[silence] >> this morning, when about us toanybody who was listening who i am and what i said, you know that it was a deep sarcasm that i suggested that some legislative body would want to yearn for the good old days of segregation is him. -- segregation is him. the point i'm trying to make is that there is nobody in the legislative arena wanting to take us back to the dark time in american history. for my opponent to suggest that, it says far more about him than me. i have been a united states senator for three terms. i represent estate with 31% african-american population. i want to make sure that everyone in my state moves

forward. in terms of that statement, it blows my mind that any rational person could believe that about me. this is not a game we are playing with the people of south we are playing here with the people of south carolina. manufacturing a scenario that lindsey graham wants to go back to the days of segregation is not worthy of the times in which we live, it is not worthy of an assault on me. we have plenty of differences. i want to assure the people of south carolina, that statement was made with dripping sarcasm. the justice department is not going to about -- but a report on unmasking. i saw that, i would like to follow up. >> it seemed like everyone was talking about the scandal --

sen. graham: if there is a report that there is no violation of the law, i would like to know that. it feels completely -- sen. graham: let me just say on twitterthe trolls trying to create issues about taking a statement that was sarcastic and making something out of it, i will just say that i've been impressed with hearing. times, i appreciate the nominee not interrupting us during her hearing. most of this has been an exchange between each other, but the times that we actually talked to her about what makes her tick as a judge in terms of her reasoning and of her moxie, i can't think of one episode where someone prevented her from finishing her talk. this is the way it could be, it should be. to my colleagues, you allow the judge to answer hard questions completely. we have different views about what her answers mean, but to

me, this is a standard going forward. to my democratic colleagues and to my republican colleagues, i want to thank you for being respectful to the nominee. quite frankly, to each other. i've got to go eat. >> thank you, senator.

announcer: live coverage of the amy coney barrett precor confirmation hearing, to taking a short break here. senators will continue the second round of 20 minute questions, the third round of 10 minute questions scheduled for later today. again, lunch break, about 30 minutes. we will continue on live coverage with minnesota senator amy klobuchar who will start the second round of questions. that will be 20 minutes per center.

tomorrow, members of the senate judiciary committee will hear from outside witnesses in support of and opposed to the nominee. among the minority witnesses and the president and executive of the lawyers committee for civil rights under law. expected to talk about the importance of voting rights and other civil rights protected by the constitution and the law while republicans have a number of supporters testifying including retired federal judge thomas griffith. the committee will vote in a week on october 22. the full senate expected to go after that. -- two vote after that -- to vote after that.

again, a look inside the office building, the court room where this hearing is taking place for judge amy coney barrett. the hearing expected to resume in about 25 minutes at 12:30 eastern. live coverage will continue then. while we wait, a look at some of the questioning by the ranking member. some statements by, what is the name of that pro-life group? judge barrett: the st. joseph county rights to life. sen. graham: and you were asked by senator blumenthal, whom i respect, whether or not their policy positions were illegal. the remember that -- do you remember that? judge barrett: i remember him asking me whether i accepted other policy positions on in vitro fertilization and whether it was a rejection of roe.

judge barrett: sen. graham: i remember in exchange where they took a statement from that group or some other group arguing for the criminalization. remember that? the criminalization of ivf. judge barrett: i think so. sen. graham: and here is my problem with that analysis. that was a position taken by a pro-life county organization. your job to pass judgment on the thoughts and beliefs of americans, is it? judge barrett: no, it is not. sen. graham: so when they argue that something should be criminal, they have a right to make that argument, right? judge barrett: they do. it also wasn't in the ad that appeared next to the statement. judge barrett: how do something become criminal sen. graham: -- sen. graham: how do something become criminal in our legal system in america? judge barrett: when a legislative body passes a statute.

sen. graham: statement by political organizations are not laws. and what we tried to do yesterday was turned a pro-life group into a legislative body. and tried to get you to roll on their beliefs. i think that is a dangerous thing for americans to be asking a judge to do whether you want to write for on the left. it is a statement from the organization i don't particularly agree with and i want you to pass them as to whether or not that is legal. the question for you would be if some legislative body trying to criminalize this procedure, then that would be subject to litigation, is that correct? judge barrett: that is correct. sen. graham: a case in controversy does not arise because you disagree with the statement of a private person or a private group. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. graham: a case in controversy arises around criminal law when somebody passes a criminal statute. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. graham: then, and only then would you determine the constitutionality of that

provision. judge barrett: actually, not even then. the statute would have to be enforced against somebody, a prosecutor would have to try to hold someone criminally liable for getting ivf. sen. graham: so the case would have to mature. judge barrett: yes, there would be quite a lot of maturation. sen. graham: i just want every americans know it is not the judge -- is not the role of a supreme court justice to pass judgment on your opinion. it is the role of a supreme court justice in very limited circumstances to pass judgment on laws passed by legislative bodies in other circumstances, regulation, i would suppose. now, voting. is it appropriate for legislative bodies to protect the integrity of the ballot box? um, so, anyt: specific measures that legislative body took to protect the integrity of the ballot box could be subject to litigation,

subject to challenge. sen. graham: that's right. as they are developed, the courts will hear cases and controversies arise, right? judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: one of the reasons we don't have an agreement with the houses that in their $2.2 trillion package, they are mandating ballot harvesting as a national policy. i think it is ripe for fraud. we have seen evidence of ballots being placed in people's cars and dropped in ditches. there will be a never, i hope, to protect the integrity of the ballot and also to ensure easy voting. i don't think they are contrary goals for the nation. when it comes to being on the court itself, and collaborating with other members of the court, what is your experience in the seventh circuit level? how is that played out? judge barrett: it is so

collegial. we all collaborate. i have the greatest respect and have had wonderful interactions with every single one of my colleagues. sen. graham: do you think you have the capability to sit in at the supreme court? judge barrett: i hope so. sen. graham: we've talked a lot about laws, legalizing same-sex marriage. what is the name of the case? berdefell.ett: o sen. graham: if anybody try to change that proceeding, you would look at the alliance of people who form around that legislation. judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: same with casey and roe? judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: reaching a decision that the case was wrongly cited does not end of the debate in terms of whether or not it should be were appealed. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. graham: and there is a very rigorous process in place to

overturn precedent? judge barrett: there are, many factors. reliance being one. sen. graham: is there any constitutional right to a polygamist relationship? judge barrett: um, let's see. that might be a question that could be litigated. polygamy obviously in many places is illegal now, but that could be an issue somebody might litigate before the court at some point. sen. graham: somebody might make the argument is possible for three people to love each other genuinely and that would work its way to the court if somebody wanted to make that argument. judge barrett: somebody could make that argument. sen. graham: you have been asked a lot about roe v. wade. one of the differences between brown v. board of education and the roe line of cases is that there is active litigation regarding roe. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. graham: i think it senator

named eight or nine different cases that may come up to the court, cases in controversy. one of the reasons you can't tell us how you would rule is because there's active litigation coming to the court, is that correct? judge barrett: sen. graham: that is correct. sen. graham:and one of the reasons you can say with confidence that you think round versus the board of education is super precedent in that you are not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by legislative body, is that correct? judge barrett: that is correct. i have also set in lectures that brown is part of an original matter. i felt like i could express support for the committee. sen. graham: when it comes to heller, there is legislative bodies all over the country passing laws regarding gun ownership. judge barrett: i am aware of that. sen. graham: when it comes to citizens united, maybe revisit that case. the thing that i'm trying to establish here is that heller, citizens united, roe, casey are

all actively being litigated because legislative bodies are playing in that arena, is that a fair statement? judge barrett: that is a fair statement. sen. graham: your point to us is when it is likely that case and controversies around the holding of a particular case are going to come to the court, there is only so much you can tell us about what you may or may not do. judge barrett: absolutely. so that roe v. wade compared to brown versus the board of education is not super precedent. judge barrett: not as i was using that term in the article. sen. graham: from a commonsense point of view, why is it not super precedent? i have legislation in 14 states that passed a law that i'm trying to get passed up here. that in the fifth month of pregnancy, 20 weeks, an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. there is only seven nations on

the entire planet that allow abortion on demand in the fifth month. that is a political exercise we are going through. 14 states have passed a version of what i have just described. that will be coming to court i imagine in the future. all i ask is that we listen to both sides of the argument if it gets to you. judge barrett: i will. sen. graham: thank you. say, i've met a lot of people in this business, very impressive people. one of the highlights of my time on the committee is to get to me incredibly talented, smart, squared away people. the judge, justice roberts sat right for you and did not have a note. and a lot of people on my side are upset with him about this or that. sometimes i disagree with him, but i do know this. he is doing what he thinks is best for the court and for the country. kagan, sotomayor and delightful people, incredibly,

wickedly smart. justice kagan has a biting sense of humor. they are on the court because they should be. they are on the court because they live lives worthy of being on the court. they are on the court because they are some of the smartest people in the land about the law. they are on the court because they have lived incredibly productive and meaningful lives. justice gorsuch and kavanaugh are both on the court for the same reasons. as do you. you are every bit in their league. in my view, this is exactly where you should be going, to the supreme court, that the united states of america will benefit from your participation at the supreme court, you will offer a point of view that millions of americans share, you will have life experiences that will round out the court, you will apply the law to the facts,

and that you are going to inspire a lot of young women just like justice ginsburg did, just like justice sotomayor and kagan did, and the young women that you're going to inspire don't have a whole lot of role models they can point to in terms of the media world in which we live in a lifting them -- uplifting them. that is about to change. to my democratic colleagues, i understand where you're coming from, i understand what you want the court to do, you want to do things differently than we do. i don't question your motives and i want to thank you for conducting this hearing in a way that has been respectful, that has been challenging, and the process will be moving forward here and from the committee's point of view, i think we are on track to do it in a way that hopefully, people will say even though you disagree, strongly,

you are not that disagreeable. >> after president trump announce your nomination to the supreme court, you discussed the judicial philosophy of the late justice antonin scalia, specifically you stated "his judicial philosophy is mine." arguments in the 2013 case shelby county v. holder, justice scalia questioned the strong congressional support for reenactments of the voting rights act. he argued that the support was not attributable to the fact that we need the voting rights act. rather, he stated that he believed congress reenacted the "phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement."

this andour reading of your understanding of the history of the voting rights act? judge barrett: well, when i said that justice scalia's philosophy is mine, too, i certainly didn't mean to say that every sentence that came out of his mouth or every sentence that he wrote is one that i would agree with. when i said justice scalia's philosophy is mine, too, what i meant was that his jurisprudential approach to text, as we have talked about isginalism and textualism the same that i would take. as for the voting rights act, i think it was obviously a triumph in the civil rights movement. well, your question arises in -- of course, my view is that we owe it -- this is the bulwark of our democracy.

need is something that may be somewhat subjective. do you agree with that? judge barrett: that need is subjective? sen. leahy: that i think we do need a voting rights act and it is subjective in that sense. judge barrett: well, i think, senator feinstein, the question of how the coverage formula is calculated and the voting rights act and the contours of the voting rights act, whether shelby county was rightly decided or not, are all questions on which i can't give an answer because shelby county is controversial, it is likely to the relitigation, it could, before me on the court. i think this is really important because it shows the basic philosophical bend of an individual. for me, the voting rights act is extremely important. our elections

system, to a great extent. understandor me to that anyone would want to do away with it. what is your position in that regard? understandtt: as i shelby county, it says that the coverage formula was outdated from the 1960's for subjecting a particular space requiring them to get preclearance. and imy understanding, haven't looked at the case in a while, that everything else not the voting rights act remained intact including its prohibition on discrimination in elections. it was just the coverage formula which decided which states were subject to free clearance. sen. feinstein: let me ask you this question, and this is a hard one. do you agree with justice scalia's assertion that the voting rights act is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement.?" judge barrett: senator

feinstein, i can't -- i don't obviously know what justice scalia was thinking when he said that. any characterization of the or a statementct like that is simply really not something i can opine on. know, that is tied in, i would think, with the shelby county question. sen. feinstein: i'm not asking for a formal opinion. that it is aieve perpetuation of racial entitlement? judge barrett: senator feinstein, i think that goes in the question of whether the coverage formula was outdated and needed to be updated from the 1960's or not. i take that to be the thrust of the disagreement in shelby county, and a position that justice scalia was taking. again, i can't express a view on shelby county. sen. feinstein: ok. let me move on to workers rights and age discrimination.

