The Daily Folgen

It was a 12-hour session. Twenty-two senators took turns questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett on her record and beliefs.Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, evoked personal experience of life before Roe v. Wade and asked Judge Barrett whether she would vote to overturn abortion rights.On that question, Judge Barrett demurred — an approach she would take to other contentious issues, including whether she would recuse herself if a presidential election dispute came before the court.With Judge Barrett’s confirmation all but certain, Democratic senators pressed her more with the election in mind than out of any hope of derailing her rise.Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, gives us a rundown of the second day of the hearings.Guest: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: In declining to detail her legal views, Judge Barrett said she would not be “a pawn” of President Trump.With the hearing taking place closer to an election than any other Supreme Court confirmation — and with the Senate Republican majority at real risk — the proceeding was riddled with electoral politics.Judge Barrett’s testimony was a deft mix of expertise and evasion. She demonstrated easy familiarity with Supreme Court precedents but said almost nothing about whether they should stand. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In March, Congress pushed through a relief package that preserved the U.S. economy during the pandemic. It felt like government functioning at its best.But now, that money is running out and bipartisanship has given way to an ideological stalemate.While Republicans balk at plans for further significant government spending — even those coming from the White House — Democrats are holding out for more money and a broader package of measures.The absence of a deal could have dire consequences. One economist estimates that without a stimulus package, there could be four million fewer jobs next year.We talk to Jim Tankersley, who covers the economy for The Times, about what’s getting in the way of an agreement.Guest: Jim Tankersley, who covers economic and tax policy for The New York Times.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: After posting on Twitter that he was ending talks, President Trump reversed course, raising the stimulus offer to $1.8 trillion. But his own party may reject that plan, handing Democrats fresh leverage.While Democrats hold out for more concessions, deep divisions among Senate Republicans stand in the way of any relief bill. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Most Americans say that abortion should be legal with some restrictions, but President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, signed a statement in a 2006 newspaper advertisement opposing “abortion on demand.” Her accession would bolster a conservative majority among the justices.How did that happen? According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, abortion rights advocates have for too long taken Roe v. Wade for granted.Ms. Hogue describes how Republican attacks on abortion were not countered forcefully enough. “I think most people in elected positions had been taught for a long time to sort of ‘check the box’ on being what we would call pro-choice and then move on,” she said.Guest: Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The 2006 statement signed by Amy Coney Barrett appears to be the most direct evidence of her personal views, ones she has vowed to set aside on the bench.The issue of abortion contains political risks for both Democrats and Republicans, even as it energizes parts of their bases. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.