and its impact on the pharmaceutical supply chain. live coverage begins at 1:00 pm eastern also here on c-span2. finally, join us later this afternoon for a discussion on the progress of operation warp speed and how are coronavirus vaccine will be deployed once approved. the heritage foundation hosts this, watch live coverage beginning at 3:00 pm eastern on c-span2. online, c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio apps. >> let's begin with amy coney barrett at the white house yesterday delivering rare remarks for justice just sworn into the court. >> the confirmation process has made ever clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary

and the united states senate and perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. it is the job of the senate to pursue her policy preferences. in fact it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. by contrast it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. it would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. federal judges don't stand for election, but have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. this separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the 3 branches of government.

a judge declares independence not only from congress and the president but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her, it captures the essence of the judicial duty, rule of law must always control. my fellow americans, we still work for you. it is your constitution that establishes the rule of law. the oath that i have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that i will do my job without any fear or favor and i will do so independently of both the political branches and my own preferences. i love the constitution and the

democratic republic that it establishes and i will devote myself to preserving it. >> host: amy coney barrett after being sworn in as the 100 fifteenth justice of the supreme court, republicans deliver, and justice barrett it will be the 200 twentieth, and the mcconnell led senate. it includes not only her and justice neil gorsuch and brett cavanagh, and and two to the us court of international trade. there are no vacancy on the circuit court level, 30% of those sitting on the bench have been nominated by donald trump. in a different article by the

washington post, only republicans supporting her confirmation barrett is the first supreme court justice since edwin stanton in 1869 to be confirmed without bipartisan support according to review of senate voting data by the national journal. even senator joe manchen, back to brett cavanagh and barrett on her circuit court see three years ago, may not support her. your reaction in washington, you're up first, good morning, go ahead. >> the real reason, mitch mcconnell did what he did, they don't make a big deal, they have always people, the whole white race, democrats and republicans maintain weight

privilege, democrats don't make a big deal, and and it could mean slavery, and are left up to interpretation. there's nothing in the constitution that says they don't. democrats have a recess appointment. and >> is a priority for you. >> is a priority to me. it is not against the rules or law or regulation of what they are doing.

and if they want to do something every action has a reaction. they need to put two judges on. otherwise it is all talk. they don't care about it. they should be talking about getting them out of office. what else did mitch mcconnell say, make obama one term president. the constitution was fundamentally flawed. it is a racist manifesto. >> host: are you arguing for democrats trying to put more justices on the supreme court if they get power? >> guest: they can do it is the constitution does not prohibit it. >> host: i'm asking you do you want them to do it? >> caller: yes i do. >> host: dan, republican, good morning to you. >> guest: i am glad this is over. it was done in a much more better way than the previous

supreme court judge. i didn't appreciate the decorum of some of the senators last night with hand motions or other things they, the last caller i don't think what you are saying is helping anything. i don't see what the last guy's point was. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> host: pam, burlington, democratic collar. >> caller: i can tell you what his last point was. 's last point was when the constitution was written, this was 240 years ago. it is a living, breathing document. therefore that is where amendments come in. he was talking about when it

was written slavery was legal. all these things we are really against now seemed okay then. >> host: pam, your reaction to amy coney barrett serving on the court and the process to put her there. >> caller: the process was the height of hypocrisy. there is nothing in the constitution that says they couldn't do it. in that case i get it but when it comes to what they were all saying in february of 2016, that we shouldn't do it in an election year, people have a right to their voice, then two months from the election they are doing it. and all of them came out and

said this. the excuses they are using now they weren't using then. it is the height of hypocrisy. i don't agree with it at all. especially her. she wouldn't be there if we go by the constitution as it was written. >> host: why do you say that? >> caller: no woman would be on the supreme court. if we were to go by the constitution as it was written then. >> host: what do you want democrats to do in response? >> caller: i agree with joe biden they should have bipartisan commission put together or go over what they should do. i don't think a decision should be made now. >> host: a headline in politico recently after dodging questions about court packing, the commission to study judicial reform, biden asserted

in the interview his proposed commission is not above court packing. take a look at tweets from congresswoman alexandria ocasio cortez, expand the court, she right city:15 p.m. republicans do this because they don't believe dems have the stone to play hardball like they do and for a long time they have been correct but don't let them believe the public into thinking bulldozing is normal but a response isn't. there's a legal process for expansion she writes. the president also send a tweet saying biden's handler wants to expand the court. this is from this morning, 7:07 am. this would be bad for the united states. on top of that they don't want to provide a list who would be chosen for the court much less have a list of these radical left judges. jo, independence, rockville, new york, how big an issue is this for you?

