transparency center so people like you and i, everyday people, can see who are fine is and how much they are spending, who they want to target. facebook said we willl get more information and it will not be just as that our ads but we will let you know again, who they are from what they're like. i think google is the one, in my opinion, not a silly being the most proactive but they said they will turn over more evidence to federal investigators. they are doing more behind-the-scenes so all three of them have met with congressional investigators behind closed doors. now they were going to the open setting this is where they will start to get proactive and start to say, hey, look we messed up in 2016 and here's what we will do to make sure this never happens again. >> host: kelly is a criminal justice reporter with the washington examiner. i'm here to the 22 of course. thank you. have a good one. >> mitch mcconnell and the minority whip talk about judicial nominations including amy barrett to the seventh circuit court. confirmation vote on her could

come as late as 12:30 a.m. eastern wednesday. >> mr. president, on another matter yesterday the senate advanced nomination of professor amy barrett, president trumps impressive nominee to be a judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals. she is the first of for strong nominees to our nation circuit court that the senate will confirm this week. professor barrett's experience as it was law professor at the university of notre dame shows her qualifications to serve our nation on the federal bench. she is going to be an asset to our judiciary. of course, some on the left have tried to invent any reason to prevent this president nominees from advancing. for an outstanding nominee like professor barrett was not easy. they attacked her credentials which are truly. they can't attack her belief in the rule of law. her writings and testimony clearly show a nominee who will

uphold our prosecution and our nation's laws as they are written, asof they are written, not as she wishes they were. unbelievably some of the political left, including some of our democratic colleagues, are actually criticizing professor barrett for a law review article she cowrote back in law school by saying it sayse the opposite of what it actually says. they claim the professor barrett wrote that a judge should put her personal beliefs ahead of the rule of law, when in fact, she said a judge should not do that. exactly the opposite. she wrote that if the judge's personal views were to impedero that judge ability to impartially apply the law than the judge should recuse herself from the case. as the co-author of the article and current president of catholic university recently put it the case against professor barrett is so flimsy, so flimsy,

that you have to wonder whether there isn't some other unspoken cause for their objections. it does make you wonder. to those using this matter is covered to a prose presser barrett because of her personally held religious beliefs let me remind you there are no religious test. none for public office in this country. that is not how we do things here. our government and our nation are made better through the service of qualified people of faith. that will surely be true of professor amy barrett. i look forward to voting to confirm this accomplish law professor and devoted mother of seven later today and i would urge our colleagues to join me. once we do, the senate will abandon another of president trumps well-qualified circuit court nominees, michigan supreme court justice joan larson to serve on the us court of appeals

for the sixth circuit. justice larson is the second of three accomplished women the senate will consider this week for appointment to our circuit court. i assume that all three of these impressive women will receive strong support from our democratic colleagues who never seem to miss an opportunity to talk about the war on women. here is what nominees like larson and barrett and the others will consider this week to represent our federal judiciary. equal justice under the law for all, a fair shake for every litigant, of what a refreshing department for obama's the standard for select judicial nominees. really? just another of the left ideological purity test and one that was anything but empathetic for individuals on the other side of the case. if you are the litigant for the judge does not have empathy, you

are in a tough position for such a judge. finally, i like to is my gratitude once again to t chairn chuck grassley for his continued work to bring these outstanding nominees to the senate floor. >> under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning businesses) under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the barrett nomination which the clerk will report. >> amy barrett of indiana to the united states circuit judge the seventh circuit. >> the assistant democratic leader. >> mr. president, in recent days, the last two days, the republic and leaders senator mcconnell has come to the floor to complain about what he calls obstruction of president trumps judicial nominees. the majority leader must feel

that many of us suffer from amnesia. it was just last year that senate republicans under the leadership of that same senator mcconnell set a new standard of obstruction. the most prominent victim of republican obstruction, chiefor judge merrick garland, president obama's nominee for the supreme court.e never, never inte history of the united states senate had the senate denied a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. senator mcconnell led republicansoi last year in doing that. then, senator mcconnell refused to even meet with judge garland, refused to give him the courtesy of a meeting, even though the judges qualifications were not in question and even though he had been confirmed to the dcip circuit with broad bipartisan

