US Senate Confirms Donald Trump’s Nominee, Amy Coney To Supreme Court

Some political blocs may consider it a victory lap for US president, Donald Trump and Republicans as Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the US Senate on Monday night in a vote largely along party lines, giving the US President his third Supreme Court justice just a week before election day.

The conservative jurist’s appointment gives the court a 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed justices just in time to rule on election-related cases that could be pivotal to the outcome of the race.

Ms Barrett was confirmed by 52 votes to 48, with just one senator, a Republican, crossing the aisle. After the vote, she took one of two required oaths at an outdoor event at the White House with Justice Clarence Thomas.

Mr Trump used the televised swearing-in event to talk about the “radiant inheritance” of the US, telling the American public eight days before the November 3 election: “We must never lose confidence in our history, our heritage, or in our heroes.”

Ms Barrett will begin work on Tuesday after taking a second oath, administered in private by Chief Justice John Roberts.

On Monday evening Ms Barrett reiterated that she would be independent of the president who nominated her and the Republican lawmakers who confirmed her at a rapid pace during a presidential campaign.

“The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means, at its core, that I will do my job without any fear or favour, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences,” she said at the White House.

The possible electoral consequences of Ms Barrett’s appointment were highlighted as, also on Monday evening, the Supreme Court issued another ruling on mail-ballot deadlines, this time splitting 5-3 to block an extension ordered by a federal judge in Wisconsin.

Mr Roberts this time joined his conservative colleagues to uphold an appeals court stay on the judge’s six-day extension. He explained that his vote was different in last week’s Pennsylvania case because that extension had been ordered by a state court, as opposed to the “federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes” in the Wisconsin matter.