Not Even a COVID Outbreak Will Stop the Senate GOP From Confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

McConnell suspended Senate operations until October 19—except for the Judiciary Committee.

Susan Walsh/AP

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

After a week of maskless gatherings in Washington, three Republican senators have announced that they, like the president and a swath of his inner circle, have tested positive for COVID-19. Two of them—Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)—serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The alarming rate of new infections and the potential for widespread exposure among their Senate colleagues pushed majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to suspend all Senate floor proceedings until October 19. The two week hiatus meets the Centers for Disease Control’s recommended 10-day isolation period for people exposed to the virus.

But these developments will not stop Senate Republicans in their rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

On Saturday, McConnell explained that the Senate’s retreat would have no bearing on his party’s plan to expedite Barrett’s confirmation. The Judiciary Committee hearing on Barrett’s nomination, scheduled by Senate Judiciary chairman Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) for October 12 in advance of a committee vote on October 22, will proceed as planned.

“The Senate’s floor schedule will not interrupt the thorough, fair, and historically supported confirmation process previously laid out by Chairman Graham,” McConnell said, adding that the Judiciary Committee “has operated flawlessly through a hybrid method that has seen some senators appear physically at its hearings while other members have participated virtually.”

Democrats on the committee disagreed. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), the leading Democrat on the committee, released a statement on Friday calling Graham’s decision “premature” when “we do not know the full extent of potential exposure,” adding that virtual hearings for “a lifetime appointment to the federal bench is not an acceptable substitute.”

All Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee reiterated those points on Saturday afternoon in a letter to Sen. Graham. “As Republican members of this Committee have recognized, questioning nominees by video is ineffective and ignores the gravity of our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on lifetime appointments, particularly those to the nation’s highest court,” the letter said.

Though the Senate has conducted some of its business remotely since the pandemic took root in March, the two judicial nominees it has confirmed over the last six months have had their committee hearings and votes conducted in person. In fact, the Senate first returned from the extended recess it took at the beginning of the pandemic at the insistence of Senate Republicans eager to push through the nomination of Judge Justin Walker to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. Democrats are now crying foul at the decision to conduct judicial nominations remotely, after Republicans insisted on in-person hearings earlier this year. So far, the Senate has not confirmed any nominations or advanced legislation out of committee over Zoom.

So what could Senate Democrats do to stop Graham from moving forward? According to Senate Judiciary rules, the presence of nine committee members—including at least two from the the minority party—is required for transacting business, such as judicial confirmation proceedings. If all Democratic members of the committee refuse to attend, a quorum wouldn’t be present. But there are “too many intangibles” in this unprecedented moment to say whether Graham might proceed without Democrats present, says Jim Manley, an aide to former Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and an expert in Senate procedure. “It all depends,Manley says, “on how much Graham is willing to bend the rules of the committee.”

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

At least we hope they will, because that’s our approach to raising the $350,000 in online donations we need right now—during our high-stakes December fundraising push.

It’s the most important month of the year for our fundraising, with upward of 15 percent of our annual online total coming in during the final week—and there’s a lot to say about why Mother Jones’ journalism, and thus hitting that big number, matters tremendously right now.

But you told us fundraising is annoying—with the gimmicks, overwrought tone, manipulative language, and sheer volume of urgent URGENT URGENT!!! content we’re all bombarded with. It sure can be.

So we’re going to try making this as un-annoying as possible. In “Let the Facts Speak for Themselves” we give it our best shot, answering three questions that most any fundraising should try to speak to: Why us, why now, why does it matter?

The upshot? Mother Jones does journalism you don’t find elsewhere: in-depth, time-intensive, ahead-of-the-curve reporting on underreported beats. We operate on razor-thin margins in an unfathomably hard news business, and can’t afford to come up short on these online goals. And given everything, reporting like ours is vital right now.

If you can afford to part with a few bucks, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones with a much-needed year-end donation. And please do it now, while you’re thinking about it—with fewer people paying attention to the news like you are, we need everyone with us to get there.

payment methods

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

At least we hope they will, because that’s our approach to raising the $350,000 in online donations we need right now—during our high-stakes December fundraising push.

It’s the most important month of the year for our fundraising, with upward of 15 percent of our annual online total coming in during the final week—and there’s a lot to say about why Mother Jones’ journalism, and thus hitting that big number, matters tremendously right now.

But you told us fundraising is annoying—with the gimmicks, overwrought tone, manipulative language, and sheer volume of urgent URGENT URGENT!!! content we’re all bombarded with. It sure can be.

So we’re going to try making this as un-annoying as possible. In “Let the Facts Speak for Themselves” we give it our best shot, answering three questions that most any fundraising should try to speak to: Why us, why now, why does it matter?

The upshot? Mother Jones does journalism you don’t find elsewhere: in-depth, time-intensive, ahead-of-the-curve reporting on underreported beats. We operate on razor-thin margins in an unfathomably hard news business, and can’t afford to come up short on these online goals. And given everything, reporting like ours is vital right now.

If you can afford to part with a few bucks, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones with a much-needed year-end donation. And please do it now, while you’re thinking about it—with fewer people paying attention to the news like you are, we need everyone with us to get there.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate