politics. you are looking at a live shot from case western reserve in cleveland. the location for the debate between donald trump and former vice president joe biden. the debate gets underway and 90 5 p.m. eastern. our coverage begins live at 8:00 eastern. president trump's nominee is on capitol hill today for the supreme court. judge amy coney barrett is meeting with mitch mcconnell this morning. she will meet with senator chuck grassley, ted cruz, and lindsey graham. of thearrie severino judicial crisis network. she is here to talk about the upcoming supreme court confirmation issue involving judge amy coney barrett. thanks for joining us. guest: good morning. host: remind our viewers about your organization and where you

stand politically. guest: we are committed to trying to get judges appointed to the supreme court who are committed to interpreting the constitution and the laws as they are written. host: did you have any active role in the president's choice for the supreme court? guest: that is the president's call and it is done through the white house counsel office. i am thrilled because i felt like everyone he was looking at closely was really well-qualified for this position. i feel like i could not be in a better position. i would have been happy with it was arbor look go up or amy barrett. is about thestion overall impact on the court and how it changes when it comes to the justice is themselves. how would you answer that? guest: what we are looking at is a shift in perspective of how we look at the law bases -- versus ruth bader ginsburg.

there are a lot of ways in which amy coney barrett follows in ginsberg's footsteps as a woman with children and accomplishing all that she has as a scholar and a judge. she does it in a different perspective in terms of how to interpret the constitution much friendnsberg's good justice scalia. looking at the text of the law and interpreting the text as it is written and leaving anyone any changes to that text, that is the legislature's job as well as the constitution. as her role as a federal judge, she has been articulate about that and careful to look at what does the constitution say. we do not interpret those words as we wish they were at as we feel like they should be updated , but as they are understood whenever they were passed, whether they were part of the initial constitution or later amendment, you have to look at them as they were meant to those people who cast them.

if you want to make changes, that is what the amendment process is for. host: your organization claims to spend quite a bit of money in this effort. how much? guest: we have had groups that will spend at least $10 million on the fight to oppose. we set we will match you and spend the same amount. host: $10 million? guest: that is our budget for the first month of the process. host: one of the result is an ad that you will have supporting the candidate. let's show viewers the ad and then we will ask you about it. guest: sure. [video clip] >> you will hear a lot about amy coney barrett. hear it from her. >> courts are not arenas for politics. you are not there to decide cases as you may prefer. you are there to do your duty and to follow the law wherever it may take you. follows the barrett law and ignores politics.

a scholar, a judge grounded in faith and family. she is the perfect choice to follow justice ginsburg. host: can i ask you about the final line, the perfect choice to follow justice ginsburg? what do you mean by that? who, ifhe is someone you heard in her own statements, who really embodies the things that so many people admire about justice ginsburg. she is a woman of faith and ginsburg talked about her own jewish faith leading her into the law in the first place and her pursuit for justice. she is a mother, like ginsburg. she has a wonderful partnership with her husband. even down to the fact that it seems like justice ginsburg's husband and jesse barrett are known as the best cook in the family. that is something that the supreme court helped kick off in a cookbook in his honor. there is a lot of ways in which these women are similar. i think also in their commitment to being friendly and cordial

with people even if they disagree. ,hat is why you have people obviously it is the same school glias bird relationship -- -ginsburg relationship. it was said that she is someone who ought to be in the court. she is super really and. there was a law professor who said, i disagree with her on so many things, but she should absolutely be confirmed to the court. this is the kind of role model that ginsburg was in forging those kind of relationships and barrett has a very similar path herself. host: here is how you can call and ask questions if you wish about amy coney barrett. you can call (202) 748-8000, democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can text and tweet us if you

wish. there has been a lot said about the writings of the judge particularly when it comes to a couple of different areas. watch was made about what you said about the affordable care act. this was a book review in 2017 , chiefhe act saying justice offers pushed the affordable care act beyond his possible meeting. shouldrgued that a jury not supersede a judge's duty to apply clear text. you have probably seen that line a lot. does that spell concern over the aca in your mind? guest: some of this is scaremongering. an articlel, this is that has been out there just before she was confirmed to the court. there was not a lot of questioning about it before. this is something democrats are going back and trying to find anything they can, even an article that was written in cases that she has not decided. the bottom line is she is

committed to looking at the law as it is written. i think the interpretation that the chief justice put on it, from a lot of people's perspective was driven by policy outcomes than concerns about the law. she is not telegraphing how she .ould rule on a future case later cases have have had slightly distant -- different approaches. she is clear that looking at outside concerns is not the correct thing. it is looking at the text of the law. that has resulted in her coming up with both conservative and liberal decisions. i think they are alternately driven by the law rather than politics and that is what she is getting accurate host: people pointed to something she will -- wrote for the law review. announcer: we will take you like to capitol hill where judge amy coney barrett's meeting with senators today.

>> we are pleased to welcome judge merrick to begin the process. she will be visiting with members who are interested in talking to her during the course of the next few days. we are glad to have her here and get -- glad to get the process started. >> on behalf of the president i want to thank the senate majority leader. you have committed to meet with an extraordinary american. judge amy coney barrett has some of the great character, great delight with a velocity -- philosophy that will uphold the

constitution of the united states. two, to under article nominate judge barrett to the supreme court of the united states. we look forward to working with and public is in the senate democrats in the senate as well. we truly believe that judge representsbarrett the best of america personally in terms of her great intellect, great background and we have every confidence that has the american people learn more, they will be as inspired by her as a trump was when he nominated her. we believe the senate had an opportunity for a fair and respectful consideration. we urge our democratic colleagues in the senate to take the opportunity to meet with

judge barrett and as the hearing goes forward, to advise a respectable hearing that the american people expect. we look forward to a vote in the senate in the near future to fill this in the supreme court of the united states. the american people deserve justice. the american people deserve nine justices on the supreme court of the united states. thank you, leaders for the warm welcome today. >> could she recuse herself from any election related cases? >> do you intend to confer her before the election? -- confirm her before the election? barrett amy coney meeting on capitol hill with senators today. we will have more u.s. supreme court coverage here on c-span.

we were turning to washington journal. -- we return now to washington journal al. he wanted to follow wishes, deceit would have been held for him and you would have been happy with gorsuch. that is not the reason we hold seats open. the question of eric garland is one of looking at the historical precedent of how election-year vacancies are handled. one thing we know with every election year vacancy in the history of the country, when there has been a vacancy, the president has nominated someone. linee exactly in precedent. when the senate is held by two different parties, the president does not get confirmed. it is not surprising because we have a constitutional check on the process. the senate has to be able to

ratify this appointment and if the senate does not want that person, they are not going to get confirmed. that is the majority of the time, like in 2016 when the president and senate were in different parties, the nominee does not get confirmed. withre complete in line precedent. our on 2020, we have the president and the white house holding the same party. if you look historically election-year vacancies have been confirmed under situations like that. it is not surprising why because the political check and balance is built into the constitutional saying the works by american people control the senate. that means we are moving forward on things like this and that is what we are going to see in 2020. host: here is san diego, california. crestline, india. line, cynthia. go ahead.

caller: i wanted to find out why garland was not confirmed during a presidential, when president obama was in office. now we have trump. i think it is a double standard. you do the right thing. it is all about being within integrity. with this president, we don't have that. -- it get is very unfair just think it is very unfair. aret: i recognize there people who disagree with this president. nonetheless, he has the authority to fill that seat. this is exactly where we are within historical precedent. the democrats in 2016 were making arguments saying it is unconstitutional not to hold hearings. i think those arguments will

were false at the time. suddenly in 2020, they are saying you have to wait for the election. that i think is the real double standard. the fact that there is a political check and unfortunately the democrats do not like the result of that check. that may mean you are frustrated with the system. the solution to that is, in order to have nominees move smoothly, you need to have control of the senate and the white house. that has always been the case because the constitution creates that political system for getting supreme court nominees confirmed. host: from james on the republican line, work limp, new york. go ahead. to ms. my question severino, how do you feel that the confirmation hearing is

going to turn out? if you are in hawaii, you are up early. i'm impressed. was markedgh hearing by a lot of chaos, a lot of intentional disruption by people in the audience. there were more than 200 people arrested for disrupting the hearing and had to be taken out of the room. covid-19,because of hearings do not have public seeds and we will not have public seeds for this hearing. that means that distraction and that level of delay of the process is going to be taken out of the picture. it is going to be senators on both sides questioning the nominee. hallmarks can expect of previous hearings. they will talk a lot about the record. there are some people on both sides of the aisle who are going to want her to commit how she would vote in certain cases. thing that people

