going to give her a tough time, he voted against her last time. steve: all right. that's going to wrap it up for us. war going to hand it over to bill and sandra, you're watching special coverage of the confirmation hearing starts now. sandra: thank you, friends. big day on capitol hill. moments from now, the senate judiciary committee will begin confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee judge amy coney barrett. if confirmed, she would become only the fifth woman to serve on the highest court in the land and would tip the balance to a 6-3 conservative majority, potentially affecting social policy for generations. the high stakes battle beginning now, just 22 day before election day. welcome to "america's newsroom" on this historic day, i'm sandra smith. bill: like old times, huh? nice to see you. i'm bill hemmer. the resumé on judge barrett reads as following: she graduated top of her class, notre dame law school, 1997. clerked for the late justice antonin scalia.

appointed to the chicago-based 7th u.s. circuiter court of appealingses. she would be the young e member of the united states supreme court. sandra: judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham will be presiding other today's hearings expected to last in total four days. the 22 senators will be giving opening statements, then judge barrett will be introduced, and she will deliver her prepared remarks. bill: as sandra mentioned, the clock is ticking. the calendar, republicans hoping to confirm judge barrett before november 3rd, and that is a move democrats are slamming as an election season power grab. >> the american people expect democrats in the senate to give judge barrett a dignified hearing this time. [cheers and applause] but we have reason to be concerned. >> senate republicans, to a person, said that president obama should not fill the scalia vacancy and that, in fact, we should wait until after the election, let the american people decide. now they have completely reversed themselves. >> amy barrett is a rock star

and should be on the court. it's because she's very clear about her jurisprudence. she's an originalist and a textualist which means when she puts on her black robe in the morning, she knows what it is to be a judge. >> a vote for judge barrett, and her statement does nothing to allay those concerns, will be a vote to strip protections from over 130 million americans who have pre-existing conditions, strip health care from 20 million americans. sandra: fox team coverage for you this morning. bret baier, martha maccallum, chris wallace, trey gowdy. but we given with shannon bream, anchor of "fox news at night." shannon if, today is the day. what should we expect? >> you're going to get to hear from and see the nominee as she takes her seat here, the placard is out, everything's set, and this could not feel more different than the last time we were here doing this for now-justice brett kavanaugh. the senate is under a strict health protocol, and essentially

a lockdown of sorts. you remember there were so many people who were part of the public audience that got to come into this room. they were often protesters, there were signs, there was yelling, there was chanting, there was chaos. s it is so quiet now. the senators will all be socially distanced, the chairs are very limited for people outside of the immediate families or friends to be here. so already the feel is very, very different than away -- than what we had the last time around. judge barrett is going to talk about her families, it's obviously a huge part of her life, something she's very proud of. she has managed family and her law practice, her work at noter notre dame. we're going to hear a lot of of things from her, she's going to talk about the fact that when she yous a decision, she reads it and thinks about it from the perspective of the person who's going to find out they lost. will they understand her reasoning, will they see how she got to the decision and even if they don't like it, at least respect it. she's not about making law, she's about applying the law.

she's going to be grilled once the questions get started, but you're also going to hear from the senators today, and by the way, i would not count out some of the senators. two have tested positive, i think there's a good chance that senator mike lee shows up in person today. we'll know very shortly. sandra: we will, indeed. shannon, thank you, please stand by. bill: you look at the list here, da, it's surprising how many will be in person and not be virtual, members of this committee. i want to bring in bret baier, martha maccallum, and good morning to both of you. bret, i was just look at the calendar. ruth bader ginsburg died 24 days ago on the 18th of september, and her prepared remarks, amy barrett will say i have been nominated to full justice ginsburg's seat, but no one will ever take her place. i will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led. and the reason i point to that, you think about the ve e lossty of news events -- ve e lossty of news events that are happening in this compressed period of

time today. >> it's truly i amazing. good morning, bill and sandra. i think, you know, she will be very deferential in her statements. she will, as you see her walking in with her family there, make this statement as kind of an opener, and, obviously, the q&a is the important part in these supreme court hearings. this as shannon said will look a lot because of covid, the socially-distanced areas, the architects of the capitol created another row for the dais so there'll be separation, there'll be some who come in via video including the vice president nominee, and that's the second thing that's different, is that there is a vice presidential candidate and eight senators up for re-election that is just 22 days away. i mean, you can't build the drama any bigger than this as far as the implications for an election. democrats, like dick durban right there on his phone and chris coons, are going to focus on the affordable care act, and

they're really going to hit hard on health care. you heard that from chuck schumer just moments ago. bill: remarkable family. she's going to say she's used to being around nine. [laughter] her family, two adopted from haiti, the youngest has down's syndrome, and we're about to see them sit behind her. sandra: and, martha, that's all been a big part of the leadup to these confirmation hearings, her being a mother of seven, obviously, and the role that that has played in republicans touting her as the right person for this role, martha, as we see her family entering in on this very big day. >> i mean, amy coney barrett is a remarkable person, i think by anyone's estimation. she is widely respected by her colleagues, she taught at the university of notre dame at the law school for 17 years and a group of 49 of the professors signed a document in support of her saying although every we have differences in our judicial philosophy, we are completely

united in our belief that amy coney barrett would make a great justice. she has served on the seventh circuit court of appeals since 2017. president trump appointed her to the bench there. we watched as she went through the confirmation process that time around. she was grilled on her religious beliefs by senator dianne feinstein. now, or whether or not that is going to happen here, i think, is looking more unlikely. i think you're going to see people kind of nibble around the edges of some of these issues today, aca, the health care bill that is obamacare is also going to be front and center. but in terms of her stance on roe v. wade, i think you will certainly hear it addressed in some of these opening statements, which is what we're going to get from the senators and from judge barrett today. whether or not we see the kind of grueling experience that we watched during the kavanaugh hearings, it looks like democrats believe that that did not work well for them politically last time around and

that they don't want to take that chance this time around. down the road we will take a road at potentially packing the court so that this court has a very different face than the face it has after barrett is sworn in, indeed, is where this ends up. sandra: the judge has arrived on capitol hill as well as her family we saw enter just moments ago, lawmakers starting to enter the room. as we have pointed out in recent months, all of these hearings look so different in the covid era, socially distanced, and some senators not even going to be in the room for this. but it looks like things are right on time. bill: republicans want to go through it quite quickly, and we'll see how much deference democrats give in light of the kavanaugh hearings that are so fresh in the minds of so many. chris wallace joins our coverage. chris, what would be your expectation as you try and weigh the political aspects of this for people watching from home

for the next week or so? >> well, i don't think we can overstate how emotionally charged the next few days will be. you know, we're going to have ruth bader ginsburg, who was an icon of the left, one of the most reliably liberal judges on the court, being replaced by amy coney barrett who by all accounts will become one of the most conservative justices on the court. you know, it would have been as if we'd finally gotten that hearing we never got where antonin scalia would have been replaced by president obama's nominee, merrick garland. in terms of the democrats, i got the sense in interviewing senator chris coons yesterday, they have become increasingly resigned to the fact that they can't stop it, they can't block it, so what they're going to try to do is make republicans pay a price at the ballot box for what happens here. i think you're going to see them go after the process, the fact that they are pushing this through so quickly. according to polls, most people don't approve of that.

they're going to go very hard at what they believe will be judge barrett, eventually justice barrett's, opposition to the affordable care act. she was critical of the 2012 cases in which justice roberts voted to uphold the affordable care act, and she talked about that as really stretching legal reasoning beyond the limits.

>> sandra: joe biden made the suggestion to court packing. what was your response? >> that's both constitution nallly and logically unintelligible. people discourting key toerms like this to achieve their ends. this is the filling of a vacancy allowed by the constitution. biden said this was not constitutional but it is a constitutional process. >> good morning, everybody. >> bill: here we go. stand by. lindsey graham gaveled to hearing to order. >> i appreciate everyone's cooperation and we'll have a hearing hopefully that the country will learn more about judge barrett and learn more about the law, learn about the

differences in judging and maybe the differences in the party. if that happens it will be a successful hearing. as to the hearing room, i doubt if there is any room in the country that's been given more attention and detail to make sure it's cdc compliant. the architect of the capitol working with the attending physician has set up the room in a way we can safely do our business. senator lee is back. he has been cleared by his physician. welcome back. the covid problem in america is real. it's serious, it's dangerous, and we have to mitigate the risk. i would just let every american know that many of you are going to work today, probably already been at work. and i hope your employer will take care of your healthcare needs, but we do have a country that needs to move forward safely and there are millions of americans, cops, waitresses,

nurses, you name it, going to work today to do their job and we're going to work in the senate to do our job and one of the most important jobs the senate judiciary committee will ever do is have hearings and confirm a justice to the supreme court. for housekeeping purposes, the first day is traditionally opening statements by my colleagues. we'll do 10-minute rounds and everybody will have 10 minutes to talk about their views of the hearing and what this is all about. then we'll have a panel to introduce judge barrett. and she will make an opening statement. we'll try to finish mid afternoon if that's possible. then tuesday and wednesday will be long days. there will be 30-minute rounds for every senator followed by a 20-minute round. my goal is to complete that wednesday at some kind of reasonable hour in the evening.

thursday we'll begin the mark-up. i intend to hold it over and bring the committee back on the 22nd to vote on the nomination. so if i may i'll start off with an opening statement and say why are we here? number one, justice ruth bader ginsburg died on september 18th. what can you say about justice ginsburg? she was confirmed 96-3. now, those were days that have since passed, i regret that. 96-3. this was a person who worked for the aclu. someone who was known in progressive circles as an icon. apparently just about every republican voted for her. her good friend on the court, justice scalia i think got 97 votes. i don't know what happened between then and now.

i guess we can all take some blame but i just want to remind everybody there was a time in this country where someone like ruth bader ginsburg was seen by almost everybody as qualified for the position of being on the supreme court understanding that she would have a different philosophy than many of the republicans who voted for her. 27 years on the court before becoming a member of the court she was an active litigator, pushing for more equal justice and better rights for women throughout the country. her close friend until his death, justice scalia, called her the leading and very successful litigator on behalf of women's rights. the thurgood marshall of that cause. what high praise.

i can't say any more than that statement says. in my view, the person appearing before this committee is in a category of excellence, something the country should be proud of and she will have a chance to make her case to be a worthy successor and to become the ninth member of the supreme court of the united states. on september 26th judge amy barrett was nominated by president trump to the supreme court. who is she? she is a judge sitting on the 7th judicial circuit. she is highly respected. she was a professor at notre dame. three years during that tenure she was chosen by students for

being the best professor. no easy task at any college. widely admired for her integrity. she grew up in new orleans, graduated from rhodes college in memphis, tennessee, in 1994. graduated summa cum laude and first in her class from notre dame law school in 1997. so academically she is very gifted. she clerked for judge laurence silberman on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and then for justice scalia on the supreme court. she practiced law in washington, d.c., she joined the faculty at notre dame in 2002 and published numerous articles in prestigeous journal including the columbia, yart of virginia and cornell law review. a circuit court judge at the

7th circuit since 2017. she was confirmed to that position in a bipartisan vote. she has heard hundreds of cases in that capacity. she said i clerked for justice scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons i learned still resonate. his judicial philosophy, his mind, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers. and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. she will give her statement but i think that is a good summary of who she is. that is who amy barrett is in terms of the law. amy barrett the individual, she and her husband have seven children, two adopted. so nine seems to be a good

number. the process. this is an election year. we're confirming 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're right in this regard. nobody has ever been confirmed in an election year past july. the bottom line is justice ginsburg, when asked about this several years ago, said that a president serves four years, not three. there is nothing unconstitutional about this process. this is a vacancy that has occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman and we will fill that vacancy with another great woman. the bottom line here is that the senate is doing its duty constitutionally. as to judge garland, the opening that occurred with the

passing of justice scalia was in the early part of an election year. primary process had just started. and 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 where the nominee the replacement was made in an election year, over 140 years ago. i think there have been 19 vacancies filled in election year, 17 of the 19 were confirmed to the court when the party of the president and the senate were the same. in terms of timing, the hearing is starting 16 days after her nomination. more than half of all supreme court hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee. stevens 10, powell 13, blackman 15, berger 13. all i can say is i feel that

we're doing this constitutionally, that our democratic friends object to the process. i respect them all. they will have a chance to have their say. but most importantly, i hope we will know more about how the law works, checks and balances, what the supreme court is all about when this hearing is over. why hold this hearing? a lot of people on our side say just ram it through. i hear that a lot. that's why i don't listen to the radio much anymore. so the bottom line is i think it's important. this is a lifetime appointment. i would like the world and the country to know more about judge barrett. i'm proud of you. i'm proud of what you have accomplished and i think are you a great choice by the president. this is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens. all republicans will vote yes

and all democrats will vote no. and that will be the way the break-out of the vote. but the hearing is a chance for democrats to dig deep into her philosophy, appropriately ask her about the law, how she would be different, what's on her mind. gives republicans a chance to do the same thing. most importantly, it gives you a chance, the american people, to find out about judge barrett. judge for yourself. is this person qualified? is she as qualified as sotomayor and kagan? i think so. these were two nominees presented to the committee by president obama. they had a different legal philosophy than my own, but i never doubted one moment that they were not qualified.

i thought gorsuch and kavanaugh were qualified. the senate in the past has looked at qualifications more than anything else. we've taken a different path at times. bork, thomas, alito, kavanaugh. i hope we don't take that path with judge barrett. she doesn't deserve that. i don't think it makes this hearing any better and the american people, i believe, would not deserve a repeat of those episodes and the senate judiciary committee's history. to my democratic colleagues, i respect you all. we've done some things together and we've had some fights in this committee. i've tried to give you the time you need to make your case. and you have every right in the world to make your case. i think i know how the vote is

going to come out. but i think judge barrett is required for the good of the nation to submit to your question and ours. this is going to be a long, contentious week. i would just ask one thing of the committee. to the extent possible, let's make it respectful, let's make it challenging, let's remember the world is watching. senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. and i do want to just address your last statements. we feel the same way and i believe we want this to be a very good hearing. and i certainly will strive to do my best to achieve that. good morning, judge barrett. and welcome to you and your family. less than one month ago, the nation lost one of our leading voices for equality, ruth bader

ginsburg left very big shoes to fill. judge ginsburg loved the law and she loved this country. she worked all of her life to insure that the opening words of our constitution, we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union included all the people, not just a few elite few. she was a standard bearer for justice. justice ginsburg's nomination was the first one that i participated in when i came to the senate. and it was a real thrill to be part of that crowded and celeb tory hearing for someone who reopened doors and staunchly believed in a woman's right to full equality and autonomy. in filling judge ginsburg's seat the stakes are very high for the american people both in the short term and for decades

to come. most importantly, healthcare coverage for millions of americans is at stake with this nomination. so over the course of these hearings, my colleagues and i will focus on that subject. we will examine the consequences if -- that's a big if -- republicans succeed in rushing this nomination through the senate before the next president takes office. but most importantly, in just a few weeks, on november 10th the supreme court will hear a case brought to strike down the aca. the president has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law. as a candidate, he criticized the supreme court for upholding the law and said, and i quote, if i win the presidency, my

judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obamacare, end quote. and when he appointed judge barrett to fill justice ginsburg's seat, the president said that eliminating the affordable care act would be, quote, a big win for the usa. judge barrett, you've been critical of chief justice roberts for his 5-4 opinion upholding the law stating that roberts, quote, pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute, end quote. this well could mean that if judge barrett is confirmed, americans stand to lose the benefits that the aca provides. so i hope you will clarify that in this hearing. first, more than 130 million americans with pre-existing

conditions like cancer, asthma, or even covid-19 could be denied coverage or charged more to obtain health insurance. this includes more than 16.8 million californians with pre-existing conditions. and we're just one state. but i think you should know how we feel. secondly, some 12 million working americans are covered through the aca's medicaid expansion. if the act is struck down they lose their healthcare. third, more than 2 million americans under the age of 26 are covered by their parents' health insurance and they could lose that coverage. fourth, insurers could charge higher premiums for women simply because of their gender. and fifth, women could lose

access to critical preventive services and maternity care including cancer screenings and well-woman visits. now, the bottom line is this. there have been 70 attempts to repeal the aca, but clearly the effort to dismantle the law continues. and they are asking the supreme court to strike down the affordable care act. this, i believe, will cause tremendous harm. consider people like christina garcia of my home state. at age 60, christina's eyesight started to fail because of cataracts. she had always struggled to obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions, including c-sections and epilepsy. the cost of coverage, when it was even offered to her, averaged between $2500 and

$3,000 a month. far more than she and her husband could afford. in 2010, she was able to obtain coverage through the affordable care act. within weeks she was able to have cataract surgery. this saved her life. christina described her reaction when she was able to get coverage through the california health exchange following passage of the aca. and let me quote, it was like manna from heaven. after years of struggling to obtain coverage i was able to get insurance through the california exchange, no questions asked about my pre-existing conditions. the premium was worth $200 a month as compared to the $2500 to $3,000 monthly payments i would have to pay before the aca. if i could even get an insurer

to offer me coverage. as christina further explained, and i quote, people just don't understand what it was like. the incredible fear before the affordable care act. having to worry about being able to cover medical expenses and not being able to find affordable insurance, end quote. we can't afford to go back to those days when americans could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant amounts. that's what's at stake for many of us for america with this nomination. and that's why the questions we will ask and the views hopefully that you will share with us are so important. we're now just 22 days from the election, mr. chairman. voting is underway in 40 states. senate republicans are pressing forward full speed ahead to

consolidate a court that will carry their policies forward with, i hope, some review for the will of the american people. president trump said last week that he had, quote, instructed my representatives to stop negotiation over a covid-19 relief package until after the election, end quote. and to, quote, focus full-time on confirming judge barrett to the supreme court. when justice scalia died in february of 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 the selection of their next supreme court justice. when asked in october 2018 if republicans intended to honor their own rule if an opening

were to come up in 2020, chairman graham promised, quote, if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until after the next election. republicans should honor this word for their promise and let the american people be heard. simply put, i believe we should not be moving forward on this nomination. not until the election has ended and the next president has taken office. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator grassley. >> welcome, judge. on march 1, 2016, justice ginsburg delivered a eulogy for her friend justice scalia. justice ginsburg said, quote, we were different, yes, in our interpretation of written text,

yet one in our reverence for the courts and its place in the u.s. system of governance, end of quote. justice ginsburg's remarkable life and legacy will be honored for generations and also justice scalia's. the senate is now tasked with carrying out perhaps its most solemn duty under the constitution. as we go through this process, we should heed justice ginsburg's words with a shared reverence for the court and its place in our constitutional system. this idea of place in our system of government is critical. ours is a government of separated powers. the power to make, enforce, and interpret law isn't centralized in one person or one branch of

government. that's not a mistake. you all know what our american revolution was all about and what the constitution is all about. because people at that time were sick and tired of one person, george iii, restricting american colonies of freedom that english-speaking people elsewhere exercised. as justice scalia reminds us, the framers recognized the separation of powers as, quote, the absolutely central guarantee of a just government because without a secure structure of separated powers, our bill of rights would be worthless, end of quote. but this constitutional system

only succeeds if each branch respects its proper role. a good judge understands its not the court's place to rewrite the law as it sees fit. it is not his or her place to let policy, personal or moral principles dictate an outcome of a case. we are fortunate, judge barrett's record clearly reflects this standard. she said, quote, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers. and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views that they might hold. end of quote. judge barrett's service reflects an exceptional

intellect paired with deep commitment to the rule of law. so we look to those who know her well. she has received praise across the legal profession and ideological spectrum. former colleagues at notre dame describe the judge as, quote, brilliant, industrious, gracious, kind, and is a person of utmost integrity with an open mind and an even temperament that is prized in a judge, end of quote. she is also known as, quote, a generous mentor. and she is known for her, quote, her humility, graciousness, and her ability, born of her credibility, to build consensus among differing views, end of quote. her students, quote, expressed awe with the power of judge

barrett's intellect. with her mastery and organization of complex material and with her professionalism, end of quote. leaders of more than 200 liberty supporting groups across the country say judge barrett, quote, possesses the judicial temperament and philosophy necessary as a bull work for our constitution. governors describe judge barrett as quote, a woman of great moral character devoted to her community, country, family and faith like many americans, end of quote. the "wall street journal" editorial board says, quote, president trump's nomination of amy coney barrett for the supreme court is the highlight of his presidency, end of quote. a promise kept, -- a promise made, a promise kept.

