we know that the supreme court is set to shortly consider a case that has far-reaching ramifications for people's health care. the trump administration is arguing in court that the affordable care act should be overturned in a case that will come before the supreme court in november just seven days after election day. if the trump administration gets its way in this lawsuit, we can go back to the days when insurance companies once again call the shots on people's health care. over four million michiganders with preexisting health care conditions could be denied coverage. seniors could be charged more for prescription drugs. lifetime and annual limits on coverage could make costs unaffordable, and as a result force families into bankruptcy. before the passage of the affordable care act, medical debt was the number one reason for personal bankruptcy. people faced financial devastation simply because they got sick. women could again be charged more for being a woman because a potential pregnancy is a preexisting condition .is we have come way too far to be turning the clock backwards. fo

supreme court today. we're going to hear some cases coming up that involve, gosh, we've got one about whether bankrupt motorists have to pay their parking tickets to the city of chicago to get their impounded cars back. that's one fascinating question. we have a, we have some disputes coming up, we have a big copyright dispute between google andd oracle. that may be the most consequential in terms of pocketbook issue and the stock value of those companies. supreme courty. case may or may not resolve that big money dispute. what else do we have coming up? pretty much it's lower intensity issues. but as soon as the election is over, things begin to get exciting once again. we're going to have a big, big religion versus secular interests case where the question arises about whether these private nonprofit foster care agencies that receive t ntracts from the city of philadelphia must adhere to the city's nondiscrimination rule. the city of philadelphia requires that no discrimination against lgbt people. the

supreme court. yes, each one. as such over the years i've had the opportunity to meet with many of the nation's most tale talented jurists. at this time i consider judge amy coney barrett to be the most qualified supreme court nominee that i've encountered in my 34 years in the united states senate. let me explain. education. it's important. judge barrett was born and raised in the new orleans area. she's the eldest of seven children, has been spoken -- as has been spoken of here. and if you take a look, mr. president, at her scholastic credentials, you know she was an exceptional student. she graduated magna cup lawtdee from rhodes -- laudee from rhodes college and inducted into phi beta kappa. she also graduated summa cum laude from notre dame law school where she was the executive editor of the notre dame law review and finished, mr. president, first in her class. look at some of her professional experience. this is important. judge barrett is no stranger to the courtroom. she has decades of exem

the american people want principled constitutionalists on the supreme court and today we have cause to celebrate judge amy coney barrett is now justice amy coney barrett. >> amy coney barrett and her elevation to the highest court. tonight is a great night for her but it's also a great night for the country, my state of ohio and so many who saw her the past several weeks in the confirmation process. she earned her elevation through sacrifice to her family, friends, hard work and distinguished legal career both as a teacher from across the political and political spectrum. through her distinguished career where for almost three years now she has shown all of us we did the right thing in confirming her for that. in a bipartisan majority she earned the right to be elevated to the highest court and i'm disappointed she didn't get a bipartisan majority, but i will say he has the people of the united states looked at her and watched her in action in the hearings, they believed she deserved this elevation. the majority of americans supported the vote we took tonight because despite all of the

i have argued in the united states supreme court. i have argued in several circuit courts of appeal. i have argued over and over again before our state supreme court. to the extent that i had a specialty, it was appellate law. as the governor's legal counsel in rhode island, i was involved in picking judges for the state courts. on the judiciary committee, i have been involved in picking judges for the federal courts. folks, this is weird, this is not right. nobody behaves this way. nobody farms out the selection of judges to private interest groups that don't disclose their donors and take up to $250 million into the scheme, according to "the washington post." weird enough that people feel the need to run tv ads for judicial nominees, but when they're taking a check for $17 million, two checks for $17 million if an anonymous donors or maybe two anonymous donors, yeah, if you think that's weird it's because it is. that shoofnts happen -- that shouldn't happen anywhere around a court. and if there's one thing that we are entitled to --

supreme court. who is she? she is a judge sitting on the 7th judicial circuit. she's highly respected. she was a professor at notre dame. three years during that tenure she was chosen by the students to being the best professor, which i'm sure is no easy task at any college. she's widely admired for her integrity. she grew up in new orleans. graduated from rhodes college in memphis, tennessee, in 1994. graduated soup consu ed summa cw school in 1997. so academically she's very gifted. she clerked for judge laurence silberman on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and then for justice scalia on the supreme court. she practiced law in washington, d.c. she joined the faculty at notre dame in 2002. she's published numerous articles in prestigious journals including "columbia a"columbia" university of virginia," and confirmed to a clerk with a bipartisan vote. she has heard hundreds of cases in that capacity. she said, i clerked for justice scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons i lea

of the supreme court. justice scalia voted to strike down key parts of the affordable care act and called for overturning roe v wade and ovopposed marriage equality, vod to get th gut the protections ie voting rights in the shelby case and to get the campaig campaigne law, citizens united case. he made it hard for the workers discriminated against by their employers to seek justice in court and stacked the deck against the corporations of the working class individuals. by nominating judge barrett, president trump is attempting to bring justice scalia's judicial philosophy back to the mainstream in the nation's highest court. placing judge barrett puts at risk so many of the rights and protections americans have fought for so let's look at how it could change if judge barrett is confirmed. that's the second reason to oppose the nomination. her judicial philosophy in addition to the process. you cannot always predict how a supreme court justice will act after her confirmation. but judge barrett has given us

but respectfully, we didn't-- we prevailed supreme court. i think that the ball is in council's court in terms of helping narrow and find the documents most interested in in fact, in the parallel second litigation, there were three subpoenas involved, the house withdraw one of them after the supreme court's decision and it narrows the remaining two. there have been no system similar efforts in this case. >> and go ahead. >> i distracted-- i really wanted to get to the list of things you thought were factual [inaudible] . >> under that umbrella accommodations, is there more to that one or other prongs that you think are-- >> i'm not sure-- i meant to say i am not sure-- there are representations in various agencies. one is that the committee reviewed several documents in camera and decided they were insufficient to satisfy its goals and what the documents actually said. >> okay. what was the last sentence you said, that what? >> there's no explanation of what those documents are, what they said or why they're insufficient. >> in camera, are th

and quite insufficient under the supreme court's test. and that's my main answer to this court's limiting itself to the cummings memo, which we think is required under the federal rules of public procedure. the main response we have to that is that the committee cannot possibly win on the existing record. the cummings memo does not sufficiently identify legislative goal, it does not provide the specificity that the supreme court said is required. there's no explanation in the current record as to what other effort the committee has made to obtain this information, and judge taylor, you're correct, they have the burden of proof on that question and there has -- i would say they have plainly not satisfied it. there has never been a subpoena let alone a document request for these particular documents. that was never sent to us, to the trump organization. never even been an attempt, that the first request for these particular documents was sent around the trump organization to a neutral third party custodian. no attempt to subpoena us. if they

respectfully, we prevailed in the supreme court. i do kind of think the ball is court in terms of helping narrow and confine the types of documents they're interested in. in fact, in the parallel litigation, there are three subpoenas involved, the house withdrew after the supreme court decision. there's been no similar efforts in this case. judge millett: i really wanted to get your list of things. is there more to that one? norris: there are representations about what was produced. is of those representations that the committee reviewed several documents in camera that were insufficient to satisfy its goals. there's no explanation as what those documents are and why they're insufficient. judge millett: are they allowed to describe the content of those disclosures? honor, perhaps not, your -- judge millett: i'm just trying -- [indiscernible] i'm sorry, just as maloney. the supreme court said that the committee needs to identify its legislative goals, needs to provide evidence. and we thoroughly dispute that the committee is genuinely