klepper v.ase, you joinn corporation, a majority of judges in holding that age discrimination in employment does not protect job applicants against employment practices that have a disproportionately harmful impact on older applicants. joined, as iou understand it, dismissed the claim brought by a 58-year-old for a who was passed over job that was offered to a 29-year-old applicant with less experience. i'm concerned by the implications of the decision. according to aarp, approximately 35% of the united states population is now 50 years or older. almost 29% of households are

headed by someone near or past retirement age who has no savings or pension. studying to the eeoc, after study has shown age discrimination "remains a significant barrier for older workers." and older applicants are more frequently denied job interviews than middle-aged applicants. additionally, older and middle-aged women are subjected to more age discrimination than men. the eeoc has found that the great recession during president bush's administration "forced many older workers to revive their retirement plans to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings." so here's the question because i think it is going to be an increasing problem for the court. what do you understand to be the

purpose of age discrimination -- of the age discrimination in employment act? judge barrett: i joined a court,y of the unlock that was a case that we heard as a full-court. the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covers applicants were only employees. and the statute said employees. and so, in applicant is an employee. -- applicant isn't an employee. the statute by its terms do not cover the conduct. but i think that is an instance -- i talked yesterday quite a is toout whose role it update statutes or extend them and i think that is an instance in which congress could well address this problem by amending the statute to include applicant in it. sen. feinstein: so, where we do

stand on the general subject matter? judge barrett: well, since i , that would the law be up to the congress to decide. legislatures have different antidiscrimination provisions that offer even more protection. sen. feinstein: ok. let's talk for a moment. "i tend tou wrote agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the isstitution, and that it just more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly conflicts with it." presented with a case where your view of the constitution conflicts with supreme court precedent, what will control your decision?

your understanding of the constitution, or precedent? judge barrett: senator feinstein, i'm really glad that you brought that up because that quote was mentioned a lot yesterday and i'm happy to have an opportunity to explain the context. mean, iire article, i think there is been some misunderstandings perhaps, because that sentence, first of all, and originalist scholar in a progressive constitutionalist. the whole article was defending the supreme court's current doctrine which constitutional precedent is weaker than statutory precedent. against claims that we should have no doctrine ofstare decisi s at all and against claims that each of the absolute. i actually wasn't arguing for any alteration to the doctrines,

i was saying this is how it is, this is how the supreme court does it, and that is right. and another couple of sentences in their which i think might put my perspective and context, i set a new majority cannot impose its vision only with votes. it must -- now i'm paraphrasing myself -- it must be very sure that its interpretation of the constitution is the right one, and that reliance, interests, etc., don't counsel in favor of its overruling, and then the next sentence was something to the effect of, and uncertainty in that regard councils in favor of preserving the status quo. so that sentence if it is just read alone makes it sound like i'm arguing for the overthrow of stare decisis in constitutional cases altogether, but that was not the thrust of the article, quite to the contrary. sen. feinstein: thank you, thank you very much.

fact thatcome the your family is here, it is a beautiful family. judge barrett: thank you. thank you, senator. announcer: and the third day of the amy coney barrett supreme court confirmation hearing in the final moments of a break for lunch, should be coming back any moment here. senator is conducting a second and third round of questioning. at last for 20 minutes and 10 minutes respectively. when they return, we expect minnesota democrat amy klobuchar to be the next questioner. tomorrow, the committee will hear from additional witnesses in support and opposed to the nominee. the judiciary committee will vote on her nomination without a week. a final vote with the full senate is expected after that. and if you missed any of this process from president trump's announcement in the rose garden to this hearing, you can access it all at c-span.org.

you will also find the archival supreme court confirmation hearings. we'll take you now back to 214 hart building on capitol hill. as you see, the family has back into the hearing room. the afternoon session is about to begin. live coverage here on c-span.