of Barrett was about the difference between will and judgment. She said that will is an imposition of policy preferences as it happens in the making of law and judgment is evaluating that law for its consistency with the Constitution. 

"A judge who approaches a case as an opportunity for an exercise of will has betrayed her judicial duty," she said. 

ANALYSIS: Barrett concedes point on originalism

Under questioning from Sen. Durbin, D-Ill., Barrett appeared to acknowledge that the Constitution and the law are open to multiple interpretations. That can be gleaned from the need for appellate courts, not to mention the fact that there are Supreme Court decisions rendered as majority, concurring and dissenting opinions — meaning two justices can come to the same ruling from different applications of the Constitution to the law.

"It's hard," she said.

That's an acknowledgment of the inherent difficulty in the theories of "originalism" and "textualism" to which she subscribes. If the text and original "public meaning" were clear and agreed upon, there would be no need for a federal judiciary at all.

Originalism "is the original public meaning, not the subjective intent of any particular drafter,” Barrett said under friendly questioning from Sen. Lee, R-Utah. It's the "full body" of Congress that speaks, not any single lawmaker who participates in the process, she continued in rejecting the idea of legislative intent being implied by congressional debates. And yet, liberals and conservatives often vote for the same text believing that it has different meanings.

That's true in Congress and on the Supreme Court, which leads to Barrett's view that "the original public meaning" of laws should be the standard for determining their constitutionality. It is equally true that members of the public have different interpretations of what the law says. That's why there are lawsuits.

Durbin takes aim at Barrett's interpretation of felons owning guns and voting

Durbin asked Barrett what her legal opinion is about people previously convicted of a felony having the right to own a gun and how that's different from felons having the right to vote. 

Barrett said that owning firearms is an individual right, but voting is only a collective civil right. 

"To the extent, Senator Durbin, that you're suggesting that I have some sort of agenda on felon voting rights or guns or campaign finance or anything else, I can assure you and the whole committee that I do not," she said during the exchange.