being. and those rights can be the unpopular decision. if it's the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. >> thank you for being here h bill hemmer if you're here. i might see you on the five. >> dana it's 2020, nothing works. good afternoon to you. i'm bill hemmer. technical difficulties plaguing the last hour of the hearings. judge barrett's high stakes confirmation hearing will continue nonetheless. we're three weeks away from an election. 14 million votes cast, we're watching that in various states, too. the topic of voting my mail came up in exchange by senator amy klobuchar. judge barrett said she would not talk about a matter of policy. democrats have asked barrett about healthcare, contraception, presidential pardon power. she has defended herself as having her own mind.

saying she won't follow the lead of her mentor, the late justice scalia. i believe that's her family. whatever difficulties we were having they have not yet been solved, to the l it would nobody appear. shannon bream is inside the hearing room. chris steier walt is here. shannon, i've got you now. explain as best you can. >> shannon: the audio equipment seems to be on the fritz this afternoon. it went out during senator blumenthal's questioning. some of the senator's microphones are working. judge barrett's was not working. it is audio feed that goes out so you can see it on t.v. and people that are skyping or zooming in to be a part of the hearing. they've got to get that ironed out. the last time they had this happen an hour or so ago they said she knew what was wrong,

fixed it, less than 30 minutes it was out again. they take judge barrett and her family out. the senators are free to roam around. they gather together in the room with their masks on a little bit of social distances. but the ones who are at each other's throats are across party lines chuckling together in the corner. it's typical dc waiting to hear what's going to happen. senator blumenthal pushed on the topics about birth control, same section marriage, all kinds of things that have been settled, and are considered settled and precedent. but he said to her. he kept bringing up the griswold case about contraception ###, an old case. he kept saying things meaning americans are going to be fearful, she said i can't imagine that anybody is going to be afraid we're about to go out and criminalize birth control because of anything i have to say at this hearing and he said you'd be surprised. they are going to hammer issues

even though people don't think there's a case that would put these things in danger. >> i'm hearing about a ten-minute delay. i believe senator graham is still in his chair. if i'm right on that, we can seal the back of his head. and now we can see him take his mask off here. drop in and find out what's happening. [ no audio ] >> okay. tough to get along when you can't hear the microphone. stand by on that. let me bring in chris, andy and go over where we think we are right now. you know chris senator graham, based on his schedule was ready for a vote in this committee at the lease of business tomorrow, close of business tomorrow which would be lightning speak on time

for the republican schedule. does that look possible right now? yeah i mean sure why not? everybody has to have their turn to try to use this for their own political advantage. each of these senators gets their turn to try to make the most of their opportunity. there's nothing to prevent that from happening. they have to get the microphones working so everybody can say the thing that doesn't matter. there has been nothing that has happened in any way to do anything but reinforce the fact that amy coney barrett is going to be confirmed to the united states supreme court and the rest of this is just jawboning. >> here is call 411, chris coons the senator from delaware. this is on the whole justice scalia matter. this is going back and forth as to how she would interpret the law. as i mentioned a moment ago, she sees her in the vein of scalia, this was the exchange "60 minutes" ago. >> how closely you would align yourself with justice scalia's

jurisprudence, would you agree with justice scalia that justice ginsburg's decision in vm i was wrong? senator coons to be clear as i said i think in response to this question yesterday, i do share justice scalia's approach to text, originalism and text you'll his masishissism. are a different question of whether i would agree with the way he applied those principles in particular cases. and i've already said you know, and i hope that you aren't suggesting that i don't have my own mind or i couldn't think independently or that i would just decide, let me see what justice scalia has said about this in the past, because a sure you, i have my own mind. but everything that he said, is not necessarily what i would agree with or what i would do if i were justice barrett. that was justice scalia. so i share his philosophy.

>> the reason i play that andy is because in case after case this has come back to her position as to how she would rule and she's simply not going to go there. i don't imagine this would suffice for democratic senators in committee but they only have so much push back power as of today i think that's right. i think they're laying the groundwork for why they have a rationale to vote against this very impressive candidate. i thought that exchange with senator coons was very interesting because he was trying to paint her as something of an extremist on precedent and on what we call stare decisis in the law, not disturbing cases that have already been decided. she kind of zapped back at him and said remember that the case in texas, that overruled the prior supreme court case on