support. the way center public and treated merrick garland was disgraceful. judge garland was far from the only republican with systematic destruction during the obama presidency. in 2016 there were 30, 30 non- controversial judicial nominees, 70 women, 13 men who were denied up for vote by senate republicans. all but two of these nominees were imported on the judiciary committee with the unanimous vote of democrats and republicans. some of these nominees, edward stanton ofy tennessee, julian neals of new jersey, sat on the senate calendar for more than a year waiting for a vote which the republican majority leader and his members refused to give them. during the last two years of president obama's administration

thepu republican-controlled sene confirmed only 22 judges in two years. that is the lowest number of confirmations since 1952. by comparison in the last two years of george w. bush's presidency the democrat-controlled senate confirmed 68 judicial nominees. twenty-two under republicans for obama, 68 under democrats for president bush. that is not all. republicans also obstructed 18 obama nominees by denying themro blue slips. that is the permission slip from a senator from the state affected by the judicial nominee. that included five nominees who have been a state supreme court justices who were not approved by republican senators to move to the federal bench. elizabeth hughes from kentucky, my wrist selby from montana, don

from south carolina, lewis butler from wisconsin, patricia from north carolina, senate republicans turned obstruction of judicial nominees into an art form under president obama. yet, senator mcconnell day after day has said quote i think president obama has been treated and treated very fairly by any objective standard. he comes to the floor now regularly to complain about obstruction of trump nominees. senator mcconnell and senate republicans set the standard for obstruction. if he thanks president obama has been treated fairly would these facts it is hard to understandar why he is complaining about the treatment of president trumps judicial nominees. so far this year the senate has confirmed four of president trumps circuit court nominees, four of his district court nominees, at the same point in

his first year president obama had one circuit court nominee and three district court nominees confirmed. twice the number have been confirmed under president trumps as were confirmed under president obama in each of their firstru years. president trumps nominees are moving twice as fast as president obama's when the republicans are the final world on approving matters on the floor. senator mcconnell controls the floor schedule and if he wants to schedule more votes on judges i suppose he has the power to do it. he's exercisingis that power by doing something that has never happened in history of the senate. for circuit court c judge nomins will be considered this week in the united states senate. since the republican in the senate are dedicating this week to judicial nominees i gives us an opportunity to look at the nominees the president trump has a put forward for lifetime

appointments to the second highest court in the federal system. time and again we have seen and president trump nominee to nominate people far outside of the judicial mainstream. for example, there is john bush, now a judge on the sixth circuit who blogged about the false claim that president obama wasn't born in the united states. compared abortion to slavery and said in his hearing that he thanks impartiality is an aspiration for a judge, not an expectation. damien shifts, nominee for the court of federal claims under president trump who called supreme court justice anthony kennedy and i quote eight tejudicial prostitute. just [inaudible] a trump nominee for the district court in texas who described transgender children as part of quote

satan's plan and who lamented that states were banning so-called quote conversion therapy that pseudoscience is attempting to quote convert lgb americans into heterosexuals. and thomas [inaudible], trump nominee for the district court in north carolina to the congressional black caucus described as quote the preeminent attorney for north carolina republicans seeking to curtail theot voting rights of people of color. there is greg [inaudible] a nominee for the dc circuit refused to stay at his hearing if the torture technique, known as waterboarding, is illegal. bret [inaudible], a nominee by president trump to be a federal trial judge in alabama has never tried a single case and who wrote in a blog and i quote i pledge my support to the national rifle association,

financially, politically and intellectually. this alabama district court and trump nominee liles burke fungal portrait of confederateyl president everson davis in his office and defended it in his hearing insane quote it had historical significance. oklahoma district court nominee charles goodwin, who received a rare rating, very rare rating, of unqualified to be a federal judge from the american bar association. the list of trump nominees goes on. routinely we see judicial nominees under president trump who have a history of taking ideologically driven positions that are out of the mainstream. nearly all of the members of the right f wing federal society,

nearly all of these nominees, are members of the right ring federalist society which president trump uses as his gatekeeper for the federal bench. remember neil gorsuch, the spring court justice? you know how he was notified that he had been chosen to be the nominee for the spring court? you would expect a call from the white house, right? even the president but no, the white house decided to delegate the federalist society to notifr him and called mr. leo their director saying why don't you call mr. gorsuch a give him the good news. well, it is no surprise to those of us who know the federalist society, conservative group, is now the gatekeeper for all federal judges under president trump. many of these nominees have given no reassurance that they will be independent as judges in the question obviously is the president who is unfortunately denigrated and pressured federal judges in the past and what impact will he have on them? now we consider the nominees for

