copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority WASHINGTON – The Senate voted Monday to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, completing a sprint to place her on the high court just days before Election Day and solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority on the bench. [...] More: Senate committee OKs Amy Coney Barrett. Here's what happens next in her Supreme Court confirmation
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-15): Democrats opposed the current Supreme Court confirmation process even before they knew Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be President Trump's nominee. Republicans reneged on their earlier stance not to consider a Supreme Court vacancy ahead of an election, Democrats have argued, and they say the choice to do so will damage the Senate's credibility and that of the high court. [...] Republicans' discussion about Barrett's "humility," her dependence on texts, her interpretation of judicial doctrine — "that is a smokescreen," said Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-22): WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination Thursday of Amy Coney Barrett to serve as a Supreme Court justice in a 12-0 vote, with Democrats boycotting the day's proceeding. "The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate. And her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequences for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and our entire country for generations to come," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned during a press conference following the vote outside the Capitol alongside Democrats on the committee. [...] Democrats have also said that one of the main reasons President Donald Trump and the Republicans are trying to ram Barrett's nomination through the Senate ahead of the election is because Trump wants her installed on the bench in case there’s a dispute over the election results that rises to the Supreme Court, as it did in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court, Takes Constitutional Oath The Senate has voted 52-48 to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, just about a week before Election Day and 30 days after she was nominated by President Trump to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a White House ceremony following the vote Monday evening, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath to Coney Barrett.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-13): In the lead up to Monday’s confirmation hearings to install Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the US Supreme Court, Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden raised concerns that the efforts to put Barrett on the court are unconstitutional and exemplify court packing. [...] Facts First: This is false. Legal experts say there is nothing strictly unconstitutional about Barrett’s confirmation process. When asked by CNN, the Biden campaign argued that the Senate’s push to confirm Barrett ahead of the election doesn’t violate a specific clause of the Constitution, but people’s constitutional right to have a say in who makes the nomination. According to his campaign, Biden’s comments refer to the principles and spirit of the Constitution, which they insist the effort to confirm Barrett before the election violates. [...] "The Constitution gives the Senate the power to hold a hearing," Blackman added. "There is nothing unconstitutional about confirming Judge Barrett."
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2023-10-23): Amy Coney Barrett, currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is on President Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court. [...] AFJ strongly opposes nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and vigorously urges the Senate to reject her confirmation. The health, and indeed the very lives of millions of Americans truly hang in the balance. [...] Washington Times: Justice Amy Coney Barrett riles conservatives with moderate rulings
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2023-11-30): Senate Republicans’ decision to vote on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor reflects individual and collective cost-benefit calculations of seating a rock-ribbed conservative in what may be the Trump administration’s waning days. As a fig leaf to obscure the hypocrisy of voting on President Trump’s election-year nominee after refusing to vote on President Obama’s in early 2016, Republicans have claimed an historical norm that doesn’t exist. [...] Last year, given the lack of any "long-standing tradition" but anticipating the possibility of an election-year vacancy, McConnell fabricated a different history to justify treating a Trump nominee differently from Obama’s. He argued that "[y]ou have to go back to … 1880s to find the last time … a Senate of a different party from the president filled a Supreme Court vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election. That was entirely the precedent." When that anticipation became reality with the death of Justice Ginsburg, he offered a slightly different excuse: "Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year". A National Review article claimed a norm: "when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies . . . [but] when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees . . .".
