blumenthal: thanks to senator durbin for his leadership. are we have presented here the personal impact, the real-life effect of this nominee. we brought america into the hearing room. in spite of the pandemic or because of it, we have made their voices and their faces real. what is happening in this nomination is shameful and embarrassing. through a sham process is am this nominee through disgrace to the senates, to america. let me just say, the reasons are transparent. ,s senator durbin has said there are two dates. november 3, november 10. wantser 3, donald trump the supreme court to decide the election, not the voters. clear, hen absolutely wants a ninth justice to decide the election, and this nominee would not even answer questions about whether he can delay the election. on november 10, he wants her on the bench to decide the affordable care act. the american people can see through it and they can also see through her avoidance of questions. that i asked every one of my democratic colleagues asked. what we saw in this hearing was the

durbin: we have another meeting. first, with patrick leahy, then with american constitution society president and former senator russ feingold. author and former white house press secretary sean spicer will join us to talk about his new book and president trump's reelection. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern this morning. be sure to join the discussion with phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. >> the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee amy coney barrett concludes thursday with the senate judiciary committee listening to outside witnesses who support and oppose judge barrett's nomination. that is live on c-span at 9:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span two at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the heritage foundation holds a discussion on election security ahead of the 2020 election. later in the day, we are live from the campaign trail in north carolina with the in trump holding a rally in greenville -- with president trump holding a rally in greenville and kamala harris speaking in charlotte. >> americ

thank you for that question senator durbin -- question, senator durbin. wrote as a law professor of those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinion and as i mentioned before my description was consistent with the way that chief justice roberts described the statutory question. i think your concern is because i critiqued the statutory reasoning that i am hostile to the aca and because i am hostile to the aca that i would decide the case of particular way, and i assure you i am not. i am not hostile to the aca. i am not hostile to any statute that you have. i have commented, we can talk about the distinctions between academic riding and judicial decision-making, -- writing and judicial decision-making, this is an entirely different legal question of severability i would reach a particular result that just assume i am hostile and that's not the case. i apply the law, i follow the law, you make the policy. sen. durbin: let's talk about this for a moment. bear with me. have you seen the george floyd video. -- video? judge b

it all began with lindsey graham's opening statement with dick durbin responding two hours later. here is a quick mashup of it. >> under the affordable care act, three states get 35% of the money, folks. can you name them? i'll help you. california, new york, and massachusetts. they're 22% of the population. >> when the chairman opened up on it and said what he did, i was puzzled. three states get 35% of the money? how can that possibly be true? it turns out because those states decided to extend medicaid coverage to the people who lived in the states and his did not. and as a consequence, fewer people than south carolina have the protection of health insurance. >> so claire mccaskill, you and i began yesterday by being surprised at the discipline of the democrats on health care. i would say the discipline drew blood, because lindsey graham's opening statement today where he felt the need to rebut what he thought was said yesterday, and then, by the way, gave a description of what he would like to see in south carolina which i believe someone might say, hey, you just described oba

you saw that in the exchange with durbin. that was with -- the exchange with durbin are going to be the highlight of these hearings. it really is in contrast to his colleagues. durbin raised legitimate issues and has been skillful and she's been very skillful in response as opposed to sent sent booker asking can you be empathetic or senator hirono saying have you sexually assaulted someone? if you look at the durbin barrett exchanges they're high points and they give very good marx for what they said. by the way, how the of these exchanges come enlightening issues. today clearly judge barrett indicated she's not comfortable with the application of the international law as controlling authority of the united states. she sounded very much like her mentor, justice scalia in responding to that question. >> harris: jonathan, as i did with ken starr i'm going to ask you to stand by. if we have time i want to bring you all three back on the screen. andy mccarthy. in your days progress you know what questions will turn up the type of

durbin: mr. president? er ifer if the senator from illinois. -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i am going to put my statements in the record as to the other three bills and make a general u.c. request as to all of them en banc, as they say. in order to proceed to consideration of h.r. 4995, maternal health quality improvement arctic of 20, h.r. 4996 helping moms act of 20, and h.r. 1585 violence against women reauthorization act, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. braun: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i object to proceeding to everything en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. coarse correspondent mr. president -- mr. cornyn: mr. president, on thursday you the senate judiciary committee advanceed the nomination of amy coney barrett unan

durbin: i would doubt that. i don't think you could be as passionate about original-ism in the history behind language we have had for decades, if not centuries. case that iyou to a have read or reread. you know the case well. it has already been referred to. you have had your day in court. wrote 37 pages of dissent. you gave the court a pretty full accounting of your thoughts on the subject. they invented some pads to put in a shoe to be sold to older americans under medicare to relieve foot pain. he designed them and submitted them to medicare and didn't get the approval he was looking for. andead, sold them represented too many customers that they had been approved by medicare. he was charged with fraud. this was the matter of misapplication of law. when it was all said and done, ricky cantor and love spending a prison payingl somewhere near $300,000 in penalties and fines and $27 million in a civil settlement on this issue. this was not a casual tuning. this man was a swindler. he was taking the federal gove

durbin: of course it was. the 15th amendment "the right to vote should not be denied or abridged on account of race." originalist, that is clear text as i see it, but when asked if the president has any authority to unilaterally deny that right to vote for a person based on race or gender, are you saying you cannot answer that question? judge barrett: i just reference the 14th and 15th amendments, that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race on voting. as i said i do not know how else , i can say it, the constitution provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in voting. sen. durbin: but whether the president can deny, you cannot answer yes or no? judge barrett: you have asked a couple of questions. i cannot say anything more because i will not answer hypotheticals. sen. durbin: that is strange originalism if the clear warning of the constitution establishes a right and you will not acknowledge it. judge barrett: it would strain the canons of conduct which do not permit me to offer off-th

durbin: thank you. madam president, we're asking for unanimous consent to pass a bill that has passed the house of representatives unanimously by a voice vote. unanimously, to empower and direct the law enforcement agencies of the united states to use their talents and resources to stop domestic terrorism, to stop the killing. we are identifying in the course of it the white supremacy and far-right extremism as one of the sources. listen to what a trump administration department of justice official wrote last year in "the new york times." quote, white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic security threats facing the united states. regret poly, over -- regrettably over the past 25 years law enforcement a lot federal and state levels have been slow to respond. killings committed by groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly. we are not manufacturing a crisis. the trump administration department of justice official concurs with our actions that th

durbin: of course it was. the 15th amendment "the right to vote should not be abridged on account of race." that is clear text as i see it, but when asked if the president has any authority to unilaterally deny that right to vote for a person based on race or gender, are you saying you cannot answer that question? judge barrett: i just reference the 14th and 15th amendments, that dude -- prohibit discrimination on the basis of race on voting. say not know how else i can it, the constitution contains prohibit tatian's on the discrimination of race. but whether the president can deny, you cannot answer yes or no? judge barrett: you've answered a couple of questions. i cannot say anything more because i will not answer hypotheticals. sen. durbin: that is strange regionalism if the clear warning of the constitution establishes a right and you will not acknowledge it. judge barrett: it would strain the canons of conduct which do not permit me to offer off-the-cuff reactions or any opinions outside of the judicial d

emotional moment of the day came when senator dick durbin of illinois asked barrett, the mother of two black children, about the racial anguish that's erupted in the country this year. >> have you seen the george floyd video? >> i have. >> what impact did it have on you? >> senator, as you might imagine, given that i have two black children, that was very, very personal for my family. i was there and my 17-year-old daughter vivian, who is adopted from haiti, all of this was erupting, it was very difficult for her. we wept together in my room and and my children, to this point in their lives, have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon, where they have not experienced hatred or violence. for vivian to understand there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation. it is a difficult one for us like it is for americans all over the country. >> very personal moment there today. terry moran back with us from the hill again tonight. and terry, we all watched as

senator durbin? durbin: i want to thank the senator from texas for his sympathy. [laughter] what we are witnessing this morning and this week is different than anything we have seen. some of us have robert bork stuck in our craw. others have merit garland stuck in our craw in terms of what is happening here. we all need to concede we are not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and the senate, the relationship with the supreme court. the chairman started this hearing reminding us about votes 8-0 for antonen 9 scalia. 3 for ruth bader ginsburg. how did we manage to put together five partisan coalitions or people on such opposite ends of the political inctrum who we knew going were very clear in what they believed? now today we struggle vote to vote, day-to-day when it comes to filling a vacancy on the supreme court. i think there are a lot of explanations for it. one of the things we have witnessed here in the time i have served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it is almost useless. we h

i might think durbin was as great as jonathan did. maybe a little bit at her but it's not exactly an all-star lineup to compare yourself t to. >> the question make sense given how much love from pants for bush, for bush's brother. we know the two of them are thick as thieves. that line of questioning was spot on. one of the interesting exchanges to me was with kamala harris where she was attacking judge barrett for ruling on behalf of corporations against employees. she was counting up statistics as to the ruled in favor of this constituency this many times in this one that many times. it was a perfect revelatory moment of the differences in what judge barrett think she's doing when she sitting on the bench and what senator harris thinks she should be doing. i looked at those opinions. all judge barrett is doing is applying the federal arbitration act. it's a federal statute that requires judges to basically give deference to arbitration agreements. if senator harris doesn't like the outcome of, guess what. she sits in a branch congre

durbin: i would doubt that.ust don't believe you could be as passionate about originalism and the history behind language we have had for decades, if not centuries, without having some thought on where we stand today. i am not going to press you on that. i am going to take you on a case that i have read and reread, candace versus barr. you know the case well. it has already been referred to. and it clearly was a case you have had your day in court. you wrote the sole descendent of the 64-page case, you wrote 37 pages of dissent. so you get the court, i assume a , pretty full accounting of your thoughts on the subject. and here's how i understand the case. ricky cantor from wisconsin invented some pads to put into a shoe, to be sold to particularly older americans under medicare to relieve foot pain. ,and he designed them and submitted them to medicare, and didn't get the approval he was looking for. but instead, sold them and represented to many customers that they had been approved by medicare. so he was charge

senator durbin, welcome back to "meet the press." i ended with the court with senator cruz, so let's start there. you spoke with judge barrett this week. how did your conversation go? >> it was a good, constructive, positive conversation. i asked her not some deep legal philosophical questions. we just chatted for a minute. and i really wanted to try to understand her experience as a person when it came to health care, because she is being sent on assignment to the supreme court by president trump, and we know what that assignment is -- eliminate the affordable care act, which protects 23 million americans -- and be there if the president needs her on an election contest. how do i know this? because the president makes no secret of it. he has said it over and over again. so, we discussed my experience as a father with a sick child and no health insurance, and we talked about what that meant to families. >> setting aside the issue of the timing of the nomination, did you find that she's qualified for the job? >> well, qualifications a

judy woodrll have a conversation with dick durbin in a moment but first, john yang reports on the big that barrett may have a chance sjohn: as tenate wrapped up etdebate on amy coney bar's nomination to the supreme court today, there have been bold predictions about what she woulo s a justice. >>lmost 50 years of precedent upholding a woman's right to control her own body are in jeopardy. >> judge barrett will uphold our cherished constitutional rights, including the second amendment. john: replacing the late liberic on ruth bader ginsburg with barrett, a protege of the late conservative icon antonin scalia is the biggest ideological shift in decades. marcia coyle is chief washington corresponde for "the national law journal." >> the court went 11 yearsge without a chn justices unti2005. that was the longest periodn modern history without a chge in personnel on the court. in just 15 years, only four years more, the court has seen seven new justices. and so that's something the court itself has to adjust to as well. ijohn: once swo barrett could consider requests for the court to revie

>> that's right. >> and i actually have the second of the amendment because senator durbin was highly critical. as a policy matter, he wants those felons voted. he didn't address the legal issue that judge barrett was obliged to address. section two provides in relevant part, but when the right to vote in any election is denied or is in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime -- well, senator durbin may not like that the 14th amendment explicitly contemplates if you commit a crime, if you're a felon, you may forfeit your right to vote, but that's in the text of the constitution. as a judge, judge barrett would be not doing her job were she not to look at the text of the constitution and follow the text of the constitution. am i right, judge barrett, that the second amendment doesn't have similar language suggesting or other crime or anything comparable to that? >> you are correct. >> all right. a third point. there's been some discussion from democratic members raising the question of the federalist society and dark money and all sorts of mysterious conne

for planning purposes if it's okay with the committee, we'll have senator durbin, senator lee, break for about a half hour for lunch and come back. are you okay with that? do you need a break? >> that's fine. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you judge barrett and your family for being with us here today for this marathon of questioning. >> thank you, senator durbin. >> i would like to respond to two of my colleagues quickly before i ask a few questions of you. who came up with this notion, this insulting notion that you might violate your oath? could vitt come from the white house? could it have come from the president's tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? that's where it comes from. that's where it originated. you have said very clearly today without equivocation you are not going to be influenced by president trump's importuning or the importuning of this committee or anyone else which is what we expect you to say. this notion that this whole idea of your being used for political purposes is a democratic creation, read the tweets and you

senator durbin. >> idiots. that's what president trump called the public health expert that worked at the federal government and he put doctor anthony fauci in the same sentence. i don't think they are idiots. i think they are experts. the president is uncomfortable around them because they are warning us we are about to see a surge in infections and deaths in america. sadly with 5% of the world's population and 20% of the covid-19 deaths. just south of the nation of canada. we have 2.5 times the number of people dying from covid-19 as canada. what's wrong, there's no leadership. that's what it comes down to in this debate. this president says he's tired of talking about this. his people are having rallies. they are not worried. sadly they endanger their lives every time they show up at one of those rallies. we know that and he obviously doesn't care. so the medical imperative of more and more infections and more and more deaths is a reality. we take it seriously, so seriously nancy pelosi passed her bill five

. >> dick durbin did ask about the affordable care act turkeys on the committee. here's that interaction. >> here's what it comes down to. you've been unequivocal in being critical about decisions both in king burwell. you naturally draw the conclusion that is going to a third strike when it comes to texas and california. you said it won't affect pre-existing conditions if the petitioners have their way, there will not be an affordable care act to protect pre-existing conditions on the severability question. us insight how you can be so unequivocal in opposing the majority decisions but have an open mind when it comes to the future of the affordable care act.ab >> sure. thank you for the question, senator durbin because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote, and as this was as law professor, about those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majorityri opinions, and as i he mentioned before my description of them was consistent with the way a chief justice roberts describes the statutory question. but i think tha

i yield back to senator durbin. durbin: thank you, senator leahy. on the floor of the senate we are discussing a supreme court vacancy. we should be discussing another topic. america is in the throes of the deadliest epidemic of more than a century. ,000 americans have died. many states are reporting a record number of infections and deaths. in my state of illinois, the governor has recently called on fourestaurants anin the major counties surrounding chicago to close because infection rates are out of control. it is personal. a dear friend of mine, feeling called herturday, daughter and said "i need to go to the hospital." she went to the first major hospital near her and was turned away because there was no room. she went to the second hospital. turned away, no room. finally admitted to the hospital. she passed away on tuesday morning. we have reached the point now, where ighter said, " could not even get mom to the very best hospital." that is the state of america today. you would never know it if you listen to the debate on the floor of the unit

durbin: i will tell you, the conclusion of this is hard to swallow. the notion that mr.antor, after all that he did, should not even slow down when n he isn his way to buy a firearm. amy: that is dick durbin, the democratic senator from i illins questitioning judgdge barrett. dahlia lithwhwick, the significance of this? in the bucket of cases where i describe judge barrett going way beyond what settled law is. that is a good exaxample. disrupts,ler case she justice scalia f found for the first time an individual right to bear armrms under the second amendment. that is not a thing that has been understood to be the case for centuries as she had suggested. that is something that was kind of invented on the fly in the heller case. so she locates that as this fundamenental divisional right. as you say, she then downgrades the right to vote as something that is lesser, civic right. the other thing that is really important is that justice scalia had no problem with takingng awy guns from felons in heller itself. many, many states have those laws. so she went beyond even what h

durbin has put it really well. she has mastered the art of platitudes and avoidance. maybe it is a good short-term tactic but for our republican colleagues it is a loser because depriving americans of health care in the midst of a pandemic is going to be totally unacceptable to americans and they will be held accountable. but may have the votes, they do not have the majority of the american people on their side. the issue ofsay on avoidance, she refused to commit on retaining protections for pre-existing conditions. she refused to commit to retain reproductive freedoms for rape victims who need abortions or ivf procedures. she refused to commit to commonsense gun violence simplys and in fact invaded and avoided all of those questions that go to public health measures vital to america. she was lauded by her republican colleagues for her qualifications but more than credentials on paper, a justice on the u.s. supreme court should and her outlier callme, radical positions those- call into question qualifications. >> leader mcconnell says he hopes you'll vote on a bill --

it's something senator durbin asked you about. suggested you agreed with the dissent in the marriage equality case that it wasn't the role of the court to decide that same-sex couples have the right to be married. i think this was in a lecture you gave were you said the dissent view was that it wasn't for the court to decide. people could lobby and state legislatures. all this takes me to one point if i follow those tracks on that path. it takes me to the point where i believe that i think the american people have to understand that you would be the polar opposite of justice ginsburg. she and justice scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. so that's what concerns me. i want to turn to an area where i think justice ginsburg, the seat we are considering you for, is truly a hero. that's the area of voting righ

. >> behind this mask, dick durbin. i have been trying to do it with the mask on. i hope you can hear me. the priorities we bring to this hearing -- here is one of them. in illinoisung boy who, because of the affordable care act today. affordable care act alive today. or death for thousands of not millions of americans. we believe the aca is hanging in the balance. we will drive that issue home, though our colleagues on the other side may want to talk about judicial philosophy.very interesting, but this is demanding. we demand that all those who participate in this hearing understand the gravity of this when it comes to the real lives of american families. >> our republican colleagues are shocked -- shocked -- that we think this nomination is all about judicially destroying the affordable care act for people like laura here from rhode island. the only problem with their feigned shock is that they are think that is what they are doing. partyin the republican platform to reverse the obamacare cases. thep has said he is using nomination to overturn the affordable care

you want to talk to dick durbin, he was a good prosecutor.mocrats had their way, you wouldn't be able to go to a church in this country, you wouldn't be able to go speak to a christian organization in this country without being disqualified. they said they wouldn't attack her faith. if that lasted for not even 24 hours. today they are right there attacking her religious beliefs, attacking her catholic convictions. spoke to a christian group, that's disqualifying. she signed a pro-life statement to church, that's disqualifying. it's unbelievable, tucker, and it's not going to work. >> tucker: so the idea is that anybody with sincere christian beliefs can't serve in high office. is that standard operable for any other of the great faiths, i'mra wondering? >> not that i've heard. i think with the real standard is that the religious beliefs -t all religious beliefs must be cleared with the senate democrats, so you're welcome to come and submit your beliefs for scrutiny and if they sign off on it and they give you the blue slip, so to speak, then

senator durbin? durbin: i want to thank the senator from texas for his sympathy. [laughter] what we are witnessing this morning and this week is different than anything we have seen. some of us have robert bork stuck in our craw. others have merit garland stuck in our craw in terms of what is happening here. we all need to concede we are not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and the senate, the relationship with the supreme court. the chairman started this hearing reminding us about votes 8-0 for antonen 9 scalia. 3 for ruth bader ginsburg. how did we manage to put together five partisan coalitions or people on such opposite ends of the political inctrum who we knew going were very clear in what they believed? now today we struggle vote to vote, day-to-day when it comes to filling a vacancy on the supreme court. i think there are a lot of explanations for it. one of the things we have witnessed here in the time i have served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it is almost useless. we h

durbin suggested president trump as a target for russia because of a new york times report about thesidents taxes, durbin like the rest of the senate judiciary dems failing to ask comey about a single new element of the declassified information which shows hillary clinton creating the plan to tie president trump to russia in the hacking of the dnc. joining us tonight is former congressman, former chairman of the house oversight committee jason chaffetz on fox business contribute her. good to have you with us. a remarkable performance today by the former fbi director, i don't know that i've ever heard anyone go through quite as many, i don't know i forgot as he did in relatively quick order, your reaction. >> he's fairly consistent in that, when i was the chairman we had director comey and when you would ask him a really specific question on which is very important to the question, he was a boy i gotta check on that, he's very consistent that way and very convenient but i can tell you i'm frustrated because we heard james comey eight times before the house and the senate bring up the

and dick durbin of illinois. >> wait, wait, willie. how could they just brush it aside when -- when anti-anti-trumpers have been saying for six months they had the document. >> something to talk about. >> did you not read the susan rice document that said let's play this by the book? wait, how could they sweep that aside, willie, i don't understand. >> it was an investigation initiated by attorney general william barr so it was not exactly a partisan effort by democrats on the outcome. >> a distraction? >> a distraction. distraction priceline works with top hotels, to save you up to 60%. these are all great. and when you get a big deal... aside, willie, i don't aside, willie, i don't ...you feel like a big deal. ♪ priceline. every trip is a big deal. wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his

i'm also a co-sponsor of senator durbin's bill to allow cameras in the supreme court. i understand that the 7th circuit court of appeals where you currently served adopted procedures to allow requests for video recording of oral arguments as well as public release of the recordings. >> that's correct. >> has your court had any problems with these procedures? what are your views on allowing cameras in the courtroom? if confirmed would you keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the supreme court? >> i would certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the supreme court. >> i always ask people, district, circuit or supreme court this question about international law. i would like to get your views on how and when you would apply international law to your decision making process? is it ever appropriate to look at that when interpreting the u.s. constitution? >> i would never want to say never. it's certainly possible. generally speaking, so it's been applied in -- the issues with which foreign law has been applied and there is debate about it is when the cour

i want to bring in senator dick durbin of illinois. he is the senate minority whip and member of the judiciary committee. senator, thank you so much for your time tonight. we're going to talk a little bit about the vote that is before the senate. but before we do, covid cases breaking records around the country. i want you to take a listen to what mark meadows said about it today. >> here's what we have to do. we're not going to control the pandemic. we are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics, and other mitigation -- >> why aren't we going to get ahold of the pandemic? >> because it is a contagious virus, just like the flu -- z u >> but why not make efforts to contain it? >> we are making efforts to contain it. >> by runni ning all over the country, not wearing a mask? that's what the vice president is doing. >> senator, what does it say to you that the white house admits they're not even trying to contain this virus. >> alicea, this president has no shame for him to accuse the health care heroes that are riski

senator durbin, thank you so much for talking with us. as you know, republicans are on the v of confirming president trump's third appointee to t supreme court. will be sitting on the court as early as tomorrow. and this is over the fierce objection of you and every other democrat. how dig a setback is this for mocrats? well, it's a disappointment because we, as you said, we are putting a rson for a lifetime appointment on the highest court ofhe land, and to give to president trump the authority to fill slree of thosots with people of his choosing is a troubling develicment, palarly at this moment in time. judy, if anyone was coursing through the channels today inand lo finding the broadcast of the united states senate, they would be shcked to learn that we weren't talking about the coronavirus. here we are with an infection runningrampant, 225,000 americans dead, we spent five straight days on one supreme court nomination. a little surprised that thebe standard the republians set four years ago to deny president supreme court violation v

i yield now to senator durbin. sen. durbin: today on the floor of the united states senate we were discussing a supreme court vacancy. we we should be talking on another topic. america is in the throes of the deadliest epidemic in more than a century. died.0 americans have any states are reporting record number of infections and dead. illinois, the governor has recently called on in the fournts major counties surrounding chicago to close because infection rates are out of control. it is personal. illod friend of mine fell last saturday, called her daughter and told her she needed to go to the hospital. she went to the hospital near her and was turned away because there was no room. she went to the second hospital, turned away. no room. finally admitted to a third hospital. she passed away on tuesday morning. we have reached the point, her daughter said, where i could not even get her into the best hospital. that is the state of america today. you will never know it if you listen to the debate on the floor of the senate,

i yield to senator durbin. >> thank you, senator leahy. on the floor of the united states senate we are discussing a supreme court vacancy. we should be talking on another topic. america is in the throes of the deadliest epidemic in more than a century. 222,000 americans have died. ministates recommending a number of infections and deaths. my state of illinois, the governor recently called on the restaurants and the four major counties surrounding chicago to close because infection rates are out-of-control. it is personal. feeling ill last saturday, told her daughter i need to go to the hospital. she went to the first major hospital near her and was turned away because there was no room. she went to the hospital -- the second hospital, turned away. no room. finally admitted to the third hospital. she passed away on tuesday morning. we have reached the point, her daughter said, to the very best hospital, that is the state of america today. you would never know it if you listen to debate on the floor of the united states senate because senat

expectation is that you have the upper tier of the ranking member, dianne feinstein, rich durbin for the granular questions coming about specific cases, like you talked about earlier, trying to draw out. you're not getting specific answers or responses to big picture items democrats most want amy coney barrett's views on. perhaps you can dig in on past cases and draw out a little more. i think one other issue i heard from both sides, you can expect some questions about going forward, more about her judicial philosophy. she explained it, talked about time with scalia, explained her version of that to chairman lindsey graham earlier today. i think you'll get more questions about that. obviously democrats and republicans differ sharply on how they view the issues and judicial philosophy should operate here. i think one thing i close with, john, then let it get back to you, keep an eye throughout the course of the day about how democrats dig in. i mentioned it. i think granular nature, you touched on it as well, granular nature of questions will grow the next several hours, and again, no

and then to decide things on the law the one time that there was almost a crack in the is when dick durbin who's a democratic senator from illinois was questioning the affordable healthcare act that's important because the week after the election the affordable health care act will be before the supreme court and it will deal with the preexisting conditions she said look because of things i've written about past decisions from the supreme court that may have been hostile you think i'm hostile to the affordable healthcare act that's not something you can assume because i will listen to the case and i will apply the law but on the whole time and time again we've heard from equally about it that it's look i need to wait to see what the facts are i will decide in the law i'm not prepared to give this statement and that is covered a wide range of issues you see things that portable come before the court new don't in the next couple of years when you're talking about campaign finance you're talking about abortion there are a number of cases that are going to state courts that are almost inevitab

senator durbin went over your dissent after length in cantor v. barr where you drew a distinction between individual rights and civic rights and you wrote that historically felons should be disqualified from exercising certain rights like the right to vote and to serve on juries. so my question is this. actually this next line where you said these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens. what does that mean? >> senator, i would need to look at the article to clarify but as i'm sitting here i don't think i said felons should lose voting rights. i think what i was talking about is -- >> could. it wasn't an article just to be clear. right? this is your dissent. >> sorry. my dissent. >> yeah. in cantor v. -- >> you are right. >> disqualified from exercising certain rights like voting and serve on juries but you said these rights belong only to virtd wous citizens. >> so the argument in the case, those who were challenging heller and those who are arguing on the side of the government in the cantor case is that the second amendment is a civic right.

senator durbin went over your dissent at length in kanter v bar, where you drew a distinction between individual rights and civic rights. you wrote that historically felons should be disqualified from exercising certain rights like the right to vote and to serve on juries. my question is, this next line where you said these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens. what does that mean? >> senator, i would need to look at the article to clarify that as i'm sitting here i don't think i said felons should lose voting rights. i think what i was talking about is the 14th amendment. >> it wasn't an article, just to be clear, right? this is your dissent. >> sorry, my dissent. >> your dissent in kanter v. barr. felons could be disqualified from certain rights like the right to vote. apart from that clause, you said these rights belong only to virtuous citizens. that's what i'm trying to understand what that means. >> the argument in the case, those were challenging haller and those arguing on the side of the government in the kanter case is that the second amendment is a civic right. that's

senator durbin? durbin: i want to thank the senator from texas for his sympathy. [laughter] what we are witnessing this morning and this week is different than anything we have seen. some of us have robert bork stuck in our craw. others have merit garland stuck in our craw in terms of what is happening here. we all need to concede we are not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and the senate, the relationship with the supreme court. the chairman started this hearing reminding us about votes 8-0 for antonen 9 scalia. 3 for ruth bader ginsburg. how did we manage to put together five partisan coalitions or people on such opposite ends of the political inctrum who we knew going were very clear in what they believed? now today we struggle vote to vote, day-to-day when it comes to filling a vacancy on the supreme court. i think there are a lot of explanations for it. one of the things we have witnessed here in the time i have served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it is almost useless. we h

i'm also a cosponsor of senator durbin's bill to allow cameras in the supreme court. i understand that the seventh circuit court of appeals were you currently serve adopted procedures to allow requests for video recording of oral arguments as well as the public release of the recordings. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. grassley: as your court had any problems with these proceedings? what are your views on allowing cameras in the courtroom? if confirmed, would you keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the spring work? judge barrett: i would certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the supreme court. sen. grassley: i always ask court,district circuit supreme court this question about international law. i would like to get your views on how and when you would apply international law to your decision-making process. is it ever appropriate to cite international law when interpreting the u.s. constitution? judge barrett: i would never want to say never because he is certainly possible. generally speaking, so it has issues with-- the which foreign law

this is something senator durbin asked you about. you said you agreed with the dissent on the marriage equality case that it was not the role of the court to decide same-sex couples had the right to be married. i think this was a lecture you it was notyou said for the court to decide. people could lobby and state legislatures. all of this takes me to one point as i follow those tracks down that path and takes me to the point where i believe, and i think the american people have to understand you would be the polar opposite of justice ginsburg. she and justice scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. that is what concerns me and i int to turn to an area where think justice ginsburg whose seat we are considering you for was truly a hero. area of voting rights. that was the area of elections. president say here? he said september 23 2020, i think this -- he means the election -- will end up in the supreme court and i think it is very important we have nine justices. much clearer how we can be. and as i said

senator durbin went over your dissent at length in canter v. barr where you drew a distinction between individual rights and civic rights, and you wrote that historically a felon should be disqualified from exercising certain rights, like the right to vote and to serve on juries. so my question is this -- actually this next line, where you said, these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens. what does that mean? >> senator, i would need to look at the tore clarify. as i'm sitting here i don't think i said felons should look votes rights. >> could. >> yeah. it was an article to be clear. this was your dissent? >> i'm sorry. >> dissent in canter and it says felons could be disqualified from rights to vote and serve on juries, but apart from that clause you said, these rights belong only to virtuous citizens. that's what i'm trying to understand what that means. >> so the argument in the case, those who were challenging heller and those arguing on the side of the government and the canter case is that the second amendment is a civic right. and t

and we begin with democratic senator dick durbin of illinois. senator, thank you for being with us. tell us what your overall impression is so far of judge barrett? >> we on the democratic side have tried to make it it as clear as can be as that what the president promised in this nominee would be a big problem for north america, the notion we would lose coverage under the affordable care act or she would somehow be the president's affect cat when it comes to an election contest are really serious charges. so today would have seen a series of questions asked of judge barrett about those two important issues. >> woodruff: and what have you learned in listening to her answers? >> well, a number of things. she has denied in every aspect that she's made any promises to anyone as to how she'll vote as a judge, but she has noted the fact that many have raised the question of recusal, in other words, would she excuse herself from decision-making on the court on certain subjects. she has not clearly said one way tore the other but has opened up the possibility of engaging in that process, p