Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has said she cannot commit to recusing herself from any cases involving disputes that may arise from the US presidential election.
Ms Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I can't offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process."
The judge said she had not spoken to President Donald Trump or anyone else in the administration about how she would handle any election-related challenges. And she said she would have to confer with the other justices on the court before deciding.
Ms Barrett is on Capitol Hill for a second day of hearings.
The mood is likely to shift to a more confrontational tone as Ms Barrett, an appellate court judge with very little trial court experience, is grilled in 30-minute segments by Democrats strongly opposed to Mr Trump's nominee.
Republicans are rushing her to confirmation before polling day in the US election.
The committee chairman, Lindsey Graham, opened the session under coronavirus protocols with a focus on healthcare, and ending the Affordable Care Act.
Mr Graham also quickly asked if the Catholic judge would be able to shelve her personal beliefs to adhere to law.
"I can. I have done that," she said. "I will do that still."
Mr Graham praised her as a conservative woman of faith and the best possible nominee Mr Trump could have chosen.
"I will do everything I can to make sure that you have a seat at the table. And that table is the Supreme Court," Mr Graham said.
The Senate, led by Mr Trump's Republican allies, is pushing Ms Barrett's nomination to a quick vote before November 3, and ahead of the the latest challenge to the "Obamacare" Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election.
Republicans also hope to seat Ms Barrett quickly enough to hear any legal challenges after the election.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel