the hearing started at 9:00 this morning. if you missed any of our coverage, you can watch it tonight. also available on the website c-span.org and with the free c-span radio app. you can find information about the process of seating a supreme court justice, archival hearings, and more. while we have this break, we have been watching for reaction to the hearing for judge barrett today. president trump tweeted this a short time ago. republicans are giving the democrats a great deal of time which is not mandated to make their self-serving statements relative to our great new future supreme court justice. personally i would pull back, approve, and go for stimulus for the people. of the united are states got this this morning. joe biden answering questions from paul reporters. joe biden says her faith should

not be considered. here is a look at the comments from the former vice president. biden: i know you have a question. >> [inaudible] mr. biden: her faith should not be considered. i don't think there are any questions on her faith. i got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a mormon, the governor. i took him on. we are already in the midst of a real plague here. days,ody knows that in 28 20 million americans may lose health care. this nominee says she wants to get rid of the affordable care act. the president would like to get

rid of the affordable care act. let's keep our eye on the ball. in less than one month, americans could lose their health insurance. thank you. >> jennifer with the huffington post says this. all judiciary dems took a courtesy call with judge barrett last week a far cry from how republicans treated obama's scotus pick. merrick garland. republicans refused to meet with him or even hold a hearing for him. melissa lang says back outside the supreme court, they are now contending with pro-barrett conservatives trying to drown them out. a number of conservative women are wearing white wigs and black robes for effect.

[chanting] >> back inside the hearing room hearing for judge amy coney barrett expected to continue with more opening statements from the judiciary committee. while we wait we will show you a portion of the opening statements from senator lindsey graham and ranking member senator dianne feinstein. sen. graham: this is an election year.

we are occurring the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. what will happen is that my democratic colleagues will say this has never been done, and they are right in this regard. nobody has ever been confirmed in an election year past july. the bottom line is that justice ginsburg when asked about this said that a president serves for four years not three. there is nothing unconstitutional about this process. this is a vacancy that is occurred due to the tragic loss of a great woman then we will fill that vacancy with another great woman. the bottom line is that the senate is doing its duty constitutionally. garland, the opening of the passing with justice scalia was in the early part of an election year. the primary process had just started. we can talk about history but here is the history as i understand it.

there has never been a situation where you had a president of one party and the senate of another with a replacement made in an election year. i think there have been 19 vacancies filled in an election year, 17 of the 19 were confirmed when the party of the president on the senate or the same. the hearingtiming, is starting 16 days after the nomination. more than half of all supreme court nominations have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee. 13, black, powell blackmun,erger, 13 -- 15, berger, 13. we are doing this constitutionally. that our democratic colleague subject to the process, i respect them all.

they will have a chance to have their say. hopefully we will know more about how the law works, checks and balances, what the supreme court is all about, when this hearing is over. hearing is a chance for democrats to dig deep into her appropriately ask her about the law, how she would be different and what is on her mind and it gives republicans a chance to do the same thing, and most importantly it gives the chance toeople the find out about judge barrett. yourselves, is this person qualified? as justiceualified

soto and justice kagan? i think so. they have a different legal philosophy than my own but i never doubted that they were not qualified. i thought that gorsuch and cavanaugh were qualified. the senate has looked at the qualifications more than anything else. pathve taken a different at times, bork, thomas, alito, and kavanaugh. i hope that we don't take that path with judges -- with judge barrett. the american people would not deserve a repeat of those episodes and the senate judiciary committee's history. i my democratic colleagues, respect you all. we have done some things

together and have had fights in this committee. i've tried to give you the time that you need to make your case. you have every right in the world to make your case. i think i know how the vote will come out, but i think that judge barrett is required for the good of the nation to submit your questions and ours. contentious a long, week. i ask one thing of the committee, to the extent possible, let's make it respectful, let's make it challenging, let's remember that the world is watching. sen. feinstein: we are just 22 days from the election. voting is underway in 40 states. senate republicans are pressing toward, full speed ahead, consolidate the court that will carry their policies forward with i hope some review for the will of the american people.

president trump last week that myhad "instructed representatives to stop negotiation over a covid-19 relief package until after the "focusn." and to full-time on confirming judge barrett to the supreme court." when justice scalia died in february 2016, senate republicans refused to consider a replacement for his seat until after the election. at the time, senator mcconnell said the american people should have a voice in this election. when asked in october if republicans intended to honor their own rule if an opening were to come up in 20 chairman , if an opening

were to come up in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process is started, must wait until after the next election. republicans should honor their word for this promise and let the american people be heard. i believe we should not be moving forward on this nomination, not until the election is ended and the next president has taken office. thank you, mr. chairman. >> a break in the confirmation hearing. most committee members are giving their statements in person. earlier we did see senator ted cruz give his statement remotely. he is self-quarantining even though he tested negative because he was in contact with senator lee who tested positive along with senator tillis who gave his statement remotely. they are expected back at 12:20 eastern.

right now, comments from senators amy klobuchar and ben sasse who responded to questions surrounding the nominee's faith. sen. klobuchar: this committee has gathered or what i would consider one of our most solemn duties. senators,dges come a president of the united states, we all taken out to uphold the constitution. at its core, that is what judges do, figure out the truth, figure out justice. teacher, second grade spent her life teaching kids what was right or wrong, true or false. i still believe that it matters and so do the american people. we are dealing with a president who does not think that truth matters. he has allies in congress who in the past defended our democracy and are now doing his bidding.

senators who clearly set out a precedent that the president in an election year should wait. then let the people choose the president and the president chooses the nominee. that was your precedent. it has been said that the wheels of justice turn slowly. speedn move at lightning as we have seen today. we should not separate this hearing from the moment we are in and from the judge she is trying to rush through. to respond to senator cruz this is not a rush to justice, this is a rush to put in a justice, a judge -- a justice whose views are known and will have a profound impact on your life. they matter. school, whon go to

you canmarry, decisions make about your own body. we have a president who has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after an election. every president has done that but not this guy. we have a president who has fired or replaced five inspector general's, who has fired an attorney general, and fbi director, and is going after their replacements. we have a president who divides our country every day. he has called our military suckers and losers. he has refused to condemn white supremacists and he had the gall to hold up a bible as a prop in front of a church instead of heeding its words to act justly. now he says that this election will end up in court. why, senator cruz, does

president trump matter? he is putting the supreme court in place to look at the ballots. you know exactly at home with the president is up to. that is why you are voting and voting in droves. why are you voting? you know that your rights, your health, your health care is on the line. you know that they are trying to push through a justice who has been critical of upholding the affordable care act and they are doing it in the middle of a pandemic. misplacede the priorities of this republican-run senate. are they working to pass a bill to help americans get the testing they need to save their lives? they working to help a mom balance her toddler in her lap while balancing a laptop on the desk? are they trying to help seniors isolated missing graduations and birthdays? they trying to pass a bill that

would help our economy? that is not the priority. instead, they choose to do this. we cannot divorce this nominee and her views from the election that we are in. we did not choose to do this a supreme court nominee in the middle of an election. the reason people are not going to fall for this is because it is so personal. the school canceled, the small business code, the job you don't have and the degree you could not get. it is personal for me because my husband got covid early on. he ended up in the hospital for a week on oxygen with severe pneumonia. after he got it, i found the president knew that it was airborne and didn't tell us. we were cleaning off every surface in our house and my husband got it anyway. we didn't know. got it in his

assisted-living. i stood there outside his window in a mask and he looked so small and confused. he knew who our family was but not what was going on. i thought it would be the last time that i saw him. he miraculously survived, but marty'marty jong didn't. she was a rising star. just 31 years old when covid took her life. her dad felt sick and she went with him to the hospital because he was scared and then she got sick. never got off a ventilator and died. the daughter among refugees whose parents fled laose to a refugee camp in thailand before arriving in minnesota. she and her siblings grew up in st. paul. their family was the american dream. this is who the virus has taken from us. someone who undoubtedly would have made the world a better place.

the president could have saved so many lives. he has been reckless, packing people in without masks. 35 people got sick. the president ends up in the hospital. when he leaves walter reed still contagious, he defiantly takes off his mask and walks into the white house, and the truth matters in the truth is america. this judicial nominee has made her views so clear in this president is trying to put her in a position of power to make decisions about your lives. the affordable care act protects you from getting kicked off your insurance, that is on the line. the president has been trying to get rid of obamacare before he got empower. and stoppedwent in it with a thumbs down. they brought the case to the supreme court and they are now trying to stack the deck against you right now. the last time this was before the court in a big way was when

justice roberts, not exactly a blazing liberal, voted the same as justice ginsburg to uphold the affordable care act and this nominee criticized him. america, this is about you. it is about these two girls, evelyn and mariah, identical twins from minnesota, star athletes. the play on the softball team. they also play basketball. one of them got severe diabetes when she was very young. it does not matter which one, the picture, the catcher, they both deserve good health care. they get with one stroke of a pen one judge can decide if millions of americans, including their family, would lose insurance. one judge can decide if millions lose the right to keep kids on insurance until they are 26 years old. one judge can decide if senior prescription drugs, which are already too high, could go even higher.

judgeship that was held by an icon. a woman who never took no for an answer. when they told her a girl should not go to law school, she graduated first in her class. when they told her a man should argue landmark equal protection cases because they would have a better chance of winning, she .id it herself and she won htag into herwn has 80's and her fervent wish was that the winner of this election would pick her replacement. when you look at her opinions you realize she was not just writing for today, she was writing for tomorrow. america, we have come so far and in the name of rpg, we should not go backwards. as the rabbi said at justice

ginsburg's memorial her dissents, her strong words when she would disagree with the republican justices, her words were never cries of defeat, they were blueprints for the future. hearing,ericans, this whatever these guys try to do, whatever you hear from me, it will not be a cry of defeat. it will instead be our blueprint for the future. yes, judge, i think this hearing is a sham. i think it shows real, messed up priorities from the republican party, that i am here to do my job, to tell the truth. to all americans, we do not have some clever procedural way to sham, but we have a secret weapon they do not have. we have americans who are watching, who work hard every day, believe in our country, and the rule of law whether they are democrat, republican, or

independent. they know what this president and the republican party are doing right now is very wrong. in fact, 74% of americans think we should be working on a covert relief package now instead of this. let me tell you a political secret. that it will be a brilliant cross-examination that will change this trajectory. no, it is you. it is you calling republican senators and telling them enough is enough. telling them it is personal. tell them they have priorities wrong. do it! it is you voting even when they try to do everything to stop you. it is you making your own blueprint for the future instead of crying defeat. do it. this is not donald trump's country. it is yours. this should not be channeled trump's judge it should be

yours. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. barrett,rick, congratulations. judge klobuchar said a number of things about covid i agree with. she cited a bunch of painful stories in minnesota and similar stories could be told across the country. i agree with parts of her criticism of the mismanagement of covid by washington, d.c. i do not know what any of that has to do with what we are here to do today. huge parts of what we are doing in this hearing will be really confusing to eighth-graders. in andclasses tuning figuring out what we are here to do, and they have hurt as much as they have heard about 2009 finance committee debates about what should be in a reform package, i am blessed to have set not just on the judiciary

but the finance committee. a lot of the discussions we have had today fit better in a finance committee hearing. i think it would be useful for us to pause and remind ourselves and to some of our civic duty to eighth-graders to help them realize what a president runs for, what a senator runs for, why judge barrett is sitting before us today and what the job as you are being evaluated for. if we could do some eighth-grade civics, i think it would benefit us and benefit the watching country. i would like to distinguish first between civics and politics because there was a time, the chairman said the beginning, a time when people that would be as different as ruth bader ginsburg -- and she was a heroic woman, that was absolutely true -- and scalia.

they could get confirmation votes in the chairman said he does not know what happened between then and now. think some of what happened is we decided to forget what civics are and allow politics to swallow everything. i would like to remind us of the distinction between civics and politics. civics is the stuff we are supposed to agree on regardless of our policy views. civics is another way we talk about the rules of the road. civics 101 is the stuff like congress rights laws, the forces laws.nch that should not be different. this is basic civics. civics is the stuff all americans should agree on like religious liberty, people should be able to fire the folks who write laws and they cannot fire

the judges. judges should be impartial. this is civics 101. politics is different. politics is the stuff that happens underneath civics. we as americans agree politics is the subordinate, less important stuff we differ about. politics is like if i look at my friend senator coons and say what you want to do on this committee bill is going to be too expensive and might bankrupt our kids. or chris looks at me and says, listen up, you are a cheapskate and you are under investing in the next generation. that is really important debate. that is a political debate, not civics. civics is more important. civics does not change every 18 to 24 months. think it is important we help our kids understand politics is the legitimate stuff we fight about and civics is the place we pull back and say, wait a minute, we have things in common

and before we fight about politics let us reaffirm civics. i would like to have a basic grammar of civics for five minutes. one thing we should agree on and two things we should disagree with. one thing we agree about and in favor of and two things we agree on and we should reject. first, a positive grant unifying truth about america and that is religious liberty. religious liberty is the idea that how you worship is that the government's business. war,nment can rais wage but they cannot save souls. war is important, parking tickets are important, but your soul is something the government cannot touch. with you worship in a mosque, a synagogue, or a church, your faith or lack of faith is none of the government's business. it is not about power, it is not

about force. this is the fundamental american belief. religious liberty is one of those five great freedoms firstred in the amendment. five freedoms that hang together and are pre-governmental rights. ony are civics 101 we agree before we ever get to anything as relatively inconsequential as tax policy. civics should be the stuff we affirmed together and contrary to the belief of activists, religious liberty is not an exception. you do not need the government's permission to have religious liberty. religious liberty is the default assumption of our entire system because religious liberty is the fundamental rule in american life we do not have religious tests. this committee is not in the business of deciding whether the dogma list too loudly within someone. this committee is not in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are good and

which beliefs are bad. which religious beliefs are weird. i want to say a 70 who is self-consciously a christian, we have a whole bunch more weird beliefs. forgiveness of sin, the virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, eternal life, there are a whole bunch of crazy ideas that are weirder than some catholic moms giving each other advice about parenting. yet, there are places where this committee acted like it is the job of the committee to delve into people's religious communities. that is nuts. that is a violation of basic civics. that is a violation of what we believe together. this is not a republican idea. it is a democrat and republican idea, but it is an american idea. the good news is whether you think your religious beliefs might be judged wacky by someone else it is none of the business of this committee to delve into any of that. in this committee, and in this

congress and in this constitutional structure, religious liberty is the basic truth. whatever you or i or judge barrett believe about god is not any of the government's business. we can believe in that in common and reaffirm that in common and that should be on display over the course of the next four days. now a couple of terms that all eighth graders should know as things we should reject in common. again, share rejection, not republican versus democrat or democrat versus republican, but a shared american rejection. the first is judicial activism. judicial activism is the idea judges get to advocate for or advanced policies even though they do not have to stand for election before voters and have lifetime tenure. it is the really bad idea that tries to convince the american people to view the judiciary as a block of progressive votes and conservative votes. republican justices and democratic justices.

