Posted on 10/10/2020 9:09:33 AM PDT by Arcadian Empire
Judge Amy Coney Barrett initially failed to disclose two talks she gave in 2013 hosted by two anti-abortion student groups on paperwork provided to the Senate ahead of her confirmation hearing to become the next Supreme Court justice.
Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, gave the talks in 2013 in her capacity as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. The seminar was co-sponsored by the school's Right to Life club and constitutional studies minor, and the lecture was held by the law school's Jus Vitae club.
Late on Friday night, hours after this story published, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a supplemental update to Barrett's committee questionnaire that includes the lecture and seminar, as well as a paid advertisement she signed that criticized Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed support for Notre Dame's "commitment to the right to life."
Barrett's initial failure to disclose the two events also raises questions about whether the questionnaire is complete or whether there will be any consequences from the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees her confirmation hearing. Past chairmen of the powerful committee have halted the nomination process after judicial nominees omitted information in their Senate paperwork but under committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that scenario is unlikely.
The committee has slated a hearing for Barrett on October 12 in an effort to confirm her by the full Senate before the election.
Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department this week that said Barrett did omit materials concerning Roe v. Wade and asked if Barrett omitted any more materials after the National Review reported that Barrett signed a letter on a "right to life" ad in 2006 that called for the end of the landmark legal decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Wouldn't surprise me if she updated the form and some staffer leaked it to CNN so they could pretend there was something sinister.
Did she work on Obamacare and then sit in judgement to approve the Constitutionality of Obamacare?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.