Despite Days of Testimony, the American Public Know No More About the Nominee Than When the Hearings Began 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Amy Coney Barrett appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and evaded providing substantive answers to valuable questions concerning her record. After opening statements, questioning, and testimony from witnesses concluded this week, we know no more about Barrett than when we started.  

What did we learn? Everything from her family’s laundry schedule to her drinking habits. But here’s what the Supreme Court nominee declined to answer… 

Tuesday’s Questioning: 

  • Barrett refused to say whether she would recuse herself from a potential 2020 election case that may reach the Supreme Court
  • Barrett refused to say whether she would overturn precedent-setting cases
  • Barrett refused to say she would recuse herself from the Affordable Care Act case that will be before the Supreme Court this term
  • Barrett refused to say whether she considered in vitro fertilization is “tantamount to manslaughter.”
  • Barrett refused to reflect her position on Roe v Wade, saying instead, “I can’t express views on cases.”
  • Barrett refused to say whether she would eliminate the right for LGBTQ couples to marry
  • Barrett refused to say whether she believed President Trump would have the authority to delay a general election. Rather than saying no, Barrett said, “I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process.” 

Wednesday’s Questioning 

  • Refused to say whether she supported separating children from their parents at the border, either legally or as a matter of personal opinion
  • Refused to say anything more about climate change other than calling it a “very contentious matter of public debate”
  • Refused to say whether the law would allow President Trump to pardon himself
  • Refused to say whether mail-in voting was acceptable in a democracy
  • Refused to say whether voting discrimination exists


back to top