The democratic opposition in Belarus, Guapinol activists and Berta Cáceres, and the Archbishop of Mosul were shortlisted for the 2020 Sakharov Prize on Monday.
Following a joint vote by MEPs in the Foreign Affairs and Development committees on Monday 12 October, the finalists for the 2020 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought are:
The democratic opposition in Belarus, represented by the Coordination Council, an initiative of brave women and political and civil society figures;
Guapinol activists and Berta Cáceres in Honduras;
Mgr Najeeb Michaeel, Archbishop of Mosul, Iraq.
Next steps
The European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents (President and political groups’ leaders) will select the final laureate on Thursday 22 October. The prize itself will be awarded in a ceremony in Parliament’s hemicycle on 16 December.
Background
The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is awarded each year by the European Parliament. It was set up in 1988 to honour individuals and organisations defending human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is named in honour of Soviet physicist and political dissident Andrei Sakharov and the prize money is 50 000 euros.
Last year, the prize was given to Ilham Tohti, an Uyghur economist fighting for the rights of China’s Uyghur minority.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled on Monday that they will not raise Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religion during a days-long hearing.
While a number of Republicans last week accused Democrats of preparing to use Barrett’s faith against her, it was exclusively GOP senators who brought it up on the first day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee — and Democrats said they intended to keep it that way.
“I and my colleagues will focus, Judge Barrett, on your legal writings, your opinions, your articles, your speeches as a law professor and judge,” Sen. Chris Coons Christopher (Chris) Andrew CoonsDemocrats preview strategy on Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week Schumer: Trump’s Supreme Court nominee should recuse from health care, election cases Sunday shows – Coronavirus stimulus, Barrett hearings share spotlight MORE (D-Del.) told Barrett during his opening statement during Monday’s hearing.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sen. Dick Durbin Richard (Dick) Joseph DurbinHirono commits to avoiding ‘irrelevant’ questions about Barrett’s religion during her confirmation hearing Graham says SC people of color can go anywhere in the state but ‘need to be conservative, not liberal’ Sunday shows preview: Trump, top Republicans recover from COVID-19; stimulus bill remains in limbo MORE (D-Ill.), asked if he believed any Democrat on the committee would bring up Barrett’s religion, said, “Can’t think of a single one.”
Democrats have warned that raising the issue would only provide election fodder for Republicans, who have accused Democrats of trying to apply a “religious test.”
Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump asks campaign to schedule daily events for him until election: report White House pushes to hold next week’s canceled debate Trump hoping to strike last-minute nuclear arms deal with Putin before election: report MORE, who was a longtime member and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said separately on Monday that he believed Barrett’s faith should not be part of the debate over her nomination.
“No. I don’t think there should be any questions about her faith,” Biden told reporters.
Biden instead said Democrats should keep the focus on health care. Democrats on the panel homed in on the potential impact Barrett, if she’s confirmed, could have on the Affordable Care Act, as well as Trump’s push to get a justice on the bench before the Nov. 3 election.
ADVERTISEMENT
<
p class=”p1″>But Republicans have pointed back to remarks made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein Dianne Emiel FeinsteinJudiciary Committee Democrats pen second letter to DOJ over Barrett disclosures: ‘raises more questions that it answers’ Hirono commits to avoiding ‘irrelevant’ questions about Barrett’s religion during her confirmation hearing Amy Coney Barrett tells Senate panel she signed ad decrying Roe v. Wade as ‘infamous’ MORE (D-Calif.), who while questioning Barrett in 2017 about if she could separate her beliefs from her job as a judge, said, “The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”
Even though no Democrats brought up Barrett’s faith as the hearings got underway, Sen. Josh Hawley Joshua (Josh) David HawleyCruz says he raised concerns with Trump over Gorsuch and Kavanaugh before nominations Ted Cruz, Mark Cuban spar over NBA viewership tweet GOP Sen. Thom Tillis tests positive for coronavirus MORE (R-Mo.) argued that by bringing up Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling on contraception use, Coons was, in effect, raising questions about Barrett’s faith.
“Now I just heard my colleague Sen. Coons make a reference to an old case, the Griswold case, which I can only assume is another hit at Judge Barrett’s religious faith referring to Catholic … beliefs,” Hawley said. “I don’t know what else it could be since no one has challenged this case, it’s not a live issue and hasn’t been for decades.”
Coons had pointed to several cases, including saying that he was worried that cases like Griswold v. Connecticut “may be in danger of being stripped down.”
