but the supreme court does not. i think all we know from the supreme court's opinion is that those occasions will be very rare and we will have to satisfy the multi-part task and personal papers have less evident connection to legislation and heightened risk that something is amiss, that something, exposure law enforcement or pure politics is involved. but i don't want to say never. i don't think that the supreme court said never in its opinion. here are the rigorous we are going to use. >> so i want to ask you a question about the statement you're making. i want to be sure that we agree on what it is we have to decide here and what it is we don't have to decide. you say, this is a quote. unanimously rejected the panel's view that the house rules and resolution authorizes, this is-- i'm curious about that because when you argue that in your brief before the court. and the court never mentioned this issue at all. and one would have thought that if the-- whether the subpoena was properly authorized, it not only would

supreme court. the justices remanded the case back to the lower courts for additional consideration, including separation of powers concerns. >> o'yea o'yea o'yea, all person having business before the united states court of a >> >> good morning. >> good morning, your honor. >> may it please the court. in april of 2019 when the oversight committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. according to the committee, the power to subpoena the president's personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. that view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated with little more than a sentence, a vague sentence in a memo about legislation. but the committee's view of its own authority was rejected by the supreme

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

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

that starts at the supreme court. put much every other kind of case has to start at a lower court first. host: to virginia beach, virginia, this is bill. caller: i don't know you from adam. that is a dangerous way to start. i have a comment to make and i would like your response to my comment. so far, i have learned from my television set and news media that chuck schumer and the democrats in the senate do not think it is ok for members of the republican side who have the virus and have to stay at home, they are not allowed to vote by proxy for a supreme court nominee. for democrats and everybody in the country, even people you don't meet face-to-face, to sign a ballot and mail it in for the u.s. president. for some reason, those two rules just don't seem to click as being quite right with me. would you care to comment on that? thank you. don't giveknow, i advice to the senate or to citizens on how to vote or conduct their business. i will say that there is something different about conducting a confirmation hearing i

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

she has said that the supreme court should have already invalidated it. if senate republicans have their way, she will have the opportunity to do just that. and what would it mean if the supreme court overturns the affordable care act? it means bringing back discrimination, higher costs, even outright denial of coverage for more than 800,000 new mexicans living with preexisting conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and now covid-19. i am particularly worried about what this would mean for the people in indian country who have been disproportionately impacted by this pandemic. in new mexico tribal nations have experienced heartbreaking losses and health care resources in the tribal communities have been incredibly strained. i have lost friends and mentors in indian country and i know others who are still struggling to recover from this virus. i cannot even imagine how much worse this situation could become if the health coverage provided by the affordable care act were ripped away. when we passed the affordable care act, i fought hard to include

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.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 to over

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.

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

a supreme courtjustice to consider real—world impacts.e decision about whether to call government action, do you currently consider the consequences on the rulings of people's lives? senator harris, that's part of the decision of every case. so you do? every case has consequences in people's lives, so of course i do in every case, it's part of the judicial decision—making process. and would you do that if you were actually voting on the united states supreme court, would you do that? senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties will affect people as part of the judicial decision—making process, and i will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability. so if the aca is struck down, more than a million americans with pre—existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. more than 20 million americans could lose their health coverage entirely, including nearly 3 million black americans and over 5 million latino americans who recei

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 r

court 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 justice sonia sotomayor, (applause) catherine fit, (applause) and supreme court society publications director claire kushner, (applause) it is now my privilege to introduce the 13th secretary of the smithsonian institution, doctor david horton. he's on board certified cardiologist a jazz musician, and doctor scorching with most recently the president of cornell university, and previously served as president of the university of iowa. doctor gordon has interest in learning as wide as the smithsonian and most importantly tonight, he's a pescatarian. >> thanks don for the introduction, and thank you on behalf of the american people for the great job to do so innovative and creative at this amazing museum. (applause) especially in such an interesting election year, we all appreciate everything you and your colleagues are doing this year so many aspects of the story of america, and to inspire us all with that story. esteemed colleague and friends, welcome to this unique opportunity, a word i don't use lightly, to find out more about the highest court in the land. and how it's

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

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

and to focus full-time on arrett to thedge b supreme court. died, senatescalia republicans refused to consider a replacement for his seat until after the election. at the time, senator mcconnell said the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice . 2018 ifed in october republicans intended to honor their own rule if an opening were to come up in 2020, chairman graham promised "if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term in the primary process is started, would wait after the next election." republicans should honor this word for their promise and let the american people be heard. simply put, i believe we should not be moving forward on this nomination, not until the election has ended and the nex sen. harris: to protect the senators and staff. this hearing should have been postponed. the decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and police- inputs staff and at risk. not to mention, tens of millions of americans are struggling to pay their bills, the senate should be prioritiz

supreme courtjustices.t supreme court justices. 0n greater honour than to appoint supreme courtjustices. on this 0ctober evening, and it is so beautiful, the first lady and i welcome you to the white house to bear witness to history. in a few moments, we will proudly swear in the newest member of the united states supreme court, justice amy coney barrett. she is one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars and she will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in oui’ justice on the highest court in ourland. justice on the highest court in our land. justice barrett's both will be administered by the court's longest serving member, currently on the bench, a man whose allegiance to the law has earned him the respect and gratitude of all americans. justice clarence thomas. 0ur our country owes a great debt of thanks to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, we appreciate it very much, thank you. and we are grateful as well to the senate judicial are a chairman, lindsey graham. thank you. —— senate

supreme court. and while i intend to share with you my intentions on how i will vote, i'd like to start by just expressing my disappointment with where we are in the senate as a whole right now. there's been some good discussion hering this morning as we're considering -- discussion here this morning as we're considering the unanimous consent agreements, some statements made, but not action moving forward. i -- i had hoped that if we were going to be at this moment in time just over a week out from our national elections, that we would be here on the floor debating -- debating the merits of a receive relief bill. and in my home state of alaska, as in so many states around the country, we're seeing unprecedented numbers now. the news just yesterday, friday, that the united states reported the highest single day recorded of positive cases. 83,757, really staggering. in alaska we have seen this virus spread to some of our small outlying villages, villages that are not accessible by road, villages that

and you still be qualified for the supreme court. so all the young, conservative women out there, this hearing, to me, is about a place for you. i hope, when this is all over, there will be a place for you at the table. there will be a spot for you at the supreme court, like there was for judge ginsburg. and to president trump -- i don't know if you are listening or not -- by picking judge barrett, you have publicly said you find value in all of these characteristics. but, beyond anything else, you find judge barrett to be highly qualified. i would say you are one of the greatest picks president trump could have made, and from the conservative side of the aisle, you are one of the most qualified people of your generation. let us talk about brown v. board of education, because i know senator blumenthal will. [laughter] i am going to talk about that. you said, in writing, it was a super precedent. what did you mean? judge barrett: welcome in my writings -- so as a professor i talked about the doctrine of stare decisis. super precedent

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 united states senate, because senator mcconnell and republicans believe th

you only need a majority to confirm supreme court justices. it is a reflection of the partisanship in the country. did it cause partisanship, or reflect it? at this point, it seems like it reflects it. of mitchit the intent mcconnell and lindsey graham to have her nomination voted on before the election? their it is a very much intention to have her nomination voted on before the election. roughly one week before the november 3 elections. there is a little democrats can do to stop it. the only thing that could conceivably get in the way, barring some surprise, is the absence of republican senators due to coronavirus. insideay be sort of an question, is there any procedural move the democratic leader chuck schumer could pull tomorrow or this week that would delay the hearings? guest: no. there is no move democrats have. a price onpose republicans for going ahead commit maybe telling lindsay -- going ahead, maybe telling lindsey graham he does not have decorum to proceed, but the committee chairman is in charge of his own rules. host: let's hear

