Politics & Government

Where does McGrath stand on Amy Coney Barrett, expanding the Supreme Court?

Democratic nominee Amy McGrath Monday declined to opine about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, saying she doesn’t believe any nominee should be considered at all.

“I don’t think any senator should be voting on any nominee, no matter what the name is, no matter what their background is,” McGrath said, saying she would not vote to confirm Barrett. “I do not believe they should be nominating or voting on a nominee right now. The election is already going on.”

McGrath’s opponent, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is at the heart of the effort to confirm Barrett to fill the seat of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a move that has prompted howls from Democrats across the country still smarting over the fact that he blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of former Justice Antonin Scalia.

McConnell guaranteed Trump’s nominee would receive a vote on the floor of the Senate hours after Ginsburg died. On Saturday, he praised Barrett as “exceptionally impressive.”

“President Trump could not have made a better decision,” McConnell said. “Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Barrett, 48, is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh District.

Democrats, including McGrath, have called McConnell a hypocrite for moving forward with the confirmation process, pointing to his comments in 2016 where he said who gets to nominate the justice should be up to the people to decide.

McConnell has pushed back, saying the circumstances are different now because Republicans control both the Senate and the Presidency. In 2016, the Senate was controlled by Republicans and the White House was controlled by Democrats.

“We all know that’s BS,” McGrath said. “It’s not right, it’s all about power for power’s sake. He has no principles, he has no moral compass, there’s no guiding light.”

His maneuvering has allowed Trump the opportunity to nominate three justices to the court in four years, potentially cementing a conservative bent on the court for years to come. It has also prompted Democrats to talk about tactical moves of their own, including increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices.

Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but there have been nine members since 1869.

McGrath didn’t take a firm stance on whether the number of justices on the Supreme Court should be increased, but said it was worth a conversation.

“That’s definitely an option,” McGrath said. “Think about the fact that we have a senator now in Mitch McConnell that has so polarized our government that we had people saying they would vote for or against the nominee before they even knew who the name was.”

Katharine Cooksey, McConnell’s spokeswoman, said McGrath’s statement made it clear she prefers a “progressive court.”

“Few times in this campaign have McGrath’s extreme views been on display as much as they are now as she calls for a Supreme Court packing option,” Cooksey said. “If it were up to her, the Supreme Court would be full of pro-abortion, anti-second amendment, activist judges.”

McGrath was in Shelby County talking to voters in Clear Creek Park on a rainy Monday. Some of the people who came were wearing rubber gloves, one woman had two masks on, underscoring McGrath’s talking point that McConnell should be focused more on COVID-19 relief than a U.S. Supreme Court nomination.

“We have a real problem right now and he’s not even there working on it,” McGrath said. “He’s trying to shove through Supreme Court Justices right now.”

Democrats are hoping that the debate over the Supreme Court focuses on healthcare, as the Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments that could determine the future of the Affordable Care Act on November 10. McGrath, too, has tried to focus her campaign on healthcare, saying that she believes Congress should add a “public option,” where people have the option of selecting a government health insurance plan.

This story was originally published September 28, 2020 at 2:41 PM.

Daniel Desrochers
Lexington Herald-Leader
Daniel Desrochers has been the political reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader since 2016. He previously worked for the Charleston Gazette-Mail in Charleston, West Virginia. Support my work with a digital subscription
Get one year of unlimited digital access for $159.99
#ReadLocal

Only 44¢ per day

SUBSCRIBE NOW