The appointment of the first mother with school-aged children to the Supreme Court would be a setback for women, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont insisted Monday.
Leahy’s comment came during a day of senatorial opening statements on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the court.
In her opening statement, a copy of which was released Sunday, Barrett noted that she would be the first mother with school-aged children appointed to the court, a point made by President Donald Trump when he nominated her.
But to Leahy, minorities and women have been struck with fear at the prospect of Barrett joining the court.
Sen. Patrick Leahy tells judge Amy Coney Barrett that his constituents are “scared that the clock would be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace.” https://t.co/287bRvyVxi pic.twitter.com/FK1bYTA5mo
— ABC News (@ABC) October 12, 2020
“They’re scared that the clock would be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies. And when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace,” Leahy said.
“They’re scared that at a time when we’re facing the perilous impacts of climate change, bedrock environmental protections are going to be eviscerated. And they’re scared that your confirmation will result in the rolling back of voting rights, workers’ rights and the rights of the LGBTQ community to equal treatment.”
Many on Twitter pushed back against Leahy.
Sen. Leahy says he’s worried if Judge Barrett is confirmed, we’ll go back to a time where women can be discriminated against in the workplace.
Is he unaware of who he is interviewing to fill the vacant seat?
A highly-successful working mom of school-age children.#ConfirmAmy
— MarjorieDannenfelser (@marjoriesba) October 12, 2020
Judge Barrett is an exceptional mother, practicing Catholic, and faithful to the Constitution. As a result, she and her family are being attacked by the media and the Democrats. Keep this in mind when you vote.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) October 12, 2020
Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a woman of character, a person of faith, and an exceptional mother of 7 children. pic.twitter.com/IaCecgy23a
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) October 12, 2020
Democrats’ attacks on Judge Barrett are totally disingenuous.
A mother of 7 whose own children faced “pre-existing medical challenges, is just itching to block families like hers from accessing medical care”?@senatemajldr is right: “What a joke”pic.twitter.com/NeN28CTZKB
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) October 12, 2020
In her opening statement, Barrett sought to issue a pre-emptive strike against critics who claim she will make policy on the bench.
“Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life,” she wrote.
“The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”
Amy Coney Barrett says she would bring “a few new perspectives” to the Supreme Court, as the first mother of school-age children to serve on the court and “the only sitting justice who didn’t attend school at Harvard or Yale” https://t.co/uScvfX9o80 pic.twitter.com/Jt2A2M3FWX
— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 12, 2020
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas elaborated upon that thread Monday.
— The Hill (@thehill) October 12, 2020
“The court’s job is to decide cases according to the law and to leave policymaking to the elected legislators. That doesn’t mean policymaking is unimportant. It means to the contrary. Policymaking is very important, and the people need to have a direct check on policymaking,” Cruz said.
“Much of the argument this morning has concerned Obamacare and policy arguments, policy arguments that are occurring in the Senate, which is the right place for them to occur, a legislative body, but our Democratic colleagues simply want a promise from a judicial nominee that this nominee will work to implement their policy vision of healthcare,” he went on.
“That is not a judge’s job. That is not the responsibility of a judge. In fact, making that promise would be violating the judicial oath.”
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.