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 policymakers, and 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, 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. i've seen nothing that would indicate she is not telling the truth when she says that is her view of how a judge should conduct herself. i've met with a number of supreme court nominees in my service in the senate and throughout, i've continued to maintain an emphasis on following the law and upholding our constitution and that must be a central characteristic of the justices we select for this highly influential part of our government. judges have a great responsibility to carefully exercise their authority within the limits of the law. our court sys

that's what we need in our next supreme court justice. rather than the activist justice that you are being accused of being. judges are not policymakers, and 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 have visited with her privately, i have reviewed her record, and i have seen nothing that would indicate that she is not telling the truth when she says that is her view of how a judge should conduct herself. ofave met with a number supreme court nominees in my service in the senate, and throughout have continued to maintain an emphasis on following the law and upholding our constitution. and that that must be essential characteristic of the justices we select for this highly influential part of our government. judges have a great responsibility to carefully exercise their authority within the lim

nominating three supreme court justices. i can only hope that the rest of america wakes up and sees the value of a supreme court that adheres to the constitution of the united states and, you know adheres to that and then i just hope and pray that the election next week is successful and president trump is elected for another term. >> host: ron, you pointed out part of the tally as you mentioned president trump now with three successful supreme court nominations for the rest of the tally looks like this in terms of the federal judges ships 53 circuit court judge confirmed by the senate, 162 district judges and to u.s. court of international trade judges all under president trump's term. democrat line in chicago. >> caller: yeah, hello. this is pam and chicago. i'm a democrat. i just wanted to call in and give a shout out to the judge. i'm here in the seventh circuit land and i'm glad she made it through and i am the social conservative but i'm pleased with and i am voting for biden but in pleased with how president trump sha

it makes people look at the supreme court and say why should we obey what the supreme court says if therocess of putting people on the supreme court is illegitimate? it is a dangerous thing for our country. ,ost: as we get set for hearing what are your thoughts on the process of these four days of hearings, of the answers that nominees do or don't give? is a: well, you know, that whole problem even when the process is fair. foras been a real challenge people on both sides of the aisle, trained to not give answers. i got frustrated even with people appointed by president obama during this process, because i felt why can't you at least answer this or give us a sense of your feelings about issues, even if you would not -- if it would not directly affect the case. but this becomes much worse in a situation where this is being jammed through for political purposes, by a president in trouble with the electorate. this causes the process to be even more fraudulent and disturbing. this person will have the right to affect everything about our lives for the rest of her life. the idea that that wo

the court just below the supreme court. republican senators at the time claimed that it wasn't necessary to fill those vacancies. they rejected qualified nominees up and down the bench denying simple consideration and withholding blue slips. it was a deliberate effort to stonewall president obama's judicial nominees. in fact, they rejected a highly qualified nominee for the very seat judge amy coney barrett currently holds. president obama nominated myra selby for the seventh circuit in january 2016. she had served on the indiana supreme court and would have been the first african american and first woman from indiana on that circuit. senate reaction, what did -- senate republicans, what did they do? didn't even give her a hearing. then one month later, february 2016, justice scalia passes away. president obama nominates merrick garland to the supreme court, a good and very fair judge who had been confirmed to the d.c. circuit by a republican-controlled senate by a vote of 76-23. what did senate republicans do? they refused

dates of confirmation hearings for another of president trump's controversial supreme court justice picks. i went through it now they say i'm i'm i can see i feel so powerful. donald trump back on the campaign trail ads already attracted criticism. and opposition leader anwar ibrahim pushes his case for becoming the new prime minister of malaysia. and i'm santa hummus and i have all the sport. major league baseball welcomes back fans as the atlanta braves win the opening match of the national league championship series. the government says cyprus is suspending a controversial citizenship for investment program after an undercover investigation by al-jazeera the country's attorney general has also announced an investigation into possible criminal offenses fall. the revelations that expose high ranking officials expressing a willingness to see aides convicted criminals to obtain citizenship in august all to serious investigative units released the cyprus papers which revealed serious flaws in the citizen buy investment program well let's say across live now to our investigative reporter dav