>> caller: i watched the commentary last night on c-span and some of the commentators online. >> host: you didn't watch commentary on c-span because we don't have it. >> caller: i meant commentary from the viewers. what troubles me more than anything else is americans adversaries are winning, america is great because america is good. when america ceases to be good america ceases to be great. i really truly worry about the division in this country. whoever is rooting against america is probably cheering what is going on. it does trouble me to the point we are playing small balls here when our adversaries are playing the long game. i worry this experiment in american democracy is faltering right now and i pray to god that i am wrong. what i saw last night was

something of a political maneuver. justice stevens said a supreme court swearing-in should never happen on the grounds of the white house, wherever possible should happen at the court and to see the new justice amy coney barrett and donald trump on the white house balcony just symbolized for me what is wrong with this country. i hope and pray we get to a new day when america returns to be good. >> host: what is the impact of this on the supreme court? >> caller: i wish i was smart enough to know that. i hope and pray the court can look through the fog of politics and follow the law. no question in my mind she's qualified to be a supreme court justice but i think the hypocrisy the previous caller mentioned looms large this morning and i hope she can see through the political fog and apply the law fairly and equitably to all.

>> host: 538.com has this piece, the supreme court that americans trust the most. at an all-time low, that isn't saying much. according to polling by gallup american confidence in the supreme court has fallen significantly over the last few decades. a 2020 poll conducted before ruth they are ginsburg's death, 40% of americans said they had a great deal, a lot of confidence in the supreme court down from a 2 decade high of 50% in 2002. years democratic senator and judiciary member richard blumenthal on the floor last night, talking about the impact of this process. >> what is happening today is sad, even shocking. 8 days from, and unprecedented

rush to confirm the supreme court nominee. we are taking the place of the next president and the next senate in confirming the next justice even as the american people are denied a voice in the senate in that position. what is happening is not normal, because our republican colleagues have explicitly broken their word. a quote from 17 of them promising there would be no confirmation of the next justice during an election year. it is not normal because historically no justice has been confirmed in an election year. it is not normal because we are here in the midst of a pandemic confirming a justice who would

potentially decimate our healthcare system in the middle of a healthcare crisis. it is not normal because the administration said as recently as sunday through its chief of staff there is no control over this pandemic, this abject surrender. it is shameful and disgraceful. >> host: richard blumenthal on the floor last night. it was only republicans who voted to approve amy coney barrett. one republican, senator susan collins, up for reelection for the state of maine, did not vote for her. this is the headline, collins vote no on barrett's confirmation, so she did not make decisions on the judge's qualifications, rather she was opposing the process. senator mitt romney voted for

judge barrett. a headline from the salt lake tribune, romney and lee joined the gop parade, praise for covid-19 before the confirmation vote. on the floor, arguing why. >> judge barrett wrote in the texas law review the, quote, of the courts opinions change with his membership, public confidence in the court as an institution might decline. its members might be seen as partisan rather than impartial and case law as fueled by power rather than reason. consideration of institutional legitimacy has long been a factor in the court's deliberations but, and greater weight today. the other institutions are diminished and under attack.

this would be particularly true were the court called upon, to determine the outcome of the presidential election. and it is paramount important, and regardless of the outcome, to be beyond reproach, and preferably unanimous. the senate will send judge barrett to the highest court in the land. i'm confident she's up to the measure of the times we now live. >> the utah senator mitt romney on the floor yesterday before the vote was held, 52 republicans voted yes to put her on the supreme court. there's one more step after last night at swearing-in, chief justice ron roberts will administer the judicial oath to

the honorable amy coney barrett, the 100 third associate justice of the supreme court in a private ceremony today in the east conference room at the supreme court and there will be a formal investiture ceremony that will take place at a special sitting of the court in the court room at a later date. the court because of the pandemic is not gathering to hear cases. they are doing it virtually and there are cases that begin already next week or the week after and justice amy coney barrett expect to begin work as early as tuesday. let's go to eugene in boston, good morning. >> caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. the nomination of judge barrett, i wasn't for it or

against it. my only concern is that now six of the nine supreme court justices are of catholic faith and i don't feel that's reflective of america at this time because there's other denominations of catholicism as well, where is the methodist, protestant, baptist, christian. i wouldn't want to see 6 judges of 9 of anyone faith. i don't feel comfortable with that. and this is the same catholic faith that has been destroying the lives of children all over the world for centuries. with the catholic church, what has been going on with the

destruction of children is not new. that has been going on for centuries. it is a reflection of what america really is and it is really sad. >> host: paul, good morning to you. your reaction to [speaking in native tongue] being confirmed to the supreme court. >> caller: i support it 100%. i wasn't at the hearing. well-qualified and i trust her to be a lady that will make fair decisions in the land that we live in. it is hard to get fair decisions. if you were accused of a crime and had a jury, what is going

on in 2020 how would you feel, facing a jury like that? nothing the president has done is right. this lady, look how they criticized, her qualifications are supreme. our supreme court will make just and fair decisions, not be put in place to make - that is what we need and i approve what the senator just said. i stand with him, we need good leadership. >> host: michelle in milwaukee, wisconsin. the supreme court made a big decision for wisconsin yesterday.

