fit that bill and i view it as my duty my law clerks just as with my students to encourage them to enter the profession as full people who have gained knowledge in the law with their time with me and have seen that they can live a life where people c look forward to supporr nomination. >> we are going through the hearing as though it is a normal hearing. americans dead. no pandemic relief bill insight for the american people. the fate of the aca at risk. democrats of the committee continue to ask you questions to let the american being putw that you on the screen court would dramatically flip the balance of power to the court. further to the right.

not a fair impartial body we want the supreme court to be. you told ranking member feinstein yesterday, if there were policy differences were policy consequences, those are for the body for the court is a question of adhering to the law and leaving the policy decisions up to you. that would be us in congress. a distinction i described yesterday as artificial can be seen in a case from earlier this year. you considered the trump administration's dramatic change through the public definition. incomefor low and -- low immigrants and residents. there were numerous, unexplained and serious flaws.

you issued a 40 page dissent calling the rule reasonable. you would have allowed the trump administration to limit low --ome immigrants who might you call this reasonable despite the harm you knew it would inflict. has approximate 3.1 380ion people including 8000 noncitizens and 341,000 children with an immigrant parent. it estimates over 140,000 -- as a result of the public charge rule. about one million people to 3 million people have gone without medicaid coverage due to fear of consequences from the application of the rule to them. dana can tell you about a single

mother who did not want to enroll her artistic u.s. citizen child in services. dana can tell you about it woman in her third trimester who sacrifice prenatal care. that rule has intensified as andle enter testing treatment ensuring people will be sicker, more likely to die and more likely to inadvertently the virus. works to lessen the devastating impact of the role. which includes working with one immigrant seriously ill with covid-19 symptoms and unwilling to get tested or treated for fear of their status. the trump administration connection tothe reduction in public benefit food insecurity, housing security, and increased

cost, it brushed off the impacts and refused to alter the rule. you also acknowledged that people were enrolling from other programs out of fear. you not only admitted to the enormous but found it unsurprising. his affect nearly one third of all low income families with children. just to be clear, do you believe these are policy consequences that are the job of congress to fix, not the courts to consider? ms. barrett: the dissent that i wrote in cook county went to explain statute that those currently receiving benefits were not affected by the public charge rule. sen. hirono: excuse me. i read your dissent.

theow you try to show people who would be impacted by the rule but you also there are a that lot of people not impacted by the rule who disenroll because of the fear. my question to you is whether those kinds of events, which you foresaw and even acknowledged, if you think it is appropriate for the court to consider those? ms. barrett: i was trying to answer before, yes, i said there was fear and there was disenrollment, but that the rule did not apply to anyone currently eligible for benefits. the question of disenrollment and the effect of the rule would be relevant at the stage of arbitrary and capricious review. analyzing the first step, interpretation of the statute, i

said i would not reach the question in that case so i said in my dissent that it would be better to send that back to the district court on the question of whether the rule on the evidence that the agency had , including its treatment of state and local governments. to be deemed the rule reasonable. i take it you stand by your dissent. ms. barrett: i stand my -- by my dissent but there is a difference between reason and arbitrary and capricious under the administered of act. sen. hirono: but as you noted, the apa was not even brought up so that was not an issue. everyone seems to agree this rule is having a chilling effect nationwide among families with access to health care, nutrition, food, housing, benefits congress meant to make

available. i would say from your response and the response you gave to senator feinstein about the distinction you make between it seems to me you do not give much credence to albeitect of this rule, that the rule did not apply. have beent: it would a question of arbitrary and capricious stage. the laborious studies i did responded to the arguments the party has made and the complex statutes congress has passed in this area. i am sorry. i do not think you even mention arbitrary and capricious standard. let me move on. yesterday, senator graham asked

you how unlikely it would be too overcurrent -- overturned supreme court rep -- precedent , "judges cannot just wake up one day and say i have an agenda, i hate guns, i like abortion, i hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, there will on the world. you have to wait for cases and controversies." but i do not think that is entirely accurate picture. justices have used opinions addressing various issues, particularly the -- those undermining civil rights even inviting challenges to a long-standing precedent. morning,plained this the supreme court overturned a 41-year-old president. talk about reliance on a president.

this affected public sector and justice alito engaged in a six-year campaign and i have a chart to show you that he was very persistent in signaling -- in 2012, his first signal that he wanted conservative antiunion groups in his decision brought inups case-by-case the criteria to layout. by justices thwarted scalia's death which left a four for decision -- a 4-4 decision. he had to wait until senator blocked merrick garland's nomination so the

president could appoint neil gorsuch. pretty much the minute justice gorsuch got on the court, the court finally overturned abood. now we are seeing the same signaling. i mentioned this yesterday. the right of same-sex couples was recognized to marry. justice thomas and justice alito issued a sharply worded case.ent about a issuease refused to marriage licenses to same-sex couples. in 2012,ice alito justice thomas, joined by justice alito, signaled to

rollback a supreme court precedent that they believe with their understanding of the constitution. for the right to same-sex marriage even though that right and called it a problem that only the court could fix. judge barrett, you said judges have to wait for cases and cannot have an agenda but here we have an example of sending out signals. take a look at precedent. cite one case where you are also sending out a signal. two court cases.