the senate this week. professor amy barrett, nominated to sit on the seventh circuit court of appeals is a distinguished professor at notre dame law school. she has a strong academic credentials and she clerked for justice kolea on this court but she has no judicial experience. she told the judiciary committee she could only recall three litigation matters in her entire career that she worked on,of three. she has never served as a counsel of record in appellate case or ever argued an appeal. given her lack of judicial record in her minimal record as practicing lawyer the judiciary committee looked at the professor bears academic writing to try to understand who she is and what she believes. basically, that is all we had to go on. much of professor barrett's writings deal with what she believes is acceptable forec judges to deviate from president. for example, in a 2003 law

journal article she called for "federal courts to restore flexibility to the decisive doctrine". in the 2013 article she said "more legitimate for justice to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thanks clearly in conflict with it". these are extraordinary and some wouldde say extreme views about the application of the federal judge to follow established precedent for someone who is seeking a lifetime a permit to the second highest court in the land. much has been a said and i would like to address barrett's law review article. she cowrote an article many years ago in 1998 with john garvey in the market law review entitled" catholic judges in capital cases. this article was about what she perceived then as the recusal

obligations of "orthodox catholic judges". the article said some provocative things for example and i quote a judge will often entertain an ideological bias that makes him lean one way or the other, in fact, you might say that every judge has such an inclination" and or and i quote "litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice and there may be something that a judge who is he told of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense". and she wrote "when discussing the behavior of orthodox catholics in capital cases that the judge's cooperation with evil passes acceptable limits when it conducts a sentencing hearing". mr. president, this is the the nomineeten by

and this is an issue raised by the nominee. it was such a profound statement about the relationship betweenre conviction, conscience, and religious belief that it was the subject of many questions for many senators on the judiciary committee. for the last two days senator mcconnell has come to the floor to talk about the left asking questions about amy barrett's religious police. obviously, senator mcconnell does not read the transcript from the senate judiciary committee. some have suggested it was inappropriate for the judiciary committee to even question the nominee about the impact of religious belief on the discharge of her duties. some of my colleagues have question the propriety of such questions in light of the constitution's clear on a typical prohibition of religious tests. i would remind the senate that it was the nominee herself, in

this 47 page law review article, raised this issue on whether the teachings of the catholic church had ever impact on the discharge of judicial duties of the catholic judge. is it any surprise that five different senators, three republicans and two democrats asked her about the article that she had co-authored? it is no surprise. the gravity of this publication in the issue it raised led committee members on both sides of the aisle to ask questions about the nominees religious belief, the content of her writings and how it would impact her discharge of her duties if she was approved by the senate.t who asked the first question about the religious beliefs ofou amy barrett? republican chairman of the committee, charles grassley. he noted that professor barrett had been outspoken aboutut her catholic faith and asked her when it was proper for a judge to put religious views above applying the law.

chairman grassley also asked in his second question how she would decide when she needs to recuse herself on grounds of conscience. senator mcconnell comes to the floor and suggest that any reference to that article somehow raises question of religious bias. let me say for the record, i do not believe that chairman grassley is guilty of religious bias, nor have i ever seen evidence of it. it was hard to imagine how he could avoid the obvious. she had written a lengthy article, co-authored an article, on the subject and he felt duty bound is to ask her questions about her beliefs on the subject. i don't believe that chairman grassley would everou apply a religious test to any nominee but he and many of us felt it important to asky professor barrett to state her position clearly on her face, conscience and duties as a federal judge. similarly, republican senator orrin hatch felt it necessary

because to make clear that a judges duty when the laws were constitution flicks with the judgeson personal police. again, i do not believe that senator orrin hatch republican of utah would apply a religious test to any nominee but the nominees writings and these questions that those writings raise let him to ask the nominee that question. later in that hearing senator ted cruz republican of texas raised the same issue. i quote what he said to professor barrett. i have read some of what you have written on catholic judges and in capital cases and in particular as i understand it,th you argue that catholic judges g are morally precluded from enforcing the death of the. i was going to ask you to just please explain your views on that because that obviously is a relevance to the job for which

you have been nominated. that was from republican senator ted cruz. i do not suggest that he was guilty of any religious bias in asking the question about an article written by the nominee. i take our constitution seriously when it says there should be no religious test for public office but many senators on judiciary committee, republicans and democrats, three republicans, two democrats, including myself felt the writings of the nominee warranted an inquiry about her views on the impact on a judges role. atre her hearing i asked profesr barrett several questions about her 1998 law review article and i asked her whether she stilld agreed with her article. she said in general that you did. i said, even though i am a catholic, even thoughe i havehe

gone through 19 years of catholic education, i have never run into the term quote orthodox catholic" which she used in that article. i asked her if she could define it and what would she say and who did she describe and she said it was in perfect terms that explain the context for her use of it. i askedha her whether she considered herself in that category. using her term. she put forward as carried certain obligations on judicial recusal. she knowledged again the term is a proxy and that it wasn't a term in current use. some have argued that i was imposing religious test. somehow the three republican b senators are asking the sameal question have not been challenged. or that i was insinuating that catholics cancer on the bench and that is absurd. i am catholic myself and i deeply respect and value the freedom of religion in our country and the constitution and

i will let my record speaks for itself. all of the numbers of catholic nominees which i appointed to the bench or try to point to the bench with the concurrence of the senate during the course of my career. i voted for many judicial nominees who work in the catholic religion. i voted to confirm several weeks agor a catholic judge. i've also voted against nominees were catholic as well. i didn't think they had the experience or temperament to serve in the federal judiciary. at nomination. i asked questions and try to understand how the company would approach the job of the judge. asked professor barrett questions about issues she raised in her academic writings on how it would help her judge her duties. professor barrett put forward her views as part of the academic legal debate. contrast that with paul abrams, president obama's nominee for the central district ofpu california. aggressively questioned by

committee republicans last year about statements he made while speaking at his synagogue. republicans ultimately blocked paul abrams nomination. no one on the side of the aisle, not the senator orpp any senator questioned whether they were applying a religious test in rejecting his nomination. when judicial nominees for their viewss on issues like the intersection of law and faith as part of the academic legal debate i think it is fair for members oft the judiciary committee to ask them about it. that isro no religious test by y measure. i voted against professor barrett nomination committee because i don't believe she has sufficient experience to be a circuit court judge and because of her writings about president on the cases that have been considered. no one doubts that she is smart but she is barely spent any time in the courtroom and the only basis we have to judge her on is

the academic writings. let's be honest. if a democrat president had put forward a nominee with so little practical legal experience as professor barrett and with a similar history of advocating for not following president i think we know exactly how the senators on the other side would have voted. as it stands, i cannot support professor barrett nomination. i oppose the nomination of michigan's paper just as joan larson to the sick circuit. she is one of the 21 supreme court candidates that the federalist society inherited foundation hand-picked for president. clearly those right wing organizations are confident that they will like her rulings if she is confirmed. a when she appeared before committee i asked simple questions and i was troubled by the responses. in 2006 justice larson wrote an op-ed defending president bush's use of a signing statement on the mccain torture amendments. the mccain amendment, as your

member, prohibits torture and cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment. i asked justice larson about that op-ed and asked if she believed waterboarding is torture and illegal. she would not answer the question. the law is clear on this matter. i voted against nominees in the past would not acknowledge this. i also asked justice larson about the hundred and $40000 in ads that dart money company called judicial company and this is the same right ring dart money organization the spent millions of dollars in undisclosed running ads to oppose merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court in support the nominees of neil gorsuch. i am troubled that special interest groups are making undisclosed nominations and donations to these nominations from groups. these special interest likely have a stake in the case that will come before these judges and the donation should be transparent so that judgesrm can make informed decisions about

results. i asked justice larson if sheds could call on this front group to stop running ads in support of her nomination unless donations to the group were made public. she responded this was a political debate on which she cannot opine. i think that's an absurd position giving that the debate here is over her own nomination and getting information for her own recusal decisions. i also asked justice larson if she agreed ass a factual matter with president drums patently absurd claim thatio three-5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 election. i think that is an easy question. justice t larson conducted sayig this waspe a political debate. i'm troubled by these answers and i believe that justice larson did not show the necessary independence from president or right-wing groups like the judicial crisis network and she did not earn my vote. i oppose the nomination of colorado springs for justice rtallison [inaudible] to the teh

circuit. she's another on the short list of 21 supreme court nominees from the federalist society and heritage foundation which was assembled for president. she is now been nominated to deceit under the seat on the tenth circuit. i'm troubled by what she wrote in a number of cases and i asked her about one of those cases in her hearing. that 2015 case weston operator versus bro involve the hotel that evicted a group of college age intoxicated friends into freezing weather one night. the young adults ended up getting into a car and driving away. the car crashed o and a person s killed. the family of caitlin grove who suffered traumatic brain damage in the accident soon sue the hotel for negligence evicting the guests into a foreseeably dangerous environment. just argued that the court

should have dismissed the claim on a motion for summary judgment. she said that she saw no material dispute of packed in the case because she claimed hotel video showed there were taxis in the area that the evicted guests could have takeno the majority of the court sought the same evidence in the sameag video and came to the opposite conclusion. video footage from hotel security cameras shows two taxis in the vicinity during the general time frame of eviction. no taxi is visible on screen during the time in which the group exited the hotel and walked to the parking lot and mass. in other words, the majority of the court looking at the same evidence could not reach the same conclusion. it is difficult to understand how justice saw this as undisputed and why she wanted this case dismissed on summary judgment. until you read the part of her descent where she talks about quote the burden that the majority has placed on colorado businesses. that appears to explain her ruling, not the facts in the case.

i ask this injustice as she considered the burden of the court's decision was placed on these young adults and their families. she did not response. this is one of her troubling dissents but there were others. in the 2014 case city of brighton versus rodriguez her descent would have deniedl workers compensation for a city employee fell down thed stairso her office andnd needed brain surgery. in 2017 case people versus [inaudible] her descent criticizes the state's decision, not to prosecute a person on appeal based on a marijuana possession statute that is no longer operative. the case is gone.ta it gives ample reason for why i do not believe that this troubling record justifies this justice replacing justice course itch on this important work. mr. president, the last nominee which i will address is, i believe, the most unusual, one of the most unusual i've ever seen for the senate judiciary committee. it is [inaudible] was been

nominated for theo lifetime appointment to the third circuit court. in 2009 the professor wrote a lengthy draft paper entitled corporal punishment not imprisonment. in it he said that for a wide range of crimes quote the default punishment should be non- disfiguring corporal punishment such as electric shocks. he went on to call for putting offenders and i am quoting in the stocks or pillory where they would sit or stand for hours been in uncomfortable positions. professor bevis then went on to say bystanders and victims could jeer and pelted them with rotten eggs and tomatoes for in but not rocks. for more severe crimes professor

bevis "calls for multiple calibrated electroshock's or taser shocks" with medical personnel on hand to ensure "the offender's health could bear it" he also wrote and i quote instinctively many readers feel that corporate punishment must be unconstitutionally and morally cool but neither objection withstands scrutiny. he then wrote that corporal punishment in moderation without torture or permanent damage is not cool. professor bevis said at his hearing that he didn't ultimately publish this 60 page but noted paper because he realized that his writings were wrong and offensive. he now says he rejects this paper but his 2009 paper was not just scribbling on a notepad.

this was a polished, heavily footnoted, 60 page draft law review article. professor bevis admitted that he presented this draft paper to conferences on june 8, 2009 a conference at the university of pennsylvania law school and on july 20th 2009 at george washington university law school and on september 12th, 2009 at vanderbilt criminal justice roundtable but according to the website the federalist society professor bevis also gave presentations on the same article two. student chapters of the federalist society, september 3rd, 2009 at george mason, october 201st, 2009 at university of florida, october 202, 2009 at florida state. incredibly, this presentation by

professor bevis was advertised with the title and i quote corporal punishment, not imprisonment, the shocking case for hurting criminals. this is an insensitive title for a presentation that called for administering electric shocks to human beings. in his draft article, professor bevis thanked nine other people for their thoughts and comments on this paper. this was not something the professor wrote as a child or even a student. when he wrote this paper in 200v professor bevis was a professor at the university of pennsylvania law school and he had already worked as an assistant us attorney. he wrote this paper after congress had considered the mccain torture amendments. at the hearing i asked him you remember the debate we went through as americans about the acceptable method of interrogation for suspected terrorist t overseas? do you remember the debate we

had on the floor with senator mccain, the victim of torture himself as a prisoner of war in the vietnam war, came forward authored an amendment which got a vote of 90-nine condemning torture, cruel and inhuman, degrading treatment and the treatment of prisoners is suspected of being terrorists? i asked if he remembered that debate which occurred three years before he wrote this outrageous article. he said well, i want to make it clear that he said at the hearing that i do not support waterboarding. so i said you support electric shock on american prisoners but you do not support waterboardi waterboarding? and he said on the record, under oath, i know it was a crazy idea. this is a man seeking a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. this paper deeply troubles me.

not only did professor bevis go a long way down a dangerous path with his proposals but this law school professor got the law wrong. the supreme court made it clear in 2002 in the case of hope versus pelzer that corporal punishment, in that case the punishment practice in a state of alabama of restraining tying them to a hitching post in uncomfortable positions constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. professor bevis wrote his paper workshop it, took it to six different universities and then iran away from it only after he heard how offensive his proposals were. that is not my only concern about his nomination. we spent a lot of time at the hearing talking about his aggressive prosecution of lindae williams, what she was charged with, the alleged theft of the $7 from a cash register. the magistrate judge acquitted

this defendant even before the closing argument from defense counsel, the case was so weak and yet aggressively pursued by then attorney the mess. professor bevis apologized at this hearing for this prosecution but we have seen over and over again many people who try to walk away from who they are, what they have done when it comes to confirmation hearing. i believe these cases that i have mentioned and particularly this outrageous article show a real insight into the judgment and temperament of this judicial nominee. mr. president, i've been a member of the senate judiciary committee for aof number of yeas and i have seen many nominees. i without fear of contradiction i have never seen a nominee who was written an article that is so unsettling, so worrying, i wonder about the temperament of this nominee. given the power that we are about to give him, to judge the

faithca under an fate of others for decades to come, can we really trust his temperament and can we trust his judgment? sadly if the shoe were on the other foot and if this was a nominee that had been prospered by a democratic president before that thing committee, i know exactly whater his fate would he been. he would neveron have been taken seriously or considered for such a high position.nt i asked the sense that in the course of this statement that in that section related to the nominee b amy barrett that the article in question be placed on the record so that others can read it in its entirety. >> without objection. >> and i asked that the article by professor bevis entitled corporal punishment, not imprisonment also be added in the congressional record in its entirety so that those who read

my statement will understand exactly what it was based on. >> without objection. >> mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> mr. president, i have the approval of the majority of the committees to meet. >> duly noted. >> mr. president, have the opportunity to speak to this body today about amy barrett. she's a nominee currently pending inis to be judged. it's a pretty high standard for those individuals as they handle some incredibly difficult constitutional cases but what is good about this is that amy barrett meets the standard for those high qualifications. professor barrett received her ba in english literature magnum cum laude from rose college. her jd summa culottes from notre dame university law school where she served as a get executive editor of the notre dame law review. she currently serves as a research professor of law at

notre dame university law school. professor barrett teaches and researchers in the areas of the federal courts constitutional law, statutory interpretation. she's published in scholarship and leading legal jurors such as columbia, virginia and the texas law review. those aren't easy areas to be able to publish for and an easy professorship to be able to land. for joining the notre dame faculty she clerked for justice , the support of united states andte for judge silverman of the us court of appeals in the dc circuit. following her clerkship she was an associate where she litigated constitutional and commercial creasess in a trial and appellae courts. she also served as a visiting associate professor at george washington university law school. she seems to be eminently qualified then what seems to be the issue. incidentally enough she spaced at a very odd set of questions

during her confirmation process. question is not about her legal scholarship, not about her qualifications but oddly enough about her catholic faith. it wasn't about her temperament, it wasn't about her fairness, it wasn't about scholarship, it was whether her catholic faith would get in the way of her being a good judge. quite frankly itut wasn't about whether she had chosen the faith but the problem s that she actually seemed to live herdd faith the became a challenge during the questioning time. it is odd for us americans because it seems we resolve this 200 plus years ago. we resolved in article six of the constitution where it says there is no religious test for any office of the united states. there's no evaluation to be a certain faith or if you have a certain faith to take that faito

off if you're going to be able to serve in the united states. we have in our constitutional protection not a freedom of worship which i hear some people say they are free to worship as they chooset and that is not or constitutional protection. our constitutional protection is the free exercise of your religion, not that you can have a faith but that you can have a faith and live your face according to youres own crystal. that is consistent with who we are as americans that we allow any individual to be able to have a faith and to be able to live their faith both in private and public life. or to be able to have no faith at all, if they choose w to have no faith at all. that is up to the decision of each american but we don't ask individuals as t has been askedf this individual whether her face will be the big issue and whether the faith becomes a question of whether you are capable to serve other fellow americans. what is so dangerous, quite briefly, about her catholic faith and christian beliefs? are people afraid that she will