liberal harvard law professor noah feldman called judge barrett, quote, a principled, brilliant lawyer. a genuine good person, highly qualified to serve on the supreme court. that's a pretty high praise. i just recited from others. moreover, judge barrett is a tireless mother of seven. for decades i've led efforts in the senate to improve foster care and promote adoption. so it's a privilege for me to welcome a justice like that to the supreme court. to sum up, judge barrett's qualifications and character are impeccable. unfortunately i expect the minority will try to find baseless claims and scare tactics as they've done for decades. anything to derail the confirmation of a republican

nominee. lately the left is threatening to pack the supreme court in retaliation for this confirmation process. even the democrats' nominee for president and vice president have not ruled out such blatantly partisan policy grabs. republicans are following the constitution and the precedent. it seems democrats would rather just ignore both. the left is also suggesting judge barrett's confirmation would be the demise of the affordable care act and the protection for pre-existing conditions. that's outrageous. as a mother of seven judge barrett clearly understands the importance of healthcare. so let's set the record straight. then professor barrett criticized chief justice roberts conclusion that the affordable care act penalty was

actually a tax. democrats say her view is radical and a preview of how she might vote on the court. first her comments dealt with the provisional law that's no longer in effect. so the legal questions before the court this fall are entirely separate. moreover, her criticism of roberts' reasoning is mainstream not only in the conservative legal community, but well beyond. i'm the chairman of the finance committee and ranking member when democrats cobbled together obamacare. i know a tax when i see one. this wasn't a tax. it was never discussed in committee as a tax. even the democrats who forced it through congress insisted it wasn't a tax. jeffrey tubein wrote that roberts' tax argument was quote, unquote, not a persuasive one. president obama even said,

quote, i absolutely reject the motion that it was a tax. further, democrats and their allies shouldn't claim to know how any judge would rule in any particular case. just look at history. the left slammed stevens for his consistent opposition to women's rights. they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david souter would, quote, end freedom of women in this country. ultimately the left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown that there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came up.

some of my colleagues may once again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017 they suggested judge barrett was too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her that dogma lives loudly within you and it's a concern. let me remind everyone that article 1 clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office. mr. chairman, i have five sentences left. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, a nominee should offer no forecast, no hints of

how he or she will vote because that is the role of a judge. that's the place of a judge in our system of government. unbiased, fiercely independent. faithful to the rule of law and a steadfast defender of the constitution. judge barrett, i will look forward to our conversation once again congratulations. >> i believe senator leahy will join us virtually. >> thank you. i assume you can hear me all right. >> yes, sir, we see you. there you are. thank you. >> thank you. you know, as i listen to this i think about the fact that i've served in the senate for 46 years, 20 supreme court nominations, 16 confirmation hearings, and i can tell you right now none looked anything like this.

less than two weeks from justice ginsburg being laid to rest. now it's true it's the responsibility of this committee to consider her replacement on the supreme court but this isn't the way we should do it. we should not have had a nomination ceremony before justice ginsburg was even buried. while the nation was mourning her passing. we should not be holding a hearing just 16 days later when this committee has afforded it took three times as long to vet other modern nominees to our nation's highest court. we shouldn't be holding a hearing three weeks from a presidential election when millions of americans have already voted. in doing so requires that half of the senate goes back on their word. think of that, my republican colleagues. literally half of the senate

had to break their word, contradicting every argument they made four years ago about the american people needing a voice during election year vacancies. we should not be holding this hearing when it's unsafe to do so. two members of this committee emerging from quarantine after testing positive for covid. and when other members have declined to get tested and the chairman has refused to implement daily testing regime to keep members and staff and judge barrett and her family safe. and might say we shouldn't be spending time like this when we're doing absolutely nothing to pass a much-needed covid bill. every member on this committee knows in their heart this is

breaking their precedent and commitment is wrong. more than 212,000 americans have died due to covid. millions more are hurting. the virus is spiking again across the country. but senate republicans have nothing to say about that. the senate is wearing blinders to the grim realities facing americans. instead of talking about covid and doing something to help the american people we engage in this mad rush to fill a supreme court vacancy on the eve of a presidential election. and why? i think the answer is painfully clear. with this vacancy president trump and senate republicans see the potential to wildly swing the balance of the court. they see the ability to take the courts from being independent to making them instead an arm of the far right

and the republican party. the potential to accomplish in the courts where they failed to accomplish by votes in the halls of congress. the top of the hit list is the affordable care act. it is no secret, no coincidence that republicans are rushing to confirm judge barrett before the supreme court considers the latest republican-led lawsuit overturning the affordable care act on november 10. the president has even promised any judge he nominates will overturn the affordable care act. one member of this committee has promised he won't vote for a judge unless he has that commitment. that the nominee overturn the act. for her part, judge barrett's writings have made clear she considers the act unconstitutional. in fact, overturning the

affordable care act has been the single most important policy objective of the republican party during the past decade. if republicans are now successful, the results will be nothing short of catastrophic for the millions of americans who depend upon its coverage and protections. these are real people. the committee trying to get this, you could actually see it, this is mary scott. she lives in northfield, vermont, just over the ridge from my home in vermont. in her 20s. mary was diagnosed with a rare neurological disease. like my wife, marcel -- i

apologize. i know you have this picture in the committee room -- she worked -- mary worked as a nurse. realizing she would soon no longer be able to pursue the career she loved she asked the hospital to rotate her through different specialties so she could help more people in as many ways as possible. that's who she is. now she is in a wheelchair. she can no longer practice nursing. she does everything she can to take care of her two children. i had the pleasure of calling one of her sons on his birthday last spring and mary, i know attends their soccer games. she helps at a remote school. she even brought them to tour the vermont state house. mary can do this because her medication and home care is paid for by her insurance but she is worried. even with some state protections she is worried what

the supreme court case next month will mean for people with pre-existing conditions like her. if she lost her insurance she would lose her in-home support that allows her to stay at home and take care of her children. she is a fighter. what i think about the affordable care act means to millions of americans what's on the line with this nomination? i think of mary, i think of what she is going to lose. she is not the only one. you know, i talk to people in vermont all the time. i think of another one, martha richards. she is amazing, amazing woman. she is another vermonter who reached out to my office concerned about the medicaid expansion under the affordable care act. martha earns just over the

minimum wage in vermont. she works for the vermont state parks and she has raised two kids on her own. just look at this person. for the expanded medicaid program she began experiencing debilitating pain if her ear behind her eye that led to a series of expensive medical tests including two mris that would cost $6,000 each. she shudders with the thought of what would have happened without the medicaid expansions. there is a case before the supreme court millions of americans like martha would be on their own. now, i do not suggest that judge barrett personally desires these consequences tore personally desires to devastate the lives of these two

vermonters or our public. but these are the consequences of her stated views on the law prevailing in the supreme court. if republicans are successful in filling this vacancy prior to november 10th, then we know these views will almost certainly prevail. that's what's at stake here. that's what weighs heavily on me as we begin these hearings and weighs heavily on the minds of vermonters i represent. i've heard from them often and loudly since justice ginsburg's passing. they're scared that your confirmation would rip the healthcare protections for millions of americans have fought to maintain and which congress has repeatedly rejected. they are scared that the clock will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to

discriminate against women in the workplace. they're scared that a time we're facing the perilous impacts of climate change, bedrock protections will be eviscerated. and they are scared that your confirmation will result in the rolling back of voting rights, workers rights, and the rights of the lgbtq community to equal treatment. these aren't just thoughts, these are real life implications on decisions made by the court. and the majority of americans. an overwhelming majority of vermonters don't support taking our country in that direction. just one hour after her death.

from that moment this process has been nothing but shameful. almost certainly lead to disastrous consequences for america. justice ginsburg, i'm certain, would have dissented and i will, too, on behalf of the voters and the integrity of the senate and on behalf of the majority of americans who oppose this process. thank you. >> thank you. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to you and your family, judge barrett. the judiciary committee undertakes no more important duty than the one we undertake today considering the nomination for a seat on the united states supreme court. as the chairman said these used to be routine. even the two justices who were once considered the ideological bookends from the court received everywemg support in

the senate. while the two justices had a different judicial philosophy and were nominate i had by presidents of opposing parties the senate used to recognize that exceptional qualifications were all that was required for a seat on the court. throughout your impressive career you've earned the respect of those who share your views on the law as well as those who do not. as justice ginsburg said of her unlikely friendship with justice scalia you can disagree without being disagreeable. but i don't want to imply that you disagree frequently. in fact, during your time on the seventh circuit you have sided with your colleagues more than 95% of the time. when you've had the rare disagreement, your opinions attack the ideas, not the person. we could use more of that. you have been demonstrated in numerous letters from your colleagues, clerks, students. everybody with whom you have

come in contact. folks with widely different judicial philosophy agreed that you are brilliant, respectful, kind, and when you disagree you do so without personal rancor or malice. while your qualifications and reputation are on par with those justices who have sat in the seat before you, the political climate in which you are being vetted is quite different as we all know. what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle put justice kavanaugh through two years ago was an absolute disgrace. and hopefully a low point for the senate. they and some of their allies sought to destroy the personal character of a good man with innuendo, misinformation, and outright lies. i hope they resist the temptation to repeat that during this hearing. i do remain concerned, judge,

about some of the earlier attacks on your faith. in a recent "wall street journal" column a wisconsin supreme court justice wrote to put it bluntly, america's secular cultural elites aren't sure that a faithful christian can be entrusted with the law. a former senior aide to majority leader reid said the groups want blood. democrats on and off the committee want a real fight. but let me be clear, judge, as you know there is no religious test to serve on the supreme court. why? because the constitution says so. and i can only hope that the civility that you have shown through your professional work will be afforded to you through these proceedings. but judge, there is a question that comes up in my discussions

with my constituents that's really more basic and more personal. they want to know how you do it. how do you and your husband manage two full-time professional careers and at the same time take care of your large family? i'll bet there are many young women, like my own two daughters, who marvel at the balance that you've achieved between your personal and professional life. as is customary and important i also look forward to visiting -- revisiting the appropriate role of judges in our constitutional republic. there appears to be some dispute about that here. you and i both know that judges should not be policymakers. but could it be that one of the reasons these confirmation hearings have become so contentious is because some americans have given up on the idea of fair and impartial judges who do not pick winners

and losers. that they've given up on an independent judiciary? i hope not. judges shouldn't give their political allies wins they couldn't achieve through the political process. our founders provided that judges would be independent of political pressure. chief justice roberts reminded all of us recently that we do not have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges or clinton judges. and ideally that is true. you've said judges constrain themselves by making a choice to follow the law where it leads trying to check their own preferences at every turn. in the end a judge's internal compass, her commitment to the rule of law rather is the most important constraint upon any sort of judicial willfulness. but you are being asked to

abandon that, judge. you stand accused of intending to violate your oath before you even take it. further, our democratic colleagues want you to guarantee a result in a case as a quid pro quo for your confirmation. it's outrageous. well, they've said if this confirmation proceeds, they intend to pack the court with more justices who will turn the supreme court into a genuine second legislative body. we heard what justice ginsburg had to say about that. that would be a terrible mistake. judge barrett, i'm confident that in the end -- at the end of this hearing your stellar character, credentials, and body of work as a judge will demonstrate that you understand the limited but important role of the judiciary under our constitution. i'm confident that you will

demonstrate that you will faithfully and fairly interpret the text of the law and the constitution and duty i havely apply them to the disputes that come before you and confident at the end of this process you will be confirmed to the united states supreme court. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, family, welcome. we're at a critical moment in our nation's history. in the throes of a devastating pandemic with over 216,000 americans dead and over 7.7 million infected with this virus. each day we are reminded of how this invisible virus has changed our lives and changed america. and there is no end in sight. we face an economy in crisis

with millions of jobs lost, crushing challenges facing workers, businesses, families all across america. and we're in the middle of an election season. millions of americans have already cast their votes. and this may be one of the most consequential elections in our nation's history because for the first time in the history of the united states, an incumbent president refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election. this president, in his vanity and constitutional recklessness refuses to commit to accept the will of the american electorate. and of course we're still in the process of mourning the loss of an historic champion of justice and equality ruth bader ginsburg. justice ginsburg spent her entire life and every ounce of strength and talent she was given in the pursuit of america's highest ideal. equal justice under the law.

her absence is deeply felt. this is the context in which the senate majority republicans are defying the traditions of the senate and rushing forward with president trump's third nomination to the u.s. supreme court. it has been recounted earlier that justice ginsburg was approved by the senate by a 96-3 vote. this icon of liberal thinking, advocate for the aclu, 96-3 before the united states senate and then antonin scalia on the opposite polar end of the political spectrum approved 98-0 amazing. can this be the same senate? it's not. the reason those votes were so overwhelming was because people lived by the rules, they lived by the traditions of the senate, and they had mutual respect for one another. we know now that this process

is not adhered to those guidelines. their haste, the haste in the pursuit before us today is unfair to the senate and unfair really to the nominee. the nominee before us was announced 16 days ago. the day after justice ginsburg lay in state in the united states capitol. we received the nomination paperwork 13 days ago. and have learned since then that some materials are missing. the speed with which republicans are moving to fill this vacancy stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by the same senate republicans the last time there was a vacancy in an election year in 2016. behind me is the mcconnell rule. on february 13th, 2016 when justice scalia passed away senator mcconnell said and i quote, the american people should have a voice in the selection of their supreme court justice. therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a

new president. this rock solid statement of principle was made 269 days before the 2016 election. the republican members of this committee fellow beadiently in line behind senator mcconnell's statement of principle and sent a letter february 23, 2016 saying this committee will not hold hearings on any supreme court nominee until after our next president is sworn in. the letter noted that the election is well underway, that was 269 days before the election, and said the decision was, quote, born of necessity to protect the will of the american people. yet when justice ginsburg passed away on september 18th this year, senator mcconnell said that very same night and i quote, president trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the united states senate. he made this statement a mere 46 days before the election. people had already begun

casting votes. my republican colleagues marched in front of the cameras, looked down at their shoes, reversed their possessions and lined up obediently behind their leader again. the american people do get an election year voice regarding a vacancy on the supreme court? they don't. in 2016 senator mcconnell said give them a voice. now he says don't give them a voice. it is a shameless, self-serving reversal. why are senate republicans so afraid to give the american people a voice about the future of the supreme court? first they must doubt that donald trump will be reelected. second, they want a 6-3 supreme court to carry out a republican agenda that's not very popular with the american people. and there are two dates on the calendar that explain their timetable. november 3 and november 10. we know november 3 is election day. president trump has made it clear he wants another of his

appointees on the supreme court before the election because he anticipates court challenges over the vote. especially over mail-in balloting which he has repeatedly attacked without any substance. president trump has indicated he would be perfectly happy to have a close election decided by a 6-3 conservative majority supreme court rather than by the votes of the american people. the other date is november 10th. we know that date well on this committee. that's the date the supreme court will hear oral arguments in california versus texas. this is the case in which the trump administration is urging the court to strike down the entire affordable care act, including protections for tens of millions of americans with pre-existing conditions. it's unimaginable that in the midst of a pandemic the republicans want to strike down a law that 23 million americans rely on for their personal health insurance and millions more for the protections given

to the writing of future insurance policies. on september 27th president trump tweeted he wants to see the affordable care act terminated in the supreme court. let's be very honest about this. this president has never suffered an unuttered thought. he gives us 25 tweets a day to tell us what's going through that fertile mind. we know what he thinks because he tells us what he thinks. he made it clear he wants his supreme court and this nominee to join him in eliminating the affordable care act. this is his litmus test. how many times have we heard it? how many times have we heard his criticism of chief justice roberts for failing the strike down obamacare? when he was running for president he tweeted if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obamacare. think what it would mean with

the republicans wish to strike this down. all the people who would lose their coverage that we've heard recounted this morning and will hear more. republicans in congress have been obsessed with repealing obamacare for years but they don't have the votes to do it. they couldn't get it done in the house or the senate thanks to three brave republicans including john mccain and now they've got to rely on the court to do their work. judge barrett, you are on the record. you wrote an article that you criticized the sebelius case where roberts was the deciding vote of holding the aca. your nomination is moving forward at unprecedented speed. what's at stake? let me show you what's at stake here. want you to meet kenny murray from illinois and his family. last year i had the privilege of meeting the family in my washington office. a picture of sue, ken, daughter

and son kenny. sue and kenny murray told me their son kenny was diagnosed with congenital heart surgeries. he had two heart surgeries and three times at 14 months. four months of his young life he was staying in the pediatric icu and health bills reached a million dollars. when kenny was born in november 2013 his dad's health insurance through his employer had a lifetime maximum cap of a million bucks. thankfully the affordable care act banned insurance companies from imposing these annual lifetime limits including employer sponsored health insurance. that ban went into place in january 2014. six days before kenny's first surgery. if it weren't for the aca sue and ken would have hit the lifetime for kenny in four months. they would have gone bankrupt.

thanks to the affordable care act, kenny was able to get the care he needed. this last picture i want to show you. here it is. would you want him on your team? i sure would. she gave permission to share kenny's story. she said kenny is a real person whose life depends on the affordable care act. judge barrett, your nomination for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land comes before us under a cloud. you have been nominated bay president who shows contempt for the constitution but does not hesitate to tell his loyal followers that you are being sent to the bench to do his political chores. abolish the aca, rule on the election contest and even more. you cannot feel good upon a president cheapening this historic moment. the future of the affordable care act and other issues hanging in the balance. the right to privacy and

choice, environmental protection. gun safety laws, marriage equality, dreamers, work protection, these are the stakes. if we wait a few more days we'll know what the american people have to say. >> thank you. senator lee, welcome back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, judge barrett and welcome to your family as well. judge barrett you and i have a number of things in common. we're both raised in large families. we're both one of seven children. in your case as i recall are you the oldest of seven children, which means that long before you had your own seven children, you were also the defacto mother to many others. the way things often work in large families. the oldest child takes on responsibilities at an early age. those responsibilities have undoubtedly helped you throughout life establishing leadership roles in your career as a lawyer, as a professor,

and now as a judge. those leadership roles mean something different in the judicial branch of government than they do in the executive branch or the legislative branch of government. we've heard this morning a number of arguments that are essentially policy arguments. many of them geared toward actual policies. in some cases actual pieces of legislation. we have to remember that we've got three distinct branches of government within our system. we have got two that are political. the legislative branch where we work where we make laws. executive branch headed by the president where the laws are executed, implemented and enforced. the judicial branch where you work where the laws are interpreted. where people come to disagreement as to their meaning. the branches are sometimes referred to as equal. i don't think this is the best description of them.

i think the best description they're coordinated. they exist within their own sphere. they're not equal in the sense that the -- the judicial branch for the simple reason you can't reach out. you can't decide where we're going to go today and tomorrow. the judiciary is confined solely to the cases and controversies brought before your jurisdiction. you look not into the future but in the past. you see the world as it were through a rearview mirror. your job is to decide what the law says. when people disagree as to the law's meaning. the laws consist of words. the words used in a particular combination in a particular context had a particular meaning on the day of their enactment or incorporation into the constitution and that's your job. and yet if you were watching today's hearing, some of the statements made by some of my

colleagues. in fact, if you were to look at any of the countless posters put up in here you would think that this was a political discussion, a policy discussion, a legislative discussion. you are not being reviewed for a legislative position or policy making position. you are being reviewed for a position on our nation's highest court where you will be asked from time to time to decide cases based on the law, based on the facts. this is not something that should result or properly should be considered by us as something that requires us to examine whether to what extent, in what way you have compassion for any of the individuals depicted in these photos. i'm certain just based on my limited interaction with you that you have compassion for all people. but this isn't the question nor is the question before us whether you would agree or

disagree as to any particular policy embedded within any particular statute. you understand that this isn't your job. not as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the 7th circuit where you now sit nor would it be if you were to be confirmed as an associate justice to the united states supreme court. one might also have the impression from watching this morning's proceedings so far that the supreme court of the united states is a remarkably bitter, cynical, and overwhelmingly partisan place. it is not. you and i have both clerked at the u.s. supreme court and we both know that you actually look at the numbers. you will see something remarkable. despite its flaws and despite the fact that it sometimes makes mistakes, the supreme court of the united states sits atop something that is the envy of the entire world. a judicial system that despite the fact that it's run by human

beings and therefore is imperfect, is the best judicial system that has ever existed on planet earth. one of the many ways in which this is manifested is when you look at the nine members of the supreme court and the fact that they come if different backgrounds. they've been appointed by different presidents and come at it with somewhat different judicial philosophy. to the extent that some of them have indicated what their political leanings might be. they come from different political backgrounds as well. yet the most common configuration of a supreme court decision is not 5-4, not even 6-3. it's in fact 9-0, 8-1 and 7-2 make up the vast overwhelming majority of all supreme court decisions. now this is especially remarkable when you consider the fact that the supreme court

typically takes up only those cases, those rare cases, as to which lower courts have been unable to reach an agreement when interpreting the same finite provisions of federal law, federal statute, or provision of the united states constitution. multiple lower courts, very smart men and women from around the country highly specialized, skilled in their trade have been unable to reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the same group of words. then and only then does the supreme court the end to take up those cases. and yet the supreme court overwhelmingly decides those cases either unanimously or near unanimously and without these partisan divisions that one -- from whafpg this hearing, would think is the bread and butter of the supreme court's work. the 5-4 configuration is relatively rare. when it does arise it's not often a hot button pot it call

issue. those of the docket doesn't consist of the hot button issues. a lot of stuff is really fascinated. the dormant closet clause. what american doesn't constituent up and stew whether it's all right for a state the treat an article of conference -- out of state or outside the united states? this of course is the kind of case that comes before the supreme court and might from time to time be decided on a 5-4 basis but not necessarily along the lines one would predict based on the appointment of each justice and the political party of each justice's appointing president. there are, of course, some decisions that are politically charged. and that americans do worry about more than others. that might affect more

americans and let's say than a decision about waste disposal in the context of the dormant commerce clause. i understand that and get that. but there, too, we can't overstate or overplay the role the supreme court of the united states might exert in that context. even in those circumstances. when the supreme court rules that something has been done in a way that's not constitutional, it doesn't mean that that's the end of the policy road there. sometimes it might mean the wrong government acted. sometimes it might mean the federal government enacted where a state should have or the other way around. other times it might mean that the wrong branch of government acted. other times it might mean that they went about it the wrong way. there is nearly always another way around a particular policy

concern. whether we're talking about healthcare, whether we're talking about privacy and individual liberty, each and every person serving anywhere in our government has an obligation to look out for the best interests of those they represent. in fact, each and every person serving as an officer of the united states government is required under article 6 of the constitution to take an oath to up hold, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. the constitution in short, this document written nearly 2 1/2 centuries ago has helped foster the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known is not just a judicial thing. this is a thing that works and works best when every one of us reads it, understands it, and takes and honors and oath to uphold, protect and defend it. when we do our jobs in this

branch, when our friends in the executive branch do their jobs, it requires us to follow the constitution just the same way. these tactics of creating fear and uncertainty and doubt, these tactics that result in relentless protests outside of the one branch of government that isn't political astound me, dismay me and disappoint me. they reflect the fact that we have allowed for the politization of the one branch of the federal government that is not political. we can turn that around. we ourselves within the legislative branch have got to do a better job by focusing on the fact that the constitution is not just a judicial thing. it's also a legislative thing. it is also an executive thing.

it is an american thing. it's one of the many reasons why i will object to anyone any time anyone tries to attribute to you a policy position and hold you to that. you are not a policymaker, you are a judge. that's what we're here to discuss. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> good news, senator lee's enthusiasm for the dormant commerce clause convinces me you have made a full recovery. senator whitehouse. >> mr. chairman, judge barrett. america is worried about one thing above all else right now and it's our health. this hearing itself is a microcosm of trump's dangerous ineptitude in dealing with the covid pandemic. trump can't even keep the white

house safe. here it's the chairman's job to see to the committee's safety. and though his words were reassuring, i don't know who has been tested, who should be tested, who is a danger, what contact tracing has been done on infected and exposed senators and staff? nothing. the whole thing just like trump, is an irresponsible botch. the irony is that this slap dash hearing targets the affordable care act. this supreme court nominee has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the affordable care act must go and that the precedent protecting the aca

doesn't matter. the big secretive influences behind this unseemly rush see this nominee as a judicial torpedo they're firing at the aca. so i hope republicans consider what's at stake for the many people who depend right now in this pandemic on aca health coverage. rhode islanders are calling, writing, emailing, tweeting me by the thousands asking me to say no to this nominee mostly because they, too, see her as a judicial torpedo aimed at their essential protections. my constituents want you, my colleagues, members of the republican parties, to stand up for once to mitch mcconnell and the big donors driving this process and for the sake of regular people say stop. here is one person to consider.

laura. from north smithfield, rhode island. laura's brother saved her life when he donated one of his kidneys to her. the hereditary condition laura battled was a pre-existing condition protected under the aca just like covid is now a pre-existing condition for nearly 8 million americans. laura tells me without the aca and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions insurance premiums, if i'm able to get insurance at all. will be financially out of reach for me and no longer afford the specialist appointments, labs and treatment for my kidney to function. my medications alone would cost $48,000 annually. before the aca patients like me experienced times when they would come up against a life threatening wall. not in treatment, but in the

annual or lifetime caps on coverage insurers were allowed to impose. i can't imagine what this would have meant for me. bankruptcy or worse. laura is not alone. we're in the midst of a health crisis that trump has botched which touches nearly everyone in this country. americans are dying by the hundreds of thousands. our economy is down 10 million jobs. despite all the warnings and all the desperate pleas for help people on the front line, healthcare workers, teachers, first responders, police officers, countless others still struggle for the resources they need. more and more small businesses are closing for good. many hospitals teter at the edge of insolvency. rhode island faced fiscal challenges brought on by this pandemic. since may the house has passed two major covid relief bills tackle unemployment insurance, aid to the front lines, help to

small business, support for hospitals and states and localities and plenty more. mitch mcconnell's senate republicans won't budge. no urgency, he said. but 80 minutes after we learned of justice ginsburg's death mitch mcconnell signaled he would fill this vacancy. the white house shows a replacement three days later. justice ginsburg hadn't been buried. when the president and senate republicans celebrated judge barrett's nomination at the white house super spreader event. this was a hypocritical tire squealing 180 for many republican colleagues. when they blocked merrick garland we heard non-stop the american people weighing at the ballot box, non-stop you shouldn't have a nominee appointed to the court after the primary season had begun. well now with americans voting

right now in the general election, we get this mad slap dash rush. why? look at the supreme court calendar. exactly one week after the election on november 10th the supreme court is going to hear california versus texas, a constitutional challenge to the aca. it survived its last challenge by one vote. if the new challenge succeeds with a new justice the case will tear out the aca, the law on which over 20 million americans rely for health insurance through which 17 million americans access medicaid coverage, under which 129 million americans get pre-existing conditions covered. under which millions of seniors enjoy lower drug costs. gone. and make no mistake, this nominee signals on the aca and respect for the aca precedent are clear. clear enough to move her to the top of the big donors' list. just three years ago she wrote the chief justice roberts pushed the affordable care act beyond its meaning to save the

statute. in 2013 she wrote stare decisis is not a hard and fact rule in the court's constitutional cases. the aca being a constitutional case. clear signals likely why she is before this committee now. so back to laura. with stories like hers coming in from around the country why would we rush forward? the answer isn't pretty. there is a promise to big donors that must be kept. when david koch ran for vice president he said to get rid of medicare and medicaid. his groups are spending millions right now on this nomination. republicans in congress tried and failed to repeal the aca more than 70 times. it's in the republican party platform for justices to reverse the aca decision. trump has over and over said this is his reason. and now we're in this mad rush

to meet the november 10th argument deadline. and colleagues pretend this isn't about the aca. right. the travel of the aca case leads to con senator's doorstep. the senior senator from texas yesterday tried to say that this rush process isn't targeting the aca. look at the record. the district judge is a former aid to the senator who struck down the case that has become the favorite for texas republicans looking for wins. the senior senator from texas introduced in committee the circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeal striking down the aca. senator cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for striking down the aca. led the senate charge to repeal

it. he said i have -- voted to do so at every opportunity and now talking about socialized medicine the old republican battle cry against medicare senator cornyn and all of our colleagues on this committee are pushing to get this nominee on by november 10th. the time needed to strike down the affordable fair act. don't tell us this isn't about the affordable care act. from cornyn judge to cornyn judge to this nominee hop, hop, hop. when texans lose their aca healthcare protections, hop, hop, hop to see whose doorstep that sits on. lost in the hypocritical rush is the legacy of ruth bader ginsburg. let me remember her in a minute. she fought for equality, equity and dignity and forged a path for women in the law to harvard law school, the pinnacle of

legal academia to the apex of legal advocacy and onto the supreme court where she defended women's reproductive rights. the rights of workers, voting rights,, the rights of immigrants, homeland security very regents and countless other freedoms. in her work she bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice for all americans. how fitting that she should be the first woman to lie in state in our united states capitol. as to this charade, big donors may love it but americans see what's going on. they see this ugly hasty hypocritical power grab and they know what it means for their healthcare in the midst of a pandemic. for republicans there is no washing your hands of responsibility for the results that your president has told us

will ensue. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cruz i think is with us virtually. is that correct? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> all right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, welcome to judge barrett and welcome to your family and your beautiful children who are here with you today. i want to start by making some observations about what we've heard this morning. at the very beginning let me observe, as sherlock holmes famously observed, that what speaks the loudest is the dog that didn't bark. which is today to every democrat who has spoken we've heard virtually not a single word about judge barrett. we've heard a lot of attacks at president trump. we understand our democratic colleagues are not supporters of the president. we have heard a lot of

political rhetoric. we just heard the senator from rhode island directing some attacks at senator cornyn from texas and i understand there is an election in a few weeks so those political attacks are not surprising. but we've heard very little about the nominee who is here and whose confirmation we're considering. and i think part of the reason for that is that on any measure judge barrett's credentials are impeccable. this is a woman who graduated number one in her class at notre dame law school. i would venture to say that there is likely not a single member of this committee who graduated number one in their class-in-law school. perhaps my colleague mike lee can disagree with that statement but it is a very impressive accomplishment. judge barrett went on to be a clerk to the great justice antonin scalia. one of the greatest justices ever to serve on the supreme

court. we heard celebration from senator leahy about the fact that he was confirmed 98-0. from there she became a law professor for two decades at notre dame law school teaching the law to her students where she was beloved. where she was respected, where she was a serious, careful scholar. and now she is one of the most respected federal court of appeals judges in the country. none of the discussions from our democratic colleagues addressed any of that because those impeccables, those credentials are on their face impeccable. indeed, the american bar association, which typically leans hard left and has a long pattern of favoring democratic nominees over nominees appointed by republican presidents, had no choice but conclude that she was well qualified as a majority of the

board did. judge barrett's qualifications are remarkable and i believe she will serve as an excellent supreme court justice. so what is it our democratic friends have focused on? one thing they've focused on is history and they claim the fact that this nomination is occurring at all is illegitimate. doesn't matter who judge barrett is, doesn't matter what they has done, doesn't matter her record or her extraordinary family story of doing all of this while being a mom to seven kids, the timing of the nomination our democratic friends tell us makes it illegitimate. well, except for that history does not accurately reflect what the senate has done over two centuries. this question of what happens when there is a supreme court vacancy during a presidential election year, 2020 is not the

first time america has faced that question. indeed in our country's history that question has come up a total of 29 times. so 29 times presidents have faced the same circumstance and presidents have nominated individuals to fill those positions all 29 times. 100%. doesn't matter republican or democrat, from a president's perspective it's easy. if there is a vacancy even during a presidential election year, you make a nomination. 44 individuals have served as president throughout the history of our country, half of them, 22 of the presidents we have had, have made supreme court nominations for vacancies that occurred during a presidential election year. what has the senate done? again, the senate precedent is quite clear. it is something that our democratic friends do not want to address, do not want to confront. of those 29 times, 19 of them

occurred when the president and the senate were of the same party. and when the president and the senate are the same party history shows those nominees get confirmed. 17 of those 19 were confirmed for vacancies that occurred during a presidential election year. on the other hand, for those doing math at home, the remaining 10 occurred when the senate and the president were of different parties. when the president and senate are of different parties, the senate overhistory has confirmed only two of those 10 nominees. again, history is clear the overwhelming majority of instances of the president and senate of different parties that nominee doesn't get confirmed. that is, of course, what happened with judge garland nominated by president obama. president obama was a democrat. the senate was in republican hands. following tradition of 200 years the senate did not

confirm that nominee. some might think the difference between whether the senate and president are of the same party or different party, that's just a question of partisan alignment, partisan power. but that actually misunderstands the constitutional structure. the framers of the constitution deliberately set up a system of checks and balances. so that nobody can become a supreme court nominee without both the president and the senate. each was designed to check the other. that system of checks and balances limits power ultimately and protects the voters. and indeed the voters made a clear choice. you know, one of the things that is clear from this discussion this morning is democrats and republicans have fundamentally different visions of the court. of what the supreme court is supposed to do. what its function is.

democratic senators view the court as a super legislature, as a policy making body. as a body that will decree outcomes to the american people. that vision of the court is something found nowhere in the constitution. and it is a curious way to want to run a country. even if on any particular policy issue you might happen to agree with wherever a majority of the court is on any given day. who in their right mind would want the united states of america ruled by five unelected lawyers wearing black robes? it's hard to think of a less democratic notion than unelected philosopher kings with life tenure decreeing rules for 330 million americans. that's not the court's job. the court's job is to decide

cases according to the law. and to leave policy making to the elected legislators. that doesn't mean policy making is unimportant. it means to the contrary. policy making is very important. and the people need to have a direct check on policy making. you know what? if a rogue court implements policies you don't like you the american people have very limited ability to check them. if a rogue congress implements policies you don't like, you have a direct ability to check us by throwing the bums out and voting them out and voting in new representatives. much of the argument this morning has concerned obamacare. and policy arguments. policy arguments that are occurring in the senate, which is the right place for them to occur, a legislative body. but our democratic colleagues simply want a promise from a judicial nominee that this nominee will work to implement their policy vision of

healthcare. that is not a judge's job. that is not the responsibility of a judge. in fact, making that promise would be violating the judicial oath. i don't know what will happen in this particular litigation on healthcare? but i do know that this body should be the one resolving the competing policy questions at issue. many of our colleagues talked about pre-existing conditions and i think they have made a political decision they want this to be the central issue of the confirmation. well, remember this. every single member of the senate agrees that pre-existing conditions can and should be protected. period. the end. there it is, complete unanimity on this. it so happens that there are a number of us in the republican side that also want to see premiums go down, obamacare has caused premiums to skyrocket. the average family's premature use have risen over $5,000 a

year. millions of americans can't afford healthcare because of the policy failures of obamacare. those questions should be resolved in this body in the elected legislature. it is not a justice's job to do that. it's not the court's job to do that. it is the elected legislature's job to do that. judge barrett brings impeccable credentials, judicial temperament and a faithfulness to the law. that's what we should be looking for in supreme court justices. and if democratic senators want to engage in policy arguments, they can do so here, not by filibustering every bill, as they have done over and over and over again whether it's pandemic relief or obamacare relief to lower premiums and expand choices. to date our democratic colleagues filibuster everything and complain nothing gets passed. this is the body that has to resolve those questions. this is also the body that consistent with two centuries

of precedent can, should and i believe will confirm judge barrett as justice barrett. thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> welcome, judge barrett. this committee is gathered today for what i consider one of its most solemn duties and one i take very seriously. federal judges, senators, the president of the united states, we all take an oath to uphold the constitution. we make promises to do justice, to tell the truth, at its core that's what judges do, right? figure out the truth, figure out justice. my mom a second grade teacher spent her life teaching little kids what was right or wrong, what was true or false. i still believe it matters and so do the american people. but we are dealing with a president who doesn't think truth matters. and he has allies in congress who in the past defended our

democracy that are now doing his bidding. senators who clearly set out the precedent that a president in an election year should wait. that we should have an election. and that then 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. justice on the other hand can move at lightning speed. as we're seeing here today. we cannot and you watching at home should not separate this hearing from the moment we are in and from the judge he is trying to rush through. to respond to senator cruz, this isn't a rush to justice, this is a rush to put in a justice. a justice whose views are known and who will have a profound impact on your life. and yes, these policies that the court decides they matter.

where you can go to school, who you can marry, decisions you can make about your own body and yes, your healthcare. the president knows this. we have a president who has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after an election. every candidate does that. but not this guy. we have a president who has fired or replaced five inspector generals, senator grassley, who has fired an attorney general, f.b.i. director, and is now going after their replacements. we have a president who divides our country each and every day. he has called our military suckers and losers. he has refused to condemn white supremacists and he has the gal to hold up a bible as a prop in front of a church instead of heeding its words. to act justly. and now he says this election will end up in court.

why senator cruz does president trump matter? he is putting the supreme court in place in his words to, quote, look at the ballots, end quote. well, i won't concede that this election is headed to the courts because you know at home exactly what the president is up to. that's why you are voting. that's why you are voting in droves. why are you voting? well, you know that your rights, your healthcare 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. and you can see here in this room the misplaced priorities of this republican-run senate. it's your hands to change it. are they working to pass a bill to help americans to get the testing they need to save their lives? working to help the moms trying to balance a toddler on their lap while balancing a laptop on their desk and trying to help

our seniors isolated? are they passing the bill the house passed to help our economy? that's not the priority. instead they choose to do this. so no, we cannot divorce this nominee and her views from the election we are in. we didn't choose to do this now, to prop a supreme court nomination hearing in the of on election, they did. so the reason people aren't going to fall for this is because it is so personal. the over 210,000 people who have died, the school canceled, the small business closed, the job you don't have, the degree you couldn't get. it's personal to me because my husband got covid early on. he ended up in the hospital for a week on oxygen with severe pneumonia and months after he got it, i find out the president knew it was airborne but he didn't tell us. we were cleaning off every surface in our house and my husband got it anyway.

we didn't know. my dad at 92, he 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 he didn't know what was going on. i thought it was going to be the last time i saw him. he miraculously survived but marti didn't. she was a rising star. the chairwoman of the st. paul school board and just 31 years when covid took her life. her dad fell sick, she went with him to the hospital because he was scared and then she got sick. never got off a ventilator and died. the mother of hmong refugees, marni and her seven siblings grew up in st. paul. their family the american dream. this is who this virus has taken from us. someone who has left behind a mother and father and seven siblings who loved her and someone who undoubtedly would

have made the world a better place. the president could have saved so many lives. instead he has been reckless, packing people in without masks for your nomination party, judge barrett. 35 people got sick, the president himself ends up in the hospital, and when he leaves walter reed still contagious he takes off his mask and walks into the white house. and then he lies and says the virus will magically go away. the truth matters. and the truth is america, that this judicial nominee has made her views so clear and 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's on the line. the president has been trying to get rid of obamacare since he got in power. john mccain went in and stopped it with that big thumbs down. then they went and brought a case to the u.s. supreme court and they're now trying to stack the deck against you right now.

the last time this was before the court in a big way is when justice roberts, not a blazing liberal, voted the same as justice ginsburg to uphold the affordable care act. this nominee criticized him. america, this is about you. it's about these two girls up here. evelyn and mariah. identical twins from cambridge, minnesota, star athletes play on the softball team. they also play basketball. one of them got severe diabetes when she was very young. doesn't matter which one. the pick pitcher, the catcher, they both deserve good healthcare. they get with one stroke of a pen, one judge can decide if millions of americans, including their family, would lose their insurance. one judge can decide if millions of americans can keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26.

