Joe Manchin won't support a SCOTUS nominee if hearings are held too close to a presidential election: 'I'm not going to be hypocritical'



Joe Manchin, the highly controversial senator from West Virginia, said that he would not support filling another Supreme Court vacancy should another seat on the high court became open near a presidential election.

Manchin just clarified this to reporters, saying he was referring to a presidential election, not midterms. His initial comment was confusing because he voted to confirm Kavanaugh right before the 2018 midtermshttps://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1493342904764579846\u00a0\u2026
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim) 1644879012

Per the popular political blog HotAir, Sen. Manchin refuses to be hypocritical and is dedicated to applying to a consistent standard for all nominees regardless of who nominated them.

“I’m not going to be hypocritical on that,” Manchin said, “If it would come a week or two weeks before [a presidential election] like it did with our last Supreme Court nominee, I think that’s the time it should go to the next election.”

Manchin is referring to the 2020 nomination of now Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett whom Manchin ultimately did not vote to confirm.

After the Senate voted to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court, Manchin issued a statement on his website that said, “Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans chose a dangerous, partisan path to push through the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett eight days before this year’s November 3rd election further politicizing the highest court in the land.”

“I cannot support the nomination of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States on the eve of a Presidential election,” the statement continued, “It is simple — this nomination should have waited until after the election.”

Previously, Manchin indicated that he is open to supporting whomever President Joe Biden nominates to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court so long as that person has the requisite experience for the job.

In late January, Manchin told a local West Virginian radio show, “Whoever [Biden] puts up will have experience, and we’ll be able to judge them off of that, but as far as just the philosophical beliefs, no, that will not prohibit me from supporting somebody.”

The senator’s indifference to a nominee’s worldview is not unique to this instance.

In 2018, Manchin voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite public outcry and ruthless media scrutiny over his nomination.

I will vote to support Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.pic.twitter.com/1FfuMTOZz8
— Senator Joe Manchin (@Senator Joe Manchin) 1538769291

While running in the 2020 Democratic primary race, then-candidate Biden committed to nominating the first black woman to the Supreme Court.

In March 2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki reaffirmed the now-president’s decision by stating that Biden is “absolutely” committed to nominating an “African-American woman to the Supreme Court.”

Biden’s prioritization of race and gender in his nominee selection process has earned considerable scrutiny and condemnation from people across the political spectrum.

McConnell reportedly nixes emergency Senate impeachment trial



Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) reportedly said Wednesday he would not bring back the Senate under emergency circumstances this week to begin a second impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.

What are the details?

On Wednesday — as the House prepared to impeach the president on "incitement of insurrection" charges — McConnell's office reportedly reached out to incoming Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to inform him that the Senate would not call an emergency session to try Trump on impeachment charges despite urging from Democrats.

The news was first reported by Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim and was confirmed shortly after by Axios' Alayna Treene.

NEWS —> McConnell’s office called Schumer’s people today + told them McConnell would not consent to reconvening imm… https://t.co/1bwPtk87tV
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim)1610560328.0

The news came just as a Reuters report indicated that Republican leaders in the Senate had met on Wednesday to discuss the possibility of starting the impeachment trial on Friday. Should a trial begin this week, it would raise the potential for the Senate to vote to remove Trump from office before his term ends on Jan. 20.

McConnell had previously cast doubt on the possibility, informing Republican colleagues in a memo that the Senate "will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated."

But the New York Times reported Tuesday that the majority leader is "pleased" with Democratic efforts to impeach the president and believes the move could help "purge" the president from the Republican Party. McConnell's office declined to comment on the report.

What's the background?

The Constitution dictates that a trial is automatically triggered in the Senate when the House of Representatives votes to approve an impeachment resolution. If two-thirds of the Senate then votes to convict on the impeachment charges, the president is formally removed from office.

Given the current numbers, at least 17 Republicans in the Senate would need to vote to convict to find Trump guilty.

On Wednesday, the House convened to vote on single article of impeachment filed against the president, charging that he "willfully incited violence against the government" by rousing a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in protest of a fraudulent election.

A week earlier, as members of Congress convened to certify Biden's Electoral College victory, Trump spoke to hundreds of thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., telling them that the election was "rigged" and asking them to march over "to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard."

As the crowd approached the Capitol, hundreds of riotous Trump supporters started fighting with police and ultimately stormed into the Capitol Building. The incident resulted in the deaths of at least five people and injuries to several more.

In the aftermath of the riot, lawmakers from both parties have blamed Trump's rhetoric for the violence, though only a handful of Republicans in either chamber have signified support for impeachment.

HotAir suggested that McConnell likely would have launched the trial early had the Republican votes been there.

Democratic operatives call for Dianne Feinstein to step down as Judiciary Committee ranking member



Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is facing calls to step down as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after she enraged operatives from her own party with her performance on the panel — which ended with her praising Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham.

