Amy Coney Barrett hearings: Nominee owns a gun, but says she would rule 'fairly' on gun control cases
Trump SCOTUS nominee says she can separate her personal beliefs from her legal decisions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has said her family owns a gun, but that would not prevent her from ruling “fairly” on any legal cases on gun control brought before her.
“Ah, we do own a gun,” Ms Barrett said in response to a question from Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham on Tuesday.
Ms Barrett, who was selected by Donald Trump last month to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, told the committee she has been able to separate her personal choices as an American from her legal decisions as a federal appeals court judge, a position she has held since her confirmation in 2017.
“I can, I have done that in my time on the 7th Circuit. If I stay on the 7th Circuit, I'll continue to do that. If I'm confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will do that still,” she said.
Ms Barrett also noted that justices cannot just rule on any issue they please.
While the Supreme Court has final authority on deciding which cases it hears, it cannot create its own pet projects to issue rulings on thorny political issues such as abortion, second amendment rights, and gay marriage. Those cases must wend their way up to the Supreme Court through the lower federal courts, Ms Barrett pointed out.
“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,” Ms Barrett said.
Throughout the morning, Ms Barrett parried away questions about how she would rule on certain cases, saying “the canons of judicial conduct would prohibit” her from expressing her views.
Democrats have been bent on portraying her as a menace to the 2010 health care law known as Obamacare, citing several of the judge’s past statements putting her at odds with the law, particularly the individual health insurance mandate.
When asked by California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein if she agreed with her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, Ms Barrett invoked liberal Justice Elena Kagan’s answers during her 2010 hearings that “the canons of judicial conduct would prohibit” her from expressing a view.
“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another … it signals to litigants that I may tilt one way or another on a pending case,” Ms Barrett said. “I can’t pre-commit and say, yes, I’m going in with some agenda.”
Ms Barrett added: “I don’t have any agenda.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments