Fact Check: Dianne Feinstein Says Barrett Will ‘Vote to Strip Millions of Americans of Their Health Care’ - Unlikely

Fact Check: Dianne Feinstein Says Barrett Will ‘Vote to Strip Millions of Americans of Their Health Care’

46

Ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) holds her facemask during the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 13, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. - President Donald Trump's US Supreme Court nominee Amy …

KEVIN DIETSCH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Hannah Bleau

13 Oct 2020

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proclaimed on Tuesday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, if confirmed, will “vote to strip millions of Americans of their health care.”

Verdict: Unlikely. Barrett has refused to offer her personal views on hot button political issues presented by Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated, unequivocally, that she is “not hostile to the ACA [Affordable Care Act].” Moreover, the case slated to come before the Supreme Court on November 10th does not directly concern pre-existing protections, but instead the individual mandate. . . .

. . . Other high profile Democrats, including Joe Biden (D), have made grandiose claims regarding Barrett’s purported position on Obamacare. The former vice president claimed that Barrett “said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.”

“That is false. Barrett has never stated an opinion on the law, and her judicial philosophy is that judges are not lawmakers,” Breitbart News reported:

What she has done is criticize Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius , in which he rewrote the statute to save it. . . .

1 Like

Feinstein might simply be grandstanding for the sake of Biden and herself. But in a way, she is admitting the Obamacare is a bad law. Barrett has made it abundantly clear that she does not bring ideology to the Court. What she does bring is respect for language. Unlike Roberts, I don’t think she would have called a “fine” a “tax” when the law says it’s a fine. Declaring it a fine would have destroyed the whole thing.

Are there other pockets of linguistic poison in Obamacare? I don’t know. But I’ll bet if there are, Feinstein’s staff has told her of them.

3 Likes

Wasn’t this the same person who was concerned about Judge Barrett because “The dogma lives loudly in you?”

4 Likes

This is supposed to be a news item and Breitbart gives its ‘verdict’ on what the senator stated? That’s opinion; not reportage. This is partisan media at a low point. How can Breitbart make a ‘fact check’ on a possible reaction to a possible court case in the future?

Incidentally, the GOP has chipped away at the ACA (which law is supported by some nuns) and has done everything to subvert it, mainly because Obama was for it.

Then they say: “Its a bad law which doesn’t work!” Small wonder.

3 Likes

Nepperhan . . .

Incidentally, the GOP has chipped away at the ACA

That’s irrelevant. Amy Coney Barret is not “the GOP” in this capacity.
She is a judge.

1 Like

Nepperhan . . . .

This is supposed to be a news item and Breitbart gives its ‘verdict’ on what the senator stated?

Yes.

And here again is what “the senator” (Feinstein) stated . . . .

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proclaimed on Tuesday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, if confirmed, will “vote to strip millions of Americans of their health care.”

If you think Diane Feinstein DIDN’T say that, please offer some proof.

I added the “unlikely” to the title (but “unlikely” was in the article and the article explained WHY it was “unlikely”). Not “the partisan media at a lowpoint” putting it in the title.

Why should anyone believe that? All the judges would say what the majority (in this case, the republicans) WANT to hear. And considering that she denied her own previous and declared writs, it is very unlikely that she was honest.

Though the Dems should have formed their questions slightly differently. They should have emphasized that they believe that in any specific case Barrett would be an impartial justice, but they should have forced her to state her actual, and personal views - even if she would not be guided by them. (Fat chance of that!)

So she stated her opinion (well formed I think). I would be very glad if Barrett would leave her faith and her personal views in the cloakroom, and truly be an impartial judge - if confirmed. Very unlikely, but we can never know.

JFK was a Catholic. But when it came to his official stance, he obeyed the Constitution and not the pope.

Thank you so much for posting this article. I see Barrett as a proud Catholic. She is the ideal American. And to see non-Catholics in the political sphere criticizing Barrett for Her Catholicism is unfortunate.

I Hope Barrett votes to overturn abortion and disapproves of any legislation that would take away health insurance from Americans.

What reason has she given you not to believe it?

Feinstein had no reason on earth to believe that. It was a political utterance for the campaign.

The Dem party itself is anti-Catholic as the Wikileak disclosures demonstrated.