What are the details?

As the final hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett wrapped up, Feinstein told Graham, "I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." She added, "Thank you so much for your leadership."

A mask-free embrace between Feinstein and Graham to cap things off.And the Amy Coney Barrett hearings are over. https://t.co/3gJcpWpi5Z
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur)1602786521.0

Following the meeting, the two were seen embracing in a hug.

Feinstein, 87, was immediately attacked by high profile Democrats, many of whom declared it was time for her to pass the torch and give up her leadership position on the committee.

Former Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, who now leads the progressive group Demand Justice, issued a statement declaring, "It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene."

"She has undercut Democrats' position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court," he continued. "If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves."

Demand Justice wants Feinstein ousted as the top D on Judiciary. Via ⁦@brianefallon⁩ https://t.co/IzXAlpvtY8
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim)1602789376.0

Fallon's message was echoed by former President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who tweeted, "Someone like Feinstein who is so out of step with the rest of the party should not be the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee."

Someone like Feinstein who is so out of step with the rest of the party should not be the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
— Ben Rhodes (@Ben Rhodes)1602795544.0

Likewise, former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett tweeted in reaction to Feinstein's praise of Graham, "That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein."

Feinstein joined her fellow Democrats on the committee in avoiding attacks on Barrett's Catholic faith during this week's hearings, after facing criticism for their treatment of the nominee during the 2017 nomination hearings for her current position on the Seventh Circuit appellate court.

Fox News reported that "California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein receive bipartisan backlash when she told Barrett that the 'dogma lives loudly within' her during" the 2017 hearings.

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating



The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating.

Monday is the start of Barrett's Senate confirmation hearings.

What are the details?

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is "well qualified" for a position on the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, DC Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy shared the letter on Twitter, writing, "The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is 'Well Qualified' on the eve of the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings."

A portion of the letter reads, "The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by the President to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."

"As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament," the letter continues. "A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is 'Well Qualified,' and a minority is of the opinion that she is 'Qualified' to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

The letter concludes, "The majority rating represents the Standing Committee's official rating."

The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is “Well Qualified” on the eve… https://t.co/oCbpWdnzgD
— JERRY DUNLEAVY (@JERRY DUNLEAVY)1602472764.0

What else?

As noted by the Daily Wire, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2001 referred to the American Bar Association's judicial ratings as the "gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged."

On Sunday night, Barrett released the opening statement she plans to issue on Monday morning.

A portion of her remarks read:

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

You can read the remarks in their entirety here and below.

NEW — Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement. Notable line: “The policy decisions and value judgments of government… https://t.co/0JEGNwWnnE
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim)1602424362.0

Amy Coney Barrett's opening statement is out, and liberals are already outraged



Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett released on Sunday the opening statement she will read when her confirmation hearing begins this week — and liberal outrage over what Barrett will say immediately ensued.

Barrett's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin in-person on Monday.

What will Barrett say?

In addition to giving the committee biographical information, Barrett will preview her judicial philosophy — and it already has liberals up in arms.

Barrett, a conservative-leaning justice, will tell the committee that "policy decisions and value judgments" should be made by government branches that are held accountable to the American people — which is not the Supreme Court.

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes,which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.
NEW — Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement. Notable line: “The policy decisions and value judgments of government… https://t.co/0JEGNwWnnE
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim)1602424362.0

What was the response?

Those opposed to Barrett's nomination immediately began gnashing their teeth.

  • "She has under 3 years experience as a judge. Couldn't find someone with more experience? I wouldn't trust someone to remodel my kitchen with less than 3 years experience," one person said.
  • "Except apparently for more than reasonable gun laws like Illinois' that barred felons from owning guns which she voted to overturn. What an insidious, hypocrite Barrett is," another person said.
  • "Since Barrett, an extremist, is insisting on making this about her children, Americans have the right to hear whether she thinks one of her daughters should have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy or to marry a woman," another person said.
  • "Wow she's really opening her argument with a swipe at gay marriage. She's gonna try to overturn gay rights and certainly prevent any other rights like gay adoption be stopped," one person claimed.
  • "This argument is such garbage. The ACA is the law of the land, voted on by the house and senate then signed into law by the president. They can't overturn it legislatively so they are turning to their activist judges to do so. Reporters should explain this to people," another person said.
  • "Shorter ACB: better get abortion and gay marriage into law quick or else I'm taking them away as soon as I can," another person said.
  • "Doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. Each conservative nominee says this, and then gets on the Court and implements the will of the GOP. An exception here or there, but they ratify the wishes of the GOP, ignoring precedent wherever it suits," another person said.
  • "this is probably the one and only time i want misogyny to do it's thing and let this woman f***ing fail," one person responded.