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 supreme court left in place a pennsylvania supreme court order requiring officials to count absentee ballots received within three days of the election and postmarked by the election. and yesterday, anticipating judge barrett's confirmation may tip the scale, she'll be there to help the president in an election dispute, the pennsylvania election party asked the supreme court to review the case less than a week after they lost it. unfortunately judge barrett said nothing during her hearings to assuage the american there should be anything but a green light for the deeply harmful -- she repeatedly declined to distance herself from a litany of her writings she declined to confirm if there was precedent on the affordable care act. she once wrote, however, a cagey a justice may be, her quote of the constitution becomes evident in what she's write. if that's true in what she's written, she's opposed to the affordable care act. my concern grew when she recused from any election-related dispute. president obama has put her an anunenviable position. he is making it impossible for americans no

the supreme court became the number one issue in the race. so, to somehow to suggest that this vote would be delayed because to do so when people do so in north dakota to nominate a jurist rather than the nearly perfect amy coney barrett would anger the people of north dakota and do great damage to my conscience. this is a great night. >> it's a great day for indiana and america. i was proud to cast my vote with great enthusiasm for judge amy coney barrett to serve as associate justice of the supreme court. this has been a long process for america and a fairly short process with respect to procedures because there's been great efforts made by senate democrats to try to pull amy coney barrett into the political fray but she resisted demonstrating she intends to follow the law as written in the constitution of the united states. we won. republicans, americans because amy coney barrett demonstrated that she intends to follow the law. she's a faithful constitutionalist and we couldn't be more proud and the great state of indiana. one of our own i

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. 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

supreme court. so the left decided to strangle mr. estrada's nomination with false, insincere attacks and unprecedented obstructionism. they filibustered his nomination. not once, not twice, but seven times. service to hateful leftist groups who are vilifying an honorable man and a tantrum of little cynicism and blatant racial condescension. during this ordeal mr. estrada's family suffered irreparable tragedy, but at least the new york times was happy. the left-center clear message to latino americans about what they can expect if they dare question liberal orthodoxy. thus, democrats ushered in another new era. in their judicial culture wars. judicial filibusters. remember, the time of the estrada filibuster, republicans take control of the white house and the senate. they could have invoked the nuclear option to break the unprecedented obstruction. we didn't. we did not retaliate. not after the estrada filibuster. on after the democrats' malignant smearing of than judge sam alito on his way to the supreme court. it is not the narrati

it's on the supreme court schedule. on november 10, the supreme court will hear oral arguments in a suit brought by republican attorneys general and supported by the trump administration to destroy the affordable care act. three years after the senate republicans tried and failed to repeal the affordable care act in congress, they are now trying to terminate the law in the courts. their relentless pursuit to destroy the nation's health care law knows no end, and they need to get their supreme court nominee onto the bench in time to hear their case. you've heard it many times over the last few weeks, but it bears repeating what's happening right now because it's stunning. senate republicans are rushing another far-right judge onto the bench days before the election and all in the effort to cement a conservative majority on the supreme court to destroy the affordable care act in the middle of a pandemic. this all taking place under the direction of a president who has stated the coronavirus pandemic affects virtually nobo

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 moment. americans must use their voices to speak out and stand up, to contact my colleagues on this committee, despite their boasts about having the votes. stand up and speak out to protect their own health, public heal

were just seen as supreme courtjustices. justices were just seen as supreme court justices. case. lebo diseko, think you very much. i know it is getting quite noisy behind you there but thank you for sticking with us but thank you for sticking with us for that. lebo diseko speaking to us from capitol hill. and just to remind than ever the wrist the breaking news from the united states is that the senate has approved the appointment ofjudge amy coney barrett to the supreme court. it is a lifetime position and the vote went 52 in favour, a8 against. you are watching bbc world news. the world health organization has called for europe to "seriously accelerate" its fight against coronavirus. a string of countries have reported record increases in cases, led by france, which registered more than 50,000 daily infections for the first time. the czech republic has followed spain in introducing a nationwide night time curfew. the who's emergencies expert mike ryan said europe now accounts for a6% of global cases and every citizen needs to take responsibility. if every individual did e