4 Likes

She avoided any and all direct answers to the questions. Just like all the nominations before. The panel should have insisted very strongly to get some meaningful answers, especially because the questions were not about how she would vote in specific case, rather about her general philosophy.

Except that Barrett declared before she was nominated that the ACA should “go”. This is the kind of pre-judging, which would immediately disqualify a juror from consideration. Her personal beliefs and faith are irrelevant. Her previously expressed views are of utmost importance. It might be improper to call her a liar, but to point out her reluctance to give direct answers is in order.

1 Like

Which could end up disqualifying her for cases in the future, which was probably the Dems’ objective. I see no reason why she should go along with that.

Which should not be relevant on the part of a truly judicial person.

Please provide the whole quote. I doubt she said that.

Not to the anti-Catholic dems. Her religion is exactly why they are so opposed to her.

3 Likes

But we are not there YET. How a confirmation process be accomplished if the nominee avoids all the pertinent and relevant questions. Since there is definitive discrepancy between her previously stated views and her current answers, it is reasonable to distrust her honesty.

She did not use those explicit words. Read some here:

And now you claim to have direct knowledge of ALL the democrats. Rather questionable claim. JFK was a Catholic, and there was some doubt about the possible conflict between his faith and his role as a truly secular president. That doubt was alleviated by his actions.

She could have shown her honesty by answering the questions - which had nothing to do with her possible future decisions, but she chose to avoid them. THAT is the problem, not her personal views.

Without reliable examples, the mere assertion dishonesty on her part is unpersuasive.

The fact that called a penalty a “penalty” instead of a tax does not mean she opposes laws like Obamacare; only that she did not agree with Roberts that a penalty is a tax instead of a penalty.

No. Just the DNC. I thought you knew it supports dissident “Catholic” organizations and considers the Church “backward” and “medieval”. Undoubtedly there are a lot of Democrats who don’t think that and don’t even know their party is anti-Catholic.

What anti-Catholic things did JFK do?

1 Like

She refused to come clean. And that is what counts and is sufficient.

The party (any party) cannot be separated from its members. (Moreover, any organization cannot be separated from its members. Not even the catholic church.) All you can say that a certain - and undefined - percentage of democrats have such a view. So what? It is not a good idea to generalize.

None, that I am aware of. You misunderstand. People were concerned that his faith would interfere with his secular obligations, that he will be more loyal to the pope than to the Constitution. He explicitly declared that he is an American first, and Catholic second. He did not do any anti-Catholic things. Barrett could alleviate all the doubts, if she explicitly affirmed that she will be a secular judge and practice her religion outside the judicial environment. That none of her religious views will interfere with her obligations.

And, of course Trump made crystal clear that he chose Barrett to accomplish two things, get rid of Obamacare and to overturn Roe. And also to cement the conservative majority in case there can be any excuse not to relinquish the presidency if somehow the decision will rest with the Supreme Court.

She did what a judge is supposed to do. Had she risen to the bait it would have been improper, and they would have been the first to say it.

So somehow her religion is to be taken as a negative thing as compared to secularism? Do you really want her to affirm to the world that Catholic principles have no place in deciding issues of human conduct?

1 Like

And she has consistently stated that she judges based on what is written in the Constitution. Obamacare and Roe are only at risk if they are in fact unconstitutional.

5 Likes

Zerge (on Amy Coney Barrett) . . .

She refused to come clean.

I disagree. As a judge, she “came clean”.

Judge that case when you see it. And don’t compromise your apparent objectivity in the meantime.

2 Likes

that’s breaitbart for ya

But in this case she is NOT a judge YET, she is an applicant. And as such it is nor her prerogative to decide which questions to answer and which ones to evade.

In a secular society as ours, the religious part does not count. Especially since Catholicism is a minority religion. In a theocracy it would be the exact opposite. The secular approach could and would be declared irrelevant.

Verba volant, scripta manent. And her written words contradict her spoken words.

As an applicant she did not.

Zerge calling a prospective appointee “an applicant” . . .

As an applicant she did not.

It is irrelevant if she is “an applicant” or not.

And if you go back and listen to her, you will be informed as to “why” it doesn’t matter if you are an “applicant” or a Supreme Court “judge”.

You don’t give an opinion BEFORE the case is heard.

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.