frequently than we use to. so i have a different policy solution of how we get to port ability and health care than a lot of my democratic colleagues, but those are policy disputes about a modern economy were people move around a lot both geographically and in terms of employer sponsored health insurance relationships. sen. klobuchar: our president is the one who decided to pop a supreme court nomination in the middle of an election when people's health care is on the line with a case before the court on november 10. so let's see what he said about the supreme court. one of president trump's 2015 waspromises in that his judicial appointments will do the right thing on obamacare. you can see it right here. in fact, just one day after you are nominated, this was a few

weeks ago, he said also on twitter that it would be a big win if the supreme court strikes down the health law. question, do you think we should take the president at his word when he says his nominee will do the right thing and overturn the affordable care act? senatorrrett: klobuchar, i can't really speak to what the president has set on twitter. he hasn't said any of that to me. what i can tell you is what i have told your colleagues earlier today is that no one has elicited for me any commitment in a case or even brought up a commitment in a case. i'm 100% committed to judicial independence from political pressure, so whatever people's party platforms or campaign promises, the reason why judges have life tenure is to insulate

them from those pressures. i take my oath seriously to follow the law. i have not pre-committed nor what i pre-commit to decide a case any particular way. sen. klobuchar: i think this life tenure, this idea that you have a job for life makes this even more important for us to consider where you might be, and i know you have not said how you would rule on this case coming up right after the election where the president would say it would be a big win if the president -- if the court strikes down the law, but you criticized justice roberts in my own state, and one of the minnesota law school journals. it was in 2017, the same year you became a judge and when roberts writes the opinion to uphold the affordable care act, you said he "pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." is that correct judge barrett:

judge barrett:? is this the constitutional commentary publication? to be sure.d klobuchar -- sen. klobuchar: did did you this beyond -- say that he push this beyond the meaning to say the statute? judge barrett: i don't attack people, just ideas -- it's designed to make a comment about his reasoning in that case, which i said before is consistent with the way the majority opinion characterized it as a less plausible reading of the statute. sen. klobuchar: so you did not agree with his reasoning that upheld the affordable care act? judge barrett: is this king versus burwell? sen. klobuchar: it was versus sibelius -- i will get to king

versus burwell and a second. judge barrett: what i said was the interpretation that the majority adopted construing the mandate to be a task rather than a penalty was not the most natural reading of the statute. sen. klobuchar: you also criticized, as you pointed out by bringing up king the burwell, another case where the court ruled in favor of the health law , this was in a national public radio interview, you acknowledged the result of people being able to keep their subsidies under the affordable care act would help millions of americans, yet you praised the dissent i justice scalia, saying the dissent had "the better of the legal arguments." is that correct? judge barrett: i did say that. sen. klobuchar: would you have ruled the same way and voted with justice scalia? of thearrett: one

upsides of being an academic is you can speak for yourself. a professor offenses and can opine, but it's very different than a judicial decision-making process, so it's difficult for me to say how i would have decided that case if i had to go through the whole process of judicial decision-making i was describing this morning. now, having been a judge for three years, i can say i appreciate greatly the distinction between academic writing or academic speaking and judicial decision-making. a judge might look at an academic and say easy for you to say because you are not on a multimember court, you're not constrained by star a decisive's, you don't have real parties in front of you -- constrained by star a decisive's -- sen. klobuchar: you are you on theon the --

republican side said this should not be above public policy, but you were clear on your legal outcome in terms of your view of whose side you are on. you're on scully's side, and that's -- you are on scalia's side, that would have kicked millions of people off their health care and would have in effect lost their subsidies and i see this as interesting because of this dichotomy they are trying to make between policy and legal. legal decisions affect policy. i'm looking at people in my state that will deal with this if the affordable care act is struck down. elijah from st. paul born with cerebral palsy. because of the affordable care act, he's 16 and is a proud boy scout. his chronic kidney failure and he needs a transplant. that would bea,

that. burnett from st. paul, whose daughter has multiple sclerosis depends on benefits under the aca. liliana ridley with a 21-year-old son with autism and needs her children to stay on her insurance until she's 26. melanie, being treated for ovarian cancer and needs access to the affordable care act. these are real-world situations. i get you are not saying how you would rule on these cases, so what does that leave us with out whatry to figure kind of judge you would be? i was thinking last night of when i was growing up, we would go up to northern minnesota and we didn't have a cabin, but we had friends that did and we would go on these walks in the lovedith my mom and she to show all the tracks on that path, whether they were deer

tracks, she would have us figure out what they were, elk or maybe even a bear, and we would follow these tracks down the path and you would always think is there going to be a deer around the corner? very rarely was there one. but we would follow the tracks. so when i look at your record, i keep following the tracks. that's what i have got to do. tracks,i follow the this is what i see. you consider justice scalia one of the most conservative judges in the history of the supreme court as your mentor. decisioncized the written by justice roberts upholding the affordable care act. that is to me one big track even if you did not consider yourself criticizing him personally, you criticized the reasoning. you said in another case about the affordable care act that you like the legal reasoning, that

he had the better legal argument . you have signed your name to a public statement featured in an ad, a paid ad, that calls for an end to what it called the barbaric legacy of roe v. wade. which ran on the anniversary of the 1973 supreme court decision. you disagreed with long-standing precedent on gun safety which says felons should not be able to get guns, something that was pretty important to me when i had my old job in law enforcement. this is something senator durbin asked you about. you said you agreed with the dissent on the marriage equality case that it was not the role of the court to decide same-sex couples had the right to be married. i think this was a lecture you it was notyou said for the court to decide.

people could lobby and state legislatures. all of this takes me to one point as i follow those tracks down that path and takes me to the point where i believe, and i think the american people have to understand you would be the polar opposite of justice ginsburg. she and justice scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. that is what concerns me and i int to turn to an area where think justice ginsburg whose seat we are considering you for was truly a hero. area of voting rights. that was the area of elections. president say here? he said september 23 2020, i think this -- he means the election -- will end up in the supreme court and i think it is

very important we have nine justices. much clearer how we can be. and as i said yesterday, i do not for a minute concede this election is going to end up in the supreme court because people are voting in droves as we speak, but that is what is on the mind of the man who nominated you for this job. ofn he said on september 29 2020, i think i am counting on them, he meant the court, to look at the ballots indefinitely. earlier andaid questions from senator lahey that you are not going to commit to whether or not you are going any kind yourself for of election case. but i do want to point out that as the president has said these things and as he has nominated you, that people are voting right now.

they are voting in droves. states werehow my people are voting right now? i don't know. sen. klobuchar: more than 40 states. some thing like 9 million votes have been cast. do you think it is faithful to our democratic principle to fill a supreme court vacancy this close to an election when people are still voting? senatorrrett: klobuchar, i think that's a question for the political branches. sen. coons: these are not normal times, as you know. there are members of this committee and senate who have been infected by covid as the president has an that's resulted in the senate being close this week. we are in the middle of a pandemic and we are