>> set your dvr every morning 6:00 a.m. eastern time so you never miss a minute of our great show "fox & friends." >> run to the radio now. a great list of guests. am i the only one waiting to go to the radio? >> sandra: fox news alert. final day of senate hearings for the supreme court nominee. witness will be testifying for and against judge amy coney barrett's confirmation as republicans appear on track to approve her nomination and send it to the full senate for a vote. there you have it. good morning, everyone. i'm sandra smith. good morning, bill. >> bill: smitty, good morning. i'm bill hemmer. good morning. republicans set to call witnesses who will attest to judge barrett's legal prowess and democrats have repeatedly pressed barrett on the issues over two days of marathon

questioning. republicans praising the nominee for her performance. democrats say the process has been rushed. >> she is inflap able. she is an amazing human being. wide and deep knowledge of the law. judicial temperament that you would hope for in any judge anywhere. impeccable character. they couldn't lay a glove in terms of qualifications. >> democrats are unified in pointing out the sham of this process and the ill legitimacy of it and also pointing out to the american people what's at stake in terms of the affordable care act. what we need to do now is hold the republican centers accountable for what they're doing. >> sandra: fox team coverage this morning. law professor and fox news contributor jonathan turley is standing by but again with fox news at night shannon bream. it's been a busy week for you and all of us indeed.

this business meeting beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time this morning and we'll see these witnesses testify throughout the day, really. take us through what we're about to see. >> the business meeting with kick things off at 9:00 any minute now. the senators will sit together and talk about things related to the nomination of judge barrett. they had their closed door f.b.i. briefing hearing with her last night. that's done. now they come into this place where they can, the democrats can try to institute delay tactics here. they could do that by not providing a quoour om to vote and move things forward for this nomination. expect wrangling from the senators this morning. they don't have a lot of tools or options when it comes to actually blocking her from getting out of committee and getting to the floor as the republicans have a very expedited plan to get her voted on and confirmed before

november 3. before election day. democrats have limited means to try to slow that down but we would expect they'll try this morning. they're running out of options. she only polled better and better the more time people saw her answering questions. going after her substantively won't be a winning game. they can't win on the votes proceed durally. expect some delay this morning and two rounds of witnesses that's traditional. you will hear those for and against her. democrats are having people related to healthcare. that is their primary issue but a young woman who sought an abortion at 16 years old. civil rights, abortion rights and healthcare on that side of the ticket. >> sandra: just getting word here from our capitol hill correspondent chad pergram that lindsey graham will formally announce the nomination of barrett will be held over until october 22nd at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. shannon. so we're just getting that in. go ahead.

>> i was just going to say that's expected. they tried to build in time here to allow that to have that week delay that is often a normal part of the process. they won't formally vote her out of committee until october 22. that's the plan and goal. so they have built in just enough time. as we all know and we talked about yesterday with the kavanaugh confirmation, you can get through the first part. the next couple of weeks are really important because the republicans have left themselves no room for unexpected revelation or unexpected delay. this one this morning is expected. >> sandra: okay. shannon bream, thank you very much. >> bill: i want to bring in jonathan turley. looking at the witness list today. give us a sense for what we can expect from this, retired judge, a few lawyers, a medical director. what will be the objectives for bringing these people forward? >> this is all highly scripted. so are the moves of the senators in the executive

meeting. these senators get along with each other when the cameras are off. they then put on like professional wrestling. put on their tights and start doing pile drivers when the cameras are turned on. they all know how the game is played. there will be some effort to delay and show the democratic base that they haven't given up entirely but as shannon noted, about 50% of people now support the nominee and that seems to be increasing the more they see of her. so i don't think the democrats are eager to prolong these hearings. what you will hear from these witnesses are largely scripted efforts by both parties. but the more interesting will be on the democrats. as we saw in the last two days they really were talking sort of -- they were staying out of her reach. they weren't really crossing swords with her that much. she is very nimble and very

able and they learned that from her appellate confirmation. they're focusing more like the aca case coming up november 10th in the supreme court. you'll hear a lot about that. it is difficult, most of us have stated all along this is a narrow issue that is unlikely to lead to the act being struck down. it's dealing with the technical issue of severability. it cuts across the spectrum of the court. it is assumed that the act will likely be upheld while perhaps one of the provisions would be struck down as unconstitutional. >> bill: ted cruz was on air an hour ago and suggested democrats have surrendered to the process. late in the day yesterday only two democrats in the room. a couple here today. do you agree with that characterization, we should

say, as to surrendering in the process? >> it seemed in the second day of hearings the democrats ran out of steam. there were bizarre questions from senator hir -- hirono have you committed sexual assault. and booker can you be empathetic. it has gotten weirder and weirder and interesting how the senators began to speak to her as if she was already a member of the court. some of them said i'm trying to educate you as to the consequences of these actions. so i sort of agree with that view. by the end of yesterday i didn't think it was a real effort here to connect with barrett and to damage her in any way. >> bill: thank you, professor. >> sandra: just getting word here at the top of the business meeting that is happening. the chairman lindsey graham introduced a motion as i just

mentioned and it passed to have a committee vote on 1:00 p.m. on the 22nd for the nomination of amy coney barrett. they've begun the meeting. we'll get in in a second. what we were told about senator blumenthal who was just speaking a moment ago. out of the gate he tried to delay the beginning of today's hearing. i don't know if that's what they have left to try to do. the room is starting to fill up. there was initially only one democrat in the room. now you can see others have entered. >> bill: initially we could be in store for a lot of back and forth. let's drop in and see what we're in store for as of 9:08 in the morning on this thursday, day 4. >> when a justice died closest to the election and he waited until after election to make the selection. i look at the words of my colleagues in this committee, people i work with very well all the time. i look at that historical example and i think it leads us

to one end and that is that we should allow the winner of the election to pick this nominee that we should make sure that we do this after the election and that we remember that we have literally millions and millions of people voting as we speak. you all know that. and the final thing that concerns me is that the president himself has been making it very clear why he wants this justice on the court. he says he wants nine people after the election. he says that he wants the court that will overturn obamacare. he has made all of this clear. so to me not only do you have your own precedent, not only do you have the example of abraham lincoln, but you have the fact that because of what this president has been saying it undermines this process, undermines the court, and that is why we should delay and the final word is why we are not working right now on a covid relief package in the middle of a pandemic is the final pits

about this whole process. that's what we should be doing and what the american people want. 74% of them say we should be doing that instead of working on this. and i think the time has come to be honest about what's going on here. you were just trying to ram through this justice against your own words in light of everything this president has said where he won't even commit to a peaceful transition of power. that's the world we're in right now. it is not some ivory tower where people are talking with all respect to one of my colleagues about the dormant commerce clause. this is about people transition to power and the effect it has on people's lives, the affect it has on their lives when the affordable care act is hanging in the balance whether or not people will be kicked off their health insurance for pre-existing conditions. that's what we should be focused on. i join senator blumenthal in this motion. >> i will recognize senator

feinstein in a moment. as chairman i want to hear anybody that wants to speak on this motion. we'll vote. we have a panel from the american bar association, we have an eight-person panel, 4 four, 4 against chosen by the minority and the majority. i will do whatever my colleagues want in terms of motions and being heard. i hate it for the panel. but i will you decide. we'll vote on the judge on october 22nd. i would prefer, if it's possible, we could hear from the panel but i will leave it up to my colleagues. senator feinstein. >> thanks, mr. chairman. as far as i know, this is being done without any precedent in the time at least i've been on this committee, which is about 25 years. and it's being done i guess to

show power and push someone through and really -- the value of hearings this committee should treasure and respect. as somebody that has been on this committee for a while, i really have come to value the hearings and the search for information and the desire to do justice to individuals. so i really don't understand why it makes a difference whether it is two weeks or three weeks or four weeks. it allows us to complete a process which we have put in place that has worked, i think, very well over time. and once we do this, we breach -- i was going to say the etiquette of the committee. not sure that's the right word. it breaches everything that we have held dear and the

processes that we have moved forward with. so i very much hope this does not happen and there is no need for it and it is going to create a lot of bad will that doesn't need to be created. so thank you,. >> i'll recognize senator cruz. october i can't remember when it was in 2013 i got a call from senator schumer. we'll change the rules regarding the circuit court nominations and it was relatively late in the evening. i said please don't do that. there will be no going back. and you will live to regret it. my view is that set in motion a lot of things that have taken the senate in the wrong direction. no longer do you require 60 votes. that started with circuit courts. the belief in 2013 was we're going to pack the d.c. circuit court with people friendly to our cause.

that's where all litigation regarding the government goes. and nobody thought you would lose in 2016, including me. i've gotten to know the president but i voted for somebody i really wouldn't know if they walked in the door. the bottom line is, 2016 gave an outcome different than everybody in the country thought except the people who voted for the president and the right amounts in the right states. and isn't that ironic, the american people actually get a say and from that day forward, there has been an effort to say that election didn't happen. it is not legitimate. donald trump is not really the president. as much as i was disappointed that barack obama beat john mccain, i accepted the outcome. i voted for his nominees. there is no way you will ever convince me that amy coney barrett a&m is not qualified using any reasonable standards of qualification. if i applied to justice

sotomayor and kagan the standards you are being imposed upon every republican nominee since i've been here, i wouldn't have voted for them. senator leahy voted for justice roberts and that's been the end of it. the qualifications test is dead and buried with everybody but me. i will have to re-evaluate where i am. i want to be fair but kind of silly to play a game nobody else is playing. as to me in august of this year i was asked directly what about a vacancy? i said after kavanaugh everything has changed for me. i'm not going to sit on the sidelines and watch one of our nominees be destroyed after showing respect for two democratic nominees. that is not right and i'm not going to do that. as to judge barrett, the time periods we've talked about extensively. the same party is the president, the same party is the senate.

senator cruz is very smart on all this stuff. made sure you had a chance to test her, you did. i want to compliment each member of the democratic side for being firm but not going down the kavanaugh road. and we have two panels waiting on us. we'll do whatever the committee likes. i would prefer to hear from them but senator cruz. >> mr. chairman. >> after senator cruz we'll go to -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would like to be heard, too, at some point. >> promise you everybody will be able to talk. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it is important for the record to reflect that moving forward on this nomination is consistent with two centuries of precedent and tradition in the senate. numerous democratic members of this committee have given speeches. i see they have charts prepared

to give more speeches. all attacking the legitimacy of these proceedings and as john adams observed, facts are stubborn things. the scenario of a supreme court vacancy occurring during a presidential election year is not a new thing. it has occurred 29 times in our country's history. presidents have made nominations all 29 times. the precedent is unequivocal and uniform when a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, the president makes a nomination, includes democrats and republicans. a total of 44 people have served as president of the united states, 22 of them -- half -- have made a supreme court nomination during a presidential election year. what has the senate done? again the precedent is clear.

of those 29, 19 of those occurred when the president and the senate were of the same party. of those 19, the senate confirmed 17 of them. the precedent is clear for a long, long time that if the president and senate are of the same party, the senate in all but extraordinary circumstances confirms that nominee. how about when the senate and the president are of different parties? that's happened 10 times. in that circumstance, the senate has confirmed the nominee only twice. 2016, which our friends on the democratic side invoke. i understand why they invoke it. they were frustrated. 2016 was one of those instances in which president obama was a democrat, the senate was in control of the republicans, they had differing views on the kind of justices that should serve on the court. and so the election resolved those views.

one example that has been pointed to, senator klobuchar just pointed to it, senator harris at the vice presidential debate pointed to it was abraham lincoln. we are told that honest abe, the founder of the republican party, showed the example for why we should not be proceeding on this. i think it's worth noting that that example misses a lot of the story. so abraham lincoln in 1864, 27 days before the election, chief justice passed away. he had been the author of the dred scott decision. there was a vacancy 27 days before the election. senator klobuchar and senate harris both pointed out the fact that abraham lincoln did not make a nomination in those 27 days.

what both of them omitted was the senate wasn't here. the senate had left. they had gone home. this was not the age of jet travel. this was not the age of commuting every weekend, jumping on a united flight. they were gone and the senate would not return until december. there was no senate physically present to confirm that nominee. when the senate did return in december, abraham lincoln nominated in december a justice to fill that seat, chase, which the senate confirmed the next day. 24 hours later they confirmed him. i would note also that abraham lincoln was in the midst of a presidential reelection. as goodwin writes so beautifully in team of rivals he was very good at assembling the political coalition he needed to win and he had

multiple factions of the republican party that were splintered. some things haven't changed from 1864. and lincoln had multiple players that wanted that chief justice seat all working really hard to reelect him and dangling the nomination out in front of each of them. chase had been a pain in the rear to lincoln and as a result of this vacancy chase went out and campaigned like crazy for lincoln to get him reelected because he wanted the nomination. none of that should be shocking as a matter of history. there are many members of this committee that enjoy being students of history. but to suggest that that is somehow a precedent and that requires us not to fill this vacancy now is, well, i actually can't put it better than the "washington post" who fact checked senator harris on this claim and the "washington post" not exactly a right wing

bastion. their conclusion was that senator harris's argument, quote, wasn't exactly true. so i recognize that our democratic friends wish a different president had been elected in 2016. i'm sympathetic to those arguments. i recognize that our democratic friends wish there was a democratic majority in the senate. but the voters decided otherwise and so this committee moving forward is consistent with over 200 years of history and precedent. >> i wonder in our time who is the salmon chase of the republican party. so many to choose from. senator klobuchar. >> i want to thank the senator from texas for his sympathy. [laughter] we know this is different.

what we're witnessing this morning and this week is different than anything we've seen. some of us have robert bork stuck in our craw, others have merrick garland stuck in their craw in terms of what has happened here. we all need to concede we're not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and of the senate and our relationship with the supreme court. chairman started this hearing by reminding us about votes that were taken 98-0 for antonin scalia, 96-3 for ruth bader ginsburg. her vote was six years after the robert bork experience. how did we manage to put together bipartisan coalitions for people on such opposite ends of the political spectrum who we knew going in were very clear in what they believed? and now today we struggle both to vote day-to-day when it comes to the filling of vacancies on the supreme court.

i think there are a lot of explanations for it. one of the things that we have witnessed here and i have witnessed in the time i've served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it's almost useless. we've reached the point now where gifted, experienced, jurists and legal scholars take the seat behind the table and refuse to answer anything. consider that. here we are in a situation where we asked senator feinstein asked the nominee can a president unilaterally delay a presidential election? she couldn't answer. too political. three express provisions in the constitution spell out that's the standard for the united

states of america. she could certainly have alluded to that. i asked her can a president unilaterally deny a woman the right to vote? 19th amendment. sorry, can't answer. could be a case coming before me someday. it even reached the point where senator kennedy asked this learned attorney, professor, and jurist if she had any opinion on the issue of climate change and basically she said never thought about it. don't have any views. what are we dealing with here? we're not dealing with the reality of who this person is and what she believes but some kind of art files that we have constructed between the nominee and our questions. i would be afraid to ask her about the presence of heaven on earth. she may decline to answer because it could come before the court someday. then i look back in history at other nominees, both conservative and liberal, who have answered questions along these lines. what was the purpose of this

hearing if we reach the point now where we really don't know what she thinks about any issues? any major issues? she hides behind or ij allism. she is not the only one, many do. won't go to the original words of the constitution when it comes to the transition of power. it defies logic we're putting ourselves through this on the notion that we're measuring a person who will spend the rest of my natural life serving on the court if she ends up being nominated and approved and confirmed. and we know this process is really stacked. the president told us so. repeatedly. where we can't get a direct answer from the nominee we get direct answers every day in the tweets of the president. we know what his motive was nominating this person for the supreme court. he doesn't cover it up. his motive was to make sure there would be someone on the court to eliminate the affordable care act. you have been respectful of the

fact we brought those photographs before you. i thank you. i will tell you they are meaningful to each and every one of us and should be to you as well. these are people genuinely concerned about the future of healthcare in the midst of a pandemic. they are worried that this deck is being stacked to eliminate the only protections they have in a time when they face a life and death scenario every day over masks and conduct as citizens. and to think what this president said one of the members of the committee said i won't vote for anyone until i'm certain she will overturn roe v. wade and then announces i'm voting for her. the president said as much. as a grace note the president adds we need to be sure we have nine justices on the supreme court in case there is an election contest. how obvious can this be? we know what the president had in mind when he came up with this name. she may deny it but she denied she has a view on climate

change. i'm really at a point now i have to say we have to believe what the president said. he picked the nominee he thought would achieve his political goals and we are breaking the rules of the senate, breaking the rules of this committee, we're defying our own tradition, common sense, and mutual respect which led to votes of 98-0 and 96-3. i don't know how we get this train back on the track. this nomination at this moment in time is not usual and normal and beneath the dignity of this committee. we should have played by the rules. the rules would have told us to wait as senator mcconnell told us four years ago until after the presidential election when we discarded the mcconnell rule it was clear all bets were off. we're going for this nominee at any price, at any cost. one of them is the integrity of this committee. >> i recognize senator lee in a second. let me give you a take on what i saw? how did we get here?

we're talking about things unrelated to qualifications. she talked extensively about severability and whether or not zero becomes a tax that she would apply the law, the holdings of fnib versus sebelius. yet the change by congress changed that holding where you went from $1 or whatever it was to 0. but if you cross that threshold that it would be unconstitutional. you still have to ask the question can you save the statute through a severability analysis, the presumption that you try. as to climate change, anybody who has doubts about climate change is weird in your world. you are trying to make her something she is not. you are asking her questions about what happens if the president pardons himself? what is she supposed to say?

all i can say is that donald trump was the nominee, not her. it's pretty obvious to me what you tried to do to this nominee. every time you talk to her about the law she gave you rational, common sense answers. she talked extensively about originalism and how different people can come out with different conclusions using the same process. so i personally reject the idea that she wasn't forthcoming. i thought he was incredibly forthcoming about who she is and the way she would judge. now, the game has been since she has been nominated to get back to trump and i understand that's probably what i would do. there isn't much you can say about her ability to be a judge. if anybody in america is ready to go to the supreme court it's amy barrett. if anybody in america has done the homework to be ready for

this moment it is judge barrett and has the character and disposition to handle the job is her in my view. senator lee. >> i wanted to cover a couple of issues. senator cruz already covered the first point i was going to raise. which relates essentially to the observation there is no indication from the historical record that abraham lincoln would have deferred to george mclull en on the issue of filling the seat that went to chase in the election in the fall of 1864 gone differently. none whatsoever. it is not what happened. secondly the dormant clause has been brought up. an issue deeply personal to me and should be to every american. dormant commerce clause is one of the more important things the federal judiciary does. it has been the subject of some

controversy. it impacts the way that a state or political subdivision of a state can treat an article of commerce and whether or not it can be discriminated against. it is controversial for a number of reasons including the fact it ends up affecting revenue streams that states and political subdivisions can access and how they can access them. and it is based on an interpretation of the commerce clause of the u.s. constitution, one that is often understood as providing congress with an affirmative grant of authority to regulate interstate commercial transactions and channels an stroou malts of interstate commerce. it has also been interpreted by the courts as creating a cause of action against states, municipalities and other political subdivisions of states. in those circumstances where discrimination against interstate commerce has occurred. this is a significant thing.

to call it insignificant only highlights the fact there are some issues and not others that some of my colleagues want to focus on. they have wanted to focus almost exclusively on those issues. why? perhaps in some ways to convert this nominee and other nominees into somebody who can be measured against the back drop of a democratic politician. if you are looking at a democratic policymaker, amy coney barrett is not a policymaker. and as far as i'm aware she is not a democrat. you are upset with the fact she won't commit as some other nominees have to upholding certain sacred cow precedents. it is not as though your observation is that she lacks commitment to precedent generally. she won't commit to certain precedents that might well become subject to additional litigation in the future. it is important moreover to

remember that elections do have consequences. in the election of 2014, the american people voted and they elected republicans to the senate. in the election of 2016 the american people voted and they elected republicans to the senate and a republican to the white house. in the election of 2018 which i would note here followed immediately on the heels of frankly awful treatment by members of this committee of brett kavanaugh. the american people in the immediate wake of that mistreatment of brett kavanaugh and your manipulation of these committee hearings elected a republican majority to the senate. those terms for each of those senators lasts six years. not two years, not four years, not five and 3/4 years.

six years. those terms matter. and just as ruth bader ginsburg herself noted in 2016, there is nothing in the constitution that indicates that the president is no longer the president in the final term of his office. so too here. so too with u.s. senators. nothing that makes us less senators depending on our proximity to our next election. certainly there is nothing about this nominee that can be left suggesting that she is anything other than an extraordinarily gifted jurist and well prepared for her service on the federal judiciary in a different capacity. on the supreme court of the united states. the fact that she won't commit to certain controversial policy positions makes her more qualified for the job, not less.

>> mr. chairman. >> i just wanted to respond to -- >> we will. you have spoken and you can respond. >> both of these comments by senator cruz and senator lee have invoked my name. >> senator leahy. >> i have nothing against the dormant commerce clause, senator lee. but today just like you did before, you are bringing up for a reason and that is to make this seem all esoteric and apart from the lives of american people and why you're bringing this up and why we're spending on your side so much time on some of these things that aren't relevant to people's lives. i figure it's our job since you guys propped this nomination proceeding in the middle of an election, it is our job to make

people understand how very much if this nominee gets on the court it will affect their lives because the case coming up right after this election is the affordable care act where the trump administration has argued very clearly they should throw the whole thing out. the affordable care act. whatever academic discussions you have severability with the nominee. what we did up here the last few days politely was make the case about where this nominee is. she wouldn't even answer if she knew that donald trump's position was to try to get judges on who were in favor of striking down the affordable care act. she wouldn't answer our question. i have to look at the tracks as i said the other day, up in northern minnesota we follow the tracks, we follow the tracks, the deer tracks to see where the deer went.

all i'm left with are her tracks. her track shows me that she blatantly criticized justice roberts for his legal reasoning for upholding the affordable care act. she then goes and says she thinks that scalia has a stronger argument in another case. which had upheld the affordable care act that scalia is on the other side. she then takes on precedent that set that felons shouldn't be able to get guns. that's another track. she then signs onto a paid newspaper ad that refers to roe v. wade as barbaric on the anniversary of roe v. wade. that's another track. you can have different views on the issue. this is what i'm left with and what the american people are left with to look at the tracks. i just don't think you can separate this from the election that we are in. so that is why i think it is a plan to talk about things like dormant commerce clauses so we can get away from what the real

world repercussions are of this judge and doing this to the american people in the middle of an election. but do i come out of this as i said justice ginsburg would say in her defense that they were blueprints for the future as opposed to someone once said cries of defeat? i do not cry defeat. you chose to do it in the milds of the election. gets owe go out and vote. that's what happens. this should not be donald trump's judge. this is your country, i say to the american people, not donald trump's and this should be your judge, not donald trump's judge. and they are watching. >> thank you, now we'll recognize somebody on our side after i have a moment. we'll keep talking here. so number one, the tracks were clear to me when it came to justice sotomayor and kagan. i didn't need a blood hound to tell me where they were going

to go. i understood based on their writings and their phil they would be with the liberal majority most of the time. they have been. i wasn't surprised at all. i accepted that as the outcome of president obama's selection but it was equally obvious to me, senator klobuchar. whatever personal opinions i have. i didn't ask them if they were pro-choice. do you think it would be hard to follow the tracks of justice ginsburg. she worked for the aclu. she was a prominent progressive thought leader. she openly talked about her pro-choice views and she had every right to hold them. and she was true to herself. and when the senate voted, they knew they were getting someone very special but as from the conservative point of view with a completely different philosophy. the senate saw the same thing in scalia. how much tracks did you need to figure out that scalia would be

an originalist? the bottom line with judge barrett, like sotomayor and kagan, she is somebody a republican would pick. republicans look at people with a disposition like judge barrett. democrats generally look at people with a disposition like sotomayor and kagan. you have a good chance of winning the white house. i don't know where the polls are going to be. >> thank you foraging that. >> i think it's true. i think the public will go into the voting booth and they'll say okay, i've seen the kind of judges democrats will nominate. i've seen the kind of judges republicans will nominate. that will be important to people. i think that judge barrett is the exactly the kind of person that you would expect any republican president to consider. not because there is a bunch of money to get us there, just because of who she is, the way