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2023-11-05): The third Trump appointee to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, was nominated to the Court after the death of Justice Ruth Badar Ginsburg. Barrett was nominated on September 26, 2020, and confirmed on October 26, 2020, by a vote of 52-48. No justice had ever been confirmed after July in an election year. Yet, Republicans – who kept Merrick Garland off the bench on the stated principle that the people should decide who fills the Court vacancy – rushed Barrett through an illegitimate and sham process even though millions of Americans had already voted. See AFJ’s report on Barrett here. [...] President Trump appointed three of the five justices who made today’s opinion possible: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. During their confirmation hearings, each of these justices promised to respect the Court’s longstanding precedents protecting the right to have an abortion. They lied. Unfortunately, it’s clear the Court’s ultra-conservative majority won’t stop at reproductive rights. In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Court should reconsider rulings that protect the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965); the right to same-sex intimacy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003); and the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2021-01-13): Trump, the nation’s 45th president, worked closely with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans to reshape the federal judiciary – particularly the appeals courts – for decades to come. Federal judges have lifetime tenure and typically remain on the bench long after the presidents who nominated them have left office. [...] Trump also had a major influence on the nation’s highest court. The three Supreme Court justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are the most by any president since Ronald Reagan (who appointed four) and the most by any one-term president since Herbert Hoover (though Richard Nixon appointed four in his first four years in office). [...] Republican presidents have generally been less likely than Democrats to appoint women to the bench, but chief executives in both parties have increasingly done so. Trump’s appointment of Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020 made her just the fifth woman ever to serve on the high court, after former justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and current justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to Supreme Court by GOP senators [...] The Senate on Monday confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in the most partisan confirmation vote for a justice in modern American history, securing a 6-3 conservative majority widely expected to expand gun rights and permit new restrictions on abortion. [...] The U.S. Senate has confirmed Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice in a partisan 52-48 vote, just days before the presidential election.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): WASHINGTON — The Republican-led Senate voted narrowly Monday to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, ending an acrimonious confirmation process and handing President Donald Trump a political victory days before the election. [...] Barrett's nomination drew enthusiasm from Republicans, who have made the courts their priority in the Senate, and anger from Democrats, who warned them not to fill a vacancy in an election year, particularly after GOP leaders refused to do so under a Democratic president in 2016. [...] Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, reversed course over the weekend and said she would vote in favor of confirming Barrett even though she opposed filling the vacancy near an election.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2023-11-09): The Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up hearings Thursday on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court and set a panel vote for Oct. 22, with final confirmation expected before the Nov. 3 election. Legal experts say the addition of President Donald Trump’s conservative nominee will move the court farther right than it has been in decades. Barrett has said her judicial philosophy involves an impersonal focus on the language of the Constitution and intent of the framers. She assured senators during the hearings that she would be guided by that approach and not her own personal beliefs, despite having taken public positions on some hotly disputed issues, most notably her opposition to abortion rights and questioning of the Affordable Care Act. The Gazette interviewed Michael Klarman, an authority on constitutional law and history and Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, about the limits of judicial philosophy and prospect of having a heavy conservative majority on the court.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-26): Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett but controversy follows her to the Supreme Court [...] Senate Republicans finished their race Monday to confirm Amy Coney Barrett and boost the long-running conservative advantage on the Supreme Court, where her actions on consequential cases in the coming days and months could amplify calls to revamp the high court and change Senate rules to do so. Barrett narrowly won confirmation in a 52-48 vote Monday evening almost entirely along party lines to fill the vacancy left by the death last month of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She joins the court in time to consider legal fights over the presidential election and to decide whether the entire 2010 health care law should be wiped out.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-22): Even before Amy Coney Barrett was announced as President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republican senators made clear their intention to confirm a new justice prior to the 2021 presidential inauguration. This entire process has been met with anger from Democrats, who pointed to Republicans’ refusal to hold a vote on Barack Obama’s Court nominee in 2016 on the grounds that it was an election year. As it was four years ago, the Supreme Court has become a contentious battleground in Democrats’ and Republicans’ jockeying for power in Washington. The loser in these fights is none other than the Supreme Court itself. The Court was designed by the founders of this nation to serve as an independent arbiter of justice, divorced from the political squabbling that the authors of the Constitution expected in Congress. When nominations become partisan contests, the Court loses its luster as a body meant to interpret the law outside the influence of politics. It does not have to be this way. Congress should enact term limits for Supreme Court justices. Term limits, coupled with a regular appointment schedule, would depoliticize the appointment process, move the Court toward a less partisan future, and help restore public faith in our democratic institutions.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-12): Will Amy Coney Barrett’s seat be tainted as illegitimate given all the on-the-record pronouncements from Senate Republicans about filling a Supreme Court vacancy so close to a presidential election? [...] The Constitution doesn’t require the Senate to hold hearings on the Barrett nomination at this time or ever. The Senate certainly could decide not to move ahead, but I doubt comity would be promoted. No outcome in the November election will smooth out the confirmation process. If Trump is reelected and the Senate stays in Republican control, Democrats will still oppose the Barrett nomination. If Biden wins the White House and the Senate remains Republican, the Senate would immediately move to confirm Barrett before Biden takes office and it likely also will resist any future nomination by Biden. If Trump is reelected but Democrats take the Senate, outgoing Republicans will want to confirm Barrett before they leave office and Democrats will work to block any future Trump nominees.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2018-06-29): "Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." [...] For his part, McConnell argued that the Democrats had at least contemplated a similar tactic back in 1992, when Obama's vice president, Joe Biden, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and mused about urging President George H.W. Bush to withhold any nominees to the high court until the end of the "political season." [...] A previous version of this story incorrectly said that before 2016, the last time a Democratic president made a Supreme Court appointment while Republicans held the Senate was in 1885. The last such appointment was in 1895.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-27): Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to US Supreme Court The US Senate has confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in a victory for President Donald Trump a week before the presidential election. [...] Democrats have threatened to retaliate for Judge Barrett's appointment by court-packing - which would entail expanding the number of justices on the nine-seat Supreme Court - if they win the White House and control of the Senate next week.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2021-07-21): The moral floor then dropped even lower. Last year, immediately following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senator McConnell shrugged aside his own "election year" rule and rushed to fill her seat mere weeks before Election Day, and at a time when millions of people were already voting. Instead of addressing the many urgent challenges gripping the nation — from the global pandemic to the racial reckoning that followed George Floyd’s murder to rampant election disinformation — President Trump nominated then-U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett at an event that became the source of a COVID-19 outbreak.[40] The Senate majority similarly ignored the desperate crises that demanded congressional attention and rushed her nomination through. In a reckless and incomprehensible move, the Senate majority even decided to hold a hearing despite the fact that multiple members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive for COVID-19.[41] The hearing threatened the health and safety of senators and staff. [...] [42]Tillman, Zoe. "Republicans Are Moving Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination Faster Than Any Supreme Court Nominee Since 1975." BuzzFeed News. September 28, 2020. [43] See., e.g., Hulse, Carl. "How Mitch McConnell Delivered Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Rapid Confirmation." The New York Times. October 27, 2020; Levine, Marianne. "McConnell fends off accusations of hypocrisy over holding Supreme Court vote." Politico. September 21, 2020.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-10-02): Two female Senate Republicans do not support moving ahead with the Barrett nomination—Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Susan Collins. Senator Murkowski remains consistent in not supporting the confirmation of Supreme Court justices in an election year. Senator Collins has also come out against confirming a justice so shortly before election day, which is a reversal of her support of confirmation proceedings in 2016. [...] Source 2020 statement "Georgians want a Supreme Court that applies the law, not makes the law. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an outstanding choice to serve on our nation’s highest court… The Senate will now move with due haste to consider Judge Barrett’s nomination. This is about more than one seat. This is about saving our Republic by maintaining the balance of power between our three branches of government." [...] Source 2020 statement "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an excellent choice for Associate Justice on the Supreme Court and I support her confirmation… She understands the job of a Supreme Court Justice isn’t to legislate from the bench and I’m confident she’ll protect the religious freedom and liberty of all Americans. I look forward to advancing Judge Barrett’s nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and voting for her confirmation on the Senate floor. "
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2024-10-02): The Senate & the Constitution [...] The Constitution requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 165 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 128 were confirmed (7 declined to serve). This chart lists nominations officially submitted to the Senate. [...] R - Rejected (12)
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2023-06-20): With today’s intense ideological polarization, every Supreme Court vacancy also takes on monumental stakes. Exercises of raw power have replaced long-established constitutional norms, upending the confirmation process.footnote9_JnrOQ4L14iAD7DN4ICRZFA1olKmlPAsNay1WODqN06Y_mEWtdNzJD1tp9Michael J. Gerhardt and Richard W. Painter, "Majority Rule and the Future of Judicial Selection," Wisconsin Law Review 2017, no. 2 (May 2017): 270–75, https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2017/05/Gerhardt-Painter-Final.pdf. This constitutional hardballfootnote10_IzIB4bpR1L7lqDlOeLAZ-H3f92JFDnsOBT0LLx6w3b0_vPGG0DQOyc1S10Joseph Fishkin and David E. Pozen, "Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball," Columbia Law Review 118 (2018): 921, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3126344. was illustrated most notoriously when Republican senators refused to consider President Barack Obama’s March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, claiming that it was too close to the presidential election, only to rush through a vote for Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020, when early voting in that year’s presidential election had already started. [...] The Constitution gives Congress wide latitude to determine the Supreme Court’s structure and responsibilities. Congress should use its power now to reform the Supreme Court.
Claim: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional." (Joe Biden, 2020-10-10)
Evidence (2020-09-25): President Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to U.S. Supreme Court President Donald Trump named U.S. appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, picking from a list of candidates that included U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. [...] Her nomination will kick off what’s expected to be one of the most contentious confirmation battles in recent memory. Republicans say they intend to seat Barrett this year, even though the vacancy on the court opened up less than two months before Election Day. Democrats are determined to fight the nomination, noting that Republicans refused to confirm former President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016 when a seat came open 269 days from Election Day.
Claim: Says Amber Alerts are issued for white kids "but not Black kids in Milwaukee." (Facebook post, 2020-07-06)
Evidence (2020-07-06): Nearly half of the 41 alerts issued since 2003 in Wisconsin were for Black children. Milwaukee police initiated more than one-fourth of all alerts, far more than any other agency. Every one of their 11 alerts was for a Black child.