Abortion fallout: Connecticut Supreme Court pick drops out due to Amy Coney Barrett letter
Supreme Court nominee and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 21, 2020.
Ken Cedeno | Reuters
A federal prosecutor on Friday eliminated her title from consideration for a seat on the Connecticut Supreme Court after blowback from legislators over a 2017 letter she signed in help of Amy Coney Barrett, who’s now a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Gov. Ned Lamont’s nomination of Sandra Slack Glover had floundered in current days due to her prior backing of Barrett for a seat on the seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals — 5 years earlier than Barrett supplied a vote on the U.S. Supreme Court to finish the federal proper to abortion.
The proper to abortion is codified in Connecticut regulation. The state expanded entry to abortion on the heels of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court resolution final summer time within the case referred to as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Glover, who known as herself a staunch defender of abortion rights, mentioned Monday throughout her affirmation listening to on the Connecticut Senate Judiciary Committee that she was “naive” and “flawed” to have signed the letter in help of Barrett.
“Looking again and realizing what I now know, I should not have signed it,” Glover testified concerning the letter, which was signed by each U.S. Supreme Court clerk who labored throughout that courtroom’s 1998-99 time period.
At the time, Glover was a clerk that time period for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and Barrett was a clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Read extra of CNBC’s politics protection:
Glover mentioned Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court resolution in 2022 overturning the 50-year-old abortion rights case Roe v. Wade “flawed and egregiously so.”
“Speaking as a lady, it was horrifying,” testified Glover, who’s the pinnacle of the appellate division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Connecticut.
“All of us ought to have a constitutional proper to management our reproductive freedom and our our bodies,” she testified. “My perception in that is agency and unwavering.”
Despite her statements that day, key Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee predicted on Tuesday that her nomination wouldn’t be accredited, the information web site CTMirror.com reported. The committee had declined to vote on her nomination after the seven-hour listening to on Monday.
“I do not actually see a path ahead for this explicit nominee,” mentioned Sen. John Kissel of Enfield, high Republican on the committee, in accordance to CTMirror. “The votes aren’t even shut to double digits in her favor.”