our community had the benefit of evaluating judge barrett and 2017 when then professor barrett was nominated to the seventh circuit court of appeals where she now serves as judge. interviewed judge barrett for over 3.5 hours, robertsoberts -- mrs. and i and we received additional information in the interim. we concluded that her integrity, professional competence met the very high standards for appointment to suit -- to our supreme court. our rating of well-qualified reflects the consensus of her peers that know her best. thank you chairman graham and ranking member feinstein for your staff accommoda roberri, an we will get to the next guest. >> ranking members, i am deeply honored to speak to you today. i am a former -- [indiscernible] i know judge barrett to be a person of the highest character and i enthusiastically support her nomination to be associate justice of the united states supreme court. servethe privilege to during her first term on the bench, joining her chambers shortly after her confirmation in 2017. from the beginning, i saw judge barrett exhibit a rare and unique set of qu

ill specifically asked judge barrett -- i specifically asked judge barrett if she made any promises or guarantees to anyone about how she might rule in a case. she responded this way to my question. the eabs is -- the answer is no. no one ever talked about any case with me. i can't make any precommitments to this body either. it would be inconsistent with judicial independence. end of quote. end of -- and to quote further. i'm not willing to make a deal, not with the committee nor with the president nor with anyone. i am independent, end quote. that quote, or similar words were spoken by judge barrett to almost suspicious judiciary member that she might have made some deal ahead of time to get on the supreme court. contrary to critics and their claims about being biased, judge barrett is evenhanded. and has ruled for both plaintiffs and defendants in all kinds of cases. she believes in justice for all and accordance with the law and the constitution just like we would expect everybody that's a lifetime appointee to the judiciary to say those same things of we don't see all of them foll

judge barrett: yes. sen. kennedy: you are not lying? judge barrett: not lying. i took that dose before i began as a judge in the seventh circuit and i have not violated that a. i would take it again. oaths are serious to me. sen. kennedy: senator harris called you a liar. she said if you take that out, you will be lying. that you have already made up your mind. reticular the dealing with abortion and the affordable care act. let's cut to the chase. she said you are a liar. are you a liar? judge barrett: i am not a liar, senator kennedy. sen. kennedy: tell me again. look me in the eye. if you take that dose, will you mean it? judge barrett: i will mean it. sen. kennedy: you swear to god? judge barrett: i swear to god. and i have sworn to the seventh circuit. sen. kennedy: you will never break that out? judge barrett: i will not break that out. sen. kennedy: no matter what your personal feelings are? judge barrett: no matter what my feelings are. sen. kennedy: sen. kennedy: so when senator harris and her colleagues say you are a liar, they are wrong? judge barrett

judge amy coney barrett. the senate has never confirmed a supreme court nominee this close to election day. the election is in a week. nearly 60 million people have already voted. and while they eviscerate senate precedent and rush towards a supreme court nomination, they delay passing the kind of critical legislation in terms of additional covid relief that would help millions of americans make it through the economic crisis. think about that. every day we wait to pass a comprehensive covid stimulus bill, more people than necessary will get sick, some will die, businesses will be lost, families will lose their homes, and millions of unemployed workers will continue to wonder how they're going to make ends meet. so why has the president rushed judge barrett's nomination through the senate? the president is jamming through this nomination because there is so much on the line with this supreme court vacancy. on november 10, just one week after the election, the supreme court will hear a case that could invalida

judge barrett: sen. graham: i remember in exchange where they took a statement from that group or some other group arguing for the criminalization. remember that? the criminalization of ivf. judge barrett: i think so. sen. graham: and here is my problem with that analysis. that was a position taken by a pro-life county organization. your job to pass judgment on the thoughts and beliefs of americans, is it? judge barrett: no, it is not. sen. graham: so when they argue that something should be criminal, they have a right to make that argument, right? judge barrett: they do. it also wasn't in the ad that appeared next to the statement. judge barrett: how do something become criminal sen. graham: -- sen. graham: how do something become criminal in our legal system in america? judge barrett: when a legislative body passes a statute. sen. graham: statement by political organizations are not laws. and what we tried to do yesterday was turned a pro-life group into a legislative body. and tried to get you to roll

