Barrett: ‘I Am Not Hostile’ To The Affordable Care Act | MSNBC

Barrett: 'I Am Not Hostile' To The Affordable Care Act | MSNBC 1

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett was questioned about past opinions she has written and claimed she was "not hostile" to the Affordable Care Act. "I apply the law, I follow the law, you make the policy" she told Sen. Dick Durbin. Aired on 10/13/2020.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Barrett: 'I Am Not Hostile' To The Affordable Care Act | MSNBC

45 Comments on "Barrett: ‘I Am Not Hostile’ To The Affordable Care Act | MSNBC"

  1. That’s not what her writings say. She fits in perfectly with the republicans.The same republicans who dropped everything for this judge didn’t have 30 minutes to vote for a stimulus package that would help millions of Americans.

    • Really? You critique Justice Roberts so tRump selected you as the beast candidate to get rid of the ACA or Obama Care as he calls it. Now you saying you not hostile to then ACA! As the Indians say ‘white woman also speak with forked tongue”

    • Yes, I think we have learned that words mean nothing from the GOP. Actions mean more. Her legal opinions and activist involvement reveal more than her careful words.

  2. Kassandra Crow | October 13, 2020 at 12:03 PM | Reply

    The selfishness in her words, is very dangerous

  3. she (Barrett) has written and claimed she was “not hostile” to the Affordable Care Act.

    – Liar

  4. Bunker Baby dRumph | October 13, 2020 at 12:06 PM | Reply

    We do not need a virtual uterus & Handmaiden sitting on The Supreme Court!

  5. cynthia peralta | October 13, 2020 at 12:08 PM | Reply

    She wouldn’t be the first to lie from that group of people

    • T. R. Campbell | October 13, 2020 at 5:09 PM | Reply

      @Sakurakuro Lol… no false statements in your own mind. I’ll except that. Thank you for the post I enjoyed reading it.

    • @T. R. Campbell Are you certain that both she and you completely understood all the particulars of the poor lady’s situation, since the acquaintance is of such long standing? Advocates were and are available to her, specifically to help her avoid changes she found less than beneficial. I had need of such a person’s advice myself. I will be interested in the Supreme Court’s ruling in November, to see whether such assistance (or indeed any health care program at all) still exists. It is to be hoped that the penalty for non-participation can simply be removed.

    • T. R. Campbell | October 13, 2020 at 5:29 PM | Reply

      @Noma The penalty for non-participation could be removed but as I understand it there was a need for younger people, more healthy people to be participating in the ACA To offset the cost of older people who need greater medical care. The younger people decided they did not want to participate. The younger people could be fined, which was the original intent or attached for non-participation in this money would be taken out of whatever tax overpayment they had coming back at the end of the year. All young people had to do is rewrite their withholding so they did not have a windfall at the end of the year.
      We should have rewritten the ACA to make it the best plan in the world. But we did not, we sat on our hands. We could’ve done a lot of things to make the ACA great that people would flock to it.
      As I understand it because a grave error was made by those who wrote the ACA, a severability clause was not included which would mean that if any part of the ACA was declared unconstitutional the rest of it would still be viable. This was not included. We have to remember that a Texas court has ruled the ACA already unconstitutional. It was brought before the Supreme Court because we thought we had the votes necessary, but now with the passing of our RBG, the issue is now seriously in doubt.

    • @T. R. Campbell Now you’re speaking of something I can REALLY agree with! Whose well written program would be a good start – from which to improve?
      Despite many assurances that such a plan or program would be ready for discussion, usually in “two weeks” time, there is no plan. There is not enough time, after the ACA gets its supreme court decision and before January 20, to do more than force through some plan that has not been discussed, thought through and improved. (I am NOT in favor of slowing down for committees, subcommittees, research groups etc) No Congress can be allowed to return to the… “pace” that was the old normal. Still, it would be wise to use the current program until a really good health care program can be devised – or even adapted – and put in place. Be prepared for the new, really good system to need revision. Lawyers will be lawyers, and no individual or group can possibly think of everything. And enough people will have to use the system to make it feasible. This must necessarily include the young, healthy and outrageously rich. Not even they can guarantee never to crash a car or be diagnosed with some ruinously expensive condition.