Coons, asked about Hawley’s statement, brushed off the question, saying that he had been focused in his opening statement on health care and would stay focused on that.
“I’m not going to help Sen. Hawley run for president, I mean my focus today was on the concerns that I’m hearing from Delawareans which was that there is a Supreme Court case a week after the election where the Affordable Care Act is at risk,” Coons told reporters.
The Foundation for Book Culture and the Promotion of Reading of the German Publishers and Booksellers Association announced on Monday that Anne Weber had won the 2020 German Book Prize.
The winner was announced just before the opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair. A record 206 submissions were considered overall, including several big literary names.
Anne Weber’s “Annette, in HeldinenposAnnette, ein Heldinnenepos, is a biographical epic portraying Anne Beaumanoir. Born in 1923 in Brittany, she was “a member of the communist resistance as a teenager, rescuer of two Jewish youths, a neurophysiologist in Marseille after the war, sentenced to 10 years in prison in 1959 for her involvement in the Algerian independence movement.”
A celebration of German-language literature
Twenty novels made the longlist, which was then narrowed down to a shortlist of six finalists. These novels discussed themes of identity, history and fantasy and one epic. None of the bigger literary stars made it onto the shortlist.
The 2019 winner was Sasa Stanisic, who received the award for his book Herkunft (Origin).
The jury of the German Book Prize 2020, from left to right: Maria-Christina Piwowarski, Chris Möller, Denise Zumbrunnen, Katharina Borchardt, Felix Stephan, David Hugendick, Hanna Engelmeier
The accolade celebrates literary achievements by awarding €25,000 ($29,700) every year to the best German-language novel. The award aims to “draw attention beyond national borders to authors writing in German, to reading and to the keynote medium of the book,” according to the German Book Prize Academy’s website.
Founded in 2005, the prize is seen as the German equivalent to the UK’s Booker Prize or France’s Prix Goncourt.
The five other authors who make the shortlist are awarded €2,500 each.
The German Book Prize jury is made up of members of the book and media industry chosen yearly by members of the German Book Prize Academy.
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet said that in examining “the legacy of some of the most appalling chapters in human history”, the historic conference in South Africa, and resulting declaration inspired by the host nation’s struggle against Apartheid, is a work in progress, she reminded the Intergovernmental Working Group on the declaration’s Programme of Action.
Durban was the first UN Conference to address the historical roots of contemporary racism and acknowledge slavery and the slave trade, as crimes against humanity.
Recent months, however, have been a reminder that “there is still a long way to go for human rights to be equally enjoyed by all”, flagged the UN rights chief, naming COVID-19 a “stark” example of a recent obstacle.
Ms. Bachelet noted that the pandemic has taken more than a million lives, prompting the deepest economic recession since the Second World War. She said more than 100 million people may be pushed into extreme poverty, the first global rise since 1998.
“As we have seen since the beginning of this crisis, while the virus itself does not discriminate, its impacts certainly do”, she attested, painting a picture of those whose voices are silenced and interests rarely served, as being worst affected by COVID-19, through health or socio-economic repercussions.
Systemic discrimination
Among them are the indigenous, people of African descent and those belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, whose rights have been denied by systemic racial discrimination.
Ms. Bachelet emphasized that those suffering racial discrimination, more often work in the informal sector, many living in poverty and at risk of losing their jobs, with no social protection.
“Yet again, those facing racial discrimination are most often the ones with fewer conditions to study at their homes, fewer digital skills and limited or no access to the Internet. Some may even never return to school”.
Still, despite overwhelming evidence, a lack of disaggregated data on how the COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting victims of racial discrimination are underestimating – or even denying – disparities and human rights violations. MW
Scapegoating migrants
The pandemic has also revealed the additional vulnerability of migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and Stateless people, Ms. Bachelet pointed out.
We have seen a rise in discriminatory and xenophobic attitudes — UN human rights chief
Without State protections and with serious restrictions on their rights, many are harassed, arbitrarily arrested and face mass deportation.
“We have seen a rise in discriminatory and xenophobic attitudes affecting Asians and people of Asian descent, which often lead to violence”, Ms. Bachelet underscored. “Even before the pandemic, we were witnessing a worldwide increase in negative stereotypes against certain groups”.
Migrants and other racially discriminated groups are often the scapegoats for problems, particularly in relation to housing and employment shortages, according to the High Commissioner.
Women facing ‘excessive burden’
The crisis is disproportionately impacting women as well, particularly those already facing gender, race and ethnic discrimination.