supreme court. she practiced law in washington, d.c. she joined the faculty at notre dame in 2002. she's published numerous articles in prestigious journals. she's been a circuit court judge at the 7th circuit since 2017. she was confirmed to that position in a barsan vo she's heard h c in that capacity. she said i clerked for justice scalia more than 20 years ago but the lessons i learned still resonate. his judicial philosophy is mine. a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers. they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. she'll give her statement. i think that's a good summary of who she is. that's who amy barrett is in terms of law. in terms of amy barrett the individual, she and her husband have seven children. two adopted. so, nine seems to be a good number. the process. this is an election year. we're confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. what will happen? my democratic colleagues will say, this has never b

the kind of person you would be looking at to promote to the supreme court. when president bush nominated him well within the mainstream, roberts alito well-know well kne conservative world of being very bright court of appeals judges any president would be looking at to put on the court if they ever had anet opportunity. no difference between alito and roberts, but alito went through hell but he made it into got 58 votes. so then along comes president obama. he gets to pics, sotomayor. i think she deserved more votes but 68 is pretty good. i thought she was qualified. then we had elena kagan, 63 votes. both obama nominees, 68 and 63. i thought elena kagan was highly qualified. the different judicial philosophy. the dean of law school at harvard about worked for the solicitor general's office. both of them had been with a liberal side of the court. most every case, but not all. i'm not surprised the way they decidednk cases. i think they were tremendously well-qualified women and should be sitting on the court. that's exactly who you would expect a democratic

. >> host: amy coney barrett after being sworn in as the 100 fifteenth justice of the supreme court, republicans deliver, and justice barrett it will be the 200 twentieth, and the mcconnell led senate. it includes not only her and justice neil gorsuch and brett cavanagh, and and two to the us court of international trade. there are no vacancy on the circuit court level, 30% of those sitting on the bench have been nominated by donald trump. in a different article by the washington post, only republicans supporting her confirmation barrett is the first supreme court justice since edwin stanton in 1869 to be confirmed without bipartisan support according to review of senate voting data by the national journal. even senator joe manchen, back to brett cavanagh and barrett on her circuit court see three years ago, may not support her. your reaction in washington, you're up first, good morning, go ahead. >> the real reason, mitch mcconnell did what he did, they don't make a big deal, they have always people, the whole white race, democrats and republicans maintain weight privilege, democrats

go to thef it did not supreme court at all. lower court decision stays in effect whether it is the election case or any regular case. now, in many of those cases, it may be the chief justice agreeing with the three liberal members of the court. it may not be. that is the main dynamic to understand. regarding to general flynn, his justiceo and the apartments effort to dismiss the charges which he already pled guilty to is underway. -- ins judge sullivan's judge sullivan's courtroom. i have not been following that as closely as some of my colleagues. it is not on the supreme court right now. maybe it will get there at some point. right now, i guess we have to look and see what comes out of the district court. right now, i don't believe they have made a decision. host: back to the first part of your answer, election dispute cases. do they have to go through lower courts? could they be fast tracked to an eight member supreme court and therefore not have a lower court decision to fall back on? guest: do you mean that they would be --

i revere the supreme court. i clerked for justice harry blackman. i've argued cases before the court four times. now, i'm really deeply concerned that the supreme court is losing the trust and respect of the american people. the authority of the supreme court depends on that trust. it has no army or police force to enforce its decisions. the american people follow the supreme court's commands, even when they digs agree, because they respect its authority. and now, president trump and the republican senators are eroding, indeed destroying, that legitimacy. they've stripped the american people of their say in this process, simply to confirm a justice who will strike down in court, ledge gislate from the b, what they can't repeal in congress. your participation -- let me be very blunt -- in any case involving donald trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm to the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility. you must recuse yourself. the american people are afraid and they're angry, and for good reason. it's a break the glass mom

now back in front of the supreme court. and that will be heard by the court just one week from the election, two weeks from today, tomorrow. president trump and his administration are arguing in no uncertain terms the court must get rid of the entire a.c.a. now my republican colleagues have said this is fearmongering. this is a different case and a different issue. but to anyone who thinks this characterization is far-fetched, read the brief. read the brief filed by the solicitor general of the united states or the brief signed and cosigned by 18 republican states attorneys general. president trump himself lashed out at chief justice roberts over and over again for upholding the affordable care act and its protection for millions of americans and pledged as candidate trump his nominees would do the right thing and overturn the law. and here, the last minute of the last act of the trump show he may at long last have his chance. but it isn't just the affordable care act that's on president trump's supreme court agenda. he made

she knew who had labored as a supreme court lawyer at the supreme court for the american civil liberties union from 1971 to 1980 to get the court to call women equal. this should be ruth's, she said. on decision day justices do not read their whole opinions, which can often run to scores of pages. that morning ginsburg chose to include the her summary reading a reference to justice o'connor's 1982 decision in hogan versus mississippi. o'connor's opinion from 15 years before, for the closely divided court in hogan, ginsburg reminded her listeners, had laid down the rule that states may not close entrance gates based on fixed notions concerning the roles and ability of males and females. end quote. and then ginsburg, the legendary demonstrative justice, lifted her eyes from her text, and paused and meeting the glance of her sister-in-law from across the bench, she thought of the legacy the two were building together and she nodded at sandra day o'connor and resumed reading. [ applause ] it's not me. it's a great story. what inspired me to write it? >> how could you not write it? >> three y

he wouldn't have nominated her to the supreme court if he didn't trust that she would do just that. judge barrett has already called the court's previous decision to uphold the a.c.a., quote, illegitimate. and she publicly criticized chief justice roberts for upholding the law. she said that if the supreme court reads the statute like she does, they have

she said he would even be qualified to sit on the supreme court. he became the poster child for this new press invented by the democratic leader and his colleagues to routinely filibuster judges. it was written, the suspicion was, that it might provide for bush 43 the opportunity to name the first hispanic supreme court justice and, of course, they didn't want that to happen. so senate democrats filibustered him seven separate times in 2003. he was one of the many victims of this norm-shattering, precedent-breaking behavior. a few years later, colleagues such as biden, durbin, leahy and schumer tried to filibuster justice alito's nomination to the supreme court. fortunately that was not successful. then something really funny happened. something really funny happened. all of a sudden there was a new president, president obama. suddenly a democratic president was making judicial nominations. well, imagine what happened then. suddenly senate democrats became very allergic to experiencing the effects of what they had started. in effect, the effects of

supreme court.t the supreme court the most chilling moment of the oral argument was justice alito asking the obama justice department, set under your theory of the case could the federal government ban books, could you ban books and the obama department of justice said yes, yes we the government could be on books. we can ban and punis punish booksellers if they dare criticize a politician. now, if you look at the text of the first amendment, if you look at two centuries of our nations history protecting free speech, the answer to the question kim government ban books or movies that criticize politicians should be really easy which is of course not. now thankfully that ended up being what the court concluded but it concluded it 5 - 4. there were four justices ready to conclude the government have the power to ban books, beyond movies, and it's a chilling position and what's even more chilling about it was hillary clinton and joe biden have both explicitly pledged to nominate justices who would vote t

supreme court. it's a privilege to be asked to serve my country and this office and i stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. president donald trump is on hand to celebrate one of his signature achievements locking in a conservative majority on the supreme court for many years to come. this is a momentous day for america for the united states constitution and for the fair and impartial rule of law. barack took an oath at the white house only in our after the senate narrowly voted to secure the nomination order with only one republican not supporting the motion. democrats strongly opposed to the confirmation saying a supreme court justice shouldn't be appointed this close to an election let the record show that tonight the republican senate majority decided to thwart the will of the people and confirm a lifetime appointment to the supreme court in the middle of a presidential election. opponents of carny bars nomination say it paves the way for conservative rulings on abortion rights health car

supreme court. they are in recess until tomorrow noon eastern. we expect the senate will vote sunday to limit debate over the confirmation which will set up a final vote on the nominee on monday, sometime late monday. next, the opening statements this morning from the majority leader mitch mcconnell and democratic leader chuck schumer starting with mcconnell. >> the culture motion. >> in accordance with provisions of rule 22, standing rules of the senate. nearby moved to bring to a close, debate on the nomination of amy coney barrett indiana, associate justice of the supreme court of the united states signed by 18 senators as follows. mcconnell, ernst, smith, blackburn, o-uppercase-letter, wicker, ran, purdue, cotton, f for, alexander. >> mr. president. >> majority leader. >> my first experience with supreme court confirmations here in the senate, i was a young staffer the number of the judiciary committee, that is also the same time climate a young guy named alexander who just left the senate to go to the whitego house for congressional affairs.

they wrote, the supreme court is not well, in their amicus brief. the supreme court is not well. perhaps the court can heal itself, heal itself, before the public demands it be restructured, restructured. in march of this year, the democratic leader stood outside the court, went over in front of the court, and threatened multiple justices by name. here's what he said. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. you will pay the price. that's the democratic leader of the senate in front of the supreme court mentioning justices by name and in effect saying, if you rule the wrong way, bad things are going to happen. for multiple years now, democrats in this body and on the presidential campaign stump have sought to revive the discredited concept of court packing. every high school student in america learns about franklin roosevelt's unprecedented assault on judicial independence. so now they're thinking about repeating it. former vice president biden has spent decades condemning the idea here in the senate immediately says he'll look into it. most impor

fail, but now you hands of the state supreme court . have turned again to the court to try to achieve judicially what they cannot achieve legislatively. president trump has found -- has vowed that any judge he s this testent pas and would strike down the affordable care act. no honesty you have addition for this job, through your academic writing and judicial opinions and you have passed that test. you have stated twice in effect that you would have voted to strike down the affordable care act and you been a justice -- had you been a justice at the time. they want someone who will legislate from the bench and who will strike down laws supported of thest majority american people. anyhe american people have dedicated myow republican colleagues are the justg away health care, ords. theytheir own w have been remarkably forthright. repairy that you cannot this monstrosity called obamacare, you have to tear it down and start over. i supportnst says immediate action to repair obamacare and replace it. senator former, it is time to repeal and re

there are nine supreme court judges and americans. es and with justice amy coney barrett, there will be six conservatives and three liberal judges, justices. and there you have quite different ways of looking at the law. justice amy coney barrett is an originalist, she believes that you have to look at the text exactly how it was written. justice ruth bader ginsburg was someone who believe that you have to kind of interpret it for the time that we are in. so that really impacts or makes an impact when you look at decisions like for example the affordable care act or same—sex rights when it comes to adoption which is a case that would be coming up as well. but i think increasingly over the last few decades, we've seen the court becoming increasingly partisan. it wasn't always that way, there wasn't always that way, there was a time when supreme court justices were just seen as supreme courtjustices. justices were just seen as supreme court justices. but perhaps now, that is less the case. lebo diseko, think you very much. i know it is g

fail, but now you hands of the state supreme court . have turned again to the court to try to achieve judicially what they cannot achieve legislatively. president trump has found -- has vowed that any judge he s this testent pas and would strike down the affordable care act. no honesty you have addition for this job, through your academic writing and judicial opinions and you have passed that test. you have stated twice in effect that you would have voted to strike down the affordable care act and you been a justice -- had you been a justice at the time. they want someone who will legislate from the bench and who will strike down laws supported of thest majority american people. anyhe american people have dedicated myow republican colleagues are the justg away health care, ords. theytheir own w have been remarkably forthright. repairy that you cannot this monstrosity called obamacare, you have to tear it down and start over. i supportnst says immediate action to repair obamacare and replace it. senator former, it is time to repeal and re

that's what they are projecting as they talk about what cases may or may not come in front of the supreme court. as a matter of fact, i think it was just the other day that vice president joe biden told the american people they don't deserve to know whether he is going to pack the court. they don't deserve to know who his judicial nominees would be. . think we do need to know because it is what the left is projecting on you today, is what they want to see in their nominees. but that's not what our founders intended the court to be. hope that this hearing will be an open, fair conversation about how judge barrett would be as justice barrett. -- instead of entering into this nomination process with an open mind and a desire to understand this woman, who has been nominated for the highest court in the land, the focus is on a plan or strategy, a series of tactics to undermine, coworkers, and confuse the american people. a plan, judge barrett, to undermine you as a person, undermine your family, and undermine what you hold dear. women all over the world are painfully familiar with this strategy. we

which ran on the anniversary of the 1973 supreme court decision. there is your track. she wrote her own dissent, disagreeing with long-standing court rulings on gun safety, expressing her legal opinions that some felons should get guns. she once discussed the dissent in the marriage equality case asking whether it was really the supreme court's job to make that decision. those are the tracks that lead all of us down that path to the point where you go around the curve and you realize at least one thing for sure, and that is that judge coney barrett's judicial philosophy is the polar opposite of justice ginsburg. voting rights. here is another example. given the timing of this nomination and the fact that we're just over one week from election day, when i asked judge barrett would she say that mail-in voting is essential right now, even though the coronavirus continues to spread and people are having to choose between their health and their vote, she said it was a matter of policy. when i asked her, she wouldn't say voter intimidation is illegal, even though in minnesota

fail, but now you hands of the state supreme court . have turned again to the court to try to achieve judicially what they cannot achieve legislatively. president trump has found -- has vowed that any judge he s this testent pas and would strike down the affordable care act. no honesty you have addition for this job, through your academic writing and judicial opinions and you have passed that test. you have stated twice in effect that you would have voted to strike down the affordable care act and you been a justice -- had you been a justice at the time. they want someone who will legislate from the bench and who will strike down laws supported of thest majority american people. anyhe american people have dedicated myow republican colleagues are the justg away health care, ords. theytheir own w have been remarkably forthright. repairy that you cannot this monstrosity called obamacare, you have to tear it down and start over. i supportnst says immediate action to repair obamacare and replace it. senator former, it is time to repeal and re

she disagreed with decisions to uphold the last two times before it came before the supreme court and h she wouldn't answer questions about the law during her confirmation hearing. it would be a crushing blow to the most vulnerable populations during this pandemic. if the court strikes down the act in its entirety americans across the country will lose access to medicaid expansion. medicaid expansion is a critical source of coverage for millions of americans and in new hampshire for thousands who've lost their jobs during this pandemic. we have seen enrollment in medicaid expansion has increased by more than 11,000 since the start of the pandemic as we have seen job losses mount. for these individuals and all of the more than 60,000 who are covered through medicaid expansion, the loss of the aca in the supreme court would eliminate a critical lifeline for coverage during this health crisis. in new hampshire if we lose medicaid expansion we also lose our most important tool for combating opioid epidemics. without the aca we would go back to a time when insurance companies have sweeping

promise to name a supreme court justice and supreme court justices who would tear down the affordable care act 3 president trump is before the supreme court right now arguing that it be struck in its entirety before the supreme court could be just one vote away from overturning the affordable care act and all of its protections including for everyone who has a preexisting condition or making for a preexisting condition in other words the affordable care act and all its protections and this seat and it outcome of this hearing and i believe it's very important the american. at trump announced your nomination and the supreme court he tweeted quote obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the supreme court and quo but in reality there is no alternative billions. of horrifying truth is that president trump and the republicans in congress are fighting to take healthcare away from the american people in the middle of the pandemic yes i have said president trump has said that he wants to protect the american people's health care but the

the filibuster the member the supreme court. on the number of supreme court which is what my amendments about it's not about a filibuster it's about that. it's about institutional stability buried on the issue of the filibuster, look at photos of terrible thing for harry reid to do what he did. i thought is unfortunate for the senate that followed up by ultimately becoming the supreme court as well. but that speaks to the decay of the institution and the way we behave. going back 20 or 25 years, have a controversial nominations but they did not get filibuster they got their votes. that is change, the nature of politics of change in the senate. the reason i'm against it from the legislative standpoint, changing on a legislative standpoint which i believe the senator speaking to is because if i'll it takes is a simple majority in the house speaker and senate to pass legislation , it undermines the very purpose of the senate in the first place. the reason they created the tenant was to have a place to move slower and more deliberat

be the next supreme court justice. doctor francis collins, director of the national institutes of health gives an update on covid-19 vaccine trials. later, retired lieutenant colonel talks about the impact of testifying against president trump during the impeachment hearings. ♪ >> election c-span2 the duke of government created by america's cable television company as a public service brought to you today by your television provider. ♪ the senate began debate on the nomination of judge amy coney barrett, the supreme court. the day started with forum were fine all senators to come to the floor. later, chuck schumer for a closed-door session to protests during the nomination before the november 3 election procedure held about to debate on the nomination no more than 30 hours of operation, right now, mitch mcconnell and she were making arguments for and against the nomination. >> the clerk will report the culture motion. >> in accordance with provisions of rule 22, standing rules of the senate to hereby move to bring to a

and our state supreme court includingng the wisconsin n supreme court come d help pack thehese of pepee who o are very favorable to corporate agenda and far right wing social agenda which will repeal -- potentialally repepeaa lot of lawaws, the aca, roe v. wade, possibibly even -- [indiscernible] federalop our government from being able to mitigate climate change by putting up hurdles, judicial hurdles to our ability to enact legislation to regulate carbon. so everything is on the line and leonard leo represents an agenda both from a social standpoint and also from a corporate standpoint. a senator whitehouse said, this is an unreal situation where we have groups raising money from a small number of potential billion -- eventually billionaires for them to put people on the court overturned precedence. the progressive side, a people merely trying to protect the precedents that exist. they're not putting on judges to reverse precedence, they're trying to protect the precedents that many americans have relied upon for decades. it is a true crisis in our democracy to have this goin

supreme court. judge barrett refused to say whether she believes voter discrimination exists. voter discrimination. given that 23 states have passed restrictive voting laws since the supreme court shelby county vs. holder decision. pretty clear that vote sprimtion exists. judge barrett has also refused to recuse herself from ruling on cases related to the outcome of the 2020 election, even though president trump is rushing to make sure that she is there. that's a clear conflict of interest, if i ever heard one. there is no right more fundamental than the right to vote. no right more fundamental than the right to vote. perhaps nobody knew that better than our beloved colleague, the late congressman john lewis. he once said this -- my dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. it is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. a more perfect union. that's what we want, isn't it? that's what we're working toward every day, i hope. that's where americans have been m

circuit and then for justice scalia on the supreme court. he practiced law in washington, d.c., she joined the faculty at notre dame in 2002 and published numerous articles in prestigeous journal including the columbia, yart of virginia and cornell law review. a circuit court judge at the 7th circuit since 2017. she was confirmed to that position in a bipartisan vote. she has heard hundreds of cases in that capacity. she said i clerked for justice scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons i learned still resonate. his judicial philosophy, his mind, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers. and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. she will give her statement but i think that is a good summary of who she is. that is who amy barrett is in terms of the law. amy barrett the individual, she and her husband have seven children, two adopted. so nine seems to be a good number. the process. this is an election year. we're confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occ

i think this gets to a very sensitive area of the supreme court's work. it is the intersection of stare decisis, all of the precedent that the court has built up, and whether the religious immunity clause would be a basis for supporting some of those decisions. what i will say is i don't expect a seismic shift or a rep in progression there. i wouldn't be surprised if perhaps there is more attention given to those sort of arguments going forward if judge merrick is can -- judge barrett is confirmed. >> isaac we have time for one more, and i think dan is back -- i think we have time for one more, and i think dan is back after having some technical problems. >> yes, apologies for the issue earlier. your curious of perspective going back to the aca case, how you think the likelihood of gorsuch, alito, or thomas, and potentially kavanaugh as well, siding with the other justices or on of around -- or on another round subsequent to the legislation. >> do you want to start us off on that? >> sure. i think those justices will probably look at the constitutional iss

the supreme court voted 5-3 to block curbside voting in alabama during the pandemic. earlier this week when the court upheld the right of pennsylvanians to vote by mail. believeans obviously justice barrett will ensure they do not lose again when they try to stop people from voting. time and time again the president said he needs judge .arrett on the bench when he raises these baseless, outrageous -- about mail-in ballot. .nother reason another republican on the committee says the reason they need her confirmed now before the election. president trump says he has to has to have a, supreme court justice who will do what he wants her to do. it does not bode well that during the hearing judge be refused to stand for even the most basic tenets of democracy. she refused to affirm the constitution and the peaceful transition of power. she refused to acknowledge voter discrimination exist home although it does. she refused to recuse herself from any election dispute. make no mistake. president trump was listening and he sees this as a green light to do whatever he wants. odds

supreme court. at the supreme court, you clerked for the late justice antonin scalia. upon receiving a nomination, judge merrick reflected on her -- for justice scalia, citing his influence on her life. she stated his judicial philosophy is hers, too. a judge must apply the law as written. that is what we need in our next up report justice. justicehan the activist you're being accused of being. judges are not policymakers. they must be resolute in setting aside policy views they may hold. i know you know that. should we not take judge barrett at her word? as a judge, said in court or otherwise, she must be dedicated to interpreting the law as written with an unparalleled commitment to our constitution. i have seen nothing that would indicate she is not telling the truth when she says that is our view of how a judge should conduct herself. i have met with a number of supreme court nominees. ane continue to maintain emphasis on following the law and upholding our constitution. that must be essential characteristic of the justices we select for this highly influential par

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 written with an unparalleled commitment to our constitution. i've visited with her privately, i've reviewed her record,

the supreme court granted the petition. the case could come back up. at that point, the court could answer. the question before the court was whether the individual mandate is constitutional and there is a legal question if it is not and if the provision is severable. california and the house of representatives argue that the states and individuals challenging do not have standing. the district court of appeals or compelled to purchase insurance. there is the question of constitutionality of the individual mandate. this is interesting. commentators on both sides of the aisle -- if you look at the courts holding of nsfid, it raised -- you have a fairly strong argument to be made that a tax of zero is not a tax at all. to become what the most interesting part of the case will be the question of severability. the supreme court found the structure to be unconstitutional. in doing so, chief justice roberts used interesting language. he said the doctrine to try to limit the solution to the problem. there is strong evidence otherwise. i think the real question

can't think of a more destabilizing event for america than to change the number of judges on the supreme court every election cycle because it becomes a way in or take all for the court. the traditional debate is who fills vacancies, liberal conservatives. it's never been about how many will you have. and you will eventually destroy the judiciary as we know it. we've screwed up enough on our side of the constitutional law abiding for each other constantly so i just want to urge all of my colleagues to support the senator's efforts to solidify that we are sticking with mine. mine has served us well. i know people are mad but the thing i can tell you about the court you never know. a lot of criticism about roberts on our side that just comes with ten year. my belief is life tenure is a good thing. my belief nine has served the nation well and if we go down the road that they are talking about, that will destroy the independence of the judiciary, and finally, will it happen or not. senator feinstein is a good person. she served california well i believe. she's somebody you can do business with. s

they came to washington to the supreme court sessions alone. they left their wives and children in their hometowns. they did not move their families to washington, because the court term was very short. during the jon marshall court era, it was usually about two months long. accordantly, chief justice john marshall arranged for them all to live together in a boarding house, and they took almost all their meals together. so catherine, why did john marshall want the justices to live, dine, work, and socialize together? >> i would say, i think the primary reason was that he wanted to build a bond between the justices. it also goes to say that the courts started out with a very nomadic existence. they were in new york and that was the seat of the nation's government. then they moved to philadelphia and then they came to washington. i think also at the time we have to remember that in washington, it was not the city that we remember today, so there were very few places for the justices and members of congress to come on this transient schedule to was