Amy Coney Barrett grilled on Day 2 of Senate confirmation hearings
Here are highlights of her more than 11 hours of questioning Tuesday.
The high-stakes confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett continued Tuesday with the Supreme Court nominee facing questions for more than 11 hours.
Senate Republicans are keeping up their push for a final vote before Election Day despite Democratic calls to let voters decide who should pick a new justice.
Trump nominated Barrett to fill the seat left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The four days of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings are unprecedented, with some members participating virtually and in-person. Barrett is appearing at the witness table to face questions.
Hearings begin at 9 a.m. each day and will be live streamed on ABC News Live.
In opening statements Monday, Democrats argued the nomination puts the health care of millions of Americans at risk amid an ongoing pandemic and some called on Barrett to recuse herself from any presidential election-related cases. Republicans, who say they already have the votes to confirm Trump's pick, defended Barrett's Roman Catholic faith from attacks which have yet to surface from inside the hearing room.
Barrett, 48, was a law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and follows his originalist interpretation of the Constitution. She practiced law at a Washington firm for two years before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, to teach. She was nominated by Trump in 2017 to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the Senate in a 55-43 vote.
Headlines:
- Barrett says 'I am not 'a liar,' would not violate judge's oath to be impartial
- Harris: "Suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose'
- Barrett: Won't be used as a 'pawn to decide this election,' but declines to commit to recusal
- Barrett: Roe v. Wade not a universally-accepted 'super-precedent'
- Barrett on her family's reaction to George Floyd video: 'We wept together'
Barrett: 'My boss is the rule of law'
Republicans continued to question Barrett on her impartiality, with Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska asking Barrett to confirm that judges can make decisions without imposing their own views.
"I hope that's what people think because that's what I have always driven to do. In my time as a judge, my job, my boss is the rule of law, not imposing my policy preferences," Barrett said.
Barrett was then asked to explain why judges wear black robes in our judicial system, in another opportunity to emphasize her commitment to the law, not her personal views in a courtroom.
"Chief Justice John Marshall started the practice in the beginning. Justices used to wear colorful robes that identified them with the schools they graduated from. John Marshall decided to wear a simple black robe. Pretty soon the other justices followed suit and now all judges do it," Barrett said, before offering her take on the garb.
“I think the black robe shows that justice is blind. We all dress the same. It shows once we put it on, we are standing united symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, not speaking for ourselves as individuals," she said.
Protesters and supporters gather again on Day 2
Demonstrators protested the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing outside the Supreme Court Tuesday. One group wore masks and waved signs that featured Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "dissenting collar."
Outside the Senate office building where Barrett's confirmation hearing was taking place, some of her supporters were praying.
Barrett: Roe v. Wade not a universally-accepted 'super-precedent'
Under questioning from Sen. Klobuchar, Barrett said Roe v. Wade is not a "super-precedent" -- so it could theoretically be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Earlier, Barrett said that Brown v. Board of Education, which established that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, is one of just a handful of cases she and some others consider to be "super-precedent" or settled law.
“Is Roe a super-precedent?” Klobuchar asked, before Barrett asked in return, “How would you define ‘super-precedent?’”
“I'm asking you,” Klobuchar said.
“People use super-precedent differently. The way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors ... seriously push for their overruling. I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe v. Wade which I think indicates Roe v. Wade doesn't fall in that category. Descriptively means it's a case, not a case that everyone has accepted,” Barrett said.
Klobuchar says Barrett would be 'polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg'
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., used the metaphor of "following the tracks" to suggest how Barrett would likely vote on landmark cases involving health care, abortion and voting rights, using Barrett’s past writings and the words of President Trump.
"I think the American people have to understand that you would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg," Klobuchar said. "She and Justice Scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. So that's what concerns me."
Klobuchar pressed Barrett on voting rights, raising Barrett’s dissent in the Kanter v. Barr case Sen. Durbin raised earlier, in which Barrett suggested the Constitution protects the right of non-violent felons to own guns but does not protect their right to vote -- a right she wrote belongs "only to virtuous citizens."
"How do you define the word virtuous?" Klobuchar questioned. "It doesn't appear in the Constitution… We are living in a time or a lot of people are having their voting rights taken away from them. What's virtuous?
"Senator, I want to be clear that that is not in the opinion designed to denigrate the right to vote which is fundamental. The distinction between civic and individual rights is one that is present in the court decisions and it has to do with the jurisprudential view," Barrett said, saying it was a common, long-standing judicial term of art, not a character judgment. "It doesn't mean, I think, anybody gets a measure of virtue and whether they are good or not and whether they are allowed to vote. That's not what I said."
Barrett dodged several questions on election-related questions, citing the "Ginsburg rule."
"Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at the polls?" she asked.
"Senator Klobuchar, you know that is eliciting. I'm not sure it's eliciting a legal opinion for me because a reasonable person standard, as you know, is more common in the law. Or just an opinion as a citizen. It's not something really that's appropriate for me to comment on," Barrett replied.
Breakdown for Day 2
Senators will have the opportunity to grill Judge Barrett Tuesday on her judicial philosophy in what is expected to be a marathon question and answer session. Committee aides tell ABC News to expect the day to last between nine and 12 hours.
All 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are allotted 30 minutes each to question the nominee in the first round, making the total run time 11 hours -- but Graham may decide to break up round one of questioning into Wednesday.
Graham will give an introduction and swear in Barrett around 9 a.m. to begin the hearing.
Democrats are expected to press Trump's nominee on the Affordable Care Act and the precedent of Roe. v. Wade.
-ABC News' Trish Turner and Allie Pecorin