“They are subject to an excessive burden of unpaid work, increased poverty, job insecurity and limited access to public services”, the UN rights chief said. “Women have also been on the frontlines of response to the health crisis and are more exposed to infection”.
Greater equality is “an ethical obligation…a pre-requisite for overcoming these crises and a requirement to recover from COVID-19 and build back better”, she upheld.
UN Women/Ryan Brown
After surviving military enslavement in Guatemala, Maria Ba Caal received help through an emergency grant from the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
Deutsche Welle: You stuck to your plans to hold the Frankfurt Book Fair in a slimmed-down form. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the fair as we know it had to be canceled and will now take place as a predominantly digital book fair from October 14-18, 2020. What will it be like?
Juergen Boos: The fair will actually take place in the Frankfurt Festhalle, and there will be events in the city, but the exhibition halls will remain empty. That’s why we had to set up a comprehensive digital concept in addition to this decentralized fair. It takes into account the needs of the trade and the rights trade, but of course also focuses on the books and the authors. We have set up a digital book festival and a virtual broadcasting center, where we will broadcast from the Frankfurt Festhalle to the whole world.
Will the Book Fair ever be the same again?
I think so. In any case, it will be very similar. We are now testing what works digitally. How do the economic transactions work? How does digital interaction with the audience work? Of course, we will continue to use whatever works next year. But yes, we will meet again physically, because otherwise the creativity, the opportunities, the trust that personal encounters create will be lost.
In 2019, the exhibition halls of the Frankfurt Book Fair were busier than ever before. In 2020, they will remain empty.
Is it already possible to gauge what has been lost?
This year, the industry has lost the opportunity to have this type of personal encounter. It doesn’t only concern Frankfurt, but also Leipzig [book fair, which was canceled in March: Eds.]; the encounters with the audience, with the authors. Here in Germany, LitCologne [book festival] didn’t take place. Internationally, the trade fairs in London and Bologna didn’t happen either. Beijing used to be international, but this year the fair there was purely local, and even virtual. We are really longing to meet again.
Last year you had a record number of visitors and almost 7,500 exhibitors. How can publishers present their new publications this year?
Last year was a record year for us. We had more trade visitors and higher audience figures than ever before, and we were more international than ever. Of course, we couldn’t foresee what was coming. But years ago, we were adjusting to the fact that many things could be communicated digitally and done virtually. Now we had to speed up the process.
We created a rights platform, but we also actually created opportunities for publishers to present themselves internationally to the digital world. We use many different channels: television, YouTube, Instagram, all types of social media. It required a lot of professionalism and a lot of external support to do this in just a few months. Now we are finally ready to go!
Persecuted Turkish writer Asli Erdogan was in Frankfurt for the 2019 fair. In 2020, authors and democracy activists like Hong Kong’s Joshua Wong will make digital appearances
The fair also considers itself a platform for human rights and freedom of speech, it has continued or even initiated such discussions. How do you intend to replace this?
We have a decidedly political program that we are developing together with the German Foreign Office, called “Der Weltempfang” [literally, “the World Reception”; the fair’s socio-political stage], and we were actually able to transfer this to the digital realm by producing many political discussions beforehand.
I thought for a long time about the messages we wanted to send with the fair’s opening, which will take place in the Festhalle. I invited David Grossman, a writer whom we admire very much because he is also a decidedly political writer. He can’t travel here from Israel, of course, so we will connect with him digitally.
Hugs, like the one between 2019 Peace Prize winner Sebastiao Salgado and director Wim Wenders, will not be possible at the 2020 award ceremony
The German Book Prize is always awarded on the eve of the opening of the Book Fair and will also be digital. What role do awards play for the industry?
As events, I think prizes and award ceremonies play an important role in drawing attention to books, to storytelling. A prize creates publicity, it affirms the author’s work and is an incentive to continue writing. The German Book Prize, and also the Peace Prize, which will be awarded at the end of the Book Fair in St. Paul’s Church, are particularly important. But also, the other lesser-known awards that will be given out this week, such as the Litprom Prize for an author from Africa, Asia or Latin America — the only prize of its kind — are very important.
The interview was conducted by Sabine Kieselbach and translated from German.
He spent his teen years taking unnecessary risks and getting into avoidable trouble. Now, a veteran prosecutor for the City of Los Angeles, he went from disregarding laws to enforcing them. Cristall is a certified sexual violence prevention instructor.
