WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following this week’s direct questioning of Amy Coney Barrett, Accountable.US offers four questions that Americans deserve the answers to with less than a week before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on October 22.
1.) Judge Barrett, compared to past nominees, your tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has been limited and there is still a wealth of documents largely unknown to the public and to the senators who will vote on your nomination. For a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, a full and complete understanding of your record is imperative for the American people and the U.S. Senate. Will you commit to releasing your full records from your tenure at Notre Dame College?
The Senate Judiciary Committee is determined to push through a lifetime Supreme Court nominee even though the American people haven’t had a chance to review Barrett’s full record. With recent revelations of missing appearances, advertisements, and recordings in materials Barrett submitted to the committee, major doubts remain as to the thoroughness of her responses to the Senate’s questionnaire.
Accountable.US sent a yet unanswered letter to Judge Barrett requesting she release records pertaining to her tenure at Notre Dame College, including all communications, emails, personnel files, student evaluations, and any information regarding her involvement in faculty groups and committees.
2.) Judge Barrett, Accountable.US’ analysis of your record serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals shows you consistently vote for special interests over workers, consumers, and immigrants. How can the public trust that you will advocate for the American people and their well-being instead of corporations?
Accountable.US’ full analysis on the hundreds of cases Judge Barrett weighed in on as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals shows her pattern of siding against consumers, workers, and immigrants while siding with policing interests, defendants in discrimination cases, and corporations.
- CONSUMERS: Amy Coney Barrett sided against consumers in 78% of cases she saw while serving on the 7th Circuit.
- IMMIGRATION: She ruled against immigrants 88% of the time while serving on the 7th Circuit.
- POLICING: She sided with policing interests 86% of the time when law enforcement actions were at issue in the 7th Circuit.
- WORKERS: She sided with workers in just 8% of cases during her tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
- DISCRIMINATION: She sided with entities accused of discrimination 85% of the time during her tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
3.) Judge Barrett, according to NASA, “the current warming trend is extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity” and 97% of climate scientists agree that the earth’s climate is warming. This week, you decided not to give a straight answer on whether you believed humans were causing the climate to change. Given the overwhelming scientific evidence concludes that they do, will you state that you agree with science?
During this week’s hearings, Barrett said, “I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it.” Meanwhile, climate scientists – including those in the Trump administration – “say increasingly fierce wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters point to the urgency of global warming.”
Barrett’s recusal list includes the oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell Oil, due to her father’s near life-long representation of the Big Oil corporation. Her anti-environmental record affirms her climate change denial, including cases where she ruled that the public does not have standing to sue to block development and that favored residential construction near land repeatedly determined to be in violation of water quality laws.
4.) Judge Barrett, you represented an affiliate of an exile group, MEK, when it challenged its State Department designation as a foreign terrorist organization. According to the Washington Post, “The State Department designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, citing its involvement in the killing of Americans in Iran during the 1970s.” Will you provide more information about what role you played in this case?