Democrats have called on Supreme Court nominee Amy Connie Barrett to step down from the upcoming Affordable Care Act – known as ObamaCare – in case it is confirmed and although she has not pledged to do so, she said she would follow suit. the rules of the Supreme Court if they call on it to do so.
Senate Judge Lindsey Graham, RS.C., raised the issue while questioning Barrett during her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, and asked Barrett to decide to withdraw. She explained that this is not a question she can answer at the moment, but that there is a law that regulates the issue.
LIVE UPDATES: AMY CONEY BARRETT LISTENING Continues after Opening Day
“Well, Senator, resignation is a legal matter,”
Barrett later reiterated to Senator Patrick Lee, Virginia, that the decision to disqualify would come only after discussion with other judges, telling him that he could not now say whether he would withdraw from a particular case “without briefly covering the whole process. . “
The statute, which Barrett quoted to Graham, says that a judge or justice “will be disqualified in any proceedings in which his impartiality could be called into question.” He also calls for recusal in specific situations, such as when a judge or judge has a personal bias towards a party to the case, if they or a former associate have ever served as a lawyer in the case, or have been a civil servant and have expressed an opinion on the case. quality.
PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OBAMAKARI IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL BATTLE OVER BARET
“So when it comes to retiring, will you do what the Supreme Court requires of any justice?” Graham asked.
“I’ll do it,” Barrett agreed.
Democrats criticized Barrett in the context of the upcoming ObamaCare case because before becoming a judge, she criticized the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling, which upheld the individual mandate of the health insurance law, believing that the penalty was a tax that falls under Body of Congress.
Click here to get the FOX NEWS app
Barrett explained on Tuesday that the problems in the present case are separate from the 2012 case because it does not question whether the sanction was a tax at the time. The case, heard by the court in November, she said, deals with two separate issues. The first is whether the mandate can still be considered to fall under the fiscal authority of Congress now that the penalty has been reduced to zero; and second, if the mandate is considered unconstitutional because it is no longer subject to tax, can the mandate itself be revoked while retaining other parts of the law.