Democrats on Judiciary Committee Express Concerns Over Barrett’s Senate Disclosures
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are calling on the Justice Department and President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, to provide an explanation about her “incomplete” Senate Judiciary…
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are calling on the Justice Department and President Donald Trump’sSupreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, to provide an explanation about her “incomplete” Senate Judiciary Questionnaire (SJQ).
Supreme Court nominees must complete the questionnaire and provide answers involving their resume, information about their litigation work in the past, and what they would do if they were confirmed.
They are required to answer the questions as part of the nomination process.
“Late Friday night, the Committee received a supplemental SJQ from Judge Barrett – just three days before her confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin. Unfortunately, Judge Barrett’s supplemental SJQ raises more questions than it answers,” Democrats including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) wrote in a letter penned to the Justice Department.
The Democrats argued it is “troubling” Barrett disclosed two 2013 lectures about Supreme Court cases on women’s reproductive rights only after they were pointed out by the press.
They noted the talks were also omitted from her 2017 SJQ.
The senators revealed Barrett included information about an advertisement she signed as a member of Notre Dame University’s Faculty for Life.
“Similarly, this advertisement appears to have been disclosed because of anticipated press reports,” they wrote.
Barrett allegedly failed to disclose an advertisement she signed as a member of the St. Joseph County Right to Life Organization in 2006.
“We additionally ask that Judge Barrett immediately supplement her SJQ to include any responsive materials generated as a result of her membership in Notre Dame’s Faculty for life,” they wrote.
Feinstein and others suggested Barrett failed to include information about her involvement in defending a Pittsburgh steel magnate accused of “orchestrating the bankruptcy of a major Pennsylvania hospital system.”
They called it “highly unusual” for Barrett not to identify 10 litigation matters she personally handled.
“These new omissions raise more questions about the reliability of Judge Barrett’s SJQ and her candor before the Committee. These new omissions also raise serious concerns about Judge Barrett’s rushed confirmation process and the hasty process of collecting materials responsive to the SJQ,” the lawmakers wrote.
They added, “Please immediately provide an explanation for the omission of these materials and please provide any other responsive materials that have not been disclosed by Judge Barrett.”