without the right to vote and raising concerns that you view their right to vote to be more limited than the right to own a gun. , in that case, you jointed decision have upheld an abortion clinic buffer zone law. apply the law under a clear supreme court precedent. the decision went even further. it signaled a strong .isagreement with the precedent you directed the plaintiffs to seek relief in the u.s. record.

the earlier today, a senator showed you a chart of more than 100 cases were justice ginsburg was in the majority and justice scalia was in defense. my republican colleagues is aware of this wanting to be in the supreme court so badly. in 2016, after justice scalia died, you described him in a tv interview as the staunchest conservative on the court. is that correct? ms. barrett: i can imagine i said that but i do not recall my exact words. you.hirono: i am quoting you recognize replacing the

staunchest conservative on the court with someone nominated by president obama could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court. that is a quote from you. position ofin a dramatically flipping the power of the court. your nomination would be more and with your confirmation, the court will be transformed into the most conservative court since the 1930's, with a more aggressive conservative agenda. nomination, your you described justice scalia. it appears you may be even more to the right of justice scalia, whom you described as the staunchest conservative. it is important to look at what kind of impact he would have had

on more recent supreme court decisions. when justice ginsburg served on the court, numerous partisan decisions but what is noticeable are the more recent five to four decisions after justice kennedy, in the middle of the ideological spectrum, was replaced by a much more conservative justice. robertsstice conservative views were now in the middle of the ideological spectrum of the court. recent familiar with the 5-4 decisions were chief justice roberts formed four liberal justices to form a majority? i do not know what decisions you are referring to. sen. hirono: there are a number of them i will describe. these 5-4 cases touched on

issues with your nomination. these include protections for -- daca, the right of criminal defendants, covid-19 safety measures, protecting agency regulations, a wide range of predictions from veterans benefits to clean air and water. daca decision i mentioned in june of 2020. justice ginsburg was part of a 5-4 majority that blocked the trump administration with efforts to expand the daca program. that would have thrown the lives of 800,000 recipients and their families into chaos. those participants would be facing deportation. that includes over 200,000 recipients risking their lives on the front lines of the pandemic to prevent the health and safety.

a 5-4 decision was issued to block the trump administration's anti-immigrant policy of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. something near and dear to president trump. justice ginsberg was replaced in that case -- resulted in excluding many immigrant families from the census. -- itould not only having would have decreased its share in the distribution of 1.5 trillion -- one point $5 trillion in federal resources. yesterday, we saw with the court looks like without justice ginsburg on it. it allowed the trump administration to end the collection early despite the ongoing pandemic and the fact that they were not getting an accurate census count by ending this early.

federal --mean fewer federal resources where there is not an accurate count. that could mean that trump may use the numbers to determine representation in the house of representatives and state and local governments. that trump isw demanding that those numbers undocumented immigrants. even if the census requires to be counted regardless of immigration status. president trump repeatedly accused chief justice roberts of betraying conservatives in the court decision on health care, doctor protections, and other rights. he made it clear he nominated you to do the job he thinks chief justice roberts and republicans failed to do, strike down the affordable care act, and rollback critical rights and protections.

been asked about the consequences of the decision and it was foreseeable that you would have a lot of states passing restrictions, basically loss. do you believe that voter or discrimination in voting currently exists? the voting rights act that offers protection in section two of the voting rights act, which is not an issue in shelby county, protects voters from any kind of measures that would discriminate on the basis of race. sen. hirono: do you think the justice department is pursuing aggressively those? past what iozens would characterize as voter suppression loss. that is obviously happening.

case, justice thomas went further. of the framework allowing congress to come back with formulas that enable clearance, but justice thomas went further and said get rid of the entire framework. congress, you're totally out of the picture. this is the danger we are facing with your being put on the court. one more question. having three justices who worked on the republican side, bush v gore, you're one of those justices if you should be confirmed, creates an appearance of conflict involving a president who nominated you? and i would like a yes or no answer. >> answered that question before

and said any question of whether there is an appearance of impartiality problem would be one for our justices involved to be considered under this statute. >> you think there might be a conflict and you would have to go through ms. barrett: -- anytime -- you're asking me to make a decision about whether i think myself and two people who are not yet my colleagues should recuse in that situation. an appearance was of conflict. i believe the fact that you would even bring forth a refusal >> thank you for being in front of us. welcome to day three. it has been quite a day. because we have so many members that have been busy talking over you and interacting