By Mark Sherman, Lisa Mascaro, and Mary Clare Jalonick

Updated 4:47 pm ET

 Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett batted back Democrats' skeptical questions on abortion, health care and a possible disputed election in a lively Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, insisting she would bring no personal agenda to the court but would decide cases “as they come.”

The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views with often colloquial language, but refused many specifics. She declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Donald Trump, who nominated her to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is pressing to have her confirmed before the the Nov. 3 election.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee during its second day of hearings.

“It’s not the law of Amy,” she said. “It’s the law of the American people.”

Barrett returned to a Capitol Hill mostly locked down with COVID-19 protocols, the mood quickly shifting to a more confrontational tone from opening day. She was grilled in 30-minute segments by Democrats strongly opposed to Trump’s nominee yet unable to stop her. Excited by the prospect of a conservative judge aligned with the late Antonin Scalia, Trump's Republican allies are rushing ahead to install a 6-3 conservative court majority for years to come.

Trump has said he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from his heated election with Democrat Joe Biden, but Barret testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases. Pressed by panel Democrats, she skipped over questions about ensuring the date of the election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases without first consulting the other justices.

“I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process,” she said.

A frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part.

“It’s distressing not to get a good answer,” Feinstein told the judge.

Barrett was unmoved. “I don’t have an agenda to try to overrule Casey,” she said. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”

She later declined to characterize the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion as a “super-precedent” that would not be overturned.

The committee chairman, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, opened the day-long session under coronavirus protocols that kept it off limits to in-person attendance by members of the public.

Republicans have been focused on defending Barrett and her Catholic faith against possible criticism concerning issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and Graham asked if she would be able to shelve her personal beliefs to adhere to law.

“I have done that,” she said. “I will do that still.”

He said, “I will do everything I can to make sure that you have a seat at the table. And that table is the Supreme Court."

The Senate, led by Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the latest challenge to the “Obamacare” Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election.

“I'm not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett told the senators. She distanced herself from her past writings perceived as critical of the Obama-era health care law, saying those pieces were not addressing specific aspects of the law as she would if confirmed to the court. "I'm not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act.”

She appeared stumped when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., tried to put her on the spot about several details of the health care law's effects. She could not recite specifics, including that 23 million people are covered by the law or that more than 2 million young people are on their parents' health insurance.

The Indiana judge, accompanied by her family, described herself as taking a conservative, originalist approach to the Constitution. She told the senators that while she admires Scalia, her conservative mentor for whom she once clerked, she would bring her own approach.

“You would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett,” she declared.

Senators probed her views on gun ownership and racial equity, at one point drawing an emotional response from the mother of seven, whose children include two adopted from Haiti, as she described watching the video of the death of George Floyd at the hands of police.

“Racism persists," she said, adding that Floyd's death had a “very personal” effect on her family and that she and her children wept over it. But she told Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that "making broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I’m capable of doing as a judge.”

Republicans were thrilled when she held up a blank notebook, apparently showing she had been fielding questions without aid.

Overall, Barrett's conservative views are at odds with the late Ginsburg, the liberal icon whose seat Trump nominated her to fill.

“You would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Barrett to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, and they spent their time portraying her as a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials. She would be Trump's third justice.

Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, the last day of hearings, which would allow final approval by the panel one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26.

Protesters rallied outside the Senate building, unable to come inside the hearing room.

Other issues aside, Democrats are outraged that Republicans are moving so quickly, having refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee after Scalia's death in February 2016, well before that year's election.

___

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Matthew Daly in Washington, and Elana Schor in New York contributed to this report.

Share:
More In Politics
Biden's Approval Among Young Voters Dips
Just 27% of voters aged 18-29 approve of the job Biden is doing as president, according to a survey from The Economist and YouGov late last year. Santiago Mayer, executive director of Voters of Tomorrow, joins Cheddar Politics to discuss why President Biden is losing support among young voters.
One Year Into Donald Trump's Social Media Exile
Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech, joins Cheddar News to discuss it being one year since Trump was exiled from social media and the former President's new platform 'Truth Social.'
Voting Rights Groups Push For Action Over Words
Cliff Albright, co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter, joins Cheddar Politics to discuss why he boycotted President Biden's voting rights speech this week, and the push from Senate Democrats to debate and vote on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Competing Bills From Both Sides of the Aisle Look to Limit Lawmaker Stock Trading
Senator Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has teamed up with fellow Democratic senator and former astronaut Mark Kelly to introduce the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, a bill to essentially end stock trading by sitting lawmakers. From the other side of the aisle, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced his own legislation to enact something similar. The dueling bills come at a time when it's popular to constrain members of Congress from owning and trading stocks. Karl Evers-Hillstrom, a business and lobbying reporter at The Hill, spoke to Cheddar about the significance of the bills, and what they could mean for lawmakers, their families, and staffers moving forward.
Second U.S. Starbucks Store Votes to Unionize
A second Starbucks location in the U.S. has officially voted to unionize. On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board announced workers at the Starbucks store located in the Buffalo, NY suburb of Cheektowaga voted 15-9 in favor of being represented by Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. The New York Times reports votes were tallied in December but remained inconclusive as the union challenged the ballots of several employees it said did not work at the store. A Starbucks spokesperson has said that it may appeal the labor board's decision, which comes as several other Starbucks stores across the country are also pushing to form a union. Danka Dragic, shift supervisor for the second Starbucks store in the country to unionize, joined Cheddar News' Closing Bell to discuss.
Rep. Tom Emmer Proposes Bill To Prevent Federal Reserve Control of U.S. Digital Currency
Earlier today, Minnesota Republican Representative, Tom Emmer, introduced a bill that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency directly to American consumers. According to the Congressman from Minnesota, requiring Americans to open a fed account to access a digital currency, would "put the Fed on insidious path akin to China's digital authoritarianism." Rep. Tom Emmer joined Cheddar's None of The Above to discuss more.
16 Elite Universities Sued Over Collusion To Limit Financial Aid
Sixteen of the country's most prestigious universities have been hit with a lawsuit claiming those schools illegally conspired to eliminate competitive financial aid offers for students. Just some of the schools mentioned include Yale, Brown, Columbia, UPenn, and Cornell. Author of "Who Gets In and Why" and Professor of practice at Arizona State University, Jeff Selingo, joined Cheddar to discuss more.
Load More