but, justice barrett's confirmation, judge, now justice barrett's confirmation, is more than just a point of pride for family back home. it's an affirmation of the timeless values of faith and family and community still matter and still produce somebody who doesn't just represent those values but also the deeply rooted sense of fairness. and this is the greatest accommodation that will be felt is that justice barrett will be fair to all, and that is the highest compliment you can give a justice. people in louisiana are proud, but the people of the united states should be very pleased. thank you. >> great congratulations to amy coney barrett lawton being confirmed to being the united states supreme court. anybody that watched the hearings has seen that she is extremely well qualified, so capable, character, credibility, and most importantly, commitment to the constitution. she understands the role of the justices to apply the law, not legislate from the bench. so it is a historic day for this institution as well as for the supreme court, from the standpoint of this institution, we have now

judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: your catholic. judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: we've established that. your faith means a lot to you? judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: can you set aside your catholic beliefs? judge barrett: i can. i have done that in my time on the seventh circuit. sen. graham: i would dare say your personal views on the supreme court, nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their believes. there's no reason to question yours in my view. so the bottom line is there is a blanks in filling the about guns and heller, abortion rights, was go to citizens united. to my good friend senator whitehouse. me and you are going to come closer and closer about regulating money. i can tell you there's a lot of money being raised in this campaign. i would like to know where the hell some of it is coming from. that's not your problem. citizens united says what? judge barrett: citizens united extends the protection of the first amendment to corporations in gated -- engage in political speech. to. graham: congress wanted challenge that, w

judge barrett: ok. so the doctrine of severability is a doctrine essentially of statutory interpretation and what it means is if you have a statute and the affordable care act is obviously a very long statute, if there is one provision within the statute that is unconstitutional, the question is whether that one section can simply be rendered null and excised from the statute, severed, so that the rest of the law stands, or whether that provision is so essential to the statute that it unconstitutionality, once it is pulled out, the whole house of cards collapses. in the presumption is always in favor of severability. it is the question of your intent. i'm sorry, go ahead. chairman graham: the main thing is the doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible, is that correct? judge barrett: that is correct. chairman graham: i want every conservative in the nation to listen to what she just said. the doctrine of severability presumes, and its goal is to preserve the statute if t

judge barrett: i do. it might even be by statute that we have to do that, but i do. >> yes. , i will offer this as a proposition, the rule that you follow and the way in which circuit judges follow it aligns quite well with the reporting requirements that in the executive branch, members of the cabinet have to do when they get travel, andifts, other emoluments and it aligns quite well with the reporting that members of congress have to gifts of travel or hospitality or other such emoluments. is with thency here supreme court. a much lower standard of transparency and disclosure about those very same things. it is a bit of a mystery when i see the situation, when you go up to the court, you will be not subject to the code of ethics that you are subject to now and you will have lower reporting requirements than you do now or that any of us do. i flag that for you because i think it is anomalous that the highest court should have the lowest standards and i don't know if you want to say something about that?

judge barrett: no.en. kennedy: let's talk about the affordable care act. california v. texas. you thought about the delivery of health care. judge barrett: yes. sen. kennedy: you've got seven children. you have probably been to an emergency room. judge barrett: yes. sen. kennedy: you've formed opinions about the delivery of health care. should you recuse yourself? judge barrett: senator kennedy, any opinions that i have, everyone has opinions. any opinion i have are just not relevant to the resolution of the case. the affordable care act case or anything else. a lot of my opinions are not ones that are expert. for example in scientific matters, taxing matters, i may have dinnertable discussions but i am not an expert. sen. kennedy: this is serious. judge barrett: ok. sen. kennedy: some of my colleagues and senator harris say you are lying. are you lying? judge barrett: i am not lying. sen. kennedy: are you going to take that oath and abide by it? judge barrett: yes. sen. kennedy: will you have a break t

amy coney barrett will join them. and rushing this nomination on the eve of the election means that she will join them possibly to vote on the election itself while on the court. is that view apocalyptic? not if you believe donald trump who said the reason why he wants a ninth justice is to decide the election, not the voters, the supreme court. he said the quiet part out loud and so did a number of my colleagues in our judiciary committee meeting. he said this election will end up in the supreme court, and i think it's very important that we have nine justices. and when i asked amy coney barrett if she would recuse herself from a case about this election as a result of these comments, she refused to answer or commit. i call on her to postpone her taking the oath of office until after the next president is inaugurated. why not remove any doubt about conflict of interest, any question about the legitimacy of whatever decision may be necessary by the supreme court by postponing her investiture. i ask her to make that co

judge barrett. here is what they found. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary has completed the evaluation of the professional qualifications of judge amy barrett. as you know, the standing committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. a substantial majority of the standing committee determined that judge barrett is well-qualified. a minority is of the opinion that she is qualified to serve on the supreme court. the majority represents the standing committee's official rating, which is the highest you can get. i asked the two presenters a question. would both of you feel comfortable going before judge barrett? they replied, absolutely. another piece of information was from ms. o'hara. she was the dean of notre dame law school while judge barrett was a professor. remember what she had to say. i have only communicated with this august committee on two occasions. the first was 10 years ago and i wrote a strong letter in sup

this is where judge barrett comes in. as she admitted during my questioning, judge barrett has written in no uncertain term terms, she thinks chief justice roberts got it wrong in his ruling eight years ago upholding the aca against constitutional challenge. she wrote this article just three years ago and 2017 and ndorsoon after was on the short list for the supreme court. meanwhile the justice department under president trumps leadership, has joined the challenge of the aca, now back in front of the supreme tiurt. that will be heard from the court two weeks from tomorrow. president trump and his administration are arguing in no uncertainou terms the court must get rid of the entire aca. my republican colleagues have c said this is fear mongering and it is a different case and a differentue issue. anyone who thinks this characterization, read the brief filed by the solicitor general of the united states to be signed and cosigned by 18 attorneys general. president trump himself lashed out a chief justice roberts over and o

judge barrett: ok.the doctrine of severability is a doctrine essentially of statutory interpretation and what it means is if you have a statute and the affordable care act is obviously a very long statute, if there is one provision within the statute that is unconstitutional, the question is whether that one section can simply be rendered null and excised from the statute, severed, so that the rest of the law stands, or whether that provision is so essential to the statute that it unconstitutionality, once it is pulled out, the whole house of cards collapses. in the presumption is always in favor of severability. it is the question of your intent. i'm sorry, go ahead. chairman graham: the main thing is the doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible, is that correct? judge barrett: that is correct. chairman graham: i want every conservative in the nation to listen to what she just said. the doctrine of severability presumes, and its goal is to preserve the statute if that

that was amy coney barrett. then he called his good friend scalia and said goodness gracious, you don't want to miss this opportunity to have this clerk. so we've got here a uniquely qualified person and the best evidence of is you don't hear anything over there about her qualifications, not a peep about her talent, her intellect. we've got colleagues -- we've got, colleagues, the perfect nominee to the supreme court. norman feldman who leans left wrote judge barrett is a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith. he said she meets and exceeds the basic criteria for being a good justice. so as i was saying no matter all the acrimony swirled around the process, nobody has attempted to dispute judge barrett's qualifications. to the contrary, no one can help being impressed. at one point during judge barrett's hearing, she was asked about an arcane legal drok train. her -- doctrine. her answer was so clear and accessible that one of our democratic colleagues -- i won't name

this demonstrates the real-world danger of barrett's -- amy coney barrett's judicial philosophy. this is not the only right at risk. we know this because judge barrett has aligned herself with the conservative wing of the court. at her nomination ceremony judge barrett announced that justice scalia's, quote, judicial philosophy is mine too. aligning herself so closely with justice scalia has implications for a whole host of rights and protections the court has granted over the years. justice scalia, for example, wrote dissents in the landmark cases recognizing lgbt roll call votes from rover v. -- lgbt rights. he wrote a dissent sharply criticizing the majority for recognizing a right to same-sex marriage that in his originalist view was not in the constitution. because judge barrett calls herself an originalist and shares justice scalia's judicial philosophy, his decisions provide a preview of how she would have ruled in those cases. for example, although the supreme court has aconfirmed marital rights for lgbtq americans, judge barrett's radical views put these rights at risk.

judge barrett: no, senator. sen. hirono: judge barrett, do you think it is appropriate for justices to consider real-world impacts in their vision making, as justice ginsburg noted in a number of her dissents? judge barrett: the doctrine is a good example of that, because the factor of reliance interest takes into account the real world impact the way that people have ordered their affairs and relied on decisions, so there are contexts in considering part of that doctrine. sen. hirono: so you would say that -- you have been listening to all of us here today as well as yesterday, talking about the real world impact of striking down of the affordable care act. impacts be those fact that would be important for you to consider, should you be a justice? judge barrett: sen., to be clear, i have the utmost empathy to the stories that you have told, including the story of veronica's family. very moving. if i were a justice, the commitment i would make to you and to all people affected by follows is that i would the law as yo

this is fine and i think judge barrett, handled it well. thought number three and get greg's thoughts overall and on this particular sound. >> did you have then a general understanding that one of the president's campaign promises was to repeal the affordable care act when you were nominated? >> hon. amy coney barrett: i, as i said before, i'm aware the president opposes the affordable care act. >> were you aware when you were nominated? >> hon. amy coney barrett: senator klobuchar, i think the republicans have made that clear to the public discourse. >> senator: is the answer yes now? >> hon. amy coney barrett: all these questions, you are suggesting i haanymous or cut a deal with the president, that isn't what happened. >> greg, thoughts? >> greg: what i don't like in general, you learn about a person in how they wield their power when they have it. if they have authority to treat you like crap and they do, they are a terrible person. but if you have the authority to hammer somebody, but you do it with some kind of grace, that is differen

supported to have judge barrett. think the people of south carolina would be very happy with somebody like her sitting on the court judging us all. the role of advise and consent has been around for a couple of hundred years. the last three decades has taken a sinister turn. that ourmagine would probablys be proud of the fact that woman is on the court. probably not possible when it first started as a nation. we have changed as a nation, i think, moving in the right direction. the thing i like about judge wasett is the constitution a document written and the words matter. and change comes when the people of the united states have a say about change. not five people. the most important thing we have done today is we have insured in the future with judge barrett the societal changes people hope and dream about are not excluded . she will redirect them to the process the founders had in mind. the people making the change. five justices of the supreme court. conclude thewill nominating process of judge barrett. i will en

judge barrett: sure. that article was responding, i set a couple times the supreme court gives different presidential strength to constitutional cases and to statutory cases and that article was responding to arguments that beher started this should eliminated altogether or it should be absolute, and i was taking the supreme court doctrine as it exists where constitutional cases are not absolutely insulated from overruling, which is the position that every supreme court justice of whom i am aware has had. sometimes you do have to overrule cases. otherwise you do not have brown versus the board of education. i was just identifying some of the virtues of that position. i was defending in that article the current supreme court clearly , and i very said in that article that you cannot just impose a new vision with votes that you have to take reliant interests and that always lack of certainty about how the calculus runs counter to keeping the status quo. sen. crapo: thank you. i found it amazing that you woul

judge barrett is going to the floor. i hope you look back on this time on the committee and say, i was there when it mattered. and you were. senator lee? sen. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. be heredeed an honor to on this historic occasion, when we have confirmed judge barrett and forwarded to the floor our recommendation. as i have said ever since she was nominated to this position, judge amy coney barrett is one of the most impressive legal minds in the united states. andis a thoughtful fair-minded lawyer. a loving daughter, wife, and mother. and a devout believer in her faith and in the constitution. she was arguably the most impressive judicial nominee i have ever seen in any of these hearings. i have been watching them intently since i was a kid. make barrett is going to an absolutely outstanding supreme court justice. the american people will be lucky to have her on the bench. it is a shame that our --leagues on the others, other side, having failed to lay a glove on judge barrett, have walked out on this process. a

judge barrett: i do. it might even be by statute that we have to do that, but i do. >> yes. , i will offer this as a proposition, the rule that you follow and the way in which circuit judges follow it aligns quite well with the reporting requirements that in the executive branch, members of the cabinet have to do when they get travel, andifts, other emoluments and it aligns quite well with the reporting that members of congress have to gifts of travel or hospitality or other such emoluments. is with thency here supreme court. a much lower standard of transparency and disclosure about those very same things. it is a bit of a mystery when i see the situation, when you go up to the court, you will be not subject to the code of ethics that you are subject to now and you will have lower reporting requirements than you do now or that any of us do. i flag that for you because i think it is anomalous that the highest court should have the lowest standards and i don't know if you want to say something about that?

judge barrett: yes. so, i would say most of my writing was during my time as a full-time law professor. the only thing i have published, i think since being confirmed to the bench was i published a lecture that i gave, and then i edited a transcript of remarks i gave on a panel that was not a full-length article. i found frankly that it is hard to manage all the demands of family life and the job and writing any kind of scholarly article that i did in the past. if i were made on the seventh circuit and perhaps if unconfirmed at some point to the supreme court, i would like to do more of that. the vein ofthat, in what justice breyer does now, or what my colleague said, which is writing that is designed to educate about ideas. really, really set herself out to teach high school students and people in america about civics and how the civic classes works. i find myself wanting to reach for general audiences. in toi will zip back scholarly writing again. sen. sasse: that is very helpful, i think it would be v

judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: there are personal views on the supreme court and nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their beliefs. there is no reason to question yours in my view. the bottom line here is that there is a process. you fill in the blanks whether it is about guns, abortion rights. let's go to citizens united. and ir whitehouse, you will come closer and closer on regulating money. there is a lot of money being raised in this campaign. i would like to know where some of it is coming from. citizens united says what? judge barrett: citizens united extends the first amendment to corporations involved in political speech. sen. graham: if someone challenged that congress went too far, how would the process work? judge barrett: it will be the same process i have been describing. someone would have to challenge that law in a case. it would wind its way up, judges would decide it after briefs, consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. sen. graham: same-

judge barrett needs to do the right thing and recuse herself. i will conclude by noting the irony that ruth bader ginsburg and mitch mcconnell were both on the same page as to this nomination. in 2016, senator mcconnell gave us his promise that the senate would not fill a vacancy on the supreme court in a presidential election year. and after she passed, we learned that it was justice ginsburg's dying wish that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. so let us hold mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham to their words and honor justice ginsburg's perfect wish. no confirmation before inauguration. but if republicans succeed here today in their effort to confirm yet another conservative supreme court justice just days before the presidential election, as soon as the democrats take back control of the senate in january, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the supreme court. we cannot allow such corrupt partisanship to take precedence over justice and liberty in our country. i will vote against the confirmation of judge amy coney b

judge barrett wouldn't say so.he president is not like it's shy, she bashed the opinion of chief justice roberts that upheld the affordable care act. she said it pushed it beyond save its meaning statue. this 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions are protected today. why insurance companies have caps on people who need costly healthcare. why seniors no longer get stuck with prescription drug donut holes, bankruptcy in the system. a letter that talked about overturning roe v. wade because it was about a barbaric legislative. she failed to disclose the letter in the lectures and her disclosures to the judiciary. again, i understand nominees are always careful in these hearings but nomination hearings are providing less and less substance, it has been the case for a long time and over the last few weeks, judge barrett set a new ball. he is ago, chief justice roberts about the job of supreme court justice and called out balls and strikes. how can you call balls and strikes if you spend your nomination hear

judge barrett: i did not.ll --llis: appreciate your being forthcoming, that you have submitted 1800 pages of documents. i. chairman, just going back, also wanted to mention that, as part of my journey through my time in quarantine, i have far.led in two studies so i will be giving blood on friday to enroll in another program at unc chapel hill, and i am scheduled to donate convalescent plasma. i hope anyone who has recovered from covid will do their part to try to heal this country from the health challenges covid has presented us with. i also would like to say, i would like to consider the and essential business. i believe the architect of the capitol and our attending physicians here have taken great measures to make sure we can safely come to work, and i would encourage anybody who works in the senate to come to work. i would also go back to feinsteinthat senator said earlier. you will not have to answer this question. senator feinstein mentioned earlier that we have had a surge in applications for guns or

not so with judge barrett. anyone who has interacted with her nose that she means what she says and she says what she mean. when she promised to advocate for me, she commanded my trust. to this day, i do not know what judge barrett did to solve my problem. itself a testament to her humility. all i know is that they technology arrived promptly, which in turn allowed me to excel and to place me in a position that would eventually allow me to apply for clerkship on the supreme court. this encounter was the first in which judge barrett demonstrated the depth of her generous spirit. but it was far from the last. she has remained a constant source of strength, encouragement, and solace as i have pursued professional and personal opportunities with no road maps to guide me. through her mentorship, she has given me a gift of immeasurable value. the ability to live an abundant life with the potential to break down barriers so that i can leave this world a better place than i found it. though i am here today to share wit

wade or griswold, but if judge barrett becomes justice barrett, it very well might. and if you're looking for some hard numbers to prove that the political right considers ideology and not just qualifications, consider this. under justice roberts, there have been 80 cases, 80 decided by a 5-4 majority in which the five justices nominated by republican presidents came down on one side, and the four justices nominated by democratic presidents came down on the other. 80 cases, exactly the same majority. calling balls and strike? and in an amazing coincidence, all the republican-nominated justices think it's a strike, and all the democratic ones think it's a ball. or vice versa. it would be the most remarkable coincidence in the history of mathematics if nine justices simply calling balls and strikes exhibited the same split in the exact same configuration 80 times. we all know what the game is here, so stop pretending. stop pretending there are entire organizations dedicated to advancing far-right judges. stop pretending that the political right doesn't spend millions o

if judge barrett is confirmed, she will swawr an oath. she -- swear an oath. will have a life time appointment. nobody seriously is suggesting she lacks any bit of the integrity which everyone trusted justice ginsburg, justice breyer, justice sotomayor, kagan and countless others to exercise. in fact, her integrity and independence are precisely what judge barrett's peers across the political spectrum go out of their way to i applaud. judge barrett has no obligation to make any of the bizarre, bizarre prejudgments that our democratic colleagues are demanding. like i said, much of the script has been entirely predictable. i'lli' tell you one thing, i honestly did not expect the democratic leader to come to the senate floor and say that concerns about anti-religious discrimination are, quote, manufactured hysterics. didn't expect that. i to not expect we will hear the leader of the democratic caucus stand on the senate floor and say america's freedom of religion is, quote, an imaginary issue. the democratic leader claimed indignantly that his fellow democrats wo

judge barrett invalidated. guess what? president trump and republican attorneys general are in court right now suing to do just that, involume-- invalidate our health care law heard one week, one week after the election. the threat to americans' health care is very, very real and senate republicans are tying themselves in knots in trying to explain how it's not. leader mcconnell from the floor of the senate called it a joke, a joke that judge barrett and a far right majority might vote to take away health care or turn back the clock on women's rights. maybe he didn't get that message around to his conference, because the republican senator from utah only a few days earlier claimed the an i fo n affordable health was tarnished if that's what she chose to do and nominee sdoo i hadded that roe was an act of imperialism and i do believe amy coney barrett's record bears that out. that's his quote. the junior senator from missouri expressed confidence that judge barrett decided that roe could enforce that view. which is it, repu

as judge amy coney barrett noted. she very carefully describe the case pending and found that supreme court. it is not about obama care live large . is about eight technical doctrine called severability. * the statute deemed unconstitutional. and this is what italy ms., individual mandate because we zeroed out the tendency under the tax cut and jobs act. the question is does the rest of the legislation and obama care, stand. or does it all have to be struck down. she noted a number of cases decided recently by the current supreme court seemed treat severability with particular care. and indeed is a scholastic in an academic, she and others noted it is not exactly appropriate for the judges to go out and strike down statutes except to the extent they are unconstitutional. she said are not coming for your healthcare. she will serve corporate interest in and destroy the environment somehow of winter liberties. these are nothing but baseless scare tactics. studs are democratic colleagues. the latest one came this morning.

i think judge barrett does the same. she will be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the court. she and her husband jesse are raising seven children, two of whom were adopted from haiti and the youngest who has down's syndrome. if there is a mom or a working mom or not who wonders if her perspective is ever spoken to when cases are considered before the supreme court, a justice barrett will bring that perspective to the court. finally, i want to thank judge barrett for her willingness to serve, to accept the nomination to the supreme court is sadly to accept ruthless attacks from partisans seeking to score political points. her nomination was no different. she had been repeatedly attacked for being a practicing catholic. she has every right to live her faith, and no one in public service should be expected to cast aside deeply held religious convictions to satisfy an angry mob fabricating reasons to say no. thank you, judge barrett, for defending her and by extension all of our religious liberty. and i t

judge barrett, invalidate it. guess what? president trump and republican attorneys general are in court right now suing to do just that, invalidate our health care law, week, one week after the election. the threat to americans' health care ishe very, very real. and senate republicans are tying themselves in knots in trying to explain how it's not. leader mcconnell from the floor of the senate called it a joke, a joke, that judge barrett and a far-right majority of the court or might vote to take away health care or turn back the clock on women's rights. maybe he didn't get that message around to his concern. because the republican senator from utah only a few days earlier claimed that the affordable care act was unconstitutional and that striking it down shouldn't tarnish judge barrett if that's what she chooses to do. another republican senator said he wanted to see evidence that the nominee understood that roe was wrongly decided. that roe was an act of judicial imperialism. and i do believe amy coney barrett's record bear

judge barrett: yes. sen. harris: my colleagues have asked whether you would recuse yourself on cases involving the. he describe the process by which that would work or happen. my question is, isn't it true that at the end of that process, regardless of that process, it would be you who ultimately would make the decision about whether or not you would recuse yourself? judge barrett: that is true. i cannot have you elicit a commitment from me about how i would make that decision in advance. sen. harris: what have ask you is, is it not correct that that is the process, that ultimately he would be you -- and you alone -- that would make the decision about whether you would be recused? you have already opined on the constitutionality of the afforded -- affordable care act. that satisfies the president's promise. senate republicans rushed this process so that you could rule on this very case. the reasonable question about willimpartiality undoubtedly hang over this court's ultimate decision in the affordable care a

barrett. if confirmed, she would become only the fifth woman to serve on the highest court in the land and would tip the balance to a 6-3 conservative majority, potentially affecting social policy for generations. the high stakes battle beginning now, just 22 day before election day. welcome to "america's newsroom" on this historic day, i'm sandra smith. bill: like old times, huh? nice to see you. i'm bill hemmer. the resumÉ on judge barrett reads as following: she graduated top of her class, notre dame law school, 1997. clerked for the late justice antonin scalia. appointed to the chicago-based 7th u.s. circuiter court of appealingses. she would be the young e member of the united states supreme court. sandra: judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham will be presiding other today's hearings expected to last in total four days. the 22 senators will be giving opening statements, then judge barrett will be introduced, and she will deliver her prepared remarks. bill: as sandra mentioned, the c

i am very supportive of barrett.fied, is very and i trust president trump to data qualified person, unlike democrats right now, so you should be very concerned on the picks they would be picking. thank you so much. host: a tweet from kamala harris, the junior democrat on the committee, again, 12 republicans, 10 democrats. senator kamala harris tweeted "the supreme court makes decisions that will impact america for generations we need to make sure the integrity is upheld by not appointing a new justice until we have a new president on the opposite end is the senior member, the chairman of the committee, lindsey graham, and a debate on friday with democrat candidate jimmy harrison, and talked about the hearings. [video clip] senator graham: i was asked, "what would you do if there is an opening," and i said if it were there. nbc, if there was an opening on the supreme court, what would you do? we will see what the market bears. toill lead the charge confirm judge amy coney barrett to the court. if chuck schumer and a d

i will be voting against judge barrett ojudgebarrett on the fl. but between now and then, democrats of this committee will continue to make the case about what is at stake for the american people if judge barrett is confirmed. i now would be pleasured to welcome my friend, senator patrick leahy. [background chanting] >> thank you. senator schumer and senator feinstein pointed out this hearing [inaudible] and we saw again what just happened. moments ago at the hearing room across the street, republicans broke committee rules in many ways even worse than that, they broke their word for the confirmation process. it's become a caricature. [inaudible] while the republicans announce a nominee even before justice ginsburg was buried. they see an opportunity to accomplish what they failed to accomplish in congress. that includes making voting a second class right. republicans have launched an all-out war on voting. last night they were successful. the supreme court voted 5-32 block curbside voting in alabama during the pandemic. and earlier this week, whe

judge barrett: i do want to be forthright. on that question, i'm going to invoke justice kagan's description, which i think is perfectly put. when she was at her confirmation hearing, she said she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. i think in an area where precedent continues to be litigated, as is true of casey, it would be particularly -- it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. if i express a view on a president, whether i say i love it or hate it, it signals to litigants that i might tilt one way or another in a pending case. on somethingtein: that is really a major cause, with major effect on over half of the population of this country who are women, after all, it's distressing not to get a straight answer. let me try again. do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided? senator, itt: completely understand why you are asking the question, but, again, i can't pre-commit or say yes, i'm going in with some agenda

judge barrett: yes. so, i would say most of my writing was during my time as a full-time law professor. the only thing i have published, i think since being confirmed to the bench was i published a lecture that i gave, and then i edited a transcript of remarks i gave on a panel that was not a full-length article. i found frankly that it is hard to manage all the demands of family life and the job and writing any kind of scholarly article that i did in the past. if i remained on the seventh circuit and perhaps if unconfirmed at some point to the supreme court, i would like to do more of that. but more in the vein of what justice breyer does now, or what my colleague said, which is writing that is designed to educate about ideas. i think justice o'connor and her program, where she really, really set herself out to teach high school students and people in america about civics and how the civic classes works. i would see myself wanting to reach for general audiences. little older,et a maybe i will zip back i

i speak to everyone when i say that the barrett's family has ca ptu red that the barrett's family hashly fitting that justice barrett fills the seat of a two para nearfor barrett fills the seat of a two para near for women “— barrett fills the seat of a two para nearfor women —— pioneer. justice ruth peter ginsberg. tonight, justice barrett becomes not only the fifth woman to serve on oui’ becomes not only the fifth woman to serve on our nation's highest court, but the very first mother of school—aged children to become a supreme court justice. very important. 0ver court justice. very important. over the past few weeks, the entire world has seenjustice ba rrett‘s entire world has seenjustice barrett's deep knowledge, tremendous poise and towering intellect. she answered questions for hours on end. throughout her entire confirmation, her impeccable credentials were unquestioned, unchallenged and obvious to all. justice barrett earned a full academic scholarship to notre dame law school, graduated first in her class and served as a clerk for justice antonin scalia. she was a beloved pro

they're scared, judge barrett. they're scared that your confirmation would rip the limbs of very health care protections to millions of americans that it ought to maintain, and which congress has repeatedly projected to eliminate. they're scared that the clock would be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies, and when when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace. they're scared at a time when we are facing the perils and impacts of climate change. bedrock environmental protections eviscerated. and they're scared that your confirmation will result in the rolling back of voting rights, workers rights and the rights of the lgbtq community to equal treatment. these aren't just thoughts. these are real-life complications of decisions made by the court. and the majority of americans, an overwhelming majority of vermonters don't support taking our country in that direction. republicans first announced their intention of filling justice ginsburg seat just one hour

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

judge barrett: i do not. any case involving that act i would approach with an open mind as with any other. sen. grassley: some opponents of the false claims act argue that provisions are unconstitutional under article two and three. are you familiar with these legal arguments and if so, do you have an opinion on them? well, thoset: aren't ones that i can express an opinion on because as you say, it has been up for the court. sen. grassley: another interest of mine that i probably a 87 years of age won't live long enough to see done, but i've discussed cameras in the courtroom and introduced legislation on that over the last 15 years. it's not a very popular subject. -- would have to roll over his dead body before they put cameras on the supreme court. i can respect that point of view, but i totally disagree. think that allowing cameras in the courtroom would open courts to the public and bring about a better understanding of the judiciary. for many years, that bill i have been introduced as been called the su