she has lived her life and the philosophy she espouses. with all deference and respect to senator klobuchar, this is not hard to figure out. it wasn't hard for me to figure out that sotomayor and kagan were of a disposition different than i have but i trusted them in the big moments to apply the law and not turn it upside down and they have been with the liberal majority but i don't believe they've been activist judges, i really don't. every time they rule in some fashion that the conservatives in america don't like i get blamed for it. now i get blamed for everything roberts did. i found them all imminently qualified and if judge barrett decides that the affordable care act can stand because of severability, i don't want you

to be surprised because it's pretty obvious to me she is thinking long and hard about that. i have no idea how she will rule. at the end of the day i don't own what they do once they leave here. i make a judgment to these people -- to the people before us, are they qualified by any reasonable standard of intellect and character? and the answer is yes. how did we get 96 and 97 votes for scalia and ginsburg. that was the analysis was qualifications. if we go any deeper than that, president obama voted against bush nominee. he said qualifications get you to like 70 or 80%. the heart is what you need to get over the line. i don't know how to do that. and when president then senator obama applied that standard, i said oh my gosh, basically what you are saying is i'm not going

to vote for anybody that doesn't think like me judicially as if the election didn't exist when it comes to judges. to my colleagues it's okay to have this hearing now and okay to vote now because as justice ginsburg said presidential terms are for four years. i want every american to think long and hard about who would you like to be on the court. knowing the difference between the party of preferences. that to me is more important today than it has ever been. and with that i'll yield to senator lee. >> you are on deck. >> thank you. >> senator klobuchar you are making a point that i'm trying to make. the dormant commerce clause impacts peoples lives and impact local forms of

government. it does impact and did in fact impact the formation of this country. it was the economic -- of the states following the revolution during the articles of confederation that led to the need for the commerce clause to begin with. there are some questions as to whether or not the courts ought to have the power to create a private right of action to enforce it or whether it should instead have been created by congress which we have the power to do. if you and if all of you regardless sufficiently uncontroversial, then we ought to do: let's run a -- and the anti-discrimination wing and make it law once and for all rather than just a judicial creation. i would love to do that. the point is this one does matter, too. it hasn't yet become the subject of political tugs of war based on fear mongering,

based on fundraising by politicians in both parties. and yet there are a lot of similarities there. this is what we've reduced the courts to. yes, this is their seat. this is the american people's seat. that's why we have elections. those elections in 2014 and 2016 and 2018 that i mentioned matter. we've got the authority to do this. we've got historical precedent on our side, and we've also got the constitution. and the best nominee i've seen in a long time. >> senator leahy. >> mr. chairman, thank you. you know, there has been so much talk about precedent. i think the day will come when history books are going to use senator durbin's comments about precedent. i certainly think that he stated it as well as i've ever

heard it stated. we also have another precedent. we have another precedent. and that is senators have always kept their word. the democrat and republican leader when i came to the senate, i think about what the republican leader and mr. chairman even though we've been friends for a long time i think about what you said as your reasons for delaying any vote on merrick garland. i wish you had kept to what you said then. you haven't. the committee through the confirmation hearing with judge barrett and we're now officially through the looking

glass. and ramming through a confirmation hearings two weeks after judge barrett's nomination and less than three weeks before an election. amid a pandemic affecting committee members wasn't enough of a sham. we're now proceeding to advance a nomination before the hearings are even concluded. before we even have a chance to ask the nominee all of our questions. many senators submitted questions and i guess knowing we'll vote before we hear those answers. we haven't even had a chance to hear from all the witnesses this committee deemed necessary before we voted. and apparently before we've even reviewed all judge barrett's records. a record that were undisclosed speeches and materials continue

to pour in. i think there was a half dozen or more last night. all those were omitted from the questionnaire. i'm not suggesting that judge barrett intentionally failed to disclose all of these records with the committee, but normally we have time to go back and find ones that they did fail to. and i'm suggesting that the bad rush has predictably -- [inaudible] with that. there is no reason why this nomination can't be delayed. the president is up for reelection in a couple of weeks and we can take up the nomination in january. that process would be legitimate. this one is not. in fact, this process is a

caricature of ill legitimacy. the fact that we have a nominee before justice ginsburg was even buried. they wanted to jam this nomination through before the election. that's a mark on the united states and it will be the mark of a process of political [inaudible] it is no secret why president trump is so desperate to install judge barrett before the election. president trump has discussed it very loudly. he said he expects his nominee to side with him in any election-related dispute. he has made it impossible for americans not to question judge barrett's impartiality if she

has to go on as a justice. and so i find it incredibly disappointing. she declined to commit to recuse herself from any election-related disputes. if she decides in the president's favor in any election-related dispute, it is going to cause grievous harm to both the court and our democracy. a judge should not place the integrity of either in such jeopardy. i worry what is happening in these processes that we'll diminish the respect that all americans should have on our federal judiciary. it against worse. republicans have another horse in the race. trying to strike down the affordable care act on november 10th. the president and the republican attorneys general do not just want to strike down

some of the aca, they want to strike down all of it. almost every republican on this committee is joined in those briefs. they tried -- republicans on this committee have tried for years to overturn the affordable care act both in congress and in the courts. leaving so many americans be pre-existing conditions and they worry about it. now they think they have an opportunity with judge barrett. certainly president trump has said and it is expected. she repeatedly criticized the constitutionality and legality of the law. she never defended it. that she is very clear and outspoken about. that's why we're here today. i think republicans see an opportunity to wildly swing the balance of the court for

decades instead of having a court where both democrats and republicans could look at it and think it is going to be even handed. i note that i voted for more republican judges than probably anybody on this committee. i believe i have been even handed federal judiciary. i don't believe in a president of the united states backed by republicans in the u.s. senate saying we're going to say which way the court is going to go. in fact, that's why republicans have gone back on their word about giving american people a voice and president obama nominated the eminently qualified merrick garland 10 months before an election.

many republicans on this committee said they would vote for until republican leader told them to shut up. and that's why republicans in the committee and the senate, and the senate can rubber stamp now. there is no way to cross over how wrong this process is. the damage inflicted in the race of this power grab is inconsiderable and -- it doesn't have to be this way. this doesn't have to be the story of judge barrett's nomination. that's what republicans have chosen. certainly you could have waited until the election is over and gone forward. but in the pursuit of raw power

and deprive millions of americans the basic healthcare protections republicans will shred every principle this place has stood for. i [inaudible] or a violation of the conscience. i see it for what it is. the american people i hope will too. thank you. >> anybody else? senator -- i'll make everybody gets to speak. >> since it's my motion i will have to speak for a second time if i may. >> you may. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to have a roll call vote on this motion because i think it is so serious. >> do you want it now or do you want people to speak? >> i would like to allow everyone to speak and i thank you for this opportunity.

>> you know, there are very few written rules around here. the most important rules are the unwritten ones. the most important of those rules is you keep your word. we all know that the united states senate works and our democracy really works because people keep their promises. members of this committee on the other side promised when merrick garland's nomination was given no hearing, no vote, members would not even meet with him, that never would a supreme court nominee be considered during an election year. you are breaking that word. and with all the rhetoric about precedent and history and everything else, and about the wrong direction that the senate

is going, in essence you are taking another step in that direction. we sought on our side to bring into this room real people who would be affected by this nomination. we couldn't bring them to the hearing room as witnesses. we couldn't have them be present here because we are in the midst of a pandemic and we should be dealing with that health crisis instead of considering the nomination of someone who has said in effect that our president's health law should be struck down. but we put them in the room here and we saw their faces and voices. natalie barton whose brother was killed in newtown and wants

gun violence prevention laws that this nominee has indicated she is antithetical to upholding. kristin and michael song, whose son perished as a result of the lack of safe storage of a firearm and who wants a safe storage law, ethan's law. veterans who want emergency risk protection orders so that their friends and fellow veterans will not commit suicide because they should have weapons taken away if they are going to use them to commit suicide. i wish i had a nickel for every time i've heard this term elections have consequences. we all know elections have consequences.

what we are seeing here is an exercise of just raw political power. you are moving ahead with this nomination because you can. but might does not make right. and the american people put us here to do what we think is right and in your hearts you know that what's happening here is not right. it is not normal. so the real people eventually will judge us. history will haunt this raw exercise of political power that threatens to strike down to protect people with pre-existing conditions, asthma, cancer, covid-19, about half of all americans, at least half the people in connecticut,

133 million across the country suffer from pre-existing conditions. their lives are at stake and why i brought into this room connor kern, who suffers from a disease that would have killed him by now without the affordable care act. but the most important message from connor kern was what he wrote to this nominee amy coney barrett. he said doctors take an oath first do no harm. can you take that oath? same question might be put to us, first do no harm, can we take that oath? so i hope that we will recognize, my colleagues will recognize that delaying this nomination is the right thing to do here. we are talking about moving ahead on it before we've even

finished the hearing. we haven't heard from those witnesses who are going to comment on the qualifications of this nominee. and yet we are talking about moving ahead. >> mr. chairman. would the senator yield to a question? >> i'm going to be finished in about a minute. >> would you yield to a question when you're finished? >> i just close by saying there is more information that is coming out every day. as i mentioned cnn disclosed last night additional statements and speeches and talk which is one of the reasons why i made this motion. there is more to be learned here. we have an opportunity and an obligation to scrutinize this nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and what's

really insulting to the nominee is the president has in effect said he wants to put her on the court as a result of this rushed process so she can decide his election. she refused to commit she would recuse herself from sitting on that case and that eventually will do grave harm to the court itself, to leave that question unanswered for the american people. and as we know and she said it, the orders of the supreme court are not self-enforcing. supreme court has no army, no police force, its authority depends on the trust and faith of the american people in its legitimacy. i revere the supreme court. i was a law clerk there and i have argued cases in front of it, including both justice

scalia and justice ginsburg. both gave me an equally tough time but i trusted they were going to take a position based on the law. we do grave damage to the supreme court by politicizing it in this way. and so i ask my colleagues to vote aye on this motion and delay indefinitely the proceedings on this nominee. >> can i yield a question, mr. chairman? senator, you know how much i respect you. >> i appreciate that. >> i know you know that. but you just accused me of breaking my word. i want to know how you've reached that conclusion. when did i promise in representing the good people of the state of louisiana that i

would not vote on a supreme court nomination when a president -- any president -- brought it before me as a member of this committee? i've read the constitution. i know you have. i've listened to your eloquent questions for 4 1/2 years here. the constitution is unaffected by the electoral calendar when it deals with filling the supreme court nomination. so when have i broken my word not to vote on this nominee? >> if i may respond, mr. chairman. >> that's a legitimate question. >> senator kennedy, i never said you made that promise. i never said any specific member of this committee. but i can name some names and i wasn't going to do so, but i think the record will confirm that the chairman in effect

made that commitment and, i mean >> the chairman is independent. i heard you say, richard, that the republicans on this committee have broken their word and i take that seriously because of my respect for you. are you alleging that i've broken my word? >> i am not saying that you personally broke your word. i am saying that any of the members of this committee or of the senate -- and there are others -- and i don't think we should be personal in this committee meeting. the fact of the matter is and you know well that there were numerous statements at the time that merrick garland was denied a hearing, was denied a vote, was denied even meetings, that it was improper to have this nomination go forward during an election year. that was nine months, not 30

days. and this committee is voting less than three weeks before the election, the full senate will vote days -- literally days before november 3 and right now americans are voting. we are in the midst of the election. americans are in effect going to the polls in more than 11 states, probably it's now more than 15. so i am just saying that the commitment was made during last year and i'm asking the members of this committee to abide by that commitment. >> but you aren't saying that i made that commitment. >> i'm not saying you personally did. >> that's what i wanted to clear up. thank you, senator. >> senator blumenthal i did not take personal using what i said. any of you. it's all fair game.

look at everything i said, because in august of this year i said there is an opening. we'll see what the market will bear after kavanaugh. up is down and down is up. that's what i said also. but nothing personal. >> mr. chairman i have 15 quotes from 15 republican senators saying that the election to decide -- i will put them on the record if i could. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman, i do associate myself with the remarks of my democratic colleagues as to the -- mr. chairman, you know that ruth bader ginsburg had tracks as to her position on important issues. you also noted that justice kagan had tracks. and i of course i note that republicans have voted over 70 times to either constrain or

repeal the affordable care act. the tracks of this nominee are that she will strike down the aca. those are her tracks. so thank you for not hiding that from the american people as they worry about their healthcare in the middle of a pandemic. as for the lifeline you tossed judge barrett about severability. she didn't talk about that with stretching the limits of the constitution to uphold the affordable care act. if roberts had followed her reasoning, he would have voted to strike down the affordable care act. we all know that severability is a canon of construction and the counter to that is just as

the senate republicans are arguing in the supreme court, nothing in the affordable care act can be severed so as to sustain it and that is why we are so concerned why she is being rushed in this process. thank you. >> thank you, senator coons. and then booker, then feinstein and anybody over here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. coons, could you review that order and say feinstein -- >> coons, booker, feinstein, cornyn will be after senator coons. >> i'm happy to defer. >> i'm happy to stay here until

1:00, october 22nd. all right. >> if i may, mr. chairman, i really listened carefully to these comments and i must say that, you know, the argument for really giving due regard to this nominee, i think has been cogently made on our side and i would hope that the republican side would listen to that. these are lifetime appointments. they last for decades. and so what is done here will affect policies long before our -- long after our lifetimes end. so i think we're in the time i've been on this committee, mr. chairman, the 25, 26 years, there has never been a situation quite like this and i think history will regard us

well if we are considered and diligent and patient. and i see no need to charge ahead. i just wanted to say that. thank you. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman, during my opening statement i quoted james man lee who worked for harry reid for many years. he was quoted as saying the groups want blood. democrats on and off the committee want a real fight. i guess this is what passes for a real fight. i am struggling to find out and to understand why judge barrett is such a threat to them. is it because they have become

accustomed that when they lose elections and they lose votes in the congress they depend on the courts to bail them out? that's not what judges should be doing. judges should be trying to determine what intent of congress is. we're the ones that are accountable to the voters. they are not by definition. by the fact they have lifetime tenure. that's why it is so important to have judges like amy coney barrett. she doesn't want to substitute her opinion for ours. she wants ours to prevail. she wants majorities respected. that's the american system. so i think a lot of the arguments and maybe it's just so obvious it doesn't -- nobody needs me or wants me to say it but all these straw men they

keep raising, this tacitly -- the unspoken is judge barrett will violate her judicial oath and the character she demonstrated here she will leave behind in order to accomplish a result in a future case she hasn't even heard. it is just absurd. so i think the regret, the disappointment, of our democratic colleagues is real because they've become accustomed to the supreme court being policymakers and being a body that bails them out if they can't win the election or win a vote in congress. so i understand their disappointment. but i think their loss is the american people's gain.

>> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today my constituents from delaware are asking the same thing. they've been asking it for weeks. in this particular context the question is and i got one just while we were sitting here, why is the senate judiciary committee meeting to race through your process and this confirmation when the senate itself isn't in session? i was delayed a few minutes this morning because i got tested for covid by the senate physician. so that i can return with some confidence to my family this evening that i haven't picked it up while here. the senate of the united states is not in session because we have an outbreak amongst senators and i'm not confident we've provided for senators, for staff, for the white house, frankly to the american people. my whole state is just 900,000 people and how many people filed new unemployment claims

last week? almost exactly 900,000 people. my hope is we get back to the work to deliver the relief that those people need. i have worked hard to bring the voices of real people of delaware into this discussion because it is easy to miss in the seemingly abstract conversations about things that really matter to lawyers, like the dormant commerce clause, i look forward to our long delayed debate on that, senator lee. conversations about originalism, precedent, stare decisis, about what is or isn't the precedent either for this committee, for confirmations, or for the supreme court can lead to millions of americans struggling in the middle of this pandemic and the recession that i would argue is made worse by the bungled mishandling of the pandemic by our president a little cold. i am greatly concerned, mr.

chairman, that you and the majority are standing on the edge of a precipice of pushing through a nominee in a way you yourself said was unthinkable two years ago in the last days of the last quarter of this presidency. we're 19 days from the presidential election. majority of states are voting. people stood outside for 10 hours in georgia yesterday. that's the good news. i think they're that determined to vote. we heard repeatedly from the nominee that she has no agenda. but i'll tell you the agenda of president trump in choosing her and the agenda of the republican majority in racing forward with this confirmation, that is clear. my colleague from illinois said that this process has turned into something that your average american has real trouble discerning what's going on? we keep asking earnest

questions and the nominee keeps declining to answer them in any substantive or meaningful way and we have to ask ourselves is there any path towards getting a confirmation process in this body back onto a real and rational footing? we are about to have a vote in this committee and that's why i will support my colleague from connecticut's motion where we haven't even heard from the last panel of witnesses today. we haven't even heard responses to the questions for the record. this is an unprecedented context and with unprecedented speed. you don't convene a supreme court confirmation hearing in the middle of a pandemic while the senate is on recess while voting has already started in a presidential election in a majority of states because we're concerned about abstract ideas or the neutral application of law. and you don't mangle and mishandle my predecessor and attribute to him some rule and

restate that rule as the mcconnell rule and ignore it and state up and down and down is up when nothing could be further from the truth. this is not on the level. you don't go against your own promise after you've already claimed as a matter of high principle justices shouldn't be confirmed in election and after you've already blockaded a centrist, competent, highly qualified nominee for exactly that reason because you solely care about methodology. this is about the president's disastrous response to a pandemic and a decade-long unfilled pledge embodied in one party's platform to overturn protections for a majority of americans in the middle of a pandemic. my democratic colleagues and i have been working and laboring to lay out there will soon be, if judge barrett is confirmed, a hard turn to the right on the supreme court. a change in methodology, a change in approach, a change in

principle that will have practical, pragmatic and lasting consequences for the majority of americans. after studying judge barrett's record i'm convinced she would come to the supreme court with a deeply conservative originalist philosophy and a judicial activism with regards to precedent that would put numerous longstanding rights the american people have come to rely on and hold dear in nearly every aspect of modern life at risk. simply put, i believe she will open a new chapter of conservative judicial activism unlike anything we've seen in decades. first judge barrett as justice barrett may well cast the deciding vote to overturn the affordable care act. potentially disastrous consequences for a majority of americans. everyone watching at home has heard my colleagues say for the last 10 years their top priority has been repealing the aca and every single republican

senator on this committee has talked repeatedly about their desire to get rid of that law at some point previously. so, too, has president trump. despite their best efforts, they have so far failed to do so here and in my view have failed to advance a credible alternative plan for how to deal with pre-existing conditions and give them lasting protection. so now i think a last-best shot for accomplishing this goal is at the supreme court where judge barrett comes in. as she conceded during our question and exchange she has written in no uncertain terms she thinks chief justice roberts got it wrong in his ruling upholding the law against the constitutional challenge. wrote it in early 2017 and months later found herself on president' trump's short list for the court. the trump justice department has joined a challenge to the aca to be argued a few weeks

from now before the supreme court on november 10th. the president trump and his administration are arguing in no uncertain terms the court must tear down the entire law. my colleagues have said this is fear mongering and baseless political theater. but to anyone who thinks this challenge is farfetched just read the brief filed by the solicitor general of the united states or the one co-signed by 18 republican attorneys general and consider what our president himself has said what he expects from his judicial nominees. he lashed out at chief justice roberts over and over for his decision upholding the affordable care act and pledged as a candidate his nominees would do the right thing and overturn the law. it isn't just the aca that's on his agenda for the court. he made clear he wants to overturn the aca, wants to

overturn roe v. wade and most concernly to me he expects his nominee to hand him the election if there is a dispute in the courts. as i made clear in my exchange with judge barrett i am not suggesting she is engaged in any inappropriate conversations or commitment with the president. that's not at all what i'm saying. it is the president's conduct himself that has put this issue in front of the american people. he has repeated undermining of the credibility, safety and security of our election should be alarming to all of us. his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and respect the results of the election should give us all concern. those who pledged to uphold and defend the constitution under all circumstances. >> i'm sorry? >> if i could -- i will not speak after this. >> that's fine. sorry to interrupt you. >> judge barrett also steadfastly refused to answer whether she believed scalia was

correct in his criticism of griswold versus connecticut. a case decided when i was just 2 years old that protects the right to use contraceptives in the privacy of one's home and an important landmark case, the anchor as we all recognize to the line of substantive due process jurisprudence. many justices were willing to say griswold was right. it left me concerned. as i laid out yesterday what truly concerns me more is her approach to precedent. precedent has been called the foundation stone of american law and gives predictability and stability to it. as i walked through yesterday i concluded that judge barrett is even more willing than justice scalia to overturn precedents with which she disagrees and made clear that justices should feel free to overturn cases that they believe were wrongly decided which if she hold the originalist philosophy she espoused may mean that dozens

and dozens, more than 120 cases long settled in many cases may be at risk of reconsideration. and they will cover, yes, healthcare, yes, privacy, butted indication, consumer protection, marriage equality, criminal justice, a range of cases. the majority of americans believe that are long settled. last, as to president trump's most critical expectation or expressed wish, i was concerned that judge barrett would not specifically commit to recusal in the event there is something arising from this imminent presidential election. i think nothing could be more challenging to the role of the supreme court and our national life. i urge my colleagues first to consider seriously the senator from connecticut's motion and to delay the final stages of this process until after this election. but equally if not more importantly to think about the moment we're on. because if this election in some way is interfered with,

does not go appropriately, i think our democracy itself is at risk. so at the very least to be clear, i thought nothing was stopping judge barrett from making a commitment to recuse herself given what president trump has said and gravely concerned she did not. mr. chairman i will conclude. i will not be voting to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court but i don't think we should not be take thng vote or proceeding today and we should be turning to the urgent business of protecting the american people and insuring the safety and security of our election and keeping our word. >> senator kennedy. >> i want to associate myself with part of senator coons' remarks. i think i've been here less amount of time than anybody on

this committee. you are the most interesting people i've ever been around. i mean that. the senate is. i haven't met a dummy yet. that might be debatable by some, i realize. i haven't met a single solitary member of the senate that doesn't want what's best for america. and i certainly include you in that, senator coons. and i think we ought to do something about the economic consequences of the coronavirus. you know, i don't know why bad things happen to good people but it has happened to the world. and it has had public health consequences and private health consequences but also economic consequences. i'm not trying to score political points here, i mean what i am about to say. senator mcconnell is going to put a bill, a coronavirus bill

on the floor next week and i understand that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle think it's not a perfect bill. so if you will talk to senator schumer, i'll talk to senator mcconnell, people on this side of the aisle that have more influence than i have in talking to senator mcconnell. let's agree to proceed to that deal and let's debate it and start the amendment process. and let's debate and decide -- i didn't come up here for delay and stalling. you didn't even do that either, chris. and let's try to pass a bill next week. i think everybody on this committee tests their assumptions against the

arguments of their critics. it's one of the reasons i find you all so interesting. i'm willing to consider democratic amendments to that bill. so let's do it but it will require my democratic friends to vote to proceed. so i'm asking you respectfully vote to proceed on that bill and then let's start amending it. let's pass something. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator booker. >> mr. chairman, let me apologize for this metaphor i'm about to use. it will insult the two vegans on the committee, me and senator cruz, but i believe -- [laughter] i'm sorry. >> i may be one step below the houston astros thing. >> i just want the people of texas to know the truth he is a closet vegan. [laughter]

i recognize mr. chairman this goose is pretty much cooked. and i love the body pos tours of all of us around when people are talking and when people are saying things very original as mr. kennedy just said folks look up and listen and when folks are repeating what others consider to be the routine partisan posturing, i see lots of heads go down to the cell phones. so let me try not to do anything routine with the hope that my colleagues will listen to me. first of all just with the hearing, i do think some of the things that you said earlier are right. this was a hearing conducted with decorum and professionalism. that's something i think all of us can at least agree to. we had some criticisms going back and forth. i found things that were troubling to me during this hearing. i tried to listen in both private conversation and in the hearing just conversations

about what i think is one of the issues that we don't speak enough about in the united states of america, issues of race. i have been extremely proud of the fact that we are a senate now that has more blacks serving on it than at any time in history and i've been really grateful to watch my senate colleagues often on the floor of the senate, my colleague tim scott, speak about truth about race and literally the last time i saw him do it get applause from his republican colleagues about his experience, united states senator, i have my own, who has had experiences of the capital police that have been stunning. i think many of my colleagues to recognize this goes on. here we are in the back drop of what i think is -- somebody correct me, what i think is the largest period of demonstrations in the history of the united states. greater than any in the civil rights movement of millions of americans often in predominantly all-white towns coming out to protest issues of

race and i was surprised that in this back drop issues of race are so important to the supreme court that we had a nominee who couldn't talk to -- i heard senator kennedy ask her yesterday made me smile as you often do, my friend, ask her if she is a racist. clearly she is not nor is anybody serving on -- in this committee. but it is not out of the bounds to ask questions about being that in the lifetime of my family there have been members affected by supreme court decisions in pretty profound ways. and issues that will continue to come up. i did find it also surprising shall -- i did find it surprising this conversation -- i'm new to this committee, this conversation about does a nominee answer questions that reflect their philosophy. i thought there were a lot of questions that were in bounds that she refused to answer.

i think that's the erosion of precedent that has going to continue in this committee. the instructions that every supreme court nominee will do is not answer. not being able to answer whether you believe in the peaceful transfer of power, i just found that stunning. i really did. i don't think we could ask anybody in the united states senate, house members, high school history teachers, if they don't think that that's something somebody should do. i found that surprising but i'm not here to rehash comments i made in my opening about why i think this is wrong to do this. what i would rather do and chairman i think you will probably send me a note or flowers but tomorrow will be the 70 year date to the date of when i got elected to be in the united states senate. the 7th year. thank you, senator kennedy, maybe you will be the only one.

>> congratulations to this position. >> i appreciate that. >> i mean that. before we go on this is pretty contentious time and, you know, twitter is blocking a story about biden and the world is turning sideways and all and we'll talk about that in a minute, senator cruz, but there would be no first steps act if senator booker at a very crucial point in time decided to find common ground. the history of that bill, i'll attest to the fact when it was about to fall apart you kept it together and kept your eye on the prize. >> i will attest to the fact that you and other colleagues just yesterday after i did talk about race i had a conversation with me about the work that we can still do together on those issues. i came to the senate and people said it was impossible for us to pass at least some of the legislation that dick durbin on our side really led to get

things done. i'm proud of some of the work we've done in this committee. so i just want to actually talk about that moment i came to the united states senate. i was elected on the 16t. my dad had just died six days earlier and i came down here grieving. my staff knew right before vice president joe biden swore me in to take me over to see john lewis, one of the more moving moments of my life. my mom in tears walked me to be sworn in on the floor of the senate which was halloween, october 31st. now, what happened about a week later was the rules of the senate were changed which i've heard a lot about from colleagues about breaking the senate. imagine me and again i literally was a little naive to the functioning of the senate. it was the truth. i got sworn in. we had a vote. i didn't know how to vote. i thought there was a button to press. they said raise your hand and

say aye. i have senators coming to me to lobby me about changing a rule that surprised me. the word they were using was nuclear option. that got my attention. why the heck are we doing something called the nuclear option? i thought i would be coming here to talk about treaties to try to prevent nuclear proliferation or nuclear catastrophe. i had senators who i really respect, people i saw as statesmen and women coming to me and explaining to me about what they saw was the loggerhead, the choke hold that con el was putting on, the ability of senator obama to put executive positions and judges on. now, i just recently heard mitch mcconnell brag about that. he was able to choke the number of judges that obama was able to put on to give president trump a historic number of vacancies to fill.

i'm not actually doing this as a point of argument. i've listened to it hashed out both sides claiming injury and claiming pawn in whatever the debate is. i believe i did the right thing with my vote. but i think i have heard the grace from both sides and conversations with people telling me this body as a senate and telling me that this committee is terribly broken and remarked to me that we're tumbling towards a very bad reality. and so that's what concerns me right now in this moment. that this is another moment where we are as an institution eroding our norms to the point that we all are bemoaning it. everybody. i heard on both sides of the aisle bemoaning it. but this isn't happening in an isolated vacuum. it's not. it is happening in a time of terrible crisis for our country. and sometimes i walk around the

halls of the senate and feel like the frog in boiling water that has been having to temperature turned up so slowly they barely notice it and are barely remarking on it. i want to ask my colleagues to think about what is happening in the context of american history right now? some of you may not agree with me but other republican colleagues have been able to speak out about some of these things are are troubling to me. i saw a president of the united states bringing in military and turning gas and rubber bullets on peaceful protestors in lafayette park and for what? there are people of faith all of us around here to hold up a bible in an awkward way for a photo op. that was such a stunning moment that i watched, a lot of what i call states people in america come out strongly against it including some people in this body on the republican side.

it pushed as i mentioned earlier general mattis, who we all know with the strength of power in your voice to call the president of the united states a danger to our democracy. that is stunning. but it doesn't stop there. i don't know if i can point to you better students of history on this body than i many than a president before an election doing things to compromise the outcome. if i don't win this election is rigged. that's something that presidents of my lifetime, george bush, ronald reagan would never have said. and for those of you who don't think it's problematic we have armed militias gearing up. go to the website army of trump.com. first of all, that worries me because i like my conservatives. usually you pick things we agree on. liberty, bringing in those

words. this is a cult of a personality, not to defend the unite states, the army of trump. we are sitting here while we have people like our governor of michigan where people are putting together plots to abduct an elected official in the united states of america. does this not trouble us? the things that are going on are stunning to me. a president saying stand back and stand by to an organization that is just doing that, standing by. we have literally in this moment a president refusing to unequivocally talk about the peaceful transfer of power. all of these things are troubling and i know some people want to cast them in partisan ways but even the constitution mentions the census and the post office.

both of those institutions of our democracy are under attack right now. i see these signs around us that should make all of us concerned and worried about what is going to happen 19 days from now. i never thought i would be having rational conversations with republican colleagues of minor members of my family i'm fearful of the violence that might happen around an election. i am literally having conversations on my side of the aisle of people saying what are we going to do to protect the polls in black communities from what happened in 1981 in new jersey where again people are arms came in to try to undermine people voting. this is actually going on in america. these are real conversations by rational people. this is not partisan rhetoric, this is facts but it happens on something deeper. i was so moved by somebody i texted them on -- i talked

about these deeper issues of our country. i really appreciate what you said, senator kennedy, because we do have common virtue. we do have common values. we do have common cause. the things that divide us are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us in this country. i still believe that. call me earnest or naive, i still believe that. but right now we're doing tit-for-tat. i remember in 2016 let's keep the supreme court seat open for four years until hillary clinton wins. there are things going on on both sides. but what -- while we're doing this, we're failing as a body to lead in a time of crisis.

we have food lines in america that haven't been seen since the great depression. we have unemployment rate in america that we haven't seen since the great depression. new business starts have been going down for years and now we have small businesses closing at rates we have not seen since the depression. farms. i don't know if anybody heard, i ran for president last year. there are farms we are seeing the closure of the independent american farms at a rate we haven't seen since farm crisis in the 80s and before. let me go more. i know my colleagues are concerned with this. life expectancy in america is going down. in every other industrial nation it's going up. you want to talk about national anxious eye tee? rates of depression? clinical depression are going up. usage of antidepressants going up. all of these signs in this

country that we, the great experiment in democracy on the planet earth on all comparisons, mr. chairman, you ran for president and lost, >> way behind what you were able to do. >> thank you very much. >> not even a t-shirt in my case. >> i want to point out to you when i came to this body from being an executive i really was interested in data. what's the data? i had dash boards when i was mayor of my city to show me how successful we were doing. i look at the dash boards for america i could find. one of them was the world economic forum that keeps data on the competitiveness of our democracies. we were number one in my dad's era on every one of their measures. quality of our infrastructure. education of our children. even the research and development. we were the innovators of the planet. now we're not even in the top 10 for most of those measures. china just built 18,000 miles

of high speed rail. the busiest rail corridor that goes through delaware and new jersey, runs half an hour slower than it did in the 60s. we used to have the most college graduates per capita. we aren't in the top ten anymore. trying to compete in the global knowledge-based economy when other countries are indeed, we're drafting off the investments we made. not the number one public and private investment in research and development anymore. i can go on but i want to come to this conclusion. we are failing as a body to serve the purposes to which we all care. the best we can do is blame each other. and each of us are participating in the erosion of this body. and this is just another example of that. people here think this is wrong. i'm not just saying people on our side. again the words of my

colleagues thinks this is wrong. this goose is cooked. but god i'm appealing right now, i'm one of these folks that during times like this heckling back and forth with my friends that i text on the other side of this aisle and i hope they will never make those public. but i am appealing right now that we've got to find a way to stop this. the only thing that heals this body is what i call a revival of civic grace. somewhere along the line there will be a moment that's coming, i think it's long past, there has to be acts of herroism when it comes to extending grace. mike lee i will quote you except for kennedy who talked about how good a tight end i was, an athlete i was. i will quote my friend because you won't take personal affront. you said we had the authority to do this. i know you are a student of

history, as am i. some of the greatest acts in american history are when people have the authority to do something and they strove the restraint of power and didn't use that authority. this is one of those moments where that is the kind of grace that can stop the tumbling of this institution further towards what i think will be a real constitutional crisis. and will help us to begin to rise together to save this nation. we are now at a point with what we're about to do here, unless my colleagues' resolution somehow passes, where we are going to set another firm foot to the erosion of our institutions. i'm telling you right now i hear rational people telling me things like first time in supreme court history that we had the most anti-democratic supreme court. they bring up facts like hey,

the president wasn't elected with the majority and confirmed by a senate that has 10 million less votes the majority, anti-democratic things happening. we have to stop them. i'm hearing that in the same way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when hillary clinton seemed to be the winner were talking about trying to stop, to do things to stop. what has to stop is that. i will end with my favorite point that you may have had these moments. it was in iowa, chuck grassley running in a town hall. about to leap on the stage and a big guy sees me, mr. chairman, i'm a big guy. former all american football player. the older i get the better i was. i was about to jump up on the stage. he said dude, i want you to punch donald trump in the face. dude, that's a felony is what i said. i am nowhere near, i'm a shadow

of the kind of grace that john mccain showed when somebody was eviscerating barack obama personally and i grabbed the microphone from him and talked about how good a family person barack obama was. not the easy vilification we often do. i can't imagine for the life of me the current president doing something like that. what this body has to rise to, i hope it's now, is to understand that what this nation needs from us is that grace and i've failed in this. but this has come in a moment in america history we need to show it. i pray two colleagues will join the other two republicans and stop it from happening to show that grace now. because this is a point when millions of americans are suffering and hurting and losing the very idea what it means to be an american. in terms of their dream and the promise of this country. this is the moment this nation needs from this body.

actions of grace. >> thank you. senator whitehouse, if it's okay i think whatever is on your mind i would like to dispose of the motion. we do have people that want to give us their view about the judge. if it's okay after senator whitehouse we'll take up the vote. >> mr. chairman, i will try to be brief. how surprised i am that senator kennedy finds us all interested. i have operated under the principle for many years that everybody from louisiana is more interesting than i am. i would like to associate myself just for the sake of time, particularly with the remarks of senator blumenthal who spoke in a way that i thought was very true and eloquent. and does not need my repetition.

i do want to suggest to colleagues that the rule of because we can, which is the rule that is being applied today, is one that leads away from a lot of the traditions and values that the senate has long embodied. there are republican members on this committee of whom i am very fond. but don't think that when you have established the rule of because we can that should the shoe be on the other foot you will have any credibility to come to us and say yeah, i know

you can do that but you shouldn't because of x, y or z. your credibility to make that argument at any time in the future will die in this room and on that senate floor if you continue to proceed in this way. i hope that is not the case. but please don't think there are two separate rules. that when there is republican majority the rule is because we can, and when there is a democrat majority the rule is oh no, you can't do it that way. with respect to senator cornyn's questions about why we are concerned, let me associate myself with the description that senator coons gave which i thought was very thorough and complete. i would summarize it by saying

we are concerned because of what you have said and what other senators have said in briefs and in public pledges about the affordable care act, about roe v. wade, about obergefell, we're concerned about these things because of what president trump has said. the man who made the choice and told us that that choice would be made specifically to cover him in an election litigation and to terminate health coverage under the aca. he is your president, why should we not take him at his word? you don't answer that question. your party platform, the republican party platform calls

for judges to reverse the obamacare cases, the affordable care act, that is, roe v. wade, and obergefell, the gay marriage case. we didn't say that that's what your plan was, you said that that's what your plan was. and you said in your party platform that you were going to do it through your judicial appointments. that's how you reverse decisions. you put that threat in play. and i have to say i have an awful lot of rhode islanders who depend on the affordable care act. i have a lot of rhode islanders who want to have some autonomy over the decisions about their body that roe v. wade protects. i've got a lot of rhode

islanders who either are married to someone of their sex or wish to be and plan to be, or have friends and family members whom they love who either are married to somebody of their same sex or wish to be. so when you put those rights in play by putting that threat in your party platform, you have no standing to criticize us for taking it seriously. that's what you said, reverse the obamacare cases, reverse roe v. wade, reverse obergefell. the last thing that i will say is that while we express our dismay and concern about the

significant and disturbing procedural anomalies that are happening in this nomination, all of the last three nominations have been characterized by significant and disturbing procedural anomalies. all three. the garland, gorsuch episode. the kavanaugh confirmation and now this one. there is a commoninality to that that is very disturbing and that suggests the presence of outside forces and interests that are driving these conspicuous disturbing anomalies. last weekend i was at home

preparing for this and had a sitting at a desk with papers around me trying to assembly my thoughts and i was in a room with the windows closed. i couldn't feel any breeze. we have windows in my house and the wind doesn't blow through them. i could look out the window, we look out over a pond. i could see the water on the pond rippling as the wind blew across it. i could see the trees outside bending as the wind blew through the trees. i could see the rushes along the edge of the pond slipping back and forth as the wind blew through them. i didn't need to feel the wind to know that the wind was blowing outside because the clues were obvious. the clues are obvious that

something is happening behind all of these significant and disturbing procedural anomalies. and i for one intend to find out exactly what has been going on. it has been going on behind front groups and using anonymous money. that was not, i don't think, what the founding fathers had in mind when they stood up this robust democracy, that big sneaky interests would hide behind phony front groups and use secret money to get their way. that's not what generations of americans fought and bled and died for and i make a commitment here that i will spend every effort that i must to get to the bottom of why these anomalies have taken place. thank you, chairman. >> i thought the greatest

anomaly i've seen was kavanaugh but no use looking backward, but let's look forward. the motion by senator blumenthal to adjourn the hearings past the election is now before the senate. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [vote taken]

[senators voting] >> the motion is not agreed to. the business meeting will conclude and we will now move to our first panel. thanks to my colleagues for saying what was on your mind in a very eloquent way and we will now move on to panel one. aba panel. >> mr. chairman, could i have a point of -- [inaudible] >> he is not on the panel. he is sitting behind the panel. >> you've been watching day four of the confirmation hearings process for amy coney barrett. we're about to hear from the

witnesses. testimony will be provided before heading for a vote. october 22, 1:00 p.m. it continues on capitol hill. >> bill: two hours into day and several hours to go. panel number two here will feature two witnesses, the second panel after that, technically panel three has eight witnesses by name here. a few lawyers on this list, a few professors, a judge as well. we'll hear what they have to say about judge barrett and the cases before them here. booker's comment was interesting, senator booker, this goose is pretty much cooked seemed to be a resignation which is how we started our program two hours ago. >> sandra: you saw an attempt by democrats on this committee to delay this moving forward. shannon bream, you've been watching this with us. they will now move to panel two where we'll hear from the expert witnesses there on capitol hill.

what do you think of what you've heard so far in that room? >> i think we all heard a shift. we have been hearing this is illegal, a scam, a sham, there is no way to move forward here. you heard senator mike lee talking about the fact that the constitution endorses what they are doing. a sitting president duly elected has nominated someone for an open seat and the senate is doing its advise and consent duty. so what we now heard from the democrats today were a number of them and senator booker eloquently and in a very impassioned and lengthy speech said just because you can doesn't mean you should. we heard senator blumenthal say might does nat make right. democrats switching from you can't do it. you can do it but you shouldn't it is not good for the country. a change there. senator graham, the chairman of this committee said we got here because in 2013 you guys blew up the rules and changed how circuit court judges get to the bench. you filled a number of empty

seats in the d.c. circuit and led us to where we are today. so the party has dug in on either side. party line votes. democrats attempted to move the confirmation out of the committee beyond the election and republicans said no, we're going to do this. reports were out on the 22nd. mitch mcconnell said her nomination will go to the floor next friday the 23. absent any surprises they look to get it done by november 3. >> bill: welcome back to our coverage here. what is clear to us as we watch this, for republicans the ghost of robert bork hangs low in this room and in most recent time the ghost of merrick garland does the same. for a lot of young americans watching this hearing they don't recall what happened in

the late 1980s with robert bork. give us historical perspective in how both classs play out in the politics of 2020. >> bork was the most significant modern confirmation hearings. he was open about his views. he came to the committee with well-known views. ted kennedy showed that you could set a narrative in the first 24 hours of a nomination and he went straight to the floor and denounced bork as an extremist far outside the mainstream and that really stopped partially because the white house did not respond aggressively. they were somewhat delayed. and that sat in to a point they couldn't undo it. it changed the way confirmation fights go. now everyone is on a hair trigger, everyone tries to fill the first 24 to 48 hours.

but in this case you are watching something of a political kabuki show. everyone knows the outcome here. it is highly stylized movement. to satisfy their bases. senator lee passionately talked about how important this dormant commerce clause was. as a law professor i was almost moved to tears with that level of attachment to the dormant commerce clause. but i otherwise everything was as we expected it. now, in one of the looming questions is whether we would have had any different result if the democrats had this opportunity at this time and was looking at the possibility of losing the white house. after all, democrats in 2016 insisted that they fill the slot. in fact, ruth bader ginsburg said that she believed that the senate had a duty to vote when a president nominates even in

the final year of an election. so you really could quote down capitol hill on the hypocrisy on both sides. >> bill: well stated, thank you, sir. >> sandra: as you can see a little activity there. they're filling in the room after a brief break. mitch mcconnell this morning confirming that he will put this nomination on the floor after a thursday, october 22, vote. we have the chairman and ted cruz speaking out. let's listen. >> the last two days we have seen big tech, we've seen twitter and facebook actively interfering in this election in a way that has no precedent in the history of our country. yesterday the "new york post" broke a story alleging serious corruption of joe biden and

hunter biden concerning ukraine. the allegations in the "new york post" story, if true, indicate that vice president biden lied when he said he had never discussed his son's business dealings. that story, once the "new york post" broke it, was blocked by twitter and facebook. anyone who attempted to share it was prevented from sharing it on twitter or facebook. the "new york post" itself when it attempted to put out its story was blocked on twitter and facebook. the "new york post" has the fourth largest circulation of any newspaper in this country. never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption of one of the two candidates for president. that was last night. this morning the story escalated and got even worse. the "new york post" broke a

second story of a series of emails with more corruption. in this instance the biden family receiving millions of dollars from communist china government officials. just minutes ago i tried to share that story on twitter. and twitter is actively blocking right now this instant stories from the "new york post" alleging corruption and the biden family receiving millions of dollars from communist china. this is election interference 19 days out from an election. it has no precedent in the history of democracy. the senate judiciary committee wants to know what the hell is going on. chairman lindsey graham and i have discussed this at length and the committee today will be noticing a mark-up on tuesday to issue a subpoena to jack

dorsey, the ceo of twitter to testify before the senate judiciary committee next friday to come before this committee and the american people and explain why twitter is abusing their corporate power to silence the press and to cover up allegations of corruption. let me be clear. i don't know if these "new york post" stories are true or not. those are questions vice president biden should answer. but twitter and facebook and big tech billionaires don't get to censor political speech and interfering in the election. on tuesday the full committee will be voting on subpoenas to subpoena jack dorsey to come before our committee. >> [inaudible question] >> the democrats can certainly raise procedural objections and try to delay the subpoena. i don't believe they will be

successful. we are 19 days out from an election. if the democrats were to try to play procedural games to delay the subpoena until after the election, that would be obvious and transparently political. >> thank you, 2020 can't get any stranger. there are 19 days out from election. i don't know if the "new york post" article is true. i think it is established that hunter biden, while he was visiting china with the vice president received money there a chinese bank for investment. i don't know much more about it. but i do know this, that a lot of information, the steele dossier was all over the place. they never blocked that. all the allegations about russian collusion and trump and every other idea that trump may have done something bad nobody blocked that. so if what we're going to do is finally have an accounting. the social media platforms have

a dominance in our lives. they are newspapers, tv stations and radio stations and publishers. this crystallizes the problem better than anything i can think of for the american people. you may be a democrat saying i don't want to hear the "new york post." it could be you tomorrow. so the point is that the power behind these platforms have been taken to a level that truly is dangerous, i think. the stopping americans who have these tools available to them from exercising their ability to share information with their friends. nobody in twitter and social media shut down anything about trump and russia. so we're going to proceed tuesday, hopefully the democrats on the committee will be as interested in this as we are, because it's us today, it could be them tomorrow. thank you. >> i want to say that i agree

wholeheartedly with the chairman, senator cruz. taking this action is absolutely necessary. last night the subcommittee, my subcommittee on counter terrorism invited both jack dorsey and zuckerberg to come to testify. this is absolute in order. we believe in a free press in this country and free elections and the attempt to rig and election which is what we're seeing here by monopolies is unprecedented in american history. they have a lot to answer for. i hope we'll subpoena both twitter and facebook. they should both come and both engaged in censorship and massive monopolies. they should answer to the full senate and to the american people. that's what this is about. i look forward to taking this vote and hearing their testimony on the committee. >> sandra: that's the news. the judiciary committee hold a vote next friday hearing from

the chairman on subpoenaing the leaders of these technology companies that they say are censoring media when they look to the "new york post" story. >> bill: it was about 13 hours ago jack dorsey the ceo of twitter put out a statement saying our communication around our actions on the article was not great. and then blocking the url with zero context was considered unacceptable. this follows a statement by the biden camp that said the -- they went back and checked the official schedule of joe biden and no meeting ever took place. that's how the ping-pong is going back and forth now. >> sandra: ted cruz and the judiciary committee want to know what the hell is going on. his words. what's the reaction to all this, john >> we'll hear from the president himself at 11:35 this morning as he departs for an event in greenville, north carolina.

he has a town hall tonight at 8:00 that will air on nbc. the president along the varney talking about hunter biden's email and the fact that facebook and twitter have been involved in censoring some of what the trump campaign has been putting out there as well as sort of halfway blocking the "new york post" article and people's ability to be able to share it around on social media. team trump, which is the trump campaign's biggest twitter feed with some 2.2 million subscribers also temporarily blocked this morning. the president basically saying that he thinks that big tech social media has got their thumb on the scale of the election. noting that while access has been restricted to some of the things that have come out about hunter biden and his rather

twitter feed have been partially blocked at least by twitter, and the restrictions put on my facebook. they aren't doing the same thing on the democratic side. so the president quite concerned about what he sees as a restriction by the social media companies' information that he believes should be out there in the public forum. you heard ted cruz and lindsey graham talking about this a second ago. not knowing if the allegations raised in the "new york post" are true or not but concerns about the fact that social media is restricting people's access to it and would they be doing the same thing if it were on the other side? certainly the president last night when he was in des moines, iowa, seizing on all of this in his speech at the des moines airport really going off on hunter biden and joe biden and this morning in the appearance with stewart varney suggesting that biden is a corrupt politician and it's finally coming out.

no absolute proof that that claim is true but certainly the president is pushing that this morning and likely will be in his appearance in greenville, north carolina this afternoon. >> bill: just to be clear on this, what dorsey has said and there will be a subpoena and web we'll see how that goes. he said our communication around it is not great. he didn't defend the blocking of the article. a lot of things blowing up yesterday afternoon in realtime. judge barrett had another four or five hours to go. did any senator every pose her a question how she felt about big tech or monopolies or any of that sort as it might relate to something like this with twitter and facebook >> she did get a few questions yesterday on this. senator hawley, who you just saw with senator cruz and graham, this is his big issue and hammered on this since joining the senate. he called for the same thing having the tech giants come and testify before his subcommittee

or more broadly before the senate judiciary committee. he asked some questions and there were some hype thet calls presented by should a vice president be out there and have a relative who does x, y, z. she wisely declined to talk about a hypothetical case. it definitely was discussed yesterday. it is important to note also the biden campaign, while they said it was not showing up on the official calendar, according to "politico" last night they did not rule out the possibility that biden had had some kind of meeting -- joe biden as vice president had had some kind of interaction with his ukrainian businessman, the guy involved with burisma. they wouldn't categorically deny there had been some kind of interaction, maybe a casual meeting or something else along those lines. a lot of questions about this last night. we had one of the editors in the "new york post" on at fox news at night and i said there are a lot of questions about the underlying story about chain of custody of this laptop.

where the stuff came from and rudy giuliani's involvement. that's getting loss. the more as the tech giants try to stop the story from spreading it is turning into wildfire. you have to think about do they want to turn this into as john said the very allegation the president makes is that big tech media is against you, they are trying to silence you as a conservative because now he and his campaign can point to this and say here is your perfect example. you have to come vote for me. >> sandra: if you could stand by we'll bring in jonathan turley now going back to ted cruz's words. he said the story escalated. the "new york post" broke the story indicating more corruption. twitter is actively right now blocking stories alleging corruption. josh hawley stepped out of the hearing room and claimed it is a rigged election and these companies are involved. where do you make of where this

story is going? >> as you know i'm a big advocate for the free press and free speech. i don't accept any limitations on either. this is becoming perfectly orwellian. the idea that these companies would block the discussion of this major story is quite chilling. you can disagree as to whether this has been properly sourced or disagree with the interpretation but it is major news. the public wants to talk about it. you have these companies that are literally blocking people from being able to see the original story, or to engage freely in this discussion. we are on the eve of a presidential election and this should be something that should not be partisan. we should be seeing democratic senators coming out and crying foul saying we don't agree with this story. we think the story is made up

but we strongly oppose these companies becoming this regulator of speech and news consumption. if this story is true, it raises a host of very troubling questions. by the way, if it's not true it raises a host of other troubling questions. either way you go, it is major news that these companies are preventing the public from seeing and fulg discussing. >> bill: i would add two things on that before we go back inside the hearing room. lindsey graham to your point, he said next time it could be you. it could be. and biden's position based on the reporting thus far they have built wiggle room into the potential facts behind this story, would you not agree with that now? >> yeah. i mean this is part of the frustration that many of us have had for a while. the russian story was ultimately discredited in terms of the steele dossier, but all

of us know that it was a legitimate subject of public debate. i supported the appointment of a special counsel. but now you see a completely different standard. what's really troubling is that the biden campaign is not categorically denying it and not responding to the specifics. that would raise more questions. but those questions are not being fully discussed. >> bill: raise more questions for big tech why they have taken the position so suddenly as they have at this point. >> the effort to change the federal law. these companies are making the case against themselves in terms of immunity. >> sandra: what a week next week is going to be. jonathan turley and shannon bream. thank you. we're hearing now from the witnesses in the hearing room. the american bar association standing committee is now speaking on the nomination of amy coney barrett. he ultimately goes on to say the standing committee has deemed her well qualified to be

an associate justice of the united states supreme court. let's get back to the hearing room. >> for your staff's accommodating us to be here today. they were professional and gracious at every turn. thank you. >> thank you for returning. there is contention on our side about the aba at times but as chairman i always have considered the input to be important even when i disagree with it. and during my time we've continued the practice of aba input and i hope those who follow me will do so. ms. roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member feinstein, and members of the committee. as my colleague just introduced i'm pamela roberts, the lead evaluator for the nomination of

judge amy coney barrett to sit as a justice on the supreme court of the united states. it is my honor to be here today and to present the testimony on behalf of the committee's evaluation of judge barrett's professional qualifications. we did not base our rating on or seek to express any view regarding judge barrett's philosophy, political affiliation, or ideology. we also did not solicit information as to how judge barrett might vote on specific issues or cases that might come before the supreme court. rather, the standing committee's evaluation of judge barrett is based solely on the comprehensive, nonpartisan, non-ideological peer review of

the nominee's integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. in evaluating integrity we consider the nominee's character and general reputation in the legal community, as well as the nominee's industry and diligence. judge barrett has earned and enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity and outstanding character. judges and lawyers alike uniformly extoled the nominee's integrity. we can recount a few comments such as, she is incredibly honest and forthright. she is exactly who you think she is. nothing about her is fake. she is good, decent, selfless, and sincere. she is an exemplar of living an integrated life in which her

intellect, integrity and compassion weave the different threads of her life together seamlessly. on the basis of these and many, many other comments and analysis we received through our comprehensive evaluation the standing committee concluded that judge barrett possesses the integrity required of a well-qualified rating. professional competence encompasses such qualities at intellectual capability, judgment, writing and analytical abilities, knowledge of the law and breadth of experience. a supreme court nominee must possess exceptional professional qualifications including and especially high degree of legal scholarship, analytic abilities and overall

excellence. judge barrett's professional competence exceeds these criteria. in our evaluation of judge barrett's professional competence the members of the standing committee not only evaluated the reports mentioned by my colleague by the practitioners and academic reading groups but went further to obtain the views of lawyers, academics and judge barrett's judicial peers. descriptions of her intellect are capture with comments such as these. she is whip smart. she is highly productive, punk judge barrett is appear intellectual giant. amazing student without question. the smartest student i have ever taught. this came from a professor. to put it simply, one said the

myth is real. she is a staggering academic mind. given the breadth, depth and strength of the feedback we received, the standing committee concluded that judge barrett had demonstrated the professional competence, outstanding to be rated well qualified. in evaluating her judicial temperament standing committee considers a nominee's compassion, decisiveness, open mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and most of all commitment to equal justice under the law. the following comments provide insight into her demeanor as a jurist. she is always willing to be helpful. engage with others on the topic, even when she has a different philosophy. when she writes a dissent she is collegial. she is an efficient judge,

always prepared. at oral arguments she asks inciteful question. never a hint of sarcasm in her questioning. she is also a good listener. she has a calm, scholarly temperament. judge barrett has demonstrated stellar judicial temperament and meets the standard of a well-qualified judge. she meets the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. it is the opinion of the aba standing committee on judiciary the judge barrett is well qualified to serve as an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. thank you so much. >> thank you. to be extent that the american people could hear what you had to say, i think it would be reassuring in terms of the bar association's taking the time and effort to do something this

important. we're all grateful. were either one of you involved in the justice kagan, sotomayor confirmation process? >> no, sir. >> i was not. >> okay. the reason i mention that, the same things that were said today about judge barrett were also said about justice sotomayor and kagan and quite frankly every other nominee that i've had the pleasure to associate with on the judiciary committee. in terms of the three areas that you evaluate, how much time and attention went into this, ms. roberts? >> on behalf of the entire committee? >> yes. >> thousands of hours. >> okay. mr. noll, are you in agreement with the summary by ms. roberts?

>> yes. >> in terms of both of you are active in the practice of law? >> except for the last 2 1/2 weeks. >> well, i can't show faf or -- favorite sis many. i know you and good to have somebody without an accent come to the committee. are you involved in the practice of law? >> full-time practicing senior partner in my law firm, yes. >> and you have people's personal interest and property rights in your hands as a lawyer, is that correct? >> i do, yes. >> same for you, ms. roberts? >> yes. >> you are very well-known in our state, by the way. simply put, would both of you feel comfortable going before judge barrett? >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> folks would get a share

shake? >> no doubt in my mind. >> i would agree with that. >> thank you all. you have done the country an invaluable service. thank you. senator feinstein. >> well, i would like to say thank you, too. one of the things that i've observed over my tenure on the committee is really how extraordinarily valuable the aba has been, and as a non-lawyer, particularly to me. i just wanted to be able to say a word of thanks to you and i hope you keep it coming. we very much welcome your advice and your counsel and your legal professionalism. so thank you. >> thank you. that's it. thank you. >> thank you. i have a list of letters

supporting the nomination of judge barrett i would introduce for the record in this folder. senator cornyn. >> i have a letter from the independent women's voice in support of the nominee. i would ask unanimous consent it be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> on our side would anybody like to say something? you don't have to. if you want to ask a question? >> i just wanted to thank you for all your hard work and the time you spent on this. >> senator coons, anyone? >> if i could two questions for you. one on a broader issue the aba and its role in confirmation and the other of diversity in the federal courts. president trump named 10 judicial nominees who were subsequently rated by the aba as not qualified. by comparison not a single

judicial nominee of the obama administration was led to none qualified. they wrote the aba evaluates nominees of republican presidents more harshly than those of democratic presidents. does the aba take political considerations such as this into account when it provides this committee with ratings? >> thank you, senator coons. our evaluations are done in an apolitical, neutral, impartial way. we don't take into account political affiliation. religious preference, philosophy or personal views. we focus solely on the professional qualifications to serve. >> and if i might add, senator, that under the two administrations, there was a different practice. under the obama administration,

the aba process actually goes forward before going to the senate committee. and so you don't have -- it addresses problematic nominees before their formal nominees. >> one of my repeated concerns has been racing forward with nominees before we get your input on qualification, which i the end to rely on. one other question if i might. by nearly every metric, the trump administration's judicial nominees have been among the least diverse of any president in generations. he has made 50 nominations to the circuit courts, not one of whom was black. in fact, over his 200 nominations about 85% have been white, only 25% have been women. yesterday in response to a question from senator booker judge barrett could not name a single book, study or law review that in any way

addressed racial discrimination and its legacy in american law. i'm not suggesting in any way that's disqualifying i'm simply saying that at a time when such books are best sellers, at a time when this central challenging issue for the united states and for our legal system about how to address, recognize, combat the legacy of racial discrimination, i just wondered if you could briefly speak to the importance of diversity on the bench and legal community more broadly. >> senator, we are not here to speak for the american bar association. we are the independent body of the standing committee on the federal judiciary. in terms of this evaluation and the work that we did, i can share with you that of the hundreds of people that we reached out to who confided in us and gave us their very candid views, we didn't hear a

hint of any concern by anyone that this nominee suffers from some kind of malady in determination. >> to make it clear i was not intending to imply that in any way. her failure to respond to senator booker's question with a specific example, i did not mean to imply suggested any bias. just it led to me to question whether or not having broader diversity on our courts would bring into the decision making role those who bring personal insight and experience and whether or not all who serve on our bench and in congress should be more aware of this challenge facing our nation. >> if i may, senator. i just would remind the committee that the -- two questions in the senate judicial questionnaire that the nominees complete that do

address diversity, one goes to membership of any organization or club that might discriminate and the other question goes to a review of diversity. it is usually followed up in the face-to-face interview by the evaluator and the nominee. so there is some intentional discussion about those important issues. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> senator cornyn. >> it strikes me that the nominee unstands and appreciate yates diversity. she has two children she adopted from haiti. i don't think she needs anybody preaching to her about diversity. her family is diverse and speaks volumes about her character and her husband's character for what they have done in terms of adding to

their already large family by adopting these two children from haiti. >> you put a lot of time into these interviews and thank you for the thoroughness with which you approach the job and thank you for relaying to the committee what you found from those interviews i want to enter into the record a letter from first liberty. a legal organization that defends religious liberty and which they support the confirmation of judge barrett and say in particular we're confident that judge barrett will protect the religious freedoms and constitutional rights of all americans. >> without objection. thank you, both for the input to the committee. for all the time and effort and i think it has been valuable to the committee and country. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> our second panel. >> bill: that was underwhelming. for all the contentious nature. to shannon bream inside the hearing room. what's next? >> this is to be expected. the american bar association puts out a ranking or rating on any federal bench nominee that comes up not just for the supreme court but for all the circuit court and lower judges as well. and interesting here that they say they talked to hundreds of people, lawyers, judicial colleagues of judge barrett, talked to academics and students. all kinds of people and they said they didn't get even a hint of any concern. they use the words brilliant mind, outstanding writer, whip smart. they said there was nothing but

praise for her. their job is to find out if there has been misbehavior on the bench or unethical happenings. they couldn't find anything. no people concerned. short and sweet on their part. the highest rating is well qualified. you will hear from professors and a little more contentious is another panel that will talk about healthcare, abortion, other issues. those are the democrats' witnesses. it may get a little more heated once those folks show up at the witness table. >> sandra: those witnesses are getting seated at this moment. we will get back to the hearing room in a moment. can you give us what the next few days, next week will look like as they try to wrap this confirmation process? republicans, that is, as soon as possible? >> yes, so this morning they immediately started with having a vote about when they will proceed on the actual vote to take her out of committee and to the senate. there was some discussion this

morning that not enough democrats would show up trying to stop there from being a quorum this morning. they set the date for the 22nd for next week at 1:00 p.m. where they formally vote her out of committee. we can expect by all the public comments we have had from senators that it will be a party line vote. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will take it to the floor on the 23rd, next friday. it doesn't mean there will be a vote that day. there is a lot of procedural stuff that has to happen. there will be a number of steps. what they think will be the vote range is probably somewhere between october 28th and 30th for the full senate to vote whether or not she is confirmed for that seat. >> bill: that's phenomenal time. remember the kavanaugh? everybody across the country whether they supported his nomination or not. there was some action packed into that weekend.

you could get a similar perhaps atmosphere just about 72 hours before the rest of the country, who has not already voted, cast their ballots? >> what we are bow to hear in the hearing room, shannon, one of the first witness testimonies to be heard dr. farhan bhatti. he is expected to lay out in his testimony harm that would be done with doing away potentially with the aca which has been a big focus of democrats during this process. >> yeah. this is as you said, it has been a focus for these democratic senators who have tried to point to this case that's coming up at the supreme court november 10 as one of the reasons that republicans are trying to jam through or rush through this nominee because there is a big aca case. we've talked at length here about how we don't think the

vote of justice barrett if she becomes justice barrett going to be the death knell for the aca. democrats know it's a big issue for voters and why they're using their witness time to have people. there is also a mother of twins who need medical care who will share those personal stories as well. so it is a good topic for them with voters and so they will use their witnesses to continue talking about those topics not really so much anybody who has a complaint about judge barrett and how she perform as a lawyer, professor or judge. >> bill: the best we can tell after the close of business for this hearing today this is somewhat shelved for about a week, right? and then we would expect the vote on her nomination from committee to go about a week from today. >> sandra: thursday at 1:00 p.m. and mcconnell bring her to the floor friday morning all before what we now know will be a vote on subpoenaing the technology executives that was announced by the chairman and

ted cruz. we'll get back in. shannon, thank you. >> charleston, west virginia. are you with us? >> i'm here. >> ms. amanda rauh-biers. >> miss stacy staggs from charlotte, north carolina. >> i'm here. >> last is miss laura wolk from washington, d.c. so dr. bhatti. lead us off. you have five minutes. thank you for taking the time to attend and give us your

input. >> thank you, chairman graham and thank you to this committee for welcoming me here. my name is dr. farhan bhatti a family physician from lansing, michigan and ceo of a nonprofit which provides medical, dental and op tomorrow tree care for low income, underinsured and uninsured individuals. i'm a board member at michigan state lead for the committee to protect medicare, a national organization of physicians in more than 40 stays who want to make sure our patients get the care they need regardless of financial status. most of my patients are medicaid recipients, men and women who worked two, sometimes three jobs. because michigan expanded medicaid in 2014 under the affordable care act more than 750,000 people in michigan can now get the treatment they need. there are countless stories in my daily work i could present. i will share just two.

first is a middle-aged male who had a long history of uncontrolled diabetes and recently acquired medicaid. since he wasn't able to afford insulin before getting medicaid insurance, we tested his blood in our office and found his a1c had risen to 17.5% when normal is 5.6% or below. a1c of 17.5 means his blood sugar was averaging 455 milligrams per liter. as a physician my goal is to have diabetic patients average 150 or less. blood sugar as high as his if left untreated will almost certainly lead to death. because of the aca i was able to start him on an intensive regimen and within four months his blood sugar dropped more than 200 points. the blurred vision he was

experiencing improved. kidney function improved and he was able to find a job. the aca literally saved this man's life. another story i would like to share involves a patient with bipolar disorder who was stable and healthy until she lost her job and health insurance due to covid-19. i had been prescribing a medication that worked wonders but without insurance the medication costs more than $1200 per month which she simply couldn't afford. i tried prescribing older, inexpensive generic medications so she could pay cash for them hoping we would find an effective alternative. none of them worked. she developed a severe depressive episode. her energy and motivation vanished. she gained significant weight because of the side effects of the older generic medications and had uncontrollable crying

spells and experienced suicidal ideation. thanks to michigan's expansion of medicaid that ais allowed under the aca we eventually got her enrolled into medicaid. we resumed the medication she desperately needed, regulated her dopamine and stabilized her mood. she can once again contribute to the economy and support herself financially. these are just a fraction of the many positive outcomes of the aca i have witnessed over the years. simply put, as a front line doctor i witness every day how the aca has improved, is improving and will continue to improve the lives of ordinary, hard working people. for those without health coverage they live in fear that they are only one illness or one injury away from bankruptcy. medical bankruptcy is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. it breaks my heart. so during the pandemic that continues to kill 1,000

americans each day, people need the aca and the freedom it provides now more than ever. without the aca insurance companies would be able to discriminate against a new generation of people with covid-19-related pre-existing conditions. and anyone with a pre-existing condition by refusing to cover them or by raising costs. as a family doctor who cares deeply about my patients i am grateful to be here today to advocate for them and all patients in our great nation. i'm here to urge you to strike down this lifesaving and as a doctor i can't talk with expertise about concerts originalism or textualism. as a doctor i can talk about the real world harm of ending the aca to the real life americans who have to choose between going to a doctor or buying groceries. as a physician who engages in

other doctors across the nation, i share the concern that any judge who opposes the aca and injures the lifeline that my patients count on to stay healthy and in many cases to stay alive. thank you again for the opportunity to share my patients' stories with you. >> thank you very much. judge griffith. >> mr. chairman, member feinstein and members of the committee, from 2005 until last month i was a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. but before that i spent several years and many long hours in the hearing room where you are now as the nonpartisan senate legal counsel. i am appearing virtually but good to be back in a room where i spent so much time working with such great senators. i'm honored by the invitation

to speak if support of the confirmation of my friend, amy coney barrett to the supreme court of the united states. as you and the nation have seen during these hearings judge barrett is supremely well qualified to join with the other esteemed members of the court. a recent survey found that over 2/3 of the american people believe the supreme court justices base their decisions primarily on the law and not on politics. in light of that, there is something deeply disturbing about much of the debate surrounding judicial nominations in our nation. many political leaders assume a judge will cast their vote based on partisan preference. such explanations typically made for short term political gain do much harm. they undermine public confident in an independent judiciary which the is cornerstone of the rule of law. the rule of law is a fragile

possibility that should be more carefully safeguarded by our leaders. i agree with the chief justice quote, we do not have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges or clinton judges, he said. what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. having served 15 years on the d.c. circuit alongside judicial appointys of every president i've seen firsthand that judges can and do put aside party and politics in a good faith effort to correctly interreceipt the law. justice kagan made the same point at her confirmation hearing. she flatly rejected the idea that difficult cases turn on what's in a judge's heart, close quote. instead as she put it with her characteristic wit it's law all

the way down. that's precisely the type of jurist judge barrett has been. in one case she ruled against pro-life litigants that barred from them approaching women abortion clinics. even though there were substantial arguments under the ordinance that it violated the first amendment under an aggressive reading of recent supreme court precedent judge barrett upheld the ordinance. she displayed the same impartial approach in rulings that allowed the first federal execution in 17 years to proceed regardless of her personal views on the death penalty. constitutional scholar jonathan reported these decisions certainly are not in line with church teaching and further suggest that judge barrett applies the law whether or not that coincides with her

personal beliefs. judge barrett brings something else to her work as a judge. which is especially vital to our nation at a time when many regard those with differing views as enemies, not friends. in the words of judge silberman, quote, amy combines a powerful analytical ability with an innate kindness and sense of decency. public record makes clear of judge barrett's powerful analytical ability. i don't think we can under state the importance of here kindness and decency. her colleagues at notre dame say she genuinely seeks to understand other's arguments. time and again i have seen her gently reframe a colleague's arguments to make them stronger even though she disagreed with

them. professor lisa from brigham young says amy always welcomes the opportunity to learn more from people whose perspectives differ from her own. she is always very generous to other people's arguments. finally, while some of the discussion about judge barrett's faith some -- person of faith who served on the d.c. circuit let me assure you it will not. the oath every judge must take is intended to transform the citizen into an impartial judge whose loyalty while performing her judicial role is to the constitution and laws and not to any president, party or religion. when taking the oath the judge makes a solemn promise with god as witness that when acting as a judge she will be a different

person than when she is not acting as a judge. the portrayal of thomas moore captures this point simply and powerfully. what is an oath, moore asks, but words we speak to god. in other words, for a person of faith the judicial oath is a promise to the nation and god that she will not do the one thing her secular critics most fear, reach for outcomes based on her religious worldview. while wearing the robe there is no conflict between following god and caesar. it is caesar all the way down. i thank you for this opportunity and look forward to any questions that you might have. >> thank you, judge, very much. ms. clarke. >> chairman graham, ranking member feinstein and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in

connection with the supreme court nomination of judge amy coney barrett. my name is kristin clarke, president and executive director on the lawyers committee for civil rights under the law. one of the nation's oldest civil rights organizations. founded in 1963 at the request of president john f. kennedy we turn to the courts to protect the civil rights and voting rights of black people and other communities of color across our nation. we've conducted an exhaustive review of judge barrett's writings, speeches and decisions during her time on the court. judge barrett's views are far outside the mainstream and for evidence of this one need look no further than her own words before this committee this week. judge barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is illegal. outlawed by section 11b and

general criminal laws. she would not concede that voting discrimination still exists saying she could not endorse that proposition and calling it a very charged issue. when questioned about the court's shelby county versus holder decision. chief justice roberts the author of the ruling noted voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that. judge barrett would not say whether absentee ballots are essential to voting in the pandemic calling it a matter of policy where she can't express a view. she has left open the possibility she would participate in cases that may arise out of the election now underway. it is troubling that she would not recuse herself under these circumstances and her stance sends a disconcerted message to the 17 million americans who have voted to date with millions more to come. these are voters who want their

ballots and not an election season court case to determine the election outcome. the record reflects the same. in camp versus barr she suggested the right to vote deserves less protection than the right to hold a gun. that's a radical point of view. she described the right to serve on juries and to vote as belonging only to, quote, virtuous citizens. she made clear her judicial philosophy has been molded by the late justice scalia who said the voting rights act is a perpetuation of a racial entitlement. she refused to answer if she agreed with this. during the hearings judge barrett has gone to great lengths to distance herself from the reality of voter suppression and voting discrimination that we face today. this should sound an alarm to anyone in our country who cares

about protecting voting rights for all americans. in this moment we're in lower courts fighting efforts to purge voters from the role. efforts to shutter polling sites in communities of colors. notary and witness requirements for those casting absentee ballots during the pandemic and more. this term the court will decide a case arising out of arizona where the issue concerns racial discrimination and the constitution and section 2 >> given judge barrett's unwillingness to recognize the threat that communities of color face in voting i am deeply concerned how she would handle this case and many other such cases that will come before the court. a brief word on employment disk termination, judge barrett revealed alarming insensitivity to racial harassment in the

workplace and illinois department of transportation. there, she held that a black traffic patrol driver was not subject to a work environment even though coworkers frequently suggested him to use the and word. judge barrett concluded this was an eg degree just racial epithet but was not enough to prove discrimination. this is simply incomprehensible. the nomination of justice barrett arises at one of the most tumultuous times in our nations history. we are wrestling with a pandemic, protests about unconstitutional policing practices, racial injustice and more. our nation deserves a justice who is committed to protecting the hard-earned rights of all americans, particularly our nation's most vulnerable. for these reasons, the committee