Cristall frequently speaks to young people and their families about the topics in his book, What They Don’t Teach Teens. His work with teens has appeared in Huffington Post, Beverly Hills Courier, Beyond the Brochure, Kids Safety Network, and the Good Men Project, among others
Your book reads like a great cautionary guide for teens, but we suspect that parents will read it to discuss with their kids. Can you tell us what your book is about and why you wrote it?
As a father to three sons, all in adolescence, I realized some time ago that there are so many life skills that they and all other young people need to be educated about, but schools very rarely teach. I looked for a resource that would provide my sons with guidance on issues involving sexual violence and misconduct, digital safety, police interactions, street safety, and more, but found nothing. As a veteran prosecutor, father, formerly troubled teen, and a certified sexual violence prevention instructor, I decided to write the book that I was longing for.
What are three pieces of advice that you would give to parents of color for when their teens must interact with police? Is it ever too early to have “the talk” about the police?
Let me start by saying that my advice about police interactions is for people of all colors and backgrounds. I’m certainly not saying that there isn’t racial injustice in policing and the criminal justice system as a whole, there is, my advice is simply for all young people who have a police interaction.
It’s important for young people to know their rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments. This involves when police are allowed to search you or your stuff and responding (or not) to police questions. As I describe in the book, there are better ways to verbally assert your rights than others.
Let me be clear: knowing your rights doesn’t mean that a police interaction will always go the way it should and it can be hard to assert your rights in the face of an intimidating police officer, particularly as a young person, a person of color, being disabled, LGBTQ, and certainly others–for some these distinctions overlap. Yet, exercising your rights can be done successfully and help us avoid doing or saying something that we later regret. When you know your rights and they aren’t respected, you’ll be better able to make a complaint later on and to help your lawyer fight criminal charges that have been improperly brought against you.
New drivers should also understand what to do and not to do when stopped by the police. Since pulling people over is one of the most dangerous things police officers do, officers can be on edge. As a result, things can escalate quickly if the officer believes the person is a threat, is questioning their authority, and as we have all seen repeatedly on the news, sometimes for no reason at all. What I’ve told my sons is that the police have never lost an argument on the street—arguments are for courtrooms–and doing so can be downright dangerous. Don’t exacerbate an already volatile situation by their own actions. No matter how angry they are at the police, bite your lip, be polite, and make it home safely.
With children and teens online more than ever, what aspects of online behaviors do you stress in your book and workshops? What is a common problem for young people that their parents may not have experience dealing with personally?
Four of the 11 chapters in my book focus entirely on digital safety, including unlawful sexting and one’s digital footprint. However, the digital world is a theme that comes up in every other chapter too, including things like digital dating abuse or acts amounting to sexual harassment done from a handheld device.
One of the most important things I cover in various ways in the book is to remain mindful before hitting send. Would it be a bad look if it got out to unintended recipients? I hear and read about way too many instances of young people being devastated because something they shared privately was seen by unintended recipients. Someone they thought was a friend, was actually a frenemy. A bad breakup happens and a former partner shares intimate photos that were intended to be for their eyes only. Sometimes these things can even be shared accidentally. The bottom line is that we all need to stay vigilant, particularly young people who can act more impulsively, about what we say and do online. And, of course, there’s also the colleges and employers who are checking out a candidates digital footprint that we cover in depth.
Regarding your second question, I’d say that it’s cyberbullying. We cover that topic over the course of an entire chapter. For our purposes here though, it’s worth noting that since most of our kids won’t cyberbully someone, it’s important for them to understand that a cyberbully has no power without followers and inactive bystanders. Their mere digital presence within the bullying dynamic can make the target feel like everyone has turned against them. And, from the bully’s perspective, it will be thought of as support for the abuse. So, at a minimum, our kids should not participate even passively in a cyberbullying situation and, if it’s safe to do so, try to meaningfully intervene. That chapter and others discuss the importance of bystander intervention and give many examples about how to intervene, to one extent or an other, in a way that’s safe for the targets and the person intervening.
Let’s talk about creating a digital footprint. What are some of the most important things for young people and their parents to be concerned about most?
No one can say yet what the full cultural, personal, or legal ramifications will be of our digital footprints. As such, for both the short and long term, it’s incredibly important for young people to think about the permanence of their digital footprints. Which, by the way, is so unfortunate because it imposes a level of accountability, forethought, and risk management that no young person should have to face.
In the chapter on digital footprints, I highly encourage young people to stay mindful of the two groups that may be making important decisions about them: college admissions officers and employers. I cover, in depth, the ways one’s digital footprint can come back to bite them with these two groups and others. But, just as important to note is that this is a wonderful opportunity to populate their digital footprints with things that they want admissions officers and prospective employers to see and know about them. For example, a recognition they might have received, volunteer work they do, passions they pursue, etc. It’s not about being phony, at all. Rather to highlight the good things you’re already doing that can be beneficial to share for your long term objectives.