>> i'm really upset about this, trump to me only had two goals since he has been in the white house and that is to destroy obama's legacy and deal taxpayer dollars. his jealousy and racism toward obama, he's not concerned about people losing their healthcare. he is not concerned about millions of people protected from preexisting conditions and the other preexisting conditions and the other issue, lost my train of thought but my daughter -- the children being covered to the age of 26. i had two college students who

don't make enough money to provide their own healthcare. they are working some odd jobs to keep money in their pocket and that made a huge difference in my life and my sister's life, who had college-age students. my daughter once she became able to provide her own healthcare she had obamacare and was able to pay the premium and at the end of the year she did not have a problem, to cover the amount she wasn't able -- she didn't have the finances to pay upfront so she was very grateful for that. she had dental and health care. and jealousy for obama is going to cost a lot of people's lives. he has had only one goal.

the amount of satisfaction he is getting just because it is obamacare, making people suffer during a pandemic, he doesn't care and i don't know when people are going to wake up that he doesn't care about them either. he's practicing herd immunity at his rallies. he is using experiments. that is what he wants. that's why he's not trying to fight the pandemic. he wants herd immunity. that is why he is not -- nancy pelosi, the funds. he doesn't want to provide protection for americans. he doesn't want schools to have protection or jobs to have protection. he wants everybody to get infected. he doesn't care who dies except for his immediate family, you

better believe they are protected. the only reason he's out among the crowds is he has already been infected. he doesn't care about his son or his wife being infected, doesn't care -- really cares about himself. >> host: on the supreme court decision let me fill in for viewers who may have misted. the milwaukee journal sentinel out of wisconsin the supreme court upheld wisconsin's voting laws rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots sense to election officials on or just before election day. the court's 5 to 3 ruling means absentee ballots will be counted only if they are in the hands of municipal clerks by the time the polls close on november 3rd. the court should not be the one to decide the election rules amid the coronavirus pandemic that is surging in wisconsin and across the world. that from the court. you mentioned healthcare. i want to share this piece from

the los angeles times, from deputy editorial board editor. in his opinion amy coney barrett's addition to the supreme court isn't guaranteed obama killer and he writes this. it is a scary possibility whether barrett is the aca's executioner is far from certain, that is true despite her well-known and not subtle criticism of justice john roberts's recently when he voted in 2012 to uphold the aca's mandate that americans maintain health insurance coverage. he goes on to say democrats have flayed the trump administration for urging this throughout the aca and if the administration gets its way democrats have rightly noted how bad the consequences will be for anyone with insurance through the aca. to lose group coverage would also be threatened by insurers regaining the ability to disseminate against people with preexisting conditions in the individual market. still, views about roberts's musing on news this time

around, it is different set of justice is considering a different set of facts. even before they get to the constitutionality question the court has to grapple with whether the 18 republican-led states and two individual plaintiffs should have been allowed to bring the suit in the first place. it boggles the mind that anyone can claim to be injured by an insurance by requiring that is unenforceable was there is literally no penalty for not complying. of the governor passes a lot require you to fly to saturn you are not injured if you can ignore it without penalty. but if 5 or more justices managed to contort themselves into see actual injuries to the plaintiff the next question will be whether the mandate to buy insurance is constitutional. that question comes before the court november 10th. goods where website, c-span.org for our coverage of that oral argument. wilmington, texas. good morning to you. what is your reaction to justice barrett.

>> it is a good thing. even though this is an election year, political offices have a job to do. they are doing their job, regardless because of the election. .. the american people put them in office to do a job, , period. if you're not going to do your job don't run for office.

>> bob, cookeville tennessee, your thoughts. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all i would like to say a very big thank you to harry reid because it was a foreign changing, none of this would've been possible. thank you for taking my call. >> bob referred to what happened in 2013. the "washington post" this morning goes through the rule changes that have been put in place to allow amy coney barrett to go for. this is what they note. during the nomination of corsets in 2017 senate republicans invoked the nuclear option to change rules for supreme court nominees so they no longer needed 60 synergist advance to a final confirmation vote. that effectively finished the task. senate democrats begin in 2013 when they deployed the same maneuver to chain confirmation rules for all executive branch pics and nearly all judicial

nominees. in 20 that can senate republicans change rules for significantly trim the time available for floor debate for district court judges. before the change demolition could be debated for a total 30 hours before confirmation vote but gop senators slash that to two hours for all nominees except those for the court and the cabinet and the circuit courts in some independent boards. there are other practices use by the previous democratic led senate republicans have neglected. they include the blue slip tradition for circuit court nominees which effectively gave a state senator veto power over judicial picks from his or her state. "washington post" looking at not only the latest addition to the supreme court by the trump administration but also the impact overall that senator mcconnell has had on the judicial branch. leader mcconnell senng