homosexual relations. and he said, well, yeah, i -- i like precedent to be overruled, too, but only when it's ee agree juice and of course that goes to show his position when he likes the policy results is not all that different from her position. the other interesting thing is they're asking her, in a very interesting way, differently, with blumenthal than some of the other senators asked, are things correctly decided? that question is very different from do you like the result of the case? whether something is correctly decided or not means is the legal reasoning correct? regardless of whether you like the bottom line. and this it goes to the problem of questioning judicial officials in a political setting. because what the senators care about is the policy result. what the judge has to care about is how you get there. >> well stated andy. i bring it up with birth

control, aca, presidential power, on and on. they can do this hearing inside the room and speak to each other, be but it's not going to make for great television. the audience at home would not be able to hear it very well. we need an audio tech on capitol hill to fix this pronto. in the meantime jonathan is with me. what are you picking up on this as we move throughout the week as of today, wednesday afternoon? well i think chris sums it up pretty well. this is just a theatrical exercise with a very predictable and preordained outcome. i don't know that gaming out the politics of what's going on with the supreme court is very difficult because on one hand when i talked, i was on the call with trump campaign officials and therapy excited about how it's en never thigergizing thei.

movement conservative -- we're seeing record fundraising on the democratic side. it's energized their low dollar donors, their on line fundraising. it seems to have energized two party bases which are already extremely energized and probably couldn't get any more energized if you loaded them up with performance enhancing drugs. i'm not sure this does anything about affecting the court in a profound way that will maybe last for generations if democrats don't try to pack the courts. >> jonathan you cover the white house the quite intently on a daily basis. are you getting reaction from them? they're happy with it. they think she's performed extremely well and obviously

without notes, very good recall, et cetera, et cetera. and the view there is that no one has laid a glove on her. so they're very happy with how it's going. >> jonathan stand by. i want to go back to shannon bream here and try to clarify one point. i was given an email by the committee here suggesting the vote out of committee is on the schedule for tomorrow. but what they expect is democrats to hold that vote over for another week which would mean about the 22nd of october out of committee, which pushes it to the very last week of october before the senate. is that your understanding? yes. and the goal they have, the republicans do, and senate majority leader mitch mick approximate mcconnell has, there are a lot of risks they have run, some greater than others if they go past that date. they have the senate special election in arizona. whoever wins that seat if sent nor mcsally is ousted her

opponent would be seated and sworn in quickly. that would take away a vote from the republicans, they wouldn't wait until everyone gets sworn in, in january in a traditional seat. they're up against a tough schedule and very determined and say there's nothing going to deter them. that is razor tight. i'm trying to get a sense inside that room. could they go forward with this hearing and be able to hear each other and deprive.audience at home of hearing? >> hypothetically, yes. we have senators not attending in person. senator kamala harris is remote, she is in this building, her office is in this building, one floor away from the hearing but she's electing to tune in remotely as they've offered to all senators, in that scenario you have to get this audio fixed. >> shannon stand by. i do believe we have mr. steier walt with us, chris you gave us

a pretty good temperature of how you see this going so far. do you get a sense it's moving voters in any way or are we too far removed from that during these covid times to get a real sense for how america is reacting to this? well certainly there's some polling that indicates that amy coney barrett is more popular than a generic republican origin negotiating nominee rammed through by the republican president. when we started asking people, pollsters started asking people what do you think about this effort to put somebody on the supreme court in this unprecedented fashion the result was strongly negative. but as people have seen barrett and she has been exemplary in her answers, i'm sure for a lot of women in america they see the kind of role model and example for working moms that they want to see. they want to see themselves up there.

we have seen in polls the support barrett has in multiple polls going up. she is helping undo the harm. >> it's an interesting point. did you chris. i think we have our audio issues here. #2020. senator graham. >> something to think about. are you willing to put it on your bill? yeah. >> so this is gab hour for the senators. they just saw the camera cut to the main table there. judge barrett is not back in the room yet. we anticipate her to come back momentarily. andy mccarthy come back in and talk about one of the comments about severability, this goes to obamacare, whether you can slice and dice the law, throw out a couple parts but keep the overall law intact. she said it's like playing a jenga game when it comes to

severability. it was a clever line and diane feinstein then went in turn and said i'm impressed by your answer. right. >> does that assure people that obamacare is the law of the land? regardless of who is on the court? i think bill the most you can say is it should assure people that obamacare is not going to be reversed. but it depends on how closely they're listening. this is like the other edge of the sword that chris was talking about. barrett has been very impressive. but the democrats audience has been the elect or rick three weeks from now, not necessarily barrett and the they've hammered obamacare again and again. i won der what kind of progress they've made. is barrett's case better or their case better. >> thank you for that. thom tillis republican north carolina tough reelection battle of his own back in the tar heel state. there are at least eight more the senators, and senator kamala