this is the confused idea that the supreme court is just another arena for politics. when politicians try to demand judicial nominees who are supposed to be fair and impartial, when politicians try to get judicial nominees to give their views on cases or give views on policy, to trying get them to pre-commit to certain outcomes in future cases we are politicizing the courts and that is wrong. hhat is in violation of our oat to the constitution. when politicians refuse to give answers to the question on whether they want to change the number of justices in the court, which is what packing actually is, when they want to try and change the outcome of what courts do in the future by trying to change the size and composition of the court that is a bad idea the politicizing the judiciary and reduces public trust. on the other hand, the

politicizing the court looks a lot like letting courts and judges do their job and the congress do our job. you do not like the policies in america? great, elect different people in the house and senate and presidency. fire the politicians. but voters do not have the freedom to fire judges therefore, we should not encourage judges or the public to view them as ultimately politicians who hide behind the ropes. the antidote to judicial activism is a regionalism. original sum, also known as ism isl -- original wa the thought that judges just make laws. laws. an originalist does not think of herself as a super legislator whose opinions will be read by angels from stone tablets in heaven. digital activism is the bad idea -- judicial activism is that

robes are fake and that they are wearing red or blue partisan jerseys. we should reject all such judges. today, when we have a nominee before us we should be asking her questions that are not about how to predetermine certain cases. a final term we should be clear about that is worth underscoring is what is court pacin packing? senate structure of the by packing the supreme court. this would depend on the destruction of the full debate in the senate and it is a partisan suicide bombing that would and the structure of the united states senate -- end the structure of the united states senate. a superrd to get to majority that tries to protect the american people.

what blowing up the filibuster would do is try to turn the supreme court into the ultimate super legislature. court packing is not judicial reform as some of you who wrote the memo over the weekend got the media to bite on. it is not reforming the system we have now and anybody who uses the language that implies filling legitimate vacancies is actually just another form of court packing is playing the american people for fools. the american people actually want a washington, d.c. that de es things. i look forward to the question you have to endure over the next days even though you look forward to at last. congratulations and welcome. on theer: live coverage hearing for judge amy coney barrett continues here on c-span

in a few moments. we hear more opening statements from members of the senate judiciary starting shortly. judge barrett has yet to speak. the hill is watching the hearing and highlighted remarks from "nator josh hawley saying, accusing senator kamala harris of anti-catholic bigotry. others have repeatedly questioned judicial nominee fit because of membership in the knights of columbus." that got a response from jackie spear. she tweets, "i am a practicing catholic, nancy pelosi and joe biden are practicing catholics. our opposition is based on her secular views. she would strip away lgbtq rights, dismantle the affordable care act, and make it harder to vote. stop weaponizing religion." here is a look at senator hawley's remarks as we get closer to the resumption of the hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, welcome. it is good to see you again.

children are your getting a break. they have earned it i think. i have got two little boys at home and i cannot believe how calmly your children have been sitting for a couple of hours. maybe you can give me some tips when we are finished. we have gotten to read about your family in the last few weeks. we've got to read a lot about you in the press and about your religious beliefs. when attack after another in the liberal media. when hit piece after another, many echoed by this committee. active with insular christian group." we have read stories about your catholics lifestyle. story about how you adapted your children and about your catholic beliefs over and over and over. questioning whether you have the independence to be a judge, a justice on the united states

supreme court and it is not just in the newspaper, it is members of this committee. nomineeg the democratic for vice president of the united states who has question past nominees who have come before this committee about their membership in organizations like the knights of columbus. you heard me correctly. senator harris and others have repeatedly questioned judicial nominee's fitness for office because of their membership in the knights. the ranking member, when you were last before this committee, the ranking member referred to your catholic convictions as "dogma." announcer: we will hear from senator lindsey graham. >> so the republican understand more about judge barrett, i think it is good for the country to have this hearing. i doubt it is going to change any minds in terms of how we vote, but i like the idea a lifetime appoin appointed to the

supreme court can be tested and understood by the public. we will proceed forward the way we have in the past. [indiscernible] >> i do not know what it is like at cnn, but you cannot demand all your colleagues be tested before you go to work if there is no reason. i was tested a week ago friday and i was negative. i felt fine. the cdc guidelines do not require quarantine or testing. i will leave it up to every member, but there are millions of americans going to work today and restaurants, police officers, you name it who cannot demand they will not come to work unless everybody around them is tested whether they need to or not. we are running this hearing safely. it has been set up in cdc compliance and we will move forward. >> thank you.