Problems with voting? Call the Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE.

Confirmation Process of Amy Coney Barrett

 

On Oct. 15, 2020,Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process of Amy Coney Barrett. At the hearing, Clarke presented information about Barrett’s civil rights record. Clarke testified that when it comes to issues such as voting rights, criminal justice, employment discrimination, and other civil rights, Barrett’s record indicates these rights are threatened. In addition, Barrett’s philosophy of originalism leaves little to no room for Black Americans and other marginalized communities to achieve equal justice. 

 

Clarke presented examples from several key issue areas, including:

  • Voting Rights: Barrett has been unwilling to acknowledge that voter intimidation, suppression, and discrimination are unlawful, and still very evident in our country.
  • Workers’ and Civil Rights: Barrett has demonstrated an inclination to side with the employer rather than the employee, and has a history of narrowly interpreting the protection of the federal discrimination statutes. 
  • Criminal Justice: Barrett has a notable history of being unwilling to protect a defendant’s rights, and has not recognized that racism and bias infect nearly every stage of our criminal justice system. 
  • Reproductive Rights: By nearly every indication, Barrett would look to restrict reproductive rights and overturn Roe v. Wade. Her public statements on the issue, previous judicial decisions, and “originalist” view of the constitution all point towards one conclusion–Barrett will not recognize Roe’s fundamental right to privacy.
  • Second Amendment: It is likely that Barrett will advocate for expanding an individuals’ right to obtain and use a gun than to uphold reasonable restrictions on the purchase and use of guns. 
  • Immigration: Barrett’s past decisions and public statements suggests she favors the authority of the Executive Branch over the rights and liberties of immigrants. She would have upheld the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule, which penalizes and denies immigrants permanent residence status for exercising their right to use Congressionally available federal funds.

 

Read the full testimony here.