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The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date.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.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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