harris will be senator number six in this go around. back inside. the senator tillis it's not just cases favored by the democratic friends. you're taking a consistent position and i think the american people should understand that. thank you. i had a sheriff in wake county, north carolina you have to apply for a permit to purchase a handgun in north carolina. and for a period of time, the sheriff of wake county refused to process handgun permits. he has subsequently reversed that policy. so it's no longer an active case. but you know it would seem to me that sheriff was making a decision that wade's into, i think, a second amendment right. how would you evaluate a case like that, if it came before you? so if a case like that matured into litigation, and went up the appellate process, i mean i would look at the law and

obviously the second amendment would be relevant there. so i would read all applicable president dents, including heller to determine whether what the sheriff had done violated the second amendment right or not. >> i think in that case it did, but i would leave it to somebody far more qualified than you to take it forward. i suppose it would if the sheriff imposes that on lawful begun owners. i thought about this when senator hawley was asking a similar question. i finished my 68th telephone town hall sins the first case was reported in north carolina. and about a month into it everybody understood that we had to shut things down, try to understand how covid was affecting husband us. but then about four to six weeks later we saw peaceful protests, some of which were highjacked and we've seen them widely reported, allowed by certain liberal govern norris and gofr

norr norris. governors but they same time they prevented church was from being able to worship. you enumerated the specific protections under the first amendment and i think religion and protests are two of them. do you feel meaning any governmental entity has a right on the one hand, to allow these protests to occur and on the other hand prevent worship and temples, synagogues, mosques or any place of worship? senator those kinds of cases are being litigated all around the country right now. some have gone up to the supreme court on a couple different orders. of i would not be able to comment on them. >> are you able to opine how pulled go about evaluating the arguments? sure. whenever you have that kind of a restriction like as we are in a pandemic, the supreme court's general position is that the government has a compelling

interest in responding to health crisis of this sort. so you look at the case law, describing the extent of the state's authority to address a public health crisis. it's come up in a case involving vaccinations. then you also, and this was clear in my interchange with senator hawley you also look at the other amendments and rights at play. so in the case that i had, it involved the first amendment, looking at the speech and free exercise clauses of that ae amendment so those come into play as well. >> thank you. when you and i met a couple weeks ago i had to thank you again, my daughter was thrilled that you signed the two pocket constitutions for my two granddaughterers, they will cherish it some day which when i can explain what it means, it's going to take a few more years, one is three and the other is eight weeks. i enjoyed that discussion. i would like you to share with the committee, you have stellar

academic credentials, you have stellar record as a professor and you've done an excellent job on the 7th circuit. you've been a great mother, and wife. you have so many options. there are so many things that you could be doing we sides going through, the first confirmation which was not pleasant, i was here and i remember it. and you knew that this was even going to be more challenging. i asked you when we met, why would you do this? knowing how this was going to play out. knowing that you were going to be attacked, and unfairly treated. and i think to a level of maybe where some of the your constitutional rights have been questionably denied. so why are you doing this, judge barrett? why not just say thanks but no thanks? leave it for somebody else? well as i said to senator graham yesterday and i think it was part and parcel of the conversation that you and i had that this is a very difficult process, actually i think i used

the word excruciating over the weeks and knowledge that people are gonna say horrible things, you know, that your entire life will be combed over, you will be mocked, your children will be attacked. so one might wonder why any sane person would undertake that risk and that task unless it was for the sake of something good. as i said yesterday to senator graham, i do think the rule of law, and its importance in the united states, i do think the role of the supreme court is importanted, it's a great goods. it would be difficult for anybody in this seat. i think everybody knows the confirmation process is difficult. for me to say, no, other people could do this job, but the same difficulty would be present for everyone. for me to say i'm not willing to undertake it even though i think this is something important, would be, you know, a little cowardly. and you know i wouldn't be answering a call to serve my

country in a way that i was asked. i also think, in our conversation i said you know that my children were part of the reason not to do it. because you know, my son liam got very upset yesterday during the questioning, so we had to call him in the car, he didn't stick it out to the end. i was surprised he stuck it out as long as ed. liam got very upset at the questioning. and senator kennedy referenced some of the things that happened to the children in the process. i said to you before any of that happened in many ways the children are the reason not to do it. but they're also the reason to do it. because if we are to protect our institutions and protect the freedoms and rule of law that's the basis for this saturday at this and the freedom we all enjoy, if we want that for our children and our children's children, then we need to participate in that work. >> well i think you're an extraordinary role model to a lot of people watching. i agree with senator blumenthal

a lot of people are watching this and i hope that everyone of them conclude you're a courageous person and you're a public servant. with your credentials, you could move out of public service and do virtually anything you wanted to and have more time with your family. the fact that you're willing to serve is a testament to your character and integrity and i appreciate you for it. the other thing i wanted to get back to is on the issue of abortion. i think it's remarkable over the course of the past couple of days how many times they have, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have challenged you on this matter. and in the same breath they're being oh oh they're advocating for activism. in one breath they want to secure certain supreme court president dent. in the other breath they want your commitment to potentially overturn t i want to talk specifically about a policy in

gonzalez versus har car heart. i mentioned late term abortions, partial birth abortions i thought were horrific all of my life but especially sins i held that premature granddaughter of mine who was born three weeks premature. how would you, if a case as a matter of state law, or federal law, et cetera say senator graham's bill, how would you go about evaluating maybe some laws that would prevent late term abortions, partial birth abortions, how would you go about that in light of gonzalez? >> well i would look at all the president dents. caci sets out the undue burden standard and gonzalez, as you say upheld the restriction on partial birth abortion.

you know, whole women's health and june medical are the most recent cases in the abortion line. if i were to have to decide a case involving a bill like the one that senator graham has referred to, it would involve looking at all of those presidecedent is and their applications to the couldn't tours of the law that was before me >> thank you. i'm going to go in a slightly different direction. i was talking with senator coons who is the ranking member on a subcommittee on intellectual property. we've done a lot of work and we're working on a bipartisan basis and i have to thank senator blumenthal for probably being one of the more active members in this committee. we really are working on a by partisan basis, the things that the public seldom see. on antitrust district court opinion sided with federal trade commission that found that qualcomm violated antitrust law.

in the 9th circuit overruled that district court decision. i don't know if you followed it. but in the 9th court opinion they said that qualcomm was a company just asserting its economic muscle with vigor and in jen newt. i know you can't speak to that case but i'm interested in your thoughts generally on antitrust law. where do you think the court should draw the line on federal antitrust limits, whereas qualcomm was characterized, asserting its economic muscle with vigor, imagination and in jen newt i haven't followed that case. i'm not aware of that case in the 9th circuit. but i would be haven't arguing out into that hypothetical dangerous territory if i tried to articulate what hypothetical line to draw in the context of antitrust law, as you know better than i, it's a complex

area with lots and lots and precedent and lots and lots of statutory and reg u la torii law as well. >> moving to another area that's been addressed on the committee on patent law eligibility. as judge -- i should say chairman of the subcommittee i'm interested in protecting the american innovation economy, there's no question we're the leading leading leader in the world. we've seen a lot of supreme court cases weighing into eligibility that have muddled the waters and in some cases i think they -- i agree with the decision but i worry about the methodology they used to get there. i'm curious about your thoughts and my committee we've talked about specific cases that we could potentially abrogate if we could get by partisan support

and we're in those discussions. what are your thoughts on patent eligibility and do you think the court should go back and clarify the method they used to reach their opinion? so without commenting on any particular cases, which actually i have to be completely honest and confess to you, i can't think of what particular cases you might be thinking of in a patent eligibility, without commenting on those cases i think i would say clarity in decision making is always something the court should strive for. i know on the 7th circuit we try and i try to be attuned to in writing opinions whether it gives good guidance to lower courts and those kwhoor trying to order their conduct with compliance with the law. i think clarity is a virtue in this context. >> i think we're working like i said on a bipartisan basis to do it on our part. copyright law and technologies

is another thing we focus on. i had one witness say our current laws are my space laws in a tick tock world. there's a lot of changes that have occurred. we feel like there's a need for us to maybe move forward with some clarity and some protections. the supreme court has spent more than a century answering questions about whether copyright law covers new technologies like cameras, player i an nose, moving pictures, the list goes on. several internet en tabled technologies, enabled. do you think it's a role congress should play? most of the things you're identifying seem to me like matters of policy. those seems like matters best addressed by the legislature, khem birch cli elected body. >> i agree. it's a complex subject s i'm glad to hear your opinion. i hope we make progress and i

have to thank senator coons, blumenthal and hirono, who are on the subcommittee. i'm hopeful we'll make progress. i think senator blumenthal asked you about the courts getting involved on elections. but before somebody goes out into the cyber world and says nine people are gonna decide the outcome of the election, nine votes, versus the tens of millions of votes that are being cast now, will be cast by november the third, what your potentially going to be confronted with are various lawsuits that may come in, based on changes, voting protocols for this cycle versus other ones. when is the role of the court if any in the determination, nine people aren't going to elect the 7 president, regardless of who wins the election. nine people are going to have to consider various cases. at the foundation is it accurate to say that your role will be

determining whether or not every single america who wishes to vote had their vote recorded, and feels given proper access to make that vote? is that fundamentally what the courts would decide? fundamentally if an election dispute arose obviously the issue, it's impossible to predict what aspect would be challenged. but the laws that would be invoked are laws that protect the right to vote that keep elections fair. so those are the kinds of issues that have come up in past election disputes. so certainly the court would not see itself and would not be electing the president. it would be applying laws that are designed to protect elections and oh text the right to vote. >> i also want to thank you, in closing, mr. chairman, in a discussion with senator durbin, possibly senator holly that you believe every single person in this country, should have a

right to vote. and that they should be able to do that without intimidation, without any undue burdens and i appreciate you doing that and i want to make sure i heard you right. you do feel very strongly that every american should have safe, access to the vote, and i for one hope that every registered voter in this country vote on november 11th. that may be a stretch goal but do you agree with that of course. yes >> thank you judge barrett. and thank you for your family for enduring all the challenges that you have, i thank you for your courage and thank you for your integrity t i look forward to supporting your knowledge nomination. >> today we're going through this hearing on is though it's a normal hearing not a rush job in the midst of a pandemic, 200 thousand americans dead.

no pandemic relief bill in sight for the american people. the fate of the aca at risk. but the democrats on this committee have asked and will continues to ask you, questions to let the american people know that you're being put on the supreme court will dramatically flip the balance of power to the courts. further, further to the right not the fair impartial body we want the supreme court to be. judge barrett yesterday you told rank i member feinstein, quote, if there were policy differences or a policy consequences those are for this body, for the court is really a question of adhering to the law. and going where the law leads and leaving the policy decisions up to you. that would be us, in congress. the effect of this distinction between law and policy, a distinction i described yesterday as artificial, can be seen in a case from earlier this

year. in cook county v wolf you considered the trump administration's dramatic change to the public charge definition. a wealth test to prevent low income immigrants from coming to the united states or becoming permanent residents. the majority found the rule had numerous unexplained serious flaws and barred it's imposition. you, on the other hand, issued a 40 page dissent calling the rule reasonable. you would have allowed the trump administration to limit low income immigrants who might become a public charge. you called this rule reasonable despite the harm you knew it would inflict. for example illinois has approximately 3.1 million people enrolled in medicaid including 388,000 non-citizens and 242,000 citizen children with an immigrant parent.

over 140 thousand individuals will disenroll from public services as a result of the public charge rule. nationally about one, two, three million people have disenrolled or gone without medicaid coverage, due to fear of consequences from the application of the rule to them. dana, a community service provider in colorado can tell you about a single mother who didn't want to enroll her autistic u.s. citizen child in health services. she can tell you about a pregnant woman in her third trimester who sacrificed prenatal care. people for co. testing and treatment for covid-19 ensuring people will be sicker, more likely to die and more likely to inadvertently spread the virus. sara who prevoitdz legal assistance in new york, works to lessen the devastating impact of

the rule. this includes working with unimmigrant living in a shelter serious seriously ill with covid-19 symptoms and not getting treated for her disease. reduction in public benefit enrollment and food insecurity, housing scarcity and increased costs for states and low cats, it brushed off the impact and refused to alter the rule. similarly, in your dissent you also acknowledged that people are disenrolling from health and other programs out of fear. you not only admitted to the disenroll wants, you are found it unsurprising. disenrollments reportedly affect nearly one-third of all low income immigrant families with children. judge barrett just to be clear, double the disenroll wants are policy consequences that are the job of congress to fix, not the

courts to consider? senator hirono, the dissent that i wrote in cook county, went through the public charge rule and the statute to explain that those who are currently reeling benefits were not affected by the public charge rule. it was the prospective screens, bully agree with -- >> excuse me junk barrettes. i read your dissent and i know you went through the laborio laborious -- you tried to show the people who would actually be impacted by the rule. in your dissent you acknowledge there are a lot of people who are not impacted by this rule who will disenroll because of fear >> yes, what i said was that it was fear. >> whether those kinds of affects which you foresaw, you even acknowledged it, if you would -- if you think it's appropriate for the court to are consider those effects. so senator hirono as i was

trying to answer before, yes, i said that there was fear and there was addition enrollment. but that in fact the rule did not apply to anyone who was currently eligible for benefits. the question of disenrollment and the effects of the rule would be relevant at the time of capricious review. i was talking about the interpretation of the statute. i said i wouldn't reach the question in that case because it hadn't been breached. what i said in my dissent was that it would be better to the send that back to the district court for briefing on the question of whether the rule and the evidence that the agency had gathered was arbitrary and capricious including its treatment of the costs for state and local governments et cetera. >> judge barrett you deemed the rule to be reasonable. so i take it you stand by your dissent i the stand by my dissent but senator hirono there is a difference between reasonable

under the chevron doctrine and arbitrary and capricious. i'm clarifying that i did not. >> you noted in your dissent the apa was not brought up. everyone seems to agree with rule is having a chilling effect nationwide affecting access to health care, nutrition, food, housing, benefits, that congress meant to make available. so i would say that from your you're -- from your response and the response you gave to senator feinstein about the distinction you make between policy and law, it seems to me in this case you did not give much credence to the effect of this rule it wasn't. >> albeit the rule did not apply. it would have been the question of the arbitrary and

capricious stage because that's one of the relevant factors. but the laborious study that i did in the public charge case responded to the arguments the parties made and the complex statutes that congress has passed in this area including the welfare reform -- >> judge barrett. yes. >> i don't think you even mentioned arbitrary and capricious standard. so let me move on. yesterday senator graham asked you how unlikely it would be to overturn supreme court president on a range of issues and you said, quote, judges can't just wake up one day and say i have an agenda, i hate -- i like guns, i like abortion, i hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world. you have to wait for cases, and continue versus it's. but i don't think that's entirely accurate picture. certain justices have been using their opinions to signal

interests and address various issues, particularly those undermining workers rights, civil rights, even inviting challenges to long standing precedent. the supreme court overturned a 41 year old precedent. talk about reliance on a precedent. this precedent was called abood which protected public sector unions, and justice alito engaged in a 6 year campaign, and i just have this chart to show you he was very persistent in signaling that he wanted to revisit at butted. so in 2012, justice alito first signaled he wanted conservative an antiliber antiliberal groups to challenge at butted. abood. these groups brought cases.

although they came close in 2016 his plan was thwarted by justice scalia's death was left the court stuck in a 4-4 decision tied. and justice alito had to wait until senator mitch mcconnell blocked merrick garland's election for nearly a year so that president trump could appoint neil gorsuch. pretty much the minute justice gorsuch got on the court the court finally overturned abood. and janus, now we're seeing that same kind of challenge to invite challenges to another precedent. obergefeld which recognized the right of same section couples to marry. the court denied review in over a thousand cases but justice thomas and justice alito issued

a sharply worded statement about one case that was denied review. davis. that case involved a former kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same section cases after obergefeld. but justice thomas joined by justice alito signaled an eagerness to roll back supreme your precedent that they believed conflicted with their standing. reading the right to same section into the 14th amendment even though that right is found nowhere in the text and finds it a problem that only the court can fix. judge barrett you said judges have to wait for cases and can't say i have an agenda. here you have examples of justices who are sending out signals. bring these cases to us because

we want to take a look at precedent. i just want to cite to one case where i think that you were also sending out a signal. and that is a circuit court case. two circuit court cases. one that you've been asked about, kanter v barr where you wrote a dissent arguing that certain people with felony convictions should have a right to have a begun and you went out of your way to raise an issue about whether their right to vote, about their right to vote and raising concerns that you view their right to vote to be more limited than their right to own a gun. in another example, in price v city of chychrun, in that case you joined a decision that upheld the so-called abortion clinic buffer zone law. as a circuit court judge you had to apply the law under clear supreme cou

supreme court precedent. but the decision that you joined went even further. it cited the supreme court precedent calling it uncompatible with the first amendment and directed the plaintiffs to seek relief in the supreme court. you are going to be, if confirmed on that supreme court. >> earlier today, senator coons showed you a chart of more than 100 cases where justice ginsburg was in the majority, and justice scalia was in the dissent. and the chart showed the many rights at stake including long standing president present with your president dent, workers right. my republican colleagues are well aware of this and that's why they want you to be on the supreme court so badly.

you explained him as the staunchest supreme court justice on the court; is that correct? i can imagine i said that. as i am sitting here i can't recall my exact words. >> well i'm quoting you. okay. >> you said that. you also recognized replacing the staunch he conservative on the court with someone nominated by president obama could affect the balance in the court. that's a quote from you. could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court. you are now in a position that you described four years ago of dramatically flipping the power of the court. so your nomination would actually be a more dramatic shift to law professors, that pointed out with your confirmation the court would be transformed boo the most conservative court sins the

1930's, with a much more aggressive conservative agenda. in accepting your nomination united states described justice scalia as your mentor. that's been mentioned many times before. it appears you may be more to the right of justice scalia who you described as the sound offest conservative. i think it's important to look at what kind of impact you would have had on more recent supreme court decisions. what's notable are the more recent 5-4 decisions after justice kennedy who was often in the middle was replaced by a much more conservative justice. the court shifted rightward as chief justice roberts conservative views was now in the middle of the ideological spectrum of the court. so judge barrett are you familiar with the recent 5-4

decisions where chief justice roberts joined the four liberal justices to form a majority? what decisions are you referring to go? >> are you familiar i don't know what decisions you're referring to. >> there are a number of them. i will touch on two and i will describe them. so these 5-4 cases touch on several issues that highlight what is at stake with i don't you are nomination. protections for daca recipients, integrity of the census, reproductive rights, covid-19 safety measures, protecting agency regulations, protections from veterans benefits to clean air and water. i'm just gonna go to the daca decision i mentioned in june 2020. justice ginsburg was part of a 5-4 majority with chief justice roberts that blocked the trump administration efforts to end

the daca program. repla replacing would have thrown the lives of 800,000daca recipients and their families into chaos. the daca families would be facing deportation. that includes the daca families risking their lives to protect the health and safety of us. last year justice ginsburg and chief justin roberts issued a 5-4 that blocked the trump administration's anti -- to the 2020 census. something very near and dear to president trump. and replacing in that case justice ginsburg with someone like your mentor justice scalia would have excluded many families from the census. that would not only have decreased the representation in congress.

1.5 trillion in federal resources, also. yesterday we saw what the court looks like without justice ginsburg on it. it allowed the trump administration to end the census data collection early despite the ongoing panned december mick, despite they will not get an accurate counts by ending it early. of course that would mean probably fewer federal resources for communities is with where there is not that accurate count. that could mean that trump officials instead of census bureau experts could use the numbers in the house of representatives and state and local governments. we already know that trump is demanding that those numbers exclude undocumented immigrants. even if the census requires everyone to be counted regardless of immigration status. so president trump has

repeatedly accused chief justice roberts of betraying conservatives in the courts decisions on health care, daca protections and other rights. he's made it clear he has nominated you to do the judge he thinks chief justice roberts and republicans failed to do, strike down the affordable care act and roll back critical rights and protections. you've already been asked about the consequences of the shelby county decision. it was totally foreseeable that you would have a lot of states passing voter restrictions, suppression, basically laws. do you believe judge barrett that voter suppression or disscrip nation in voting currently exists? senator hirono, we have the voting rights act that offers protection. section two was not at issue in shelby county protects voters from any kind of measures that

would discriminate on the basis of race, so that gives protection. >> do you think that the justice department is pursuing aggressively those sections of the law? because we know that over a dozen states passed what i would characterize as voter suppression laws. so that is obviously happening. now in that case justice thomas went even further. because the majority in shelby county left the framework for allowing congress to come back with formulas that would enable preclearance, but justice thomas went further. he said get rid of the entire framework. congress you're totally out of the picture. so, this is a danger we're facing with your being put on the court. one more thing. i have just one more question.

do you think that having three justices who have worked on the republican side, on bush v gore you're one of those justices should you be confirmed, creates an appearance of conflict with an election case involving a president who nominated you comes before the court? i'm basically out of time so i would like a yes or no answer? well senator hirono i answered that question before. and said any question of whether there was an appearance of par shalt problem would be one for all justices involved to consider you should the recusal statute. >> so you think there might be a conflict and therefore you would have to go through that? senator i think any time someone makes a motion to recuse and indeed even one is not made a judge always has to consider that issue. you're asking me to make a decision about whether i think myself and two people who are not even yet my colleagues should recuse in that situation. i'm just saying that i on -- >> actually my question was whether it imposes an appearance of conflict.

i believe that you would bring forth the fact of the recusal process says to me that voters might decide that there is an appearance of conflict. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator earnst thank you judge barrett very much for being in front of us. welcome to day three. it's been quite a day. and because we do have so many members that have been busy talking over you, and interrupting, and they said so themselves, pardon me for interrupting you. and telling me that their time is more important than hearing your answers. if you would like to take a few moments, if there is anything that you would like to further explain, i would welcome that at this time thank you senator ernst. i think the only thing i would want to clarify insofar ascent sent hirono was suggesting, the work that some of the justices mach done on bush v gore should

be recused, that's not what i meant. i meant in every case judges have the obligation to consider recusal p and no, i just want to make that answer clear. >> thank you for taking that time. judge barrett obviously over the past number of weeks sins you were nominated, and certainly sins this hearing began there's been a lot of discussion about the legacy of ruth bader ginsburg, who was really a trail blazer. the democrats seem to blame that you wouldn't be an adequate replacement for justice ginsburg because you do not march in lock step with her judicial fill loss sir the way i see it you're both trail blazers. you're both accomplished professors, respected and revered with strong ten doors wants from the left and right.

you're both amazing working moms. you both served in private practice. like you she was a woman of strong religious faith. you both have a very impressive track record on the judicial bench. so asking women to march in lock step with one philosophy is exactly the wrong kind of message we should be sending to women. especially to young women. what i hear so often from the left, many of us on the right, do, i would say probably senator blackbu blackburn hear this, many others hear this, because we don't hear the same views that those on the left do, we shouldn't be serving in the roles that we are in. and that's what the left is projecting on you. is because you are not lock step with what they want to see, in their nominee, that you aren't worthy of serving on the bench. i don't believe that. i don't believe that.

and that shouldn't be a litmus test for the supreme court and frankly it shouldn't be the litmus test for any woman in any job. any woman in any job. diversity of thought and an ability to pursue her dreams is exactly what the women trail blazers of the past fought for. if the suffer jets hadn't been willing to go against the men of their time certainly none of the women sitting on this dias would have the opportunity to question you today. so, what would you say to those that claim you are not an adequate replacement for ruth bader ginsburg? because you do not march in lock step with her judicial philosophy? well i think that judicial philosophy is an appropriate and an important topic for this committee to explore at the hearing. and i think each of the senators

has a responsibility when a nominee comes before you, to ask what the judicial philosophy is. and i think disagreeing with the judicial philosophy that i or any other nominee had is perfectly admissible grounds for voting no, because you may have a different vision for what a justice or a judge is to do. and so i have no problem with that. i mean i think that is how the senators on this committee have viewed their role. so to on fill clofk cal or jurisprudential grounds i think that's a lot of what this hearing should be about. i think there is room on the court, and i don't think just in terms of the women but i think that for all members on the court, there is room for different approaches to the constitution, and i think those approaches shouldn't be broken down into partisan boxes because

judges are not partisans. you know they do get appointed and confirmed by the political branches, but judges don't have campaign platforms. and they no longer associate as i've said a number of times through the hearing, judges stay out of politics. so their jury is true did he know shall philosophies are not to yield particular results. i think there's room for different jurisprudential philosophies, that even when they start texts, different ways of thinking about it, sometimes yield the same result. it's not necessarily the case that two justices, one being a practicing ma test and one being an originalist won't end up at the same place, they might get there a different way. i mentioned yesterday many identify themselves as progressive original lifts, they could start at the same place

and i suspect they would disagree, end up in different places and i have given examples of that. i think there's room and it's good and healthy for different approaches to the constitution and to have debates about that. >> thank you. i really do appreciate that answer. as we have been sitting through these discussions i've heard a number of my colleagues bring up different descriptive words to describe you. and i would just like to review a few of those right now. respect. intellect. character. jurisprudence. clarity. demeanor. humility. dignity. independent. exceptional. i think that you are exactly what we should embrace, and as i look at future generations of men and women that might want to serve on our supreme court i

hope that they would espouse those at try bugsz as well. and while we have this national stage i would like you judge barrett to share some grains of wisdom to those future generations. what advice would you offer to those who are just now embarking on their legal career? and how should they define success and find motivation to, you know, kind of, quote, leave their best on the field, if you will, at the end of each day? >> well i think, you know, i love the practice of law. you know, some professors, go to the academy because they don't enjoy practice that much. i actually really, really enjoy practice. when i went to the academy i enjoyed that, too. when you're beginning your legal career often you're at an earlier stage in your life when you may have fewer obligations day