The hearings on the nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett by President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court raise historic debates and Republicans’ eagerness to tip the balance toward conservative tendencies in the Supreme Court.
As a locomotive without brakes they press to approve the designation before finalizing this year 2020 of the 48-year-old lawyer.
She dueled trying to dodge compromising responses from Democrats on sensitive issues like the Affordable Care Act, abortion and eventual controversies after the November 3 presidential election.
As a defendant on the bench, the magistrate took care of each of her answers and several times said that no citizen, even the president of the most powerful country in the world, is above the constitution or the law, but she escaped without clarifying whether Trump would have right to self-pardon.
In the three days of interrogation and debates in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the magistrate was questioned for her ultra-conservative background in belonging to religious organizations.
Still, Republican Lindsey Graham insists that the full Senate vote be done this year to be named as an early Christmas gift.
And although Barrett openly rejected racism and racial discrimination, using as an example two of his seven children, adopted in Haiti, he did not manage to get away from the questioning of the power he would have, since in the end it is the judges who end up defining the laws. in subjects in which the same congressmen do not achieve consensus as it happens with Obama care.
Barrett will be the fifth woman to be part of the 9 judges that make up the Supreme Court as a successor to the New Yorker Ruth Bader Ginsburg, remembered for her defense of the rights of gender equality.
His female counterweight in the decisions would have it with the magistrate Sonia Sotomayor.
The judge of Puerto Rican origin was the first Hispanic to be appointed to the Court by the state of New York, during the administration of President Barack Obama.
He is now in the minority of the court’s three progressive-leaning votes.
And that number opens another historic debate, on the modification of the law that, since 1869, established an odd number of nine judges elected, for life, in the Supreme Court of Justice to avoid ties in trials or decisions.
As the Constitution does not establish the number of magistrates, there are voices that ask to balance the balance by expanding the number of judges in the hope of appointing more Democrats. But that debate hasn’t started yet.
(The author – who uses a pseudonym – is a journalist based in New York)