We learned from your book that online blackmail is prevalent amongst teens. How do you caution parents and young people to deal with these predatory acts?
Online sexual blackmail involving threats to expose sexual images, also called sextortion, is the fastest growing crime against young people online. It’s a crime of unspeakable brutality that so few people know about. The average age of victims is 15 and sexual perpetrators often look for targets online by starting a virtual relationship, often by catfishing, and other methods. However, the early data seems to indicate that sextortion may be more frequently perpetrated by a current or former partner in an in-person relationship—who was likely once trusted by the victim and obtained nudes from them.
Once a sextortionist has intimate images of the victim, they threaten the person with widespread exposure of the image if their demands aren’t met. Those demands can include obtaining more images of the victim, in person sexual activity, money, and other things. A very common demand when the sextortion arises from an in-person relationship is for the victim to stay in or return to an intimate relationship.
While victims are never to blame for the predatory acts of another, the books covers the many different ways we can better protect ourselves from sextortion. If I had to choose only one to share here, it’d be to never take or share nudes. And, if you do, never show your face or anything else that might identify you.
What are the main points you want parents and teens to take away from your book or workshops?
That young people today face new risks, expectations, and laws that simply didn’t exist when all of us as parents were young. To grow up without a full grasp on the importance of your digital footprint, sexual consent, your rights with the police, and the other topics in my book is no longer an option.
While these and other book topics can sometimes be unsettling to think about, our children should be educated about things beyond the subjects that are traditionally taught in school. In fact, readers have repeatedly told me that learning the information in the book has brought them peace of mind knowing that their children will be better able to handle themselves if one of these unexpected situations arises—both for themselves or for a loved one.
His book, What They Don’t Teach Teens: Life Safety Skills for Teens and the Adults Who Care for Them, is available on Amazon.
To learn more about this compelling book, check out its official website.
The Office of Papal Charities in the Vatican has received a building in Rome from a women’s religious congregation for free use to shelter migrants and refugees arriving in Italy.
Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, the Apostolic Almoner, or the Pope’s official almsgiver, released a statement on Monday saying the Sisters Servants of Divine Providence of Catania were responding to the “invitation of Pope Francis, who in the Encyclical Fratelli tutti repeats several times the need for adequate hospitality to migrants fleeing wars, persecutions and natural catastrophes”.
Through the Office of Papal Charities, the Sisters have lent their building on Via della Pisana (Pisana Road) to the Pope for free use.
Cardinal Krajewski said the Sisters’ building, called Villa Serena, will be used to shelter refugees, especially for single women, women with underage children, and vulnerable families, who arrive in Italy through the Humanitarian Corridors programme.
The centre can accommodate up to 60 people and will host them in the first months after their arrival, and will then accompany them on their journey to obtain independent jobs and accommodation.
The Villa Serena centre has been entrusted to the Community of Sant’Egidio, which, since 2015, has opened Humanitarian Corridors for refugees from Syria, the Horn of Africa, and most recently from Greece, especially the island of Lesbos.
So far, the programme has welcomed and accompanied over 2,600 people, including a large number of minors, in their process of integration.
The plight of refugees and migrants is very close to the heart of Pope Francis. He personally visited Lesbos on April 16, 2016, and on his return, brought along with him to Rome 12 Syrian refugees aboard the papal plane.
Ukraine and Poland intend to cooperate in order to further deepen Ukraine’s relations with the European Union, according to a joint statement by Presidents of both countries, Volodymyr Zelensky and Andrzej Duda, released on Ukraine’s presidential website, following their meeting in Kyiv on Monday.
“We confirm the intention of both countries to cooperate in order to further deepen relations between Ukraine and the European Union on the principles of association and deep economic integration. We positively assess the results of the 22nd EU-Ukraine Summit, which took place on October 6, 2020,” according to the statement.
The Presidents of Ukraine and Poland also note the importance of mutually beneficial economic cooperation in order to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the Ukrainian and Polish markets in the context of a functioning deep and comprehensive free trade area between the EU and Ukraine.
“We see the need to urgently intensify the work of the Ukrainian-Polish intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation. The interests of the two states meet the growth of mutual investments in Ukraine and Poland, for which it is important to create favorable conditions for doing business,” according to the joint statement.
