President Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court declined to answer some questions that seemed steeped in basic facts, such as whether a president has the power under the Constitution to unilaterally delay an election. Barrett also declined to say whether she would recuse herself from a potential 2020 election case as Senate Democrats demanded, saying she would not be “used as a pawn to decide the election for the American people.”

Like high court nominees who preceded her, Barrett repeatedly avoided weighing in on her personal views of landmark decisions and declined to say whether she endorsed opinions from her mentor, former Justice Antonin Scalia, on abortion and same-sex marriage. At the same time, under hours of questioning from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she reinforced perceptions that she would help solidify a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

On the Affordable Care Act, whose constitutionality will come before the Supreme Court in oral arguments on Nov. 10, Barrett on multiple occasions said she was not “hostile” to the 2010 law that has been the core of the Democratic Party’s argument against her confirmation.

“I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett said under questioning from Democrats who tried to shed light on how she may rule on California v. Texas, a case brought by nearly 20 Republican attorneys general and backed by the Trump administration that challenges the constitutionality of former president Barack Obama’s signature health-care law.

Barrett, who would succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if confirmed, testified that judges should not be swayed by their personal views on policy.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns; I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk

WASHINGTON — Minnesota U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar recalled her husband’s and her father’s battles with COVID-19 Monday as she implored Americans to be vocal in their opposition to the “sham” confirmation hearings of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

“It’s personal,” Klobuchar said in a widely seen statement on the opening day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Barrett, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a voice sometimes shaking with emotion, Klobuchar explained her opposition to Barrett by invoking the names of family members and fellow Minnesotans struck by the coronavirus, as well as of other state residents with pre-existing medical conditions.

Like other Democrats on the GOP-led panel, Klobuchar framed her opposition to Barrett in terms of her belief that the conservative judge would be a threat to women’s rights and the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

She recalled her husband’s battle with COVID-19 early in the pandemic and her father’s fight with the virus in the nursing home in Minnesota.

While calling the hearing a “sham,” Klobuchar acknowledged that Democrats can do little to stop the Republican majority from confirming Barrett ahead of the Nov. 3 election. The “secret weapon,” she said, would be Americans “voting in droves” to show their disdain for a justice who could vote to kill the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic.

A GOP challenge to the health care law is expected before the high court in November.

Klobuchar, the only Minnesotan on the panel, criticized her Republican colleagues for forcing Barrett’s nomination through the approval process in short order. Democrats have argued that the same committee refused to consider Obama nominee Merrick Garland for nine months in 2016, saying they had to

FILE PHOTO: Judge Amy Coney Barrett meets with United States Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO.), not pictured, at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 1, 2020. Demetrius Freeman/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s pick for a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, said she will rule based on the law, not her personal views, in prepared remarks issued on Sunday ahead of her Senate confirmation hearing this week.

Barrett, a conservative appeals court judge, said that in her current job she has “done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be.”

A devout Catholic who has a record of opposing abortion rights, Barrett is likely to be probed by Senate Democrats on that issue in particular. If Barrett is confirmed to the position by the Republican-controlled Senate, the court would have a 6-3 conservative majority. Conservative activists hope the court will overturn the 1973 ruling, Roe v. Wade, that legalized abortion nationwide.

Trump nominated Barrett to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month.

Barrett said in the statement that it will be an “honor of a lifetime” to serve alongside the current eight justices and explained how she approaches cases.

“When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against,” she wrote.

Barrett, 48, who has seven children, would be the fifth woman to serve on the court. Before Trump appointed her to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame Law School in Indiana.

Reporting by Steve Holland

MUMBAI (Reuters) – The Reserve Bank of India has appealed to the country’s top court to let banks classify loans as nonperforming, saying a ban imposed to help borrowers in the COVID-19 pandemic could greatly harm the nation’s financial system.

FILE PHOTO: A security guard’s reflection is seen next to the logo of the Reserve Bank Of India (RBI) at the RBI headquarters in Mumbai, India, June 6, 2019. REUTERS/Francis Mascarenhas/File Photo

The central bank, in a filing to the Supreme Court late on Friday, warned that failure to immediately lift an interim stay on banks classifying any loan as a non-performing asset (NPA) would also undermine the central bank’s regulatory mandate.

The court granted the stay last month, responding to a plea filed by an Indian optician, later joined by a wide range of borrowers whose income or revenue was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court is set to rule on the matter on Tuesday. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences not only for millions of borrowers, but also for banks and the country, as state-run banks dominate the sector.

To help borrowers weather pandemic-related stress, the RBI has let banks offer a moratorium on loan payments for up to six months and permitted a one-time restructuring of accounts.

The RBI’s measures ensured that accounts that were standard prior to the implementation of the nationwide lockdown in late March, would not be classified as NPAs if the borrowers made use of the moratorium, which allowed repayments to be delayed until the end of August but with the loans continuing to accrue interest.

The central bank’s appeal followed a request by the court for further details from the RBI and government on their plans to help the borrowers.

The RBI responded by detailing the wide range of measures it

LONDON (Reuters) – A test case brought by Britain’s markets regulator against some of the world’s biggest insurers will jump straight to the Supreme Court after London’s High Court agreed to a fast-track appeal on Friday.

Although expedited, the appeal will further delay payouts on disputed claims for thousands of struggling businesses battered by the coronavirus pandemic, hoping for a speedy payout after a judgment delivered two weeks ago.

At a webcast hearing on Friday, judges allowed the case to leapfrog to the UK’s highest court, which is expected to consider it by year-end.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) brought a case against eight insurers in June to clarify whether 21 policy wordings, affecting potentially 700 types of policies, 60 insurers, 370,000 policyholders and billions in insurance claims, covered disruption and government-ordered closures to curb the virus.

Judges examined policy wordings that cover business interruption when insured premises cannot be accessed because of public authority restrictions, in the event of a notifiable disease within a specified radius — and hybrid wordings.

The FCA said the judgment ruled mainly in the favour of policyholders, although some insurers were more circumspect. Subsequent negotiations over which policies should now pay out hit a stumbling block and collapsed on Wednesday.

The FCA brought the case against QBE QBE.AX, Hiscox HSX.L, RSA RSA.L, MS Amlin [MITSID.UL], Ecclesiastical [ELL.UL], Argenta HNRGn.DE, Zurich ZURN.S and Arch ACGL.O.

Zurich and Ecclesiastical, which previously said the court found in their favour, are not seeking a further appeal. QIC Europe QINS.QA, part of Qatar Insurance Company, failed in an 11th-hour bid to join the proceedings.

Sonia Campbell, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya who is leading one of two action groups of policyholders, said the decision by