one judge can decide if senior prescription drugs are already too high could soar even higher. it was a judgeship held by an icon who voted to protect your healthcare ruth bader ginsburg. a woman who never took no for an answer. when they told her a girl shouldn't go to law school, she graduated first in her class. and when they told her a man should argue landmark equal protection cases because maybe they would have a better chance of winning she did it herself and she won. she never gave up. she had her own hashtag well into her 80s, the notorious rbg and her last wish was that a new president, the winner of this election, would pick her replacement. when you look at her opinions, you realize she wasn't just writing for today, she was writing for tomorrow. to the women of america, we have come so far and in the

name of rbg we should not go backwards. as the rabbi said at justice ginsburg's memorial in capitol. her strong words when she would disagree with the republican-appointed justices, her words were never cries of defeat, they were blueprints for the future. so to all americans, this hearing whatever these guys try to do, whatever you hear from me, it will not be a cry of defeat. it will instead by 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. but i am here to do my job, to tell the truth. to all americans, we don't have some clever procedural way to stop the sham an rushing through a nominee. we have a secret weapon. we have americans watching who work hard every day, believe in

our country and the rule of law, whether they're democrats, republicans, or independents. 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 covid relief package right now instead of this. let me tell you a political secret. i doubt that it will be a brilliant cross examination that's going to change this judge's trajectory this week. no. it is you. it is you calling republican senators and telling them enough is enough. telling them it is personal. telling them they have their priorities wrong. so do it. and 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. so do it. this isn't donald trump's

country. it is yours. this shouldn't be donald trump's judge. it should be yours. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sass. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, welcome. congratulations. i just want to say senator klobuchar said a number of things about covid that i agree with. she cited a bunch of really painful stories in minnesota and similar stories could be told from across the country and i agree with parts of her criticism of the mismanagement of covid by washington, d.c. i don't know what any of that has to do with what we're here to do that. huge parts of what we're doing in this hearing would be really confusing to eighth graders in civics classes across the country tuned into this hearing trying to figure out what we're here to do. they heard as much as they've heard about 2009 finance committee debates about what should be in a healthcare

reform package. i'm blessed to have sat not just on the judiciary committee and finance committee. lots of the discussions we've had in here fit better there than here. i think it would be useful for us the pause and remind ourselves and do some of our civic duty to eighth graders to help them realize what a president runs for, what a senator runs forks and on the other hand why judge barrett is sitting before us today and what the job is that you are being evaluated for. if we can back up and do a little bit of eighth grade civics i think it would benefit us and benefit the watching country and especially watching 8th grade civics classes. i want to distinguish first between civics and politics. there was a time the chairman said at the beginning of this hearing. there was a time that people who would be as different as ruth bader ginsburg. she was a heroic woman, that's

true. and antonin scalia, another brilliant mind and your mentor, people that different could both go through the senate and get confirmation votes of 95 or 98 votes and the chairman said at the beginning of the hearing he doesn't know what happened between then and now. i think some of what happened between then and now is we decided to forget what civics are and allow politics to swallow everything. if i can start i would like to remind us of the distinction between civics and poll six. civics is the stuff we're all supposed to agree on regardless of our policy view differences. civics is another way we talk about the rules of the road. it's the stuff like congress writes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, courts apply them. none of that stuff should be different if you are a republican or a democrat or a libertarian or green party member. this is basic civics. civics is the stuff that all americans should agree on like religious liberty is essential. people should be able to fire

the folks who write the laws and we can't -- the voters can't fire the judges. judges should be impartial. this is just civics 101. politics is different. politics is the stuff that happens underneath civics. civics is the overarching stuff. politics is the less important stuff we differ about. politics is like if i look at my friend chris coons and say listen up, jack wagon, what you want to do on this particular finance committee bill will be way too expensive and might bankrupt our kids and if he says listen up, jack wagon, you're too much of a cheapskate and under investing in the next generation. that's a political debai. it's not civics. civics is more important than that. it doesn't change every 18 to 24 months because the electoral winds change or polling changes. i think it's important that we help our kids understand that politics is the legitimate

stuff we fight about and civics is the places we pull back and say wait a minute. we have things in common. before we fight about politics let's reasirmg our civics. i want basic grammar of civics, a positive grand unifying truth about america we should agree on is religious liberty. the basic idea how you worship is none of the government's business. government can wage wars, right parking tickets but they can't save souls. government is really important, war is important, parking tickets are important but your soul is something that the government can't touch. so whether you worship in a mosque, a synagogue, a church, your faith or your lack of faith is none of the government's business. it is your business and your

family's and your neighbor's and all sorts of places where people break bed together. this is the fundamental american belief. religious freedom is clustered in the first amendment, religion, speech, press, protest. the basic pre-governmental rights. civics 101 we agree on before we get to anything as -- contrary to the belief of some activist. religious activist, you don't need the government's permission to have religious liberty. the default asumming of our entire system. because it's the fundamental 101 rule in american life, we don't have religious tests. this committee isn't in the business of deciding whether the dogma lives too loudly

within someone. this committee isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are good and which religious beliefs are bad and which religious beliefs are weird. i want to say as somebody who is a christian, we have a whole bunch more really weird beliefs, forgiveness of sins, virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, eternal life. a whole bunch of really crazy ideas that are a lot weirder than some catholic moms giving each other advice about parenting. yet there are places where this committee has acted like it's the job of the committee to t delve into people's religious community. that's nuts. that's a violation of our basic civics. a violation of what all of us believe together. this is not a republican idea. it is not a democrat idea. more fund meantly it's an american idea. whether you think your religious beliefs might be judged whacky by someone else it is not the business of this

committee to delve into it. in this committee, constitutional structure religious liberty is the basic truth and whatever you or i or judge barrett believe about god isn't any of the government's business. we can all believe in that in common. we should all reaffirm that in common and that should be on display over the course of the next four days in this committee. now a couple of terms that all of our eighth graders should know as things we should reject in common. again, shared rejection, not republican versus democrat or democrat versus republican but a shared american rejection. the first is this. judicial activism. that's the idea that judges get to advocate for or advance policies even though they don't have to stand for election before the voters and even though they have lifetime tenure. judicial activism 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 that judicial nominees who are supposed to be fair and impartial, when politicians try to get judicial nominees to give their views on cases or to give their views on policies, to try to get them to pre-commit to certain outcomes in future cases, we're politicizing the courts and that is wrong. that is a violation of our oath to the constitution. likewise, when politicians refuse to give answers to the pretty basic question of whether or not they want the try to change the number of justices in the court, which is what court packing actually is, when they want to try to 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 that politicizes the

judiciary and reduces public trust. on the other hand, depoliticizing the court looks a lot like letting courts and judges do their jobs and congress do our jobs. you don't like the policies in america, great, elect different people in the house and in the senate and in the presidency. fire the politicians at the next election. but voters don't have the freedom to fire the judges. therefore, we should not view judges and we should not encourage judges or the public to view them as ultimately politicians who hide behind their robes. the antidote to judicial activism is originalism. also known as textualism. the old idea from eighth grade civics that judges don't make laws, they just apply them. originalist comes to the court with a modesty about what the job is they're there to be. originalist does pt think of herself as a super legislator whose opinions will be read by angels from stone tablets in

heaven. judicial activism ton other hand is the bad idea that judges black robes are just fake and truthfully they're wearing red or blue partisan jerseys. we should reject all such judges. so today when we have a nominee before us we should be asking her questions that are not about trying to pre-determine how certain cases will be judged. a final term that we should be clear about i mentioned earlier but worth underscoring is we should underscore what is court packing. court packing is the idea we should blow up our shared civics and end the structure of the senate by making it just another majority body for the purposes of packing the supreme court. court packing would depend on the destruction of the full debate here in the senate and it is a partisan suicide bombing that would end the deliberative structure of the united states senate and make this job less interesting for all 100 of us. not for 47 or 53 because it's hard to get to a super majority that tries to protect the

american people from 51-49, 49-51 swings all the time. what blowing up the filibuster would turn is 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 media to bite on. it's destroying the system we have now, not reforming the system we have now. anybody who uses the language that implies filling legitimate vacancies is just another form of court packing. that's playing the american people for fools. the american people actually want a washington, d.c. that depoliticizes more decisions. i'm glad you're before us and looking forward to hearing your opening statement later today and i look forward to the questioning you have to endure over the next two or three days even though you probably look forward to it a little bit less. congratulations and welcome.

>> mr. chairman, judge barrett to you and your family, welcome. over the past weeks i have been flooded with calls, texts emails from people in delaware who are scared and worried. worried about their own health, the health of a parent or child, because they don't know if it's safe for their kids to go to school, if their businesses will survive, or because they're wondering why on earth this senate is focused on racing forward with a supreme court nominee but is not willing to take a vote to provide needed relief for them and their family. it is an understandable question when we're in the midst of a devastating global pandemic in which more than 210,000 americans have died, more than 7 million have been infected and have a knew pre-existing condition. why there were just 300,000 new cases this week. and today more than 25 million americans are collecting unemployment. this is an ongoing national emergency and as an exercise in

civics, not politics, we in congress should be working day and night to deliver them that relief. instead my colleagues are barreling forward with a confirmation hearing that's distracting from our responsibility to our constituents and threatens to further tear our nation apart. mr. chairman, as you know we're just 22 days from an election. there is no precedent, despite my colleagues lengthy about the history, there is no precedent in our nation's history for confirming a supreme court nominee by the senate this close to a presidential election. in which a majority of states are already voting. in fact, 6 million americans have voted. this process flies in the face of the very rule republicans set themselves in 2016 when they refused as a matter of politics, not of civics, to

even consider a highly qualified nominee, judge merrick garland nine months before an election simply because it was an election year. there mr* chairman, in 2018 you went a step further and said if an opening on the supreme court came up in the last year of president trump's term, you would wait until the next election and let the voters decide. so what changed? sadly, nothing. nothing except the fact that this time president trump and his allies in the senate saw a chance in justice ginsburg's untimely passing to shift the balance of the supreme court for decades to come that will have consequences in the real lives of millions of americans. proceeding with this confirmation today is wrong. if i could to my colleague who just spoke religious liberty i agree is foundational to our civics and our republic and i and my colleagues will focus on your legal writings, your opinions, your articles, your speeches as a law professor and

judge. and i think when we do that, we will conclude the ways in which you may serve as a justice. it will do irreparable harm. proceeding with this nomination at this time will do harm to what remaining trust we have in each other, the senate as a whole and potentially to the court itself. as if all of this weren't reason enough for us to delay we're proceeding despite having two members of this committee who have contracted the virus and why the senate is out of session today and why all of us when not speaking are wearing masks and why the distance between us. in light of all of this, in light of the stresses on our country, i think this rushed, hypocritical, partisan process should not proceed. but instead we are. so let me try and help explain to those who have reached out to me why and why it matters. centrally it's this. president trump has promised over and over and over again

that he would repeal the affordable care act. he ran on that promise but despite his very best efforts he has failed. my republican colleagues here and in the house have voted and over to repeal the affordable care act since it was passed a decade ago. thankfully for the people of our nation and my state they have been unsuccessful. now they're looking to the court. they're looking to this nominee. president trump explicitly promised anyone he nominated to the supreme court would do the right thing and be a vote to overturn the affordable care act. in just one week after the upcoming election the supreme court will hear a case in which the affordable care act is at issue and where the supreme court will hear argument that supports the trump administration and the trump's department of justice position to strike down this landmark

law. so let me be clear. just a week after the upcoming election, the trump administration will be telling the supreme court to tear down the very law that provides healthcare protections in the middle of an ongoing pandemic. judge barrett, you have publicly criticized the supreme court's past decisions upholding the affordable care act. i think it is appropriately at issue in the days to come. the president knows this. and it is one reason why he and my colleagues are rushing to have this confirmation just in time to hear the administration's challenge to the affordable care act. i don't think this is a coincidence. it is beyond ironic this administration, which has failed to respond to this pandemic, is rushing through a judge they believe will vote to strip away healthcare protections. today because of the affordable care act insurance companies cannot discriminate against women for being women. they cannot charge more.

they can treat pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. i can't think of a sharper irony the legacy of justice ginsburg for fighting for gender equality. it prevents insurance companies charging more for pre-existing conditions. people don't have to worry about going bankrupt because of an illness or accident. listen to the voice of carey who is behind me to my right. she used the pay $800 a month for junk insurance as she called it. coverage so skimpy she had to live in fear of going to the doctor's office or needing medication. because of the aca she was able to get better coverage to pay what she can afford based on her income. she has diabetes, she has high blood pressure. she can't be denied coverage. it takes the stress and worry out of it and asked me how is this even at issue?

wasn't that settled years ago? carey is right. she should have the piece of mind that you can care for yourself and your family if you get sick. i've heard so many receives her health insurance through the marketplace. her pre-existing condition requires her to attend physical therapy and doctor's appointment multiple times each month. without the aca insurance companies have w.h.o. have charged more because of her condition and she wouldn't able to afford her medical bills. another woman who was diagnose -- she was able to find new coverage thanks to the affordable care act. my inbox are filled with stories like debbie's and barb's and caries and what the aca means to american people. lower out-of-pocket costs for

senior prescriptions, elimination of lifetime caps, these protections are on the line. in the ballot and on the docket of the supreme court. it's not just the aca at risk. judge, i'm deeply concerned about ways in which your approach to something that may sound abstract to folks watching stare decisis. your approach to possibly overturning long settled cases may overturn some of the very principles for which justice ginsburg fought for her life. settled fundamental rights for all americans. what might this mean? cases like griswold versus connecticut. may be in danger of being struck down. it means cases like roe v. wade which protects a woman's right to make her own critical healthcare decisions may be on

the line. and it means making marriage equality the law of the land could be overruled. just a day after we celebrated coming out day nationally stripping lbgtq individuals of what justice kennedy called equal dignity in the eyes of the law. this is what i believe is at stake with this nomination. judge barrett, you will be deciding cases that have real daily impacts on the lives of millions of americans. they deserve to understand why president trump nominated you and what consequences your decisions may have on them and their lives. i've heard my republican colleagues say all they care about is finding a future justice who will apply the law as written as if all this is about today is an abstract fight about interpretive methodologies. they seem shocked we're talking about what the supreme court might do if judge barrett were to become justice barrett.

judge barrett i'm not suggesting you made some secret deal with president trump. but i believe the reason you were chosen is precisely because your judicial philosophy as repeatedly stated could lead to the outcomes president trump has sought. and i think that has dramatic and potentially harmful consequences with regards to the election, the affordable care act and long-settled rights. this is what i intend to lay out this week and this is what i hope the american people will hear in the course of this confirmation hearing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> for planning purposes i talked to senator feinstein. we will go to senator hawley, blumenthal and tillis. we'll take a 30-minute break to grab a bite to eat and take a little break and come back and finish up. so senator hawley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge barrett, welcome. good to see you again. jesse barrett, welcome and to

you and your family as well. i see some of your children are getting a break. they've earned it, i think. i'm amazed as i've been watching. i have two little boys at home. i can't believe how calmly your children have been sitting for a couple of hours. maybe you can give me some tips, jesse and judge when we're finished here. we have gotten to read a lot about your family in the last few weeks. we've gotten to read a lot about you in the press and in particular about your religious beliefs. one attack after another in the liberal meeting. one hit piece after another. many echoed by members of this committee. this one, barrett long active with insular christian group. we've read stories about your catholic lifestyle. stories about how you raise your children. stories about how you adopted your children. stories about your catholic doctrine beliefs over and over and over. questioning whether you have, i guess, the independence to be a justice on the united states supreme court and it is not just in the newspapers, it is

members of this committee. including the democratic nominee for vice president of the united states who has questioned past nominees who have come before this committee about their membership in catholic fraternal organization like the knights of columbus. that's right, you heard me correctly. senator harris and others have questioned their fit necessary for office because of their membership in the knights of columbus. the ranking member when you were last before this committee, judge, for your initial confirmation hearings the ranking member referred to your catholic convictions of dogma that lives loudly within you. that's a quote. picking up the very terminology of anti-catholic big ot re current in this country a century alone. other senators on this committee last time asked you if you were an orthodox catholic. one senator said she worried you would be a catholic judge if you were confirmed because of your religious beliefs. i guess as opposed to an

american judge as if you can't be both a devout catholic and a loyal american citizen. it's not just you, judge. other nominees who have come before this committee for years now have been asked by my democrat colleagues over and over their views on sin, their views on the afterlife, their views about the membership statements of catholic organizations. about their membership in other christian organizations and on and on and on and let's be clear about what this is. this is an attempt to broach a new frontier, to set up a new standard. actually it's an attempt to bring back an old standard that the constitution of the united states explicitly forbids. i'm talking about a religious test for office. article 6 of the constitution of the united states before we even get to the bill of rights, article 6 of the constitution of the united states says clearly and i quote, no religious test shall ever be

required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. now that was big news in 1787 when it was written. it is worth remembering why. it is because no country, no republic in the history of the world had ever guaranteed to its citizens the right to freedom of conscience and religious liberty. every other country that had ever existed tied together the religious belief that would be approved by the powerful and the right to serve in office. or to vote or just to be a citizen. in every other country across history you had to agree with what those in power agreed with in order to hold office or be a citizens in good standing. you had to sign a particular religious confession or you had to disavow a particular religious group and swear not to follow the pope or pledge allegiance to the god of city or the god of empire.

this was true from 18th century britain all the way back to ancient rome. so when our founders put article 6 into the constitution of the united states, they were making a very deliberate choice. they were breaking with all of that past history and they were saying in america it would be different. in the united states of america we would not allow the ruling class to have veto power over your faith, over what americans believed. over who we gathered with to worship and why and where and how. no, in this country the people of the united states would be free to follow their own religious convictions, free to worship, free to exercise their religion and people of faith would be welcome in the public sphere. they would be welcome there. they would be welcome without having to get the approval of those in power like those on this committee. they would be welcome to come and bring their real ijous beliefs to bear on their lives

and on their office. in all that they do. so long as they were peaceful citizens who followed the law. religious people of all backgrounds would be welcome in political life. and no person in power would be able to control what the american people, any american citizen thought or believed or who they worshipped. this freedom of conscience and religious liberty undergirds all of our other rights because it tells the government that it cannot tell us what to think or who we can assembly with or how we can worship or what we can say. and that's why article 6 is there even before we get to the bill of rights and the first amendment. this bedrock principle of american liberty is now under attack. that is what is at stake when we read these stories attacking judge barrett for her faith. that's what is at stake when my

democratic colleagues repeatedly question judge barrett and others about their religious beliefs and membership and practices about family beliefs and practices. that is an attempt to bring back the days of the religious test. that is an attempt to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the american people. that's what is at stake in this confirmation hearing. judge barrett is a catholic. we all know that. she is a devout catholic, we all know that. she and her husband have chosen to raise their family according to their catholic beliefs and faithful fellowship with other catholics. we all know that. heck, 65 million americans are catholics and many, many millions more are christians of other persuasions. are they to be told that they cannot serve in public office? that they are not welcome in

the public sphere unless the members of this committee sign off on their religious beliefs? i don't want to live in such an america. the constitution of the united states flatly prohibits it. the constitution says that people of faith, like judge barrett, are welcome in high office. welcome in any office. welcome throughout our public life here in this country. and i would just say to my democratic colleagues that these years now, this pattern and practice as we say in the law, this pattern and practice of religious big ry. when you tell somebody they're too catholic to be on the bench and tell them they'll be a catholic judge, not an american judge. that's bigotry. the members of that from this committee must stop. and i would expect that it be renounced. i just heard my colleague senator coons make a reference to an old case, the griswold case which i can only assume is

another hit at judge barrett's religious faith referring to catholic doctrinal beliefs. no one has challenged this case. this isn't live issue and hasn't been. this is the kind of thing i'm talking about and this is the sort of attacks that must stop. i look forward, judge barrett, to getting a chance to speak with you further about your legal credentials. about your legal views, about your approach to the law and your judicial philosophy but i hope that one thing that this confirmation process will stand for in the end, i hope when we look back at the confirmation hearings for judge amy barrett soon i hope to be justice amy barrett one thing i hope we say that was the year that the attempt to bring back religious test for office was finally stopped. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

judge barrett and to your family welcome to the committee. i want to introduce you the one of my constituents. connor kern of richfield, connecticut. he is 10 years old and he suffers from duchene muscular dystrophy. it is a horrible, incurable disease slowly depriving children of their strength and ability to move. eventually robs them of their lives. the costs of providing connor's care are astronomical. but for connor and his family it is worth every penny. connor is a super hero but has always had a real side kick. he has had the protection of the affordable care act. it has shielded him and his family from arbitrary caps on coverage that would have cut

off his care when it became too expensive. it has protected connor from losing insurance because of this insidious disease that he never caused and chose. the affordable care act has given his family a measure of relief, of hope, of peace. they still worry about connor's health, but not their coverage or its cost. connor and millions of others like him are why i will oppose your nomination. your nomination is about the republican goal of repealing the affordable care act. the obamacare they seem to detest so much. it is about people like connor, protections for people with pre-existing conditions. tax credits that make health

insurance more affordable, bans on charging women more simply because they are women. that's what my republican colleagues have been trying to repeal for the last decade. though voted dozens of times to repeal the act and challenged it in the supreme court. each time they failed, but now just one week after the election, as you know, the fate of the affordable care act will be again in the hands of the united states supreme court. republicans have turned again to the court to try to achieve judicially what they cannot achieve legislatively. president trump has vowed that any judge he nominated would pass the very strong test, his

words, and that they would strike down the affordable care act. judge barrett, in all honesty you have auditioned for this job through your academic writings and judicial opinions and you've passed that test. in fact, you've stated twice in effect that you would have voted to strike down the affordable care act had you been a justice at the time. you've been vetted, you've been screened by the trump administration and special interests who want an activist judge. they want someone who will legislate from the bench and strike down laws supported by a vast majority of the american people. and that activism uses originalism as a smoke screen. if the american people have any

doubt about how dedicated my republican colleagues are to taking away people's healthcare, just listen to their own words. they've been remarkably candid and forthright. senator graham, our chairman, has said you can't repair this monstrosity, i'm quoting. you can't repair this mon tronsty called obamacare. you have to tear it down and start over. senator ernts said i support immediate action to repeal obamacare and replace it. senator cornyn. it's time to repeal and replace. senator tillis, repeal obamacare. let's end this disaster. and president trump himself has said we want to terminate

obamacare. millions of americans -- more than 130 million have a pre-existing condition, asthma, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, parkinson's, pregnancy, and now by the cruelest of ironies covid-19. covid, the cause of this pandemic is now a preexisting condition that could prevent millions of americans from being covered by healthcare. stripping healthcare from millions of americans during a pandemic, that's really what is at stake in the republican lawsuit now before the supreme court and in this nomination. and sadly it's not just the affordable care act that's at stake. it's a woman's right to decide when and how to have a family. control over her own body.

an activist judge on the bench doing what congress could not do would also strike down common sense gun safety laws. connecticut has been at the forefront on gun violence protection, on gun safety, judge, you acknowledged that your dissenting opinion in canter sounds kind of radical. that's because it is. but if your views on the second amendment are adopted by the supreme court, it would imperil common sense state laws like connecticut's all around the country. today we ought to be working on improving american healthcare. we ought to be fighting covid-19, which has infected 8 million americans and killed more than 215,000.

we should be producing a national testing strategy, instituting effective contact tracing and securing sufficient ppe. we ought to be providing assistance to the millions of americans who have lost their job and face economic hardship and heartbreak. president trump has failed to do any of it. instead he and our republican colleagues are riveted on rushing a judge through this sham process dropping everything else. president trump's failure to act will likely lead to 55,000 additional deaths, 55,000 additional americans lost over just the next three months. senate republicans are refusing to address the american healthcare or covid-19 or economic relief because they care more about putting an

extremist ideological judge on the bench and not just on the supreme court. i've learned as a senator that there are very few written rules in this place. but there is one very important unwritten rule. keep your word. republicans have all sorts of excuses for why they are breaking their promise. the promise that they would not confirm a supreme court justice during an election year. each excuse boils down to nothing more than raw political power. they are doing it because they can. but might does not make right. they have boasted they have the votes. but they don't have the american people and they don't have history on their side.

the american people want a plan to fight and conquer this disease. they want a plan to put americans back to work. they want a blueprint for the future, not rolling back rights and turning back the clock. i revere the supreme court. i clerked for justice harry blackman. i've argued cases before the court four times. now i'm really deeply concerned that the supreme court is losing the trust and respect of the american people. the authority of the supreme court depends on that trust. it has no army or police force to enforce its decision. the american people follow the supreme court's commands even when they disagree because they respect its authority. and now president trump and the

republican senators are eroding and indeed destroying that legitimacy. they stripped the american people of their say in this process simply to confirm a strike down in court, legislate from the bench what they can't repeal in congress. your participation in any case involving donald trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility. you must recuse yourself. the american people are afraid and they are angry and for good reason. it is a break the glass moment. americans must use their voices to speak out and stand up, to

contact my colleagues on this committee, despite their boasts about having the votes. stand up and speak out to protect their own health, public health, and the health of our democracy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. we'll now have senator tillis who is with us remotely. after his opening statement we will come back at 12:20 and senator hirono, you will be the first one to make a statement. senator tillis. >> thank you, chairman graham and ranking member feinstein. i want to take a moment to honor the life and legacy of justice ginsburg. she was a living legend and a giant in the legal world as a professor, lawyer and a judge and justice. she was an inspirational model and role model and we honor her legacy. i just want to make sure her family knows the nation mourns her loss. but today we're here to

consider a nomination of a highly qualified jurist to the united states supreme court judge amy coney barrett. a top legal scholar. a mold of the late antonin scalia. her students voted her to be distinguished professor of the year in notre dame and full-time faculty member of notre dame law supports her nomination. her legal work and teaching have inspired hundreds of young lawyers, especially aspiring female lawyers. she is a remarkable mother, has seven beautiful children and in spite of being busy working at the 7th circuit as a justice she makes time to be involved if her community. this nomination is important because it is going to have a lasting impact on our republic. a justice service on the bench involves every important issue facing our constitutional republic. one of the limits of abuses and government power. what's the role of each branch of government and what are the

fundamental protections our constitution grants all americans? these are foundational questions for the supreme court and they consider them every single term. if confirmed judge barrett will be tasked with answering these questions and will do a great job. it's the structure of the constitution that insures our freedom. justice scalia said every dictator and president for life has a bill of rights. that's not what makes us free. what makes us free is our constitution. think of the word constitution. it means structure. justice scalia went on to note the genius of our founding generation is that it dispersed power across multiple departments. the danger to our constitutional republic is centralization of power. in any one part of government. when that happens liberty dies

and tyranny reigns. judges decide cases, not make policy. in recent decades the court decides majority disputes over policy rather than reserving those decisions for the american people through acting through their elected representatives. people like those of us in the u.s. senate. article 3 judges cannot and should not be policymakers. we've heard many speak today about a policy priorities they would like an activist court to pass. several have engaged in fear mongering and described judge barrett's nomination as ending to healthcare, abortion rights, labor rights and the list goes on and on and on. these statements are unfair and untrue. this week they'll attempt to have judge barrett submit to policy outcomes rather than do the work for that policy outcome in the u.s. senate. just last month while they were falsely claiming judge barrett's nomination would bring an end to the protections for pre-existing conditions every single democrat on this committee voted against the

measure that would do just that. they're failing to do their job and they want the court to do it for them. might have review of judge barrett's record is not only one of the most qualified individuals to be nominated but understands the proper role of the article 3 branch. she reaches conclusion dictated by the law, not by personal preference. that's the right thing to do. my democratic friends, nominee has pre-determined outcome in mind while in the same breath they demand a nominee agree to their preferred outcome of a case. the hypocrisy is incredible. they ignore a central facts. she is not a legislator. that's our job. however, when the minority can't get their bad policies passed in congress they turn to the courts to demand that judges interpret the law not as written but as they prefer. her opinions simply order the outcome the law dictates.

as passed by congress a politically accountable branch, nothing more and nothing less. my democratic colleagues claim they care about the first amendment, the 5th amendment, 14th amendment. if they care, they should care about confirming a judge that understands the proper role of the supreme court. rights drafted by 9 and ended by 9. real change, enduring change happens one step at a time. not by judicial fiat. judge barrett understands that principle and knows the role of a supreme court justice and highly qualified to do this job. judge barrett when i met with you in the capitol i asked you to sign two pocket constitutions for my two granddaughters, in it you wrote dream big. when they're old enough to understand the significance i will explain to them just like justice barrett she can with hard work and determination realize their american dream.

so for the next few days, when members of this committee mischaracterize your views, their allies in the liberal media are saying terrible things about you and your family. stand tall, rely on your faith. you are an inspiration to many young women like my granddaughters. we're proud of you. thank you for being with us today. congratulations on the recognition of your hard work and your character. i look forward to hearing your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we'll be in recess until 12:20. we'll start back with senator hirono. >> sandra: you've been watching day one of a four-day confirmation hearing process for judge amy coney barrett live on capitol hill. we've heard from 15 republicans and democrats that sit on the judiciary committee.

chairman lindsey graham said unless something dramatic happens. all republicans will vote yes and democrats vote no. a long, contentious week. the senators dueling on the right of republicans to fill this vacant seat by ruth bader ginsburg. democrats dick durbin going after the aca saying barrett was nominated to do president trump's political chores as he said. on aca and the election outcome. >> bill: the aca was probably the one issue that was featured the most. i thought the most telling language toward the end there richard blumenthal talking about an extremist ideological judge. talked about turning back the clock. says the american people are angry and afraid. prior to that ben sass and josh hawley talked about faith, which appeared to be the first time it came up. sasse says nothing has anything to do about judge barrett and

hawley hitting the catholic bigotry hard and repeatedly. our team is in place. let's get to all of them watching and listening and let's beginning. we have 40 minutes. let's get through as much as we can. trey gowdy leads us off. fox news contributor. welcome to our coverage. your impression so far of the previous 2 hours and 38 minutes or so. >> thanks for having me. my dominant impression. not a single democrat voted against scalia. the most conservative member of the supreme court. now not a single democrat will vote for his protege. if you're an american wondering in the world has happened to this country in the last 30 years, i think some of the republican senators put their finger on it. why try to convince 50 million people when all you have to do is convince five? they view the supreme court as

a super legislature which is why i thought what ben sasse, cruz and lee did. what is the role of the supreme court? how do you go from no negative votes for scalia to no positive votes for his protege? how do you get there? >> sandra: i want to bring in martha as well. trey, stand by. martha, we were hearing from senator mike lee who made news appearing in person 10 days after his positive coronavirus test said he is feeling better. he said barrett will be a jurist, not a policymaker. i want to tell everybody the nominee herself will be speaking when they return seven more senators will give their opening remarks which will include kamala harris. she spoke this morning. she will be appearing virtually from her senate office. she said republicans are quote trying to push through ram through a supreme court justice for a lifetime appointment while almost 7 million people have already voted. we'll hear from her shortly as well. martha.

>> i believe senator harris's office is not far away at all. it's on the first floor of the hart building. she will be appearing from her senate office rather than walking down to this hearing room 219 in the senate hart office building. but one of the things that i would point out from a political perspective is that there has been a tactic by democrats which is not unsurprising at least in these opening statements to focus on the healthcare act and to focus a little bit on issues of her religion although it was pretty well veiled. senator coons brought up the griswold case. that hasn't been raised in deck aides. senator lee said the only reason to bring it up would be to throw an arrow in the direction of her catholic faith. republicans have gone a different out. talking about the constitutionality. the role of the supreme court and the role of senators to advise and consent as part of

that process. it was pretty sharp i thought from senator sasse who went after amy klobuchar who had an emotional appeal to voters. no brilliant cross examination will stop this process. only you can stop this process and i urge you to write to your republican senators and lawmakers making a very political appeal in the middle of this judiciary committee process. senator sasse said that's great but it will confuse eighth grade civics classes who understand the role of what we're doing here today very differently. he sees it as a constitutional duty to fill their role to advise and consent and certainly within the president's right to nominate someone and within the right of this republican majority senate to go ahead and provide the advise and consent role here today. i think we're all looking forward to the introductory comments from judge barrett and also from the seven still to come. among them senator hirono likely to pack a punch when she

comes out there as well as senator harris, the final democrat we'll hear from today. >> bill: judge barrett's comments were released on sunday afternoon. four pages in length as they print out. the last time we were here two years ago with brett kavanaugh. if we all recall for those on the panel here and those watching at home how oftentimes the senators ran to a microphone in the hallway outside. given the covid times you wonder whether or not that's a repeated action or whether some of that subsides. it has been 24 days since ruth bader ginsburg died. it was a friday evening. we are 22 days away until america votes which is three weeks tomorrow. i want to go back inside the room and shannon bream for reflections on what are you seeing and picking up inside there, shannon. >> as you mentioned it is starkly different than what we saw a couple of years ago with judge brett kavanaugh because the public factor has been taken out of equation, the

signs, the yelling, there is no public involved this time. they aren't allowed inside the building. roughly a couple dozen arrests outside for people trying to get in. they have strong opinions as do the senators from the bench here. and really this does come back to justice scalia. if you love him you will love this nominee. if you hated him you won't like this nominee either. she has said he is her role model. she clerked for him and very much will follow his guidance and his leading in the way that he decided cases and interpreted text in the constitution from the federal bench for decades. that kind of aligns you with where she is coming from. we have a number of senators here who are, as you've talked about, attacking the process and attacking where they think she will go on key issues. they are smart and know the polling shows people are worried about healthcare, affordable care act, they want to have guarantees there. they continue to paint her as a potential vote to strike down the law in the case they are

hearing november 10th. a very narrow case. i don't think regardless of how she votes there are enough votes there to actually get rid of the affordable care act in its entirety on november 10. it's not in play if you are looking at the tea leaves and looking at this case. democrats are smart to use it because they know that it resonates with people. they have pictures and posters blown up of sick children, sick people, families who have struggled and want to emphasize that message. something else we've heard and senator blumenthal doubled down was the call for her to recuse herself of anything from this election ends up at the supreme court. by that same token you would have to ask why not justices gorsuch and kavanaugh. they are also trump appointees. she will face tough questions. i wouldn't expect her if she is confirmed to the bench the walk away from anything involving the president should it end up on their doorstep. >> sandra: thank you. as we also mentioned the

president has been actively tweeting during this hearing, bret. he tweeted out 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 foour you the supreme court. he urged his party to pull back, approve and go for stimulus. bret, he has been active throughout the morning and making his feelings on what he has seen so far clear. >> right. senator lindsey graham who runs this hearing and giving equal time to everybody and how it usually goes. speaking of confirmation hearings, ruth bader ginsburg, 1993, the chairman of that committee at the time. a senator from delaware, joseph biden. he presided over it and came up with what was the ginsburg rule. questioning about specific cases that could come before the supreme court. it was a no no in that hearing. it became the precedent going forward that you really couldn't grill a justice to be

about something that was coming right before the supreme court. look at all of these focus -- the focus on the democrats on this aca case and all of the heart wrenching stories and pictures that clearly as shannon mentioned they are using for political benefit to sway people at home. but as far as the actual case, it deals with the serverability doctrine and basically just -- jonathan turley can tell you this better than i can. cut out the individual mandate and possibly leave the rest of it intact. there are justices like brett kavanaugh who might vote to do that or john roberts. to infer how she, amy coney barrett would vote, is a big united front that deals with politics and not the confirmation of this judge. >> bill: the big moment hasn't happened yet. judge barrett gets a chance to talk and represent herself. we await on that. we expect that in the afternoon

you could guess 1:30 perhaps, somewhere around there? i want to bring in jonathan turley. welcome to our coverage as we continue here. your impression so far from the opening statements on both sides. >> well, we've covered a lot of these confirmation hearings. i've never seen anything like this with these giant pictures of ailing people. it reminds me of the courtroom of john wayne gacy, not amy coney barrett. he had the same pictures around the courtroom. these are not her victims. hard to come away visually without thinking that she was threatening these individuals. but that's the disconnect with this aca case. the aca in most likelihood will not be struck down. john roberts and brett kavanaugh are expected by most people to support serverability. what's at issue in that case is

whether the individual mandate being found unconstitutional means that the entire act has to be struck down. that's the issue. the individual mandate is already dead. the congress negated the individual mandate. so the core question is not this overriding constitutional issue, it is one that cuts across the ideological spectrum. whether a whole statute should die if a critical part is removed or struck down. justice kavanaugh just handed down a decision where he gave a roaring endorsement of serverability. most people believe they don't have close to the votes to strike down the entire act. >> sandra: really interesting. jonathan, if you could stay right there. i mentioned that kamala harris spoke to reporters on her way into her senate office where she is about to appear a moment from now. she was asked what she expects from today's hearings. here is how she responded. >> can you talk to us about what today will look like?

what is your overview? >> it will be about context of this hearing. >> and so expanding the court. have you guys decided on when you will announce whether or not? >> we're really clear. we are 22 days away from an election and people are voting now and they want to ram through a supreme court justice with a lifetime appointment while 7 million people have already voted. >> sandra: a bit hard to hear at times. saying she is really clear, 22 days out from an election people are voting right now. talking about a lifetime appointment, 7 million have already voted. to that you say what? >> well, first of all, there are legitimate objections this is too close to an election but

joe biden said that this was not constitutional, which is a rather curious thing to say. the constitution allows for the filling of vacancies. justice ruth bader ginsburg herself said a president doesn't stop being president in when his final year and encouraged the senate to vote on nominees. all these democrats in 2016 insisted that a vote should be held. so it is constitutional. now one could really question the time and say that this is not appropriate. but when it comes to the process itself, the president is using his authority to fill a vacancy. the senators can vote for any reason, good, bad, or no reason at all against a nominee. but it's rather hard to understand people suggesting that this is somehow unconstitutional. >> bill: professor, stand by. bring in chris wallace who joins our coverage as well. what professor turley was

referring to a moment ago reminded me of what senator lee said. the question is not about compassion for others with regard to the pictures of those that have been assembled there throughout that hearing room. where do you think we are, chris? what do you think we expect coming up next after the break? >> well, i want to respond to both congressman gowdy and to professor turley. congressman gowdy suggested how did we get from almost unanimous votes for ruth bader ginsburg and a unanimous vote for antonin scalia to the hyper partisan situation we're in now? there is not one step. you have to look back at 2016 when antonin scalia died suddenly and with i think 269 days to go president obama named merrick garland as his nominee to the court. in an exercise of pure political power not to say it's unconstitutional, but they simply decided they weren't

going to entertain or meet with merrick garland or have a hearing on merrick garland. now with three weeks, 22 days left to go they're having the hearing for judge barrett. there is nothing in the constitution that says well, if they are of different parties. there is nothing in a legal precedent that says there isn't. it was a question that mitch mcconnell and the republicans had the votes and they decided they were going to block the garland nomination and they were going to push through the barrett nomination. when it comes to policy, you hear the republicans continue to say look, they want to make supreme court nominees into super legislators. we're just talking about a judge applying the law. the problem with that, of course, is the fact that president trump has said over and over again what he hopes to get from these judges and talking about doing the right thing on issues like the affordable care act and then finally, to judge turley and

shannon bream who were suggesting it's really a reach to talk about the idea that they might strike down the affordable care act, in fact what they're hearing is a ruling by a texas federal judge which in fact struck down the entire affordable care act. it may be the court doesn't decide to do that. but that's the case that's before the court. that's the action that the judge at the lowest court took that they'll be considering. so i don't think it's such a reach to say that is the potential implication of the 6-3 conservative majority on the court that the affordable care act is on -- will be on the docket when they hear that case. >> bill: professor turley about the point merrick garland. you had a democratic president and republican senate. now a republican president and republican senator.

>> you need waders to get through the rising hypocrisy from both parties. that's nothing new. both parties are adopting the opposite views that they had in 2016. although i'm not too sure the democrats would be doing anything different if they were given this vacancy and this opportunity. but i want -- chris wallace raises good points. the lower court did strike down the aca but there do not appear to be a majority -- does not appear to be a majority of votes from our count of overturning the entire act. the betting money is that conservatives might join liberals. >> jonathan, if i may, you know, the point i'm simply making is this. that's what the court did. you are predicting how judges, including one who is not even on the court yet, are going to vote. i'm just saying -- >> no --

>> let me finish. you don't know what's going to happen and i don't know what's going to happen. the fact is for democrats to talk about the cases of these individual people and to say that their lives might be at stake is not an irrational leap. that's the case that's being heard by the court. >> sandra: jonathan, we want to hear your response. we'll take a quick break and we'll be right back.

>> fox news alert, welcome back to a brand-new hour as we look live on capitol hill where they have taken a quick break for lunch. day one of the confirmation process for judge amy coney barrett. we've heard a lot in that room so far but still seven senators yet to go and the nominee herself we will hear from, and we just heard from jonathan turley and chris wallace, trey gowdy involved in that as well. jonathan, o i will let you respd to chris wallace. you were talking among other things about republicans and then being challenged by democrats on intentions over aca in all this, the hypocrisy of republicans stopping a nomination back in 2016. i'll let you proceed. >> well what concerns me is that this is becoming a sort of milk carton hearing with all of these pictures surrounding the nominee. and the members making arguments of policy, saying how important the aca is. at the same time, they are

accusing her of being overtly political. those are not consistent positions, they are arguing for the policy and benefits of the aca to a future justice is not supposed to consider her decision on policy, she just looks at whether law is constitutional or legal in every respect. where chris and i disagreed is yes, the aca was struck down by the lower court judge. but the vetting of most legal experts is that at least two conservative justices will support sending it back to sever the one provision found to be unconstitutional. so my point is only that the assumption being made brought there with all of these pictures is that this future justice is going to end health care for all these individuals. that's just not likely, and more importantly the argument on the merit of the aca, in my view,

are really inappropriate for a confirmation hearing. >> chris: this is an extraordinary time, an election in three weeks and a day. but one of the people on the ticket is kamala harris, who is on this very committee and as we mentioned earlier is in her office building there on the capital. i want to take us back about two years, the beginning of the bright coppebrett kavanaugh hea. here is a snippet of what was then, and then i will ask trey gowdy what we can expect now coming up in about an hour time. >> i'd like to recognize the question before we proceed. >> i will proceed. >> we cannot possibly move forward, mr. chairman. we haven't discussed molar or* - -- >> are you sure about your

answer, sir? >> i am asking you a very direct question, clearly you aren't going to answer the question. >> part of the reason we won run that, we are five days removed from watching her debate mike pence. trey gowdy, but would be your expectation for her opening comments? >> well i hope she will ask a question that is rooted or grounded in fact, unlike the one she asked justice kavanaugh. i think the democrats perceive they did not fare well after the kavanaugh confirmation hearing, you won't see that level of ad hominem attack. you will hear about the aca, i would like to make one point. i'm pointed out that scalia had zero no votes and amy coney barrett will get zero yes votes from democrats. what happened was marit garland, that can't possibly be what

happened because samuel alito got 40 no democrat votes, john roberts got two dozen no democrat votes a decade before merit garland including clinton, biden, obama, kerry, schumer, einstein. what happened to the supreme court confirmation hearings predates them by at least a decade. >> chris wallace has been listening to that and wants to respond. go ahead, chris. >> look, i agree it didn't start with merit garland. on the other hand, john roberts sailed through. the world had changed from the 90s to when we got into the 2000s. and again, the question i would have, ben sasse made this huge argument about the difference between civics and politics. here's my question to you,

congressman gaudi, is it civics that the republicans blocked the merit garland nomination and are pushing this one through now 22 days, or is it pure politics? >> it's pure politics, but also what is pure politics is the one republican who is actually done what most of us want to see, which is treat supreme court justice is fairly is lindsey graham, who voted for soreness out of mayor. the reward for that is a historic amount of money trying to keep them out of the senate. it's politics, but -- >> make it quick. >> chris: one quick thing in response, i agree with you. we know each other, i agree with you on that one and i agree the whole system is messed up and

the politics is out of control. having said that, it was lindsey graham who in 2018 or 2019 at a forum said look, if there is a nomination in the final year after the primary starts in 2020 for donald trump, i will not bring it up before my committee. he even said mark the tape and hold meet account on that, he has flipped entirely. here's my point, it's all politics. >> wait a minute, we are debating history. from four years ago. today in 2020, you have a leading candidate in joe biden who has been asked repeatedly whether or not he would pack the court if you won. he has yet to even provide an answer, we are still waiting on that day after day. that's where we are in 2020. ken starr joins our coverage, former independent counsel and fox news contributor. as we await up to 12 minutes away from going back into the senate opening statements. where are we today, what have

you observed so far, sir? >> it's such a breath of fresh air as a somewhat acrimonious as it may seem. this is really child's play in light of what we've seen in prior confirmation hearings. so i think the game is improved. what it has come down to, of course, is the issue of timing, pure politics. it has nothing to do with the constitution, the president has a vacancy. this has been said this morning. it's his, it's been said before. the president has a duty to do his job which is to submit the nominee. so he's doing his job. so all the back-and-forth about who said what and when, it's fair political dialogue and debate. but what we do have, this is what i think we will continue to see, is a solid republican support for a superbly qualified nominee. that's one of the themes. the other thing is the one-trick pony, and it's a pretty darn good political trick, is she

will strike down the affordable care act weird that is so totally presumptuous and unfoun. the issue coming up on november 10th is very narrow, it's very important but it's whether the whole act gets thrown out. here's my prediction, and i agree with what's been said earlier. the supreme court is not going to throw the whole thing out. no way. you can take that to the bank. why? because the court is cautious, only to members of the court will be willing to say if one heart of the statute is invalid, the so-called tax part, the penalty part, then the whole statute must fall. that's not the law. the vast majority of justices ever to serve, including antonin scalia, certainly including ruth ginsburg, and i'm going to predict she, justice barrett, will not vote interact to to tear down the entire -- not as a political act, but that as you

should try to be as respectful whether you agree with it or not, the congressional process as possible. to preserve as much as you can when you disagree with it or not. >> if you could stand by, i want to play senator white house at some point, please don't tell us this isn't about the affordable care act. listen. >> now talking about socialized medicine, the old republican battle cry against medicare, all of our colleagues on this committee are fishing to get this nominee by november 10. the time needed to strike down the affordable care act. please don't tell us this isn't about the affordable care act. >> he was one of the 15 sanity is rehearsenators we heard fromr thoughts on what you have seen so far, katie. >> democrats are certainly taking the political test here, and focused on obamacare is an interesting one. the way that they are presenting

it to the american people today. a number of the senators are attorneys, they are lawyers. they study constitutional law. i haven't heard any of them, except for republicans, talk about whether obamacare is constitutional. democrats are so concerned about the constitutionality of this piece of legislation, then they may be back in the day when they actually rusted through when it was past, should have written a law that could pass constitutional. the other argument we are hearing is this extraordinarily dishonest redefining of what constitutes court packing. a number of democrats today and other media interviews leading up to the hearing today that president trump and the republican led senate filling open federal bench seats is court packing. while they refuse to answer the question in a direct way whether they would add additional seats to the supreme court. that is something that they are trying to redefine in terms of

the narrative here. but going back to obamacare, while they are not arguing the constitutionality of a bill that they wrote and voted for and passed with no republican support years ago, they are making an emotional argument in terms of politics because of the election and health care being a top priority for voters. while republicans are talking about constitutionality, they are doing their job in terms of consent and advisement after the president gave them a nominee. democrats are focused on politics and emotion rather than the constitutionality of the bill that they passed in the middle of the night so many years ago. >> katie, stand by. i want to bring back inside that room, but before we do that here is what i believe is one of the latest clips, joe biden on friday when asked whether or not voters deserve to know his stance on packing the court. >> i have to ask you about packing the court. this is the number one thing i've been asked about from viewers. >> you've been asked by the viewers who are probably

republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what we are doing to the court right now. >> don't the voters deserve to know? >> no they don't. >> martha maccallum rejoins our conversation on that. >> it's interesting, a really boxed themselves into a corner with this. there's a number of answers that might get them off the hook. to say that they would consider down the road, joe biden was already on the record on this issue. he said that it was a mistake for fdr to consider packing the court back in the 30s and he suggested it would be sort of a back-and-forth game. and he was very much against it. but his running mate kamala harris was much more forward on this when she was asked on the campaign trail, absolutely she said she would consider packing the court. so they need to come up with a better answer for this. a town hall and abc on thursday night, a presidential debate coming up next week. joe biden has to figure out what the answer is to this before the election.

one other point i want to make on this whole aca issue, which is clearly front and center for democrats right now, and perhaps because i am not a lawyer i can explain it in a way that might make sense to viewers at home. when it was taken up and when justice roberts had a somewhat surprising viewpoint on it, it was much more of a comprehensive decision about whether or not obamacare, which is known as aca, was constitutional overall. because congress had essentially leveraged it that something mandated be purchased by all of the american people. so that was much broader acceptance of whether or not the law itself was constitutional to impose on people. this issue that is coming up, just is asking a very constitutional, legal question whether or not when you take out the individual mandate which is now gone, as ken starr pointed out, it doesn't exist anymore. what's left of the law? if that part is cut out, if it's severed away, does the rest of

the lost down? it's much more on the merits of obamacare and covering health care, and much more legal issue of a conservative viewpoint on that tends to support leaving the law that congress passed because congress was elected by the people in place. and to be respectful of what congress has put in place. so i think that's why there is this assumption, and granted, it's an assumption that is more conservative court will be leaning likely on allowing the lust of the law to stand. >> we are watching inside the hearing room, things are going to be back on her way in about . we have a couple minutes, we will take a quick break. first we will hear from maggie burnell, comley harris among seven senators left to go before we hear from a nominee herself. which we know she has been nominated to fill justice ginsburg seat but no one will ever take her place. your thoughts. >> this is a political moment,

there are as i mentioned before eight senators up for reelection and one vice president will nominee, who is staying in her office out of protest against the chairman here who she says did not stipulate or set up testing for this hearing. and didn't feel it was protected enough when it came to covert precautions. just to go back into the history books and get into the debate that chris and trey were having, i think that 1987 the robert nomination and hearing process is where it started going south as far as how these things were happening. 1987 also both a time when joe biden gave a big speech about how fdr was wrong about court packing. then it went south from there, clarence thomas in 1991 you remember that confirmation hearing. and to the controversy around it. and just one creek trivia fact, there are two senators on this panel today that were a part ofe

1986 confirmation of justice scalia. that is chuck grassley and pat lahey. so just giving you a little history there. >> very interesting. >> we saw patrick lahey, he is virtual in vermont. tom tillis still recovering from covid. he's expected to be in person tomorrow. ted cruz is still in quarantine. in a moment, we are going to go back inside the room before we start up again. shannon will give us a lay of the land for precautions in place, kamala harris has chosen to appear virtually. that's coming up right after this.

i knew about the tremors. but when i started seeing things, i didn't know what was happening... so i kept it in. he started believing things that weren't true. i knew something was wrong... but i didn't say a word. during the course of their disease around 50% of people with parkinson's may experience hallucinations or delusions. but now, doctors are prescribing nuplazid. the only fda approved medicine... proven to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the most common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. we spoke up and it made all the difference.

ask your parkinson's specialist about nuplazid.

>> welcome back to our coverage, we will be back in a matter of moments here. a bit of stunning political news, it appears that only one senator has chosen to seek a microphone or camera during the break, that was chairman graham during the commercial timeout. asked whether or not they will continue the current pace or whether or not the president tweeting suggesting flying by this thing. that's to the side, as we await shannon bream gives us the lay of the land from inside. what sort of precautions are in place? what do you observe today? inside a hearing like any other. >> shannon: absolutely, even the physical set up is completely different than anything we've had in the past. normally you would see the senators around that wooden area, they'd all be packed in there. in the middle of the room is

where you would see the nominee, you would see tons of chair in there. the public allowed to come as well, this is a complete a different set. now you have the senators into tears, separated by 6 feet, clorox wipes, hand sanitizer, there's plenty of social distancing and you don't have the public component as we talked about, that makes this a much more settled, quiet, and so far efficient hearing that is moving along. so the set up is totally different. you have to certify when you show up to work and there are very few people allowed to be here, we are grateful as the media we can be here. you don't have a certain temperature, you don't have symptoms of covid, that you want around anybody, so you have to make those i to stations before you come in and take part. senators seem to be keeping their distance and sticking to roles, mostly wearing their masks unless they are speaking. the judge neve now returning, vy

much separated when she sits down. >> thank you shannon, ken, if you could jump in here. we heard from you once. but the nominees taking her seat, we will hear from her shortly. i think america is about to hear from a wonderful human being, and we know all her qualities. so it's really going to come down to how effective are the democrats in saying those scare tactics, she is sure to strike down the affordable care act. that is, i think, a bridge too far for everyone. get ready for a beautiful statement by am amy coney barre. >> going hungry because their parents have lost their jobs, and can't afford to buy food. hundreds of thousands of small businesses have closed their doors forever. shattering dreams and livelihoods. the white house has become a

covid-19 hot spot, driven by the president's ongoing denial of how serious this pandemic is. not even contracting the virus and being hospitalized seems to have shaken him back to reality. in normal times, the senate would be focusing our attention on passing legislation to help the millions of americans suffering during this pandemic. but, these are not normal times. instead, republicans are rushing to put a nominee onto the supreme court to be the deciding vote to take health care away from millions of people. president trump has been very clear about what he's doing, he repeatedly promised to appoint supreme court justices who will strike down the aca. and by nominating judge barrett, the president is keeping his promise. in her speech at the white hou white house, covid super-spreader event two weeks

ago, judge barrett aligned herself with her mentor, the late justice antonin scalia who twice voted to strike on the aca. to help the president keep his promise, our republican colleagues are rushing to confirm judge barrett in a hypocritical, illegitimate process. mere weeks before the election. they want judge barrett seated just in time to hear the republican lawsuit challenging the aca a week after the election. for americans dealing with this pandemic, it must seem outrageous that donald trump and senate republicans are determined to take away their health care and are just as determined to do nothing to help americans with a new covid relief bill. and they are right, it is outrageous. but it's not surprising. republicans have made it clear for the past decade that repealing the affordable care act is the top of their

hit list. we know this, because a mere two weeks after assuming control of the house in 2011, republicans voted to repeal the aca for the first time and over the next six years, the next six years, republicans took at least 70 votes in congress to eliminate provisions of the aca or to repeal it altogether. these repeal efforts culminated in the early morning hours of july 282017 what our late colleague senator john mccain gave his dramatic speech and saved health care for millions by one vote, his vote. faced with their 70 failures to get rid of the aca in congress, republicans have taken to the court. it right, the trump administration and 18 republicans state attorney general's, including

those from texas, south carolina, and missouri, or at the supreme court right now trying to strike on the aca. our arguments in the case are struggled to the max scheduled for november 10. this latest legal effort has been turbocharged because of death of our champion justice ruth bader ginsburg only three weeks ago. her death has changed everything for donald trump and senate republicans. they are confident that victory in the supreme court is now within their grasp. if the senate confirms judge barrett through this hypocritical, illegitimate process. the consequences of judge barrett's confirmation would be devastating for millions of americans who would lose their health care during. even in normal times, no one in our country should have to confront a major illness worried

that it might bankrupt their family. but we all know, these are not normal times. health care is the number one concern for so many people in our country. and they are rightly terrified that judge barrett will provide the deciding vote to overturn the aca. and take away their health care. i want to share two of their stories today. kimberly dickens is from raleigh north carolina, before the affordable care act kimberly couldn't afford health insurance. thankfully the aca enabled her to get health care. she used that coverage to get a checkup, and a mammogram which found her breast cancer. with her health insurance, she was able to get a mastectomy and has been cancer free since. kimberly credits the aca for saving her life, she said "if it wasn't for the affordable care act, i probably wouldn't have had that mammogram. i was diagnosed early.

it scares me to think if i didn't have insurance, how far advanced with the cancer have grown?" kimberly's story is not unique, in the years of all the battles of eliminating the aca, we've heard from hundreds and thousands of constituents across the country. sharing their health care stories. lee and his daughter jordan are from my home state of hawaii, jordan who is an elementary school teacher at eva beach elementary school has pnh, a very rare blood condition. she treats this condition, she gets infusions of a special medicine that cost around $500,000 per year without insurance. dean told me that "without this medicine, she will die." dean and jordan live in fear that republicans will strike down the aca, which would allow

her insurance company to put lifetime caps on her benefits and she would be left without coverage for her life saving medication. dean wrote to me to share how extreme the terrifyin terrifieds about his daughter losing acceso adequate health care under the aca. he asked me to fight for her and that's what i'm doing today. health care is personal to kimberly, dean, jordan, and is personal to me too. because i know that having health insurance and access to health care saved my life. on the day when the senate confirms neil gorsuch to the supreme court, i got a routine chest x-ray before a scheduled eye surgery. a shadow on that x-ray and a leaders can lead to my diagnosis of stage for kidney cancer. and gave me time to receive treatment. my diagnosis was a total shock, and i am grateful it came when

there was still time. i still have cancer, but i don't need any treatment right now. i receive regular scans so that i will know in time if treatment becomes necessary again. i'm grateful for the care i received and continue to receive for my doctors. the cost of my treatment, which included surgery to remove a kidney, a second surgery to remove part of a rib, replaced with a 7-inch titanium plate, almost two years of cutting edge immunotherapy and regular scans has been enormous. it would bankrupt almost every family in this country if they didn't have health insurance. i'm not special or unique. serious illness can hit anyone unexpectedly. it did for me. and when it does, no one should have to worry about whether they can afford care that might save

their life. the affordable care act provided this peace of mind for so many people over the years who found themselves in positions similar to mine. their lives and their health are what's at stake. their lives are what's at stake with this nomination, and at moments like this where the health care of millions is on the line, i think back to the care and concern so many of you showed me when i was diagnosed with cancer three and a half years ago. so many of you, including many of my republican colleagues wrote heartfelt note wishing me well and letting me know you are thinking of me. and to this day, when the chairman of this committee and i find ourselves away from the cameras or sharing an elevator, he never hesitates to ask me about my health.

about, he says how are you doing? mr. chairman, uni have had our appointed disagreements over the years, particularly during our time together on this committee. but your concern means a lot to me. moments when we recognize our shared humanity are rare in congress these days. but this can, and should be one of those moments. this can be a moment, mr. chairman, for you and your republican colleagues to show the american people terrified about losing their health care the same care and compassion you showed me and continue to show me when i was diagnosed with cancer. instead of rushing to jam another ideologically driven nominee onto the supreme court in the middle of an election, when over 9 million americans have already voted. mr. chairman, let's end this

hypocritical, illegitimate hearing. return to the urgent work we have before us, to help those suffering during this pandemic. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hirano. i think it's not just me, everybody on this community and everybody that knows you knows you are passionate about your causes. you have a lot of political differences but all of us are very encouraged to hear that you are doing well and will keep praying for you. you are an asset to the senate. >> i appreciate that. thank you. do the right thing. aloha. >> aloha. >> thank you mr. chair. judge barrett, thank you so much for being in front of us today. welcome to you and of course i am so glad that you have had your family join you as well.

only a hundred years ago, women in this country were given the right to vote and today, we consider adding another woman to the highest court in the land and i can't help but be so proud of all of the, every one of our women have accomplished in this incredible nation. this is the first time that i've been a member of the judiciary committee during a supreme court nomination process. and as you probably know, like most americans i'm not a lawyer. i bring a slightly different perspective onto this committee. but one thing is very important to me, and it's something that matters to iowans, whether they are lawyers or not. i firmly believe in the role of our supreme court. it is the defender of our constitution.

at the end of the day, that's my test for a supreme court justice. will you defend the constitution? it frustrates me and it frustrates my fellow iowans that the supreme court has become a super legislature. for a congress that frankly won't come together, discussed these tough issues, and do its job. what i hear from my colleagues on the left is about judicial activism, and what they want to see in their nominee, which is that super legislature. they are projecting that upon you. , judge barrett. that's what they are projecting as they talk about what cases may or may not come in front of the supreme court. as a matter of fact, just the other day that vice president

joe biden told the american people they don't deserve to know whether he is going to pack the court. they don't deserve to know who his judicial nominees would be. i think we do need to know. again, because it's what the left is projecting on you today. it's what they want to see in their nominees. but that's not what our founders intended the court to be. i hope that this hearing will be an open, fair conversation about how judge barrett would be as justice barrett. i am concerned, however, that not everybody involved in this hearing shares that goal. we've already seen hints in that over the past few weeks. immediately attacking your faith and your precious family. instead of entering into this nomination process with an open

mind and a desire to understand this woman, who has been nominated for the highest court in the land, the focus is on a plan or a strategy, a series of tactics to undermine, coerce, and confuse the american people. a plan, judge barrett, to undermine you as a person, undermine your family, and undermine what you hold dear. women all over the world are painfully familiar with this strategy. we are all too often perceived and judged based on someone else needs or wants us to be. not on who we actually are. i cannot speak for those that would attempt to undermine your nomination, but as a fellow woman, a fellow mom, a fellow midwesterner, i see you for who

you are. and i am glad the american people have the opportunity to get to know amy coney barrett. this week will be an opportunity to dig into your background further, and understand more about your judicial philosophy. but what your political opponents want to paint you as is a tv or cartoon version of a religious radical. a so-called "handmade" that feeds into all of the ridiculous stereotypes they set out to lambaste people of faith in america. and that's wrong. it might be left comical, this was the first time the left has trotted out this partisan label. your political opponents have made these types of religious attacks on nearly every supreme court candidate nominated by a republican

resident in the modern era. and every time, like clockwork, they say they really mean it this time, this nominee, this woman in front of us, she is the absolute worst. i'm struck by the irony of how demeaning to women their accusations really are. that you, a working mother of seven, with a strong record of professional and academic accomplishments, couldn't possibly respect the goals and desires of today's women. that you, as a practicing catholic, with a detailed record of service, lack of compassion. i know you to be compassionate. your record on the seventh circuit says that you are, and more importantly it shows that your demonstrated commitment is to defending the constitution.

the great freedom of being an american woman is that we can decide how to build our lives. who to marry, what kind of person we are, and where we want to go. i served in the army, something not exactly popular at various points in america's history. we don't have to fit the narrow definition of womanhood, we create our own path. justice ginsburg was one such woman, and i would like to pay tribute to her for what she did to pave the way for women of today. it's really quite simple what your opponents are doing, they are attacking you as a mom and a woman of faith because they cannot attack your qualifications. every year, i travel to every single one of iowa's 99 counties and talk to men and women from

all walks of life. whether they are farmers or nurses or small business owners, they want a government that is accountable to them. when congress makes a law that oversteps the constitution, the ripples can be felt whether it's on farms in montgomery county, where i'm from, and the manufacturing facilities of dubuque. it can be felt in the church services of sioux city and the community meetings in waterloo. the supreme court only job is to rule on the cases before it and defend the constitution. to do that well, a justice needs to be sought back thoughtful, restrained, and wise. judge barrett, so far i have seen all of those things. i am so glad that we have you in front of us, i look forward to learning more about you. i want to thank you and your family for being in this

nomination today, and certainly, this, folks, is what a mom can do. thank you, judge barrett come up very much. thank you mr. chair. >> senator booker. >> thank you mr. chairman. behind me, marit goldman is a 49-year-old father of twin boys which you can see, at a football coach and paraprofessional in new jersey. for years, he put off going to the doctor because he was afraid he could not afford it. but when the affordable care act was passed, he finally got the coverage he could afford. four years ago, after not feeling well, marit made a doctors appointment and was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. a disease that affects over 10% of americans and disproportionately impacts black americans who are 60% more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes and twice as likely to die from it.

today, marit takes insulin and other medications and his condition has improved, marit said "obamacare made it so i was not afraid of the costs of going to the doctor." if i didn't have insurance and didn't get diagnosed, who knows where i would be right now? "but marit is worried about what will happen if the affordable care act gets overturned. he said and i quote "now i have a pre-existing condition, my insurance covers my medications, my equipment to monitor my diabetes, if that is taken away from me what's going to happen? i can't afford those on my own." michelle from palisades park new jersey lost her husband john last year when he passed away suddenly at the age of 58. michelle relied on health insurance from his job, when he died there insurance went away. she was given the option to

continue his plan, but she couldn't afford the cost of $800 a month. so michelle signed up for coverage on the insurance marketplace, where she qualified for a subsidy that made it more affordable. today, she is insured and she can manage her diabetes, heart disease, and autoimmune disease because of her coverage. like marit, michelle also relies on insulin and other prescription medications. if the aca was overturned, michelle said "i could lose my house. if i didn't have affordable health care, i would have to sell my home. i like where i live, i don't want to lose my home." people like marit and michelle are understandably scared right now, president trump has told america he would end the aca. he promised explicitly he would only nominate judges that would do the right thing, and

eliminate the affordable care act. people like marit and michelle know what a future without the aca looks like. it looks like 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions from cancer survivors to people with disabilities being charged more or denied coverage completely. it looks like 20 million americans losing their access to potentially life-saving care in the middle of a pandemic that's already killed over 214,000 americans. in new jersey, we lost over 16,000 people took over 19. 595,000 people would lose their coverage without the aca. for millions of americans, a future without the aca looks like being forced to sell your house if you can't afford your health care. it looks like not having access to a doctor when you are sick. it looks like having to choose

between paying for groceries and paying for medicine. people are scared right now for another reason, because they know what a future without the protection of roe v. wade looks like because president trump has explicitly stated that he would only put up supreme court nominees that would overturn roe v. wade. he said it clearly, we should believe him. in fact, without roe v. wade our country looks like people being denied the ability to make decisions about their own bodies. not just while they are pregnant but being stripped of the right to plan for their futures. it looks like women of color, low income women and women living in rural areas who can't just pack up and leave if abortion is restricted or criminalized. it looks like them being left with no options. it looks like state laws proliferating throughout our country that seek to control and criminalize women.

it looks like the government interfering with women making the most personal medical decisions. it looks like a country in which states may write laws that could subject women who have miscarriages to investigations to ensure they didn't have abortions. in america today, people are scared. we've heard from my colleagues, we are getting calls to our office where people are afraid. more than 214,000 americans have died, many of them isolated and alone away from friends and family. tens of millions of jobs have been lost. one in three american families with children aren't getting enough food to eat, more than 100,000 small businesses have closed permanently. lines at food banks in the wealthiest nation on the planet have stretched for miles. we could be, as the senate we

should be working in a bipartisan way to try to get this virus under control, to get relief to people who are hurting or struggling, who are afraid. to help people who are unemployed, to let doctors and nurses and hospital staff putting their lives on the line right now in state after state where covid is rising, know that we have their backs in a pandemic. but instead of doing anything to help people who are struggling right now, we are here. we are here. i'm so glad, i'm really glad that my colleagues have contracted covid-19 at the rose garden super-spreader event for judge barrett had access to the care that you and your families needed. that is right. this is a blessing. the problem is, the people who will come through here today to wipe down the desks and empty

the garbage, that will vacuum the court floor, like people all over our country working today in factories, teaching children in schools, they don't have direct lines to the nation's top health experts. they can't show up to work sick. and they might not have space to distance themselves at home to protect their families. we literally stopped the senate from functioning with the exception of his hearing, that's why we are here. we are to just 22 days from an election, we are in the middle of an ongoing election. when millions of people have already started voting because donald trump and most of my senate republican colleagues know the truth. they won't be able to get away with this after the american people have spoken in this election. donald trump and my senate republican colleagues know that

the american people don't want the aca overturned. donald trump and my senate republican colleagues know that the majority of americans don't want roe v. wade overturned. the majority of americans don't want to see abortion criminalized in our states. but that is exactly why we are here today, because donald trump and senate republicans know that the american people don't want this so they have to act now. they don't trust the american people, which is so painful because that's what they said, they said we should trust the american people and what the american people say under president obama 269 days from an election. and then, after that election they try to time and time again to overturn the affordable care act but a handful of republicans stopped them. they tried in the senate, they tried in the house over 70 attempts to rip down the affordable care act but now donald trump has set explicitly

he's going to do it through the courts by making the nomination you see her today. that's why we are here. the american people should know that that is what this is all about, rushing this nomination through to sit a supreme court justice in time to hear a case before the supreme court that will end the affordable care a act. we are here because in the middle of a deadly pandemic, in the middle of an ongoing election, senate republicans have found a nominee in judge barrett who they know will do what they couldn't do, subvert the will of the american people and overturn the aca and overturn roby wade. that's what this is about, it's very simple. senate replicants know the american people don't want this, but they don't care. because they have only one small window of opportunity to work the system, betray with the american people want and so they are desperately rushing to complete this process before america starts voting but they

don't have to do this. if one of my colleagues will stand up on this committee, we can hold this over until after an election. if two of my colleagues on the senate floor agree with their other two colleagues, we can stop this. otherwise, this is a charade when they say this is a normal judiciary committee hearing for supreme court nomination. there is nothing about this that's normal. it's not normal, senate republicans are rushing to a confirmation hearing. violating their own words, their own statements. betraying the trust of the american people and their colleagues and failing to take even the most basic safety protections to protect people around them. all to ensure that tens of millions of people will lose their health care. when we are seven months into one of the worst public health crises in the history of our country. it's not normal, this is not normal. that millions of americans like

michelle and merritt are not just scared of a deadly virus, they are scared of their fellow americans who are sitting in this room right now. they are scared that their government and institutions will be manipulated by people that could not work through the democratic process to take away their health care, and are trying an end run to achieve that. nothing about this today is normal, this is not normal. what is going on in america today in the midst of a deadly pandemic and ongoing election, having a rushed supreme court nomination hearing is not normal, and we cannot normalize it. people are voting right now, the american people should decide, the american people should decide, the american people should decide. i will not be voting to confirm judge barrett's nomination. >> thank you. >> i would like to submit a

letter for the record, if i may we should not be rushing this process as i said, my colleagues agree with me that we should be working to protect the health and safety of americans across the country and take any precautions, greater precautions in this workplace. i'd like to enter into the record a letter from senators lahey, harris and myself that we sent to the german last week asking that these hearings not proceed without testing measures, without all of us being tested and covert safety protocol being put into place. >> without objection. >> thank you mr. chairman. judge barrett, welcome and congratulations on the high honor of your nomination. i have some prepared remarks here which i will give. but having sat through the speeches that i've heard already and listened to the attacks that have been made, both on republican members of the committee and on you, i think it's important to just set the

record straight on a few items. before i then talk about why we are here and that is you and your qualifications to serve as a justice. so what were the attacks? the first one is we are rushing too fast, and violating the rules and norms and precedents of the senate and speeding into these proceedings. what are the facts? well, this hearing is 16 days after judge barrett's unannounced nomination. more than half of all supreme port hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee, this is no different. a couple of examples, justice stevens ten days. justice rehnquist 13 days. justice powell, 13 days. justice blackmun, 15 days. justice burger, 13 days.

these proceedings are following right along in the same kind of process that has historically been the process of the senate. so then the argument is made that while this is an election year, and the republicans said back in 2016 that in an election year they wouldn't move forward with then president obama's nomination. what are the facts? a vacancy has arisen in a presidential election year 29 times. every single one, and this in is important to note, every single one of those times whoever was the sitting president made the nomination to replace the vacant seat, to fill the vacancy. every one of those 29 times. 19 of those 29 times, the parties of the president and senate majority were the same. and 17 of those 19 nominees were

confirmed. by contrast, of the ten times in which the senate was controlled by the party opposite to the president, only one time did the senate that was not of the party of the president proceed to fill that vacancy. in fact, vacancies under a divided government, meaning a senate and presidency from different parties, have not been filled for over 130 years. going back to 1888. so much like when the senate exercised its constitutional right, fully consistent with precedent in 2016 not to fulfill the vacancy when there was divided government, the senate is today exercising its duty to move forward with processing this nomination, just like the vast majority of senates in the past have done every time this

has happened. and it's important to note that. any claim that this process is unusual or that it violates the clear precedent of the senate is simply false. so then, back to so then, back to the attacks on the members of this committee on the republican side and frankly, the president, that say we are trying to engage in court-packing. that's a novel one because it is actually the senate following standard procedure with regard to a vacancy that is now being accused of being court-packing when my colleagues on the other side are actually proposing court-packing. that is the statutorily and with the signature of a president change the law so that they can add more members to the court. fdr tried this and the effort was rejected. that effort should be rejected now but let's be clear about it.

this is not court-packing. that, threatening to pass a law and change though court is court-packing. so then what were the arguments that were actually leveled against judge barrett? well, the standard arguments. she is going to overturn all protections for women. "she is going to change all of the laws in the country that protect people's health care" and "everyone in this country who has a pre-existing condition or has any kind of a worry about getting support needs to worry. that she's going to be an activist judge and go in there and change the law." she's not and we all know that. this is simply the tired, worn out argument that is constantly made every time a republican

president nominate a candidate for the bench of the supreme court of the united states. it is not and will never be true with judge barrett. then the attack is, well, the republicans don't care about people's health. they won't even try to get covid relief out. we are hearing a hearing in the judiciary committee when we ought to be passing covid relief legislation and i've heard several of my colleagues see the republicans are refusing to work on helping to address the covid crisis. this coming from colleagues who just a month or so ago voted unanimously to filibuster a 600, 500- $600 billion relief package in the senate, a relief package, i asked my staff to give me a quick summary of it, that put as i indicated somewhere between five and $600 billion into more small business loans,

unemployment insurance, agriculture and farming assistance, postal service assistance, education assistance both at the higher education levels and at k-12, health care assistance for a pandemic preparation for strategic stockpiles, for testing, for contact-tracing. billions for vaccines and therapeutics and diagnostic development and the list goes on. we were stopped from proceeding with this legislation by a filibuster of those who now accuse us of not wanting to try to do something. we stand ready if you will simply let us go to the legislation and pass it. so now, judge barrett, let me talk about you. judge, you have an exemplary academic record and legal credentials. and you are preeminently qualified to serve on our

supreme court. following your graduation from law school, you clerked for both the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia and the u.s. supreme court. at the supreme court you clerked, as everyone knows, for none other than the late justice antonin scalia. upon receiving your nomination to the supreme court, judge barrett reflected on her clerkship for justice scalia, citing his incalculable influence on her life. she also stated that his judicial philosophy is hers, too, and that a judge must apply the law as written. that's what we need in our next supreme court justice. rather than the activist justice that you are being accused of being. judges are not policy-makers and they are, they must be resolute in setting aside policy views that they may hold and i know you know that. should we not take judge barrett at her word?

as a judge, supreme court or otherwise, she must be dedicated to interpreting the law as written with an unparalleled commitment to our constitution. i visited with her privately, i reviewed her record, i have seen nothing that would indicate that she is not telling the truth when she says that is her view of how a judge should conduct herself. i've met with a number of supreme court nominees in my service in the senate and throughout i've continued to maintain an emphasis on following the law and upholding our constitution and that that must be a central characteristic of the justices we select for this highly influential part of our government. judges have a great responsibility to carefully exercise their authority within the limits of the law. our court system has a responsibility to preserve our constitutional rights, ensure a limited government and provide speedy and fair justice.

following her clerkship, judge barrett spent time in private practice before beginning her tenure as a professor. her academic scholarship and lengthy analysis of issues facing the federal courts make her uniquely well qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. in particular, judge barrett's thoughtful exploration of the precedents and doctrine of stare decisis demonstrates that she is both intellectual and deliberative her understanding of the law. moreover it's evident that she understands the roll of a fair and proper judge. in september 2017, judge amy coney barrett came before the senate judiciary committee after being nominated to the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit. during that hearing she repeatedly expressed her commitment to independent and unbiased decision-making. i was proud to support her confirmation to the court of appeals in both the committee and on the senate floor.

judge barrett's remarkable resume shows she is a pioneer in the legal field. she will be the fifth woman and the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the supreme court. in many ways that she is the ideal candidate to fill this current vacancy. mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing more from the nominee about her experience and her judicial philosophy the next few days will prove invaluable as we discussed with judge barrett at length the proper roll of a judge in our legal system. i look forward to this hearing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator harris? >> can you hear me? >> hello? >> hello? >> we hear you. >> mr. chairman, this hearing -- >> just -- >> yes? >> just wait, just one second, we don't see you. one, congratulations on being on

the ticket. there we go. all right. >> can you see me now? >> i can see you now, hear you loud and clear. >> mr. chairman, can you see me and hear me? >> the floor is yours. >> i appreciate it, thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing has brought together more than 50 people to sit inside a closed door room for hours while our nation is facing a deadly airborne virus. the committee has ignored requests to keep people safe, including not requiring testing for all members. despite coronavirus outbreak among senators of this very committee. by contrast, in response to this recent senate outbreak, the leaders of senate republicans likely postponed business on the senate floor this week to protect the health and safety of senators and staff. mr. chairman, for the same reason, this hearing should have been postponed. the decision to hold this

hearing now is reckless and putting facilities workers, janitorial staff and congressional aides in capitol police at risk. not to mention that while tens of millions of americans are struggling to pay their bills, the senate should be prioritizing coronavirus relief and providing financial support to those families. the american people need to have help, to make rent or their mortgage payments. we should provide financial assistance to those who have lost their jobs and help parents put food on the table. small businesses need help, as do cities, towns, and hospitals that this crisis has pushed to the brink. the house bill would help families and small businesses get through this crisis but senate republicans have not lifted a finger for 150 days which is how long that bill has been here in the senate, to move

the bill. yet this committee is determined to rush a supreme court confirmation hearing through in just 16 days. senate republicans have made it crystal clear that rushing a supreme court nomination is more important than helping and supporting the american people who are suffering from a deadly pandemic and devastating economic crisis. their priorities are not the american people's priorities. but for the moment, senate republicans hold a majority in the senate and determine the schedule so here we are. the constitution of the united states interests of the senate with the solemn duty to carefully consider nominations for lifetime appointments to the united states supreme court. yet the senate majority is rushing this process and jamming president trump's nominee through the senate while people are actually just 22 days before

the election. more than 9 million americans of already voted and millions more will vote while this illegitimate committee process is underway. a clear majority of americans want whoever wins this election to fill the seat on my republican colleagues know that. yet they are deliberately defying the millions of people in their attempt to roll back te rights and protections provided under the affordable care act for a lesser member in 2017, president trump and congressional republicans repeatedly tried to get rid of affordable care act. but remember, people from all walks of life spoke out and demanded republicans stop trying to take away the american people's health care republicans finally realized that the affordable care act is too popular to repeal in congress

and how they are trying to bypass the will of the voters and have the supreme court do their dirty work. that's why president trump promised to only nominate judges who will get rid of the affordable care act. this administration, with the support of senate republicans, will be in front of the supreme court on november 10th to argue that the entire affordable care act should be struck down. that's in 29 days that that will happen. and that's a big reason why senate republicans are rushing this process. they are trying to get a justice onto the court to ensure that they can strip away the protections of the affordable care act and if they succeed, it will result in millions of people losing access to health care at the worst possible time. in the middle of a pandemic. 23 million americans could lose their health insurance altogether.

if they succeed they will eliminate protections for 135 million americans with pre-existing conditions like diabetes and asthma, or cancer, a list that now will include over 6 million americans who have contracted covid-19. insurance companies can deny you coverage or sell my qa plan that won't pay a dime toward treating anything related to your pre-existing condition. if the affordable care act is struck down, you will have to once again pay for things like mammograms and cancer screenings and birth control. seniors will pay more for prescription drugs and young adults will be kicked off of their parents plan. and these are not abstract issues. we need to be clear about how overturning the affordable care act will impact the people we all represent. for example, micah, who lives in southern california and is 11 years old. micah enjoys being a girl scout

and ice skating and reading and eating pasta and baking. her mother says the only reason micah is able to live her life as she does now is because the affordable care act guarantees that her health insurance is not denying her coverage or limiting her care because it's too expensive. you see, micah has a congenital heart defect. she goes to multiple specialists throughout the year and gets an mri with anesthesia every six months. at just 11 months old, micah's family had already hit $60,000 in medical expenses and her biannual mri costs $15,000 a session. so correction, by 11, she hit $500,000 in medical expenses. if republicans succeed in striking down the affordable care act, insurance companies will be able to deny coverage for children with serious conditions. children like micah.

and parents, well, they will be on their own. no one should face financial ruin to get their child or their spouse or their parents for the they need. and no family should be kept from seeing a doctor or getting treatment because an insurance company thinks the treatment's too expensive. in america, access to health care should not be determined based on how much money you have. access to health care should be a right. micah and millions of others were protected by affordable care act and know this is fundamentally what's at stake with the supreme court nomination. and of course there is more at stake. throughout our history, americans have brought cases to the united states supreme court in our ongoing fight for civil rights, human rights and equal justice. decisions like brown versus board of education, which opened up educational opportunities for

black boys and girls, roe vs. wade which recognized a woman's right to control her own body. recognized that love is love and that marriage equality is the law of the land. the united states supreme court is often the last refuge for equal justice when our constitutional rights are being violated. justice ruth bader ginsburg devoted her life to fighting for equal justice and she defended the constitution. she advocated for human rights and equality. she stood up for the rights of women, she protected workers, she fought for the rights for consumers against big corporations, she supported lgbtq rights and she did so much more. but now her legacy and the rights she fought so hard to protect are in jeopardy.

by replacing justice ruth bader ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy, president trump is attempting to roll back for decades to come. every american must understand that with this nomination, equal justice under law is at stake. our voting rights are at stake. workers rights are at stake. consumer rights are at stake. the right to a safe and legal abortion is at stake. and holding corporations accountable is at stake. and again, there is so much more. so, mr. chairman, i do believe this hearing is a clear attempt to jam through a supreme court nominee who will take health care away from millions of people during a deadly pandemic that has already killed more than 214,000 americans.

i believe we must listen to our constituents and protect their access to health care and wait to confirm a new supreme court justice until after americans decide who they want in the white house. thank you. speak i think you, senator harris. senator kennedy? you have a beautiful family, judge. we claim you in louisiana, we are proud of the fact in louisiana that you were born in a suburb of new orleans. we are proud of the fact that you got a solid education at st high school. come back and visit us. i know your mom and dad still

live there and we are very proud of you and your career. this is a solemn occasion, as it should be. i can't think of another position, at least not in a position that is for life, not a position in which the occupant is not impacted by the people that is more powerful, at least not in the western world than an associate justice of the supreme court. and to this process is not supposed to be the big rock candy mountain. our job is to advise and consent and that's one way of saying that we are supposed to make sure that the president has,

whatever president makes the nomination hasn't made a mistake and we all, as you can see, take the job seriously, as you can see and we know you respect that. that's why i think over the next several days, it's appropriate for us to talk about your intellect, which is obvious, by the way, and your temperament, your character, and your judicial philosophy. and i hope we can talk about something else. and that's the roll of the federal judiciary. in american life. now, look, judge. i'm not naive. i understand this thing can turn sour really fast, we all watched the hearings for justice

kavanaugh. it was a freak show. it looked like the cantina bar scene out of "star wars." and i know for someone unaccustomed to it that it hurts to be called a racist. i think it's one of the worst things you can call in american. i know that it hurts to be called "white colonialist" and i know it must hurt for someone of deep christian faith like yourself to be called a religious bigot. and to have it implied that because you are a devout christian that you are somehow unfit for public service. both for its over with they may call you "rosemary's baby" for

all i know. i hope not. and i know as we seen this morning, i know you think it's unfair, it is unfair for my colleagues to suggest some overtly, some indirectly, that if you are put on the united states supreme court you will be on a mission from god to deny health care coverage for pre-existing conditions for every american. i know that seems preposterous to you and it seems that way because it is. take comfort in the fact that the american people, some of my colleagues disagree with this statement. they believe in government. i believe in people. the american people are not morons. they can see drivel when they see it and they can appreciate

it when they see it for being what it is. now, let me turn to what i hope we can talk about today. americans of democracy. we will even fight for it and we have and that's a wonderful thing, it's an important thing in today's world as this world becomes more authoritarian. and our founders, we don't have a pure democracy, as columnist i read this morning said, when we have to decide a complex issue dealing with social norms or economic issues, we don't all put on a toga and go down to the forearm and vote. we have elected representatives, those are members of congress and it is our elected representatives job to decide social and economic policy. and if we don't like what they do, they are accountable, we vote them out.

in the last 50 years, certainly in the last 25, the united states congress either voluntarily or involuntarily has seeded a lot of its power to the executive branch and to the federal judiciary. when i say the executive branch i am not necessarily talking about the president, i'm talking about the administrative state. the bureaucracy has some call it, it's this giant rogue beast that enjoys power now that only kings once enjoyed. members of the administrative state write their own laws, they interpret their own laws. they dedicate their own laws and their own point. i think congress has also advocated a lot of power to the federal judiciary. i do.

of course they make law in the context of a specific case. it's called judicial precipice but our founders intended federal judges to understand the special roll, scope, and mission of the judiciary. i don't think our founders intended our judges to be politicians in ropes. i think our founders intended judges, federal judges to tell us what the law is. i think our founders intended as the chief justice put it. i think our founders intended federal judges to call balls and

strikes, i don't think our founders intended federal judges to be able to redraw the strike zone. i don't think our founders intended for judges to be politicians in ropes. politicians, you don't want the united states supreme court to turn into this. trust me. politicians get to vote their preferences under our democracy, judges do not. judges do not. finally, unlike some of my colleagues i don't think our founders intended the united states supreme court to become a mini-congress, i don't think our founders intended members of the united states supreme court to try to re-write our statutes or the united states constitution every other thursday because to prosecute a social or an

economic agenda that they can't get by the voters. and that goes on in america every day. we reached the point where one single, solitary federal judge in a limited venue can enjoin a federal statute or an executive order of the president of the united states for the entire country and our founders never intended that. i want to close with, with two very short quotations. the first stated much more eloquently than i can is justice curtis in 1857. you probably read it. he dissenting in the scott case and this is what judge curtis said. "one of the strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules must govern the interpretation of laws is

abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control this meeting, we have no longer a constitution. we are under the government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what their constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean." and finally, a more contemporary statement from a gentleman that you were familiar with, justice scalia. he said it in real-world terms, this is what he said. "the american people love democracy and the american people are not fools. the american people know their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school. maybe better. value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated."

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator kennedy. senator blackburn? >> judge barrett, congratulations to you into your your family, i'm delighted to see that they are back in the room. and i am thrilled that they are here with us today. you know, we have had 164 american citizens come before this committee for nomination to the supreme court and to day is the fifth time that we have had a female judge. come before us. so we welcome you and i will say this. unfortunately it's neither rare nor remarkable to see the kind of performance is my democratic colleagues have put on today. what they are trying to do is to convince the american people that they should be terrified of judge amy coney barrett. if you listen closely to their

full statement, it betrays their true intent. if you go back to the transcript you're going to find not a coherent legal counterargument for the panicked stump speech on behalf of their controversial platform, rather than reviewing your judicial philosophies, they are instead choosing to protect their own desires and their fears onto the american people. it sounds as if they are trying to create a panic. they decided to drum up indignation over the fact that you dared to present a counter argument against the constitutionality of the affordable care act. apparently a difference of opinion between two brilliant jurists who often disagree is just too much for them. the rhetoric is unsettling but after listening to them i worry more about its underpinnings.

because my colleague's remarks have their troubling beliefs that nothing but an activist judiciary will do for them. given your track record, you'd think that my colleagues would jump at the opportunity to support a successful female legal superstar who is highly regarded by both her democratic and republican colleagues and who is a working mom. but as today's increasingly paternalistic and frankly disrespectful arguments have shown, if they had their way, only certain kinds of women would be allowed into this hearing. on that note, not so long ago in another hearing they scrutinized your commitment to your catholic faith and tried to use that as a way to question your competency and your professionalism.

they know that that is unconstitutional, the constitution forbids it. you are a brilliant jurists and a constitutional law expert, you will be an intellectual powerhouse on the supreme court and you will steer the panel's focus toward textualism and original as i'm as rightful guiding philosophies. i love justice scalia's definition of textualism. textualism in its present form begins and ends with what the text says it unfairly implies. he goes on to defin defend textm and explained that this message can lead to both conservative and liberal outcomes. similarly, regionalism doesn't always lead a jurist down the path they'd most like to follow. this method of interpretation

holds that the meaning of a legal document such as the constitution remains fixed even when applied over time to new questions. staying true to these guidelines requires more study and patience another method send allows judges to reinvent the law or be activists when things get tricky. since taking the bench, i appreciate that you have written over 100 opinions and have participated in over 900 appeals where you have applied this complex reasoning, thank you for that. we know from prolific scholar and author of over a dozen articles on the court and in the constitution that aba has created you as well-qualified to serve as a supreme court

justice. i appreciate that many times you've probably done this with a child in your arms, on your hip or somewhere in tow, maybe waiting for a ball game to begin. you have done all of this as you have been a friend, a mentor, a wife and a mom. these are impressive qualifications by any standard. it is no surprise that you are fielding attacks from other angles. many of my colleagues have wasted a lot of their time complaining of the process in an effort to delay and obstruct a legitimate constitutionally sound confirmation hearing. let's not forget it was the democrats who took an asked to process in 2018. when they'd dropped last minute,

up substantiated sexual assault allegations against justice kavanaugh. we still do not have the full story about their level and manner of coordination with activists in mainstream media outlets but what we do know is that they turns that confirmation into a circus and on that note it is hard to take seriously their complaints about moving too quickly. we've heard about the timeline for justice o'connor, 33 days. justice ginsburg, 43 days. and just a word on justice ginsburg, whose seat we are failing. she was, indeed, a role model for many because she fought to open more doors for women in the law and beyond and i sincerely hope that i am as effective as an advocate in the senate as she was on the court. we know from studying american history that women have had to always fight for a seat at the

table. this goes back to abigail adams, who urged her husband john to please remember the ladies in their fight for independence. and we know it took 150 years for women to get that right to vote. but the constitution allowed for that amendment process. unfortunately what we see today is the radical activists would like nothing more than to take a hatchet to process. their favorite play is confronting the american people with the suppose it the legitimacy of the constitution they argue that our founders flaws, and yes, they were flawed, that the flaws and validates principles that bind this country together. this betrays a dangerously naive understanding of the point and purpose of our founding legal

documents. the timeless principles contained in that document where written to protect individual rights, absolutely. including the separation of powers and federalism in our government, a system of checks and balances that prevent encroachment from one branch for another. if congress acts beyond the scope of its legislative authority or the president grows too power-hungry, the judiciary has the authority to reign that branch back in. and if the vast bureaucracy dares to over regulate states and their citizens have the right to stand up and challenge that overreach as being beyond the scope of federal power, together the separation of powers and federalism have protected our republican from falling into the hands of tyrants but keep in mind that the founders despise the tyranny of british rule just as much as

they despise the whims of the mob. flash forward to today. when american exceptionalism is under bitter attack from yet another mob, while most americans take pride in our heritage, a vocal minority finds fault at every turn. they demand to note, can we still call the constitution a relevant, valid source of law even though no women or people of color participated in the drafting? are the principles in that document still capable of curbing abuses of power and safeguarding freedom, can we have faith that the future of democracy remains strong despite the summer of looting and violence in the street? the answer to each is yes and over the next few days i expect that you, judge barrett, will explain why. so many families are watching today and we are all going to be listening. thank you for appearing before

us, we look forward to your answers. >> thank you, senator blackburn. i have two call letters i'd like to submit to the record. we have the aba rating regarding judge barrett, i will introduce it in the record, it's fairly short so i'll just read it if that's okay. "the american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of judge amy coney barrett. who has been nominated by the president to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. as you know, the standing committee finds its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional context and judicial temperament. a substantial majority of the standing committee determined that judge barrett is well-qualified and are minority as of the that she is qualified to serve on the supreme court of

the united states. the majority rating represents the standing committee's official rating." enter that into the record. now we have -- >> mr. chairman? could you explain what cdc compliant means? >> it means that the room is set up with social distancing regarding the virus that the architect of the capital measured the space and as to me, i was tested a week ago friday, had brief contact with senator lee, i was negative. i have been told by senator senator monahan that there is no requirement to test me. i feel fine, my exposure is not such that i should be quarantined or tested. anybody that wants to get tested they can and i made a decision to try to make the room as safe as possible but to come to work. millions of americans are going to work today, somebody may have tested positive in a restaurant, the military unit, the fire department or police department.

you may get as safe as possible, you manage the risk and you go to work. i'm not going to be told to be tested by political opponents, i'm going to be tested as an individual when the cdc requires it. we can safely conduct this hearing, we have and i think it's off to a good start so i do care about everybody's safety but as a lot of americans out there, we have to go to work and you can't demand not to show up to work and we are not going to do that here. now we have -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we have three people, our two colleagues from indiana, senator todd young and senator mike brown, i know louisiana adopts our judge here but she is now living in indiana and the third is professor patricia o'hara, who i'd like to briefly introduce, professor o'hara is the professor emeriti,

i hope i got that light, of the law at notre dame law school, has served on the faculty for 40 years and first arrived at notre dame in 1971, the first year law student, graduated summa cum laude and first in her class in 1974. described as the heart and soul of notre dame for over 40 years, a current notre law professor was that of a trailblazer she was the first woman to graduate first in her class from notre dame, a first woman appointed by the board of trustees to serve as an officer of the university as vice president for student affairs, and the first woman to serve as dean of the law school so that will start with senato senator todd. all of these individuals are remote. senator todd? todd young? >> thank you, chairman graham.

breaking member feinstein and members of the committee, i join you in the shadow of monument circle in the indianapolis, indiana. i am honored to appear before you and introduce judge amy coney barrett, a remarkable hoosier poised to make her mark on our country. she truly is an american original. in 2017, when there was an opening on the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit, my office began looking for an extraordinary american who would uphold the rule of law. in response we received dozens of applications for many of the finest legal minds in the state of indiana. my staff and i began researching in earnest to learn everything we could about each candidate to determine who among them would make the best judge. and i interviewed the best of the best. one of those was a constitutional law professor from the university of

notre dame by the name of amy coney barrett. i first met with then-professor barrett in the spring of 2017 and it was abundantly clear that she was a star. a brilliant legal scholar she was and is called in the highest regard by her peers in the legal world. her integrity and character are unimpeachable. she is a model of collegiality and fairness and she possessed all the necessary qualities to be a great appellate court judge then and to be a great supreme court justice now. unfortunately, some resorted to attacks on judge barrett's religious convictions. i can tell you that in indiana and much of the country, faith is viewed as an asset in a

public servant, not a liability. as notre dame president father jenkins righted us then, being a person of faith doesn't interfere with one's ability to apply the law. thankfully, judge barrett's qualifications outshone personal attacks and she was confirmed by a bipartisan majority to the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit. as a member of that court, judge barrett has proven that she is a rather brilliant jurist who interprets the constitution as written and carefully weighs the facts of a given case. she's heard more than 600 cases on the seventh circuit and authored nearly 100 opinions. and i should note, she is the first woman from indiana ever to serve on that esteemed court. during that seventh circuit interview back in 2017, it was obvious that judge barrett love to the law and the constitution.

her love for her family, her husband jesse and their seven children was also clear. if confirmed, judge barrett will be the fifth woman and the first mother of school-age children to a serve a supreme court justice. now, being a parent doesn't qualify one to sit on the supreme court but it does give us hoosiers yet another reason to be proud of amy coney barrett and the trails she's blazed leading her to this moment. education, faith, family, community, equal justice under the law. these are all values that midwesterners hold dear and they are values that americans hold dear and they are all values embodied by judge barrett. author kurt vonnegut, another american original from indiana once said "i don't know what it

is about hoosiers but wherever you go there's always a hoosier doing something very important." where amy coney barrett has gone, she has always been doing sending very important. from raising a family to educating the next generation of scholars to administering justice on the court of appeals. it's my hope that this body will confirm judge barrett in a bipartisan fashion so that we will soon find another hoosier doing something very important on the supreme court of the united states. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we were able to connect, we are having technical problems. we are good? senator. >> okay, we are good. >> can you hear me? >> i can hear you. chairman graham?

hate. chairman graham, ranking member feinstein, it's an auditor for me to introduce a fellow hoosier who makes our state proud. i'm doing this from my hometown, casper indiana at city hall, literally, and on main street. figuratively from a place, town, state that represents a broad cross-section of our country. 2013, justice antonin scalia wrote that the federal judiciary is hardly the cross-section of america. today it's still easy to see what he meant. when confirmed, amy coney barrett will become the only justice of the supreme court to have spent the majority of her professional life in middle america. not on the east coast. when confirmed, she will be the only sitting justice who did not

receive her law degree from harvard or yale. her notre dame law credentials are also from a first-rate university. when confirmed she will be only the second current justice to join the court from west of the nation's capital. when this vacancy arose, i was the first to voice my support for a nominee from the midwest because i believe we need more judges who understand those midwestern values that guide our lives. faith, family, community and respect for the law. amy coney barrett is a quintessential midwesterner. hardworking, generous, top law scholar who is just as comfortable at the saturday morning tailgate as she is in the ivory tower. a legal titan who drives a minivan. i immediately supported judge barrett's nomination not

only because she is a highly qualified jurist but because she's proven both on and off the bench that she has the decency and fundamental respect for our country and its constitution to serve honorably and now i'd like to say a word about faith. much will certainly be made in the coming days of judge barrett's catholic faith and how she practices it. a face and i and many americans share. our founders anticipated this question as they so often do got it right. liberals and conservatives alike are bound by the constitution's firm edict that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office, public trust under the united states. i believe the hostility toward judge barrett's religious beliefs today could set a dangerous precedent toward other

religious beliefs tomorrow. judge barrett has been clear in her public life where she falls on the question of faith in the law as she concluded in the 1998 essay, which we are sure to hear cherry picked over the next few weeks, judges cannot nor should they try to align our legal system with the church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge. faith is very important for most americans and i agree that faith should be a key word in judge barrett's confirmation but i believe the most important question of faith should be, is she willing to faithfully interpret the constitution? judge barrett's record shows that she will. without her nearly 100 written opinions on the appellate court, judge barrett has proven that she has a strong constitutional originalist will not cut the

american people out of their own government by treating the supreme court as a third chamber of congress. on the bench her qualifications are beyond question, off the bench she exemplifies generosity and character hoosiers are known for her and has lived a life rooted in those heartland values i mentioned before. faith, family, community and respect for the law. hoosiers should be proud to have amy coney barrett serving when representing our state currently. and i believe she will make all americans proud as a justice of the supreme court. thank you. >> thank you, senator. professor o'hara? professor?

is the professor with us? professor, could you count to ten please? could you speak? if you can hear me. professor o'hara, if you can speak up, if you can hear me, please speak up. okay.

i don't know, she must be in the 3g part of indiana. can... let's see if we are in contact with her at all. is it working? professor, could you speak up, please? you need to unmute your mic, i've been told, professor o'hara. how does she do that? put a quarter in it, i don't know.

[laughs] you're not going to give us a quarter, i know that. can she hear us? i'm afraid we have technical difficulties and i guess what we will do now, if you can fix it in the next 30 seconds, let me know. if not, judge barrett, we will hear from you. any progress with professor o'hara? okay, judge, if you don't mind, you can take the mask off, please. raise your right hand. stand up, please. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you, god? welcome to the committee, to

your family, a great job over there. the floor is yours, judge. >> ranking member feinstein and members of the committee, i'm honored and humbled to appear before you today as a nominee for associate justice of the supreme court. i think the president for entrusting me with this profound responsibility as well as for the graciousness that he and the first lady have shown my family throughout this process. i thank senator young for introducing me as he did at my hearing to serve on the seventh circuit. and i also think senator braun for his support. and while she could not be with us via the satellite, i am also grateful to the former dean patty o'hara at notre dame law school.

she hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and she has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since. i thank the members of this committee and your other colleagues in the senate who've taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. it's been a privilege to meet you. as i said when i was nominated to serve as a justice, i'm used to being in a group of nine, my family. nothing is more important to me and i'm very proud to have them behind me. my husband and i have been married for 21 years. he has been a selfless and wonderful partner every step of the way. i asked my sister wants, "why do you think marriage is hard? people are always saying that. i think it's easy." and she looked at me and said "maybe you should ask jesse if he agrees with that." i decided not to take her advice because i know i am far luckier

in love than i deserve. jessie and i are parents to seven wonderful children. our oldest daughter, emma, is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents to a career in the law. next is vivian who came to us from haiti. when vivian arrived she was so weak that we were told she might never talk or walk normally but now she deadlifts as much as the male athletes in our gym and i assure you she has no trouble. tests is 16 and while she chairs her parents love for the liberal arts, she also has a gene that seems to have skipped her parents generation. john peter joined us after the devastating earthquake in haiti and jesse who brought him home still describes the shock when he got off the plane in wintertime chicago. once that shock wore off, jp assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his

signature trait. liam is smart, strong, and kind and to our delight he still loves watching movies with mom and dad pay a 10-year-old julia is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, one of which she recently submitted for publication and our youngest benjamin is at home with friends. benjamin has down syndrome and he is the unanimous favorite of the family. he was watching the hearing this morning i am told and he was calling out our names as he saw the kids in the back. my own siblings are here. some in the hearing room and some nearby. carrie, megan, eileen, amanda, didion, and michael are my oldest and dearest friends. we've seen each other for both the happiest and hardest parts of life and i'm so grateful they are with me now. my parents are watching from their new orleans home. my father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher which

explains why i became a law professor. more important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a live of service, principle, faith and love. i remember preparing for a grade school spelling bee against a boy in my class and to boost my confidence my dad saying anything boys with do, girls can do better. at least i remember it, i spelled my way to victory. i received keen urgement from the devoted teach at my all girls high school in new orleans. when i went to college it never occurred to me anyone would consider any girls less capable than boy. i took a literature class and i did my first presentation on "breakfast at tiffany's" i feared i failed. but my professor took the time to talk to me and she filled me with confidence how well i had done and she became a

mentor. when i graduated with a degree in english, she gave me truman capote's collected works as a gift. i considered graduate studies in english i decided my passion for words was better suited to decipher statutes than novels. i was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors. in particular, the judges for whom i clerked. the legendary launch lawrence philberman of the d.c. circuit gave me my first job in the law and he continues to teach me today. he was by my side during my seventh circuit hearing. he wore me in at my investiture and he is cheering me on from his living room right now. i also clerked for justice scalia. like many law students i felt like i new the justice before i ever met him. because i read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. more than the style than his writing, though, it was the

content of justice scalia's reasoning that shaped me. his judicial philosophy was straightforward. a judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. but as he put it in one of his best known opinions that is what it means to say we have a government of laws and not of men. justice scalia taught me more than just law. he was devoted to his family. resolute in his beliefs and fearless of criticism. and as i'm bark on my own legal career, i resolved to maintain that same perspective. there is anc