The heads of state also note the need for further cooperation in the energy sector to strengthen energy security in the region and Europe as a whole. “We see the importance of increasing the reliability and diversification of energy supplies, as well as ensuring transparency in the energy sector,” Zelensky and Duda said.
The Presidents emphasize the need for cooperation between Ukraine and Poland “in order to enhance the role of our region as an important transport, transit, infrastructure and innovation and investment center for the European continent.”
In addition, as noted in the statement, Poland supports Ukraine’s deepening cooperation with the Three Seas Initiative.
WASHINGTON (CNS) — The Oct. 12 start of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett had two distinct focuses.
Democratic senators homed in on concern that Barrett’s confirmation would lead to a vote to potentially overturn the Affordable Care Act when the legislation comes before the nation’s high court in November.
Republican senators emphasized the nominee’s qualifications for the role and stressed that her Catholic faith, which was raised in her 2017 questioning before a Senate committee for her federal judiciary nomination, shouldn’t be an issue in the current proceedings.
Indiana senators who introduced Barrett, remotely, to the committee near the end of the five hours of discussion about her, highlighted Barrett’s judicial talents and also emphasized that her Catholic faith should not come into question. Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, also pointed out that in his state: “Faith is seen as an asset in public service.”
In her remarks, Barrett said she was “honored and humbled” to be nominated to the Supreme Court. She spoke of her husband, their seven children, her siblings and her parents. She mentioned the “the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican,” the girls high school she attended in New Orleans, and she also mentioned that if she were confirmed, she would be the only justice on the bench not from Harvard or Yale but the University of Notre Dame.
Other than the school references, Barrett’s only remark about her faith came after thanking people for their support in recent weeks. She added: “I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me.”
In giving an indication of her judicial philosophy, she said: “Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law … 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.”
She said she tried to follow that view as a judge, “mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved.”
At the start of the hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out the four-day process prior to sending the nomination onto the full Senate for a vote would be a “long contentious week.”
He also noted the proceedings were “not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens.” He predicted that “all the Republicans will vote yes, all the Democrats will vote no” for President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the Sept. 18 death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“Nothing about this today is normal,” said Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, in the middle of the first day of introductory remarks by members of the committee, noting the country is in the middle of holding a presidential election and battling the coronavirus pandemic.
Signs of coronavirus precautions were obvious in the room itself where senators were socially distanced and wore masks while bottles of hand sanitizer and plastic containers of bleach wipes were visible on the counters. The hearing room also did not have the usual crowds these events typically draw, and a few senators participated remotely.
Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had tested positive for COVID-19 earlier, but those in the Senate hearing room were not required to be tested for the coronavirus before taking part in the hearing in the enclosed room, as some of the Democratic senators mentioned.
Prior to the hearings, protesters and supporters of Barrett’s nomination gathered outside in the rain to express their views with signs such as “Let the people decide!” or “Women for Amy.”
During the hearing, Barrett sat at a table across from the senators, and her husband and six of their children sat behind her.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the senior Democrat on the committee, started the discussion with a trend that was followed by her fellow Democrats, voicing an overriding concern that with Barrett’s confirmation “Americans stand to lose the benefits that the ACA provides.”
On Nov. 10, the court will hear oral arguments about the health care law, often called Obamacare, for the third time in a case brought by 18 Republican state attorneys general and supported by the Trump administration.
As a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Barrett did not hear any cases dealing with the ACA. But in 2017, she wrote a paper in the Notre Dame Law School journal that was critical of Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in the 2012 ruling, saying he “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
This quote was mentioned by several Democratic senators, many of whom referred to and showed poster-sized pictures of their constituents suffering from health problems who they said would lose their health insurance if ACA is dismantled.
A few Democrats brought up the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, saying it also stood in the balance with Barrett’s nomination. Several of them described the current hearings as a “sham” or “charade” for being rushed through amid the election and the pandemic.
Republicans highlighted Barrett’s qualifications and many of them brought up the issue of her Catholic faith, which had come up in her 2017 hearings. Several made reference to a comment made at the time by Feinstein, who told her: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”
Feinstein was referring to Barrett’s speeches and a 1998 article she co-wrote about the role of Catholic judges in death penalty cases. The senator also questioned Barrett about upholding Roe v. Wade.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, said the confirmation hearings should be about civics, not politics, and stressed that the senators should not get into religious tests of a court nominee or try to determine “whether ‘the dogma lives too loudly’ within someone.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, similarly recalled the questioning Barrett received in 2017 and said it reflected a “the very terminology of anti-Catholic bigotry.”