actually live out with the book of proverbs says? to speak up for those who cannot speak for n themselves, to speak for the rights of all who were destitute, speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and the needy, is that what everyone is afraid that she will live out that biblical principle? i'm a little confused why questions that would come out like dogma seems to live loud in you which was asked of her during her questioning time in the committee and other questions to challenge her about her catholic faith. it bases children fate is a choice that each individual can make and it's extremely personal but in importance choice. some individuals in america, myself included, choose to look past the mundane day to day events and to think that there is someone and being higher beyond us. we don't just look at the creation around us, we wonder

about the creator who made it. we don't just wonder about cosmic dust smashing into each other but we asked the logical question, if cosmic dust were to smash into each other in space and create all that it is who made space? who made the cosmic dust to smash into each other? how did that happen? faith drives us to be able to ask harder questions and to be able to look longer at the things that other people see as playing in front of them we ask what is behind them. a lot of americans do. it is not irrational but a part of who we are and how we are made. it is a challenge to us as americans to be able to challenge an individual and to say that person is so radical that they believe in things like do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, honor your father and mother were even things as radical as whatever you do do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

it doesn't seem that radical a belief that we would have to challenge and wonder if you're able to d be a judge if you believe in those things. we dare to be able to believe in something beyond us. so do millions of other americans. i really thought that our nation was passed this and that our nation that speaks so much of diversity and of being open to other ideas is somehow closing people of faith. people that say they want to demand that everyone inclusive are afraid of people that have faith and live their faith. why would that be?ci if we will be an open society it should be open as well to people of faith, to be able to not only have a faith but to live their faith. we had a moment like this in the 1960s and i thought we had moved past it. there was a senator at that time was running to be president of

the united states. we know him as john kennedy. senator kennedy was speaking to a group of ministers in houston, texas in the 1960s and had to stand before them and explain his catholic faith. quite differently, there was this buzz that could someone be a catholic and be president and what would that be? would you have difficulties with that. quite rightly, the questions that came up with professor barrett were strikingly similar to the questions asked of senator kennedy when he was running to be president of the united states. here is obscenity kennedyke responded to that. he said while this year it may be a catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years and it maybe someday again, a jew or a quaker or a unitarian or a baptist. it was virginia's harassment of baptist preachers, for example, that helpedt me to jefferson

statue of religious freedom. today i made a be the victim but tomorrow it maybe you until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. in fact, this is the kind of america for which our forefathers died. when they fled here to escape religious test they did not --ed to escape religious test owes the denied office to members of less favored churches when they fought for thets constitution te bill of rights in the virginia statute of religious freedom and when they bought at the sign the jfk visited that day, the alamo. side-by-side with bowie and crockett died mccafferty, bailey but no one knows whether they were catholic or not the there was no religious test at the alamo. then he made this closing statement. he said if i should lose on the real issues of the presidential race i shall return to my seat

in the senate, satisfied that i tried my best and was fairly judged but if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized then it is the whole of the nation that is the loser in the eyes of catholics, non-catholics on the world and in the eyes of history and in the eyes of the my people. this should be a settled issue for us. not a device one. we are a diverse nation. diverse backgrounds and perspectives and attitudes and diverse space. i look forward to t supporting professor barrett in this position and i look forward to seeing her decisions as they come out of that court, consistent with the law as she is well-trained to be able to do. her consistent with convictions as americans. with that, you before.

>> two days of hearings on russia influence on the 2016 elections begin this afternoon. representatives from twitter, facebook and google will testify on russia's use of social media. live at 2:30 on the spindly. those hearings continue tomorrow before two separate committees. first, at 9:30 a.m. eastern for the senate intelligence committee and later at 2:00 p.m. for the house intelligence committee. you can watch all the hearings live on c-span3, streaming live on our c-span .org or listen live with the c-span radio app. >> earlier today senate democrats announced a proposal to expand 4o1k retirement savings plans. this comes ahead of tomorrow's announcement of the republicans have plan which could impact the contribution cap to a retirement account