get frustrated by. you are not going to get her to say, i would vote this way in this case or another. the reason for that comes from justice ginsburg. she was very clear in her hearing. she said, no hints, no forecast, no previews. she pointed to the ethical obligations of a judge under federal rules saying you cannot guarantee you would vote a certain way. if she had, she would have to recuse herself from those cases. about 60 times during justice ginsburg's confirmation process, she simply said, i cannot talk about these things. every time i want to tell senators, you know this is the case. we have been talking about this for years. you cannot ask for commitments on cases. i think one other area we are looking forward to seeing how it plays out is whether the senators will attack her on her faith.

we are seeing some people suggesting they should attack her adoption of two children from haiti. they should attack her because there is something apparently illegitimate. i think those would be mistakes on the democrats part. we did see at her confirmation whoess, senator feinstein really did attack her on her wouldand suggested that be inappropriate if she was an orthodox catholic. many people saw that and scratch their head because there is the constitutional rule that there is no religious test for office. we may see people going that way. there are a lot of democrats saying that would be a horrible mistake. there are people on the left saying nothing is off the table. i think that would be the big mystery is will we see a personal attack like that. personal, some of the

smears going against kavanaugh as well. instead of having people arrested, that might be our drama for the hearings. host: do you think there will be questions about the associations with part of the process? guest: i think that is what we are already seeing. people writing, this group believes this. when you drill down on it, many of it is shared by large numbers of christians, but also other religions in the country. i think it is a really bad look. there was a constitutional standard that we cannot ignore it. there cannot be religious test for office. you may not agree with her legend, you have to respect it. justice ginsburg herself with someone who said her religion informed her public service. this is why she went into the law. because of her commitment to justice and her jewish faith which taught her the importance of seeking justice. that is something we should celebrate. having a strong faith life is

not something we should be suspicious of your data certainly not something that fits in justice ginsburg's legacy. host: janet in florida makes the comment that she has been a judge for less than three years. she adds her lack of courtroom experience is glaring. how would you respond? guest: she has more experience than three of the city members of supreme court. justice kagan had zero experience as a judge and very minimal courtroom experience before coming on the court. justice thomas and roberts also had less experience as a judge when they came onto the court. something there is a lot of debate. president obama said maybe we should have more politicians or chief justice earl warren had no experience. thee are a lot of judges in country's history who have had that. there are a lot of people who say, look at her record, she actually has a longer judicial

record. you can see her approach and you can see in her scholarship because she wrote clearly about the way judges should behave, that she clearly has thought through these things very deeply. if you look at her record, she has a lot of these amazing -- her brilliance is going to shine through. host: carrie severino joins us. the judicial crisis network. let's go to california, stephanie, you are next up. caller: good morning, c-span. system of checks and balances has been broken. i do believe the sitting president should be the one who chooses the next appointment on supreme court. i want to remind you that mcconnell did not allow obama's

pick for the court to go through and the system is broken. that is why harry reid invoked the nuclear option. that was a mistake because now we are paying the price. it doesn't matter who sits on the supreme court and who gets picked on the supreme court. that is to be chosen by the american people and the american people who put the next president in office. i want to ask you, are you part of the federalist group? thank you. guest: i am a member of the federal society. i think you talk to most lawyers, they would say the same thing. it is a great debate group and an opportunity to speak up and have really interesting exchanges with the people i have debated there. going back to the question of the confirmation process and how that works with the checks and balances. here is how i would illustrate it. when president obama took office, he had two supreme court

nominations before the vacancy and before mayor arlen was nominated. -- merrick garland. those nominations went through because he actually controlled the senate. in 2014 the american people, instead of reelecting democrat control in the senate, they elected republicans who shifted the balance of power. when the people do that, it is -- fullng steam ahead, steam ahead, that is a step back. when you have that, that is how the checks and balance works. elections absolutely have consequences but that includes elections to the senate. that is why the constitution set it up that way because they believe senators had a role in this process. a tieou have almost between the senate and the white house, what happens overwhelmingly in these cases is

the american people are the deciding vote. they are the ones who get to cast a tiebreaker and in that case, they cast it for donald trump. in this case what we saw in 2018, the same election for the republicans is they did not lose seats. they gained seats in the senate and many democrats pointed to the kavanaugh confirmation as part of the reason they did that. when americans saw what was going on in that process, they were horrified and very frustrated and it shifted the election toward the republicans. i would say the 2018 election was another opportunity that the american people got to say, do we like the direction we are going. what they said was, oh my goodness, the republicans want seatseats -- won more because people were frustrated with the way the democratic party was handling justices in particular. that is an indication of moving forward in the same direction. that is what we are going to see in 2020. host: you mentioned you were a

member in the federal society. paid her tothey travel to several law colleges. is that a practice that is common and how would you respond to that? guest: when i had to travel to go to a federal society event, they reimbursed me for my talks. i've had experience with liberal groups. i don't think the idea of being someone airfare to get to an event they are speaking at, it is pretty typical. the supreme court justices regularly go to speak at events in europe. their expenses are paid by the organizations that bring them there. host: let's go to florida, independent line, frank, hello. ask a: i was going to question, but she answered them. my question is are they trying to do away with abortion only?

also about the reproduction rights for the women. guest: this is something that i think a lot of people on the left try to use as a scaremongering technique. arrett has not expressed her opinion on the validity of roe a president. however, i think that big commitment she has is to reading the constitution and the text of the law as it is written. this is not about what is your personal views and -- on these hot button issues. and it should not be. we should not want to know or have to know what any justice because of personal views on these issues are. we should be concerned that they are following the law and that means following the law when it is going in the direction the agree with and following along when it is going in a direction they disagree with. she has been very clear that that is her approach on the bench. you can see it in some of the

cases that she has heard because she has heard cases where if you look at the politics of the way something comes out, for example, against the trump amortization -- administration and their interpretation of something. it is because it is not a political question. it is a legal question. if they are doing something consistent with the law, she will follow it. if it is inconsistent, she will follow it as well. host: republican line. robert, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i have to say is plain and simple. president trump is a republican and he made a nominee for the supreme court. there is not a democrat alive who will vote for her because democrats do not vote for what republicans do and republicans do not vote for what democrats want to do.

that is the problem we have. host: ok. guest: i will point out that she was confirmed by a bipartisan majority. several democrats voted for her. a couple of be circuit judge. some are still in office. i am optimistic we will see people like joe mansion, who also voted for justice kavanaugh voting for her. i am looking forward to the hearings. seeink once people get to her perspective and see what a poised, articulate woman she has, it will be hard for democrats not to acknowledge this is someone who is incredibly qualified and clearly knows her stuff. you've got colleagues saying she was ready for the supreme court 20 years ago. she is also a very kind understanding person. she is not going to come at the law like scalia would. always fun to read, but more

aggressive. i think once they get to know her, it is going to be hard for democrats to vote against her. i predict we will see a bipartisan confirmation. that is what justice ginsburg would have wanted. you heard her say during the kavanaugh confirmation, one of the most ridiculous confirmations, she said the way it is is not good by the way it was was better. referring to her own confirmation process when she was confirmed despite being a clear liberal. she had worked for the aclu. she was unanimously confirmed in a swift confirmation process. she thought the process should that -- should be that way again. i think we will see some isocrats recognize there outstanding qualifications and will vote for her, although you are right. i think she will probably get attacked by groups in the left who feel they should take no prisoners. host: this is carrie severino of

the judicial crisis network. you for your time this morning. guest: thank you. ♪ announcer: you're watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by america's table -- cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. announcer: the first presidential debate between president trump and joe biden's tonight at 9:00 eastern from cleveland. watch live on c-span. pres. trump: biden is recklessly campaigning against this vaccine. it is truly reckless. all of this is political. deal isis whole catastrophic shutdowns. recorded byn words bob woodward, the president knew in february that this was an

extremely dangerous communicable disease. ♪ think about it. how many people across the -- how many empty chairs around the dinner table? because of his negligence and selfishness. announcer: watch the first debate live from cleveland tonight on c-span. stream live or on-demand at c-span.org/debate or listen live on the c-span radio app. another perspective from elizabeth of the constitutional accountability center. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: for those who may not know your organization, a little about it please? nterest law firm that works in the courts, with congress, and talks to the public about the promises of the