      Productive ideas or improvements? Even I would suggest Congress take a week to call experts to consult…

    • James Thompson | October 13, 2020 at 6:58 PM | Reply

      @T. R. Campbell There you go, saying “we” again, like you’re part of the group of people distressed by this Justice wrecking the entire ACA, overturning Roe vs. Wade, aiding Trump in his election shenanigans… Say “you”, it’s more honest.

  6. She’ll say anything, she wants the job. We know the game at a job interview right?

  7. Plus, her voice is so annoying! I feel sorry for the other justices that have to be on the court with her.

  8. Victor Johnson | October 13, 2020 at 12:10 PM | Reply

    Then why did Trump pick her then? He only wants someone to vote to abolish it.

    • @Noma TRUE!!!!!!!

    • @Kathy Kettner That’s the point. McConnel & co wouldn’t let a justice be appointed 8 months before the end of the last presidential term (the only Supreme Court position to open during that term). Yet the precise same politicians are ramming this appointment through, after voting has begun – AND this is the THIRD appointment of this presidential term. They swore up down and sideways not to do this, during the last term. Still, here they are, proving themselves dishonest, hypocritical and liars outright and blatant. (I have not been redundant. Disgraceful, outrageous dishonesty is possible without lying.)

    • @Kathy Kettner Meaning: You’re absolutely correct – right on the money. We’re screwed.

    • @Jay Roy Sims 😀 Thank you!

    • You could say the same thing about every nomination by every president EVER! Grow up!

      ACB is a wonderful woman and will make a great justice. She is a much better role model for young women than Pelosi or Klobuchar. Unlike them, she has integrity!

  9. Omfg, the minority are making all the rules for the majority. Absolute madness.

  10. TRUMPERIOD 2017-2020. VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS!

  11. TRUMPERIOD 2017-2020. VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS!

  12. Manoucheka Edmond | October 13, 2020 at 12:14 PM | Reply

    No one would be believe her. Remember this is the reason she has been nominated by trump. She is just sitting in there, like like trump’s other stooged liying to us.

    • T. R. Campbell | October 13, 2020 at 4:43 PM | Reply

      If the shoe was on the other foot wouldn’t we do the same thing? We would be rushing through a nomination if we had a Democrat president and a democrat Senate? This is all politics but fortunately we have a really top notch woman who has a solid record of being a journalist before the Senate committee.
      I was very impressed with Senator Sass and senator Coons. I was also impressed with some of the judges answers.

    • Come on man. Everybody actually cares 25 times as much about nov 3. I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds democrats want her approved. That makes court packing look justifiable, even though not really.

  13. Remember the mistake of 2016, forget about the differences, we will solve them after the elections. Let’s join forces to remove Trump from the presidency!

  14. “I’m not hostile”
    She just wants to rip it’s tender heart and grind it with her teeth.

  15. So she simply lies her face off and everyone’s fine with that? This person is a snake in the grass. She is on a mission from her “God”. Why not just appoint a judge from the Vatican – for Christ sake!?

  16. johnthetrekker | October 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM | Reply

    She’s very good at hiding behind her robes when failing to answer questions put to her by this committee, Just the fact that she was nominated by Trump who is of questionable character with questionable motives to say the least calls into question her own character.

  17. Yo곧휴가가 | October 13, 2020 at 12:23 PM | Reply

    Well, everything is happening according to Trump’s plan, so far.
    This is like horror movie, except that it’s happening right before our very own eyes.
    If ACA gets removed, forget 200k American death tolls, there may be
    millions facing health crisis due to not having insurance.

  18. Dems are doing the right thing. Even if they strike down ACA we ultimately will will. If they strike the ACA down we may able to do better by passing Medicare for all with ACA protections BUT first we need to get the Senate, Presidency, and maintain majority of the House. Vote Blue!!!!!!

  19. She was a professor? Did she use auto-tune for her lectures? I can’t imagine anyone staying in her class if she didn’t.

  20. She can literally lie through her teeth at this point. Say anything.
    GOP has proven that being a hypocrite is not illegal.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.