caller: let's talk about the supreme court. of all, the myth it's not political is the biggest load zpwf i've ever heard. it is an extremely political branch of the government, the political government, and it always has been. so the myth that you've created, the republican movement that, oh, it's some nonpolitical branch of the party is ridiculous. number two, it's legal for biden to do that. so if he has the votes, he should do it, just like trump. comment three, george w. bush and donald trump were elected without the majority of the people in this country. two out of the three elections we've had with republicans in charge have been nonpopular vote-elected presidents. the majority of the people don't support their positions. and yet they get all these supreme court justices who skew to their views that are against the majority of the people in this country. there's a problem there. and to say that these supreme court justices are representing the people duly is kind of a myth, too. we have a very messed up political system

correspondent and supreme court reporter for slate.com.er latest piece "don't expect a 'gotcha' moment in the barrett hearings." next up, we speak withth yale lw professor samuel moyn about his proposal t to make the supreme court safe for democracy. ♪ [music break] amy: "two spaces" by franknk black. this is democracacy now!, democracynynow.org, the ququarae report. i'm amy goodman withth juan gonzalez. as we e continue to look at t te republican race to confirm president trump susupreme court nominee judge amy coney barrett prioior to elelection day. if confirmed to fill ruth bader ginsburg seat, she will give a a 63 advantage to the conservativeves and me a majoriy of the justices on the court were elected by dutch e electedy president xi did not win the popular vote. we're joined now by legal scholar samuel moyn. it is headlined "making the supreme court safe for democracy: beyond packing schemes, we need to diminish the high court's power." if you can talk about the history of the supreme court, you talked about it as a reactionary on

supreme court considers it.y denying the stay last night, the court has not precluded it going forward from either taking up a full appeal or even considering another application for a stay. i think the critical point is that the court has the power, alisyn, to still come back and hear this case, but the closer and closer we get to election day and with so many folks already voting, i think the more unlikely it is the justices are going to be inclined to potentially change the rules where pennsylvania may think that as long as they mail their ballot by the day before election day, even though election day itself it's likely going to be counted, it would be a huge power grab and a really disruptive move. it court were to change those rules between now and november 3rd. >> we really appreciate you understanding and explaining all of this for us. thank you. >> great to be with you. >> you too. >>> which states do trump and bind ne biden need win to secure a victory? we're going to break down the road to 270 elector

the supreme court would never overturn them. it is not enough people repeating a mantra over and over again. it shows that the court is quite capable of transforming -- incapable of transforming precedent into super precedent by asserting again and again that this is right. if legal issues are still contested, then by definition that is not being settled. this doesn't mean that barrett is all set to overturn planned parenthood or roe v. wade. at a luncheon in 2013, she said it is very unlikely that the board is going to overturn roe or roe as curbed by casey. the fundamental element that a woman has a right to choose abortion will probably stand. in a 2016 lecture at jacksonville university, barrett said although there could be changes in the way states are allowed to restrict abortion, the core holding of roe is unlikely to change. that nibbling around the edges has already been borne out in her judicial opinions. commissioner versus planned parenthood of indiana, she dissented after a three-judge panel struck down an indiana l

court to the supreme court. they say he is a republican. he is very conservative. if you want to go with a southern conservative nominee, he is your man. nixon says that sounds great, we will nominate him. there are two problems with the carswell nomination. the first is that haynesworth did have a couple of votes that were hostile to civil rights. it was no indication that haynesworth was racist or that he was personally hostile towards african-americans in any respect. he would stay on the circuit court after his defeat. for several years, he was well-liked liked by both parties. you might have liked his votes or disliked his votes, but he was not personally problematic. carswell, before entering the judiciary had run for public office in georgia. it doesn't appear as if the nixon people pick this up. in 1948, running for state legislature in georgia, he delivered a speech saying he was in favor of segregation forever. if haynesworth is unacceptable because of the civil rights positions, carswell will be worse

they are all big turns at the supreme court. perhaps at this point, not as big as the one we had last year with so many controversial topics. and over time, we did not finish until mid july. the docket so far this year is not as cramped, but maybe they are leaving a little time for some unexpected cases that might arise after november 3. so, to start with, we are going to go through each of the panelists, who has a case he or she will talk about, then we will do another round after that. let me just say who your finalists are, and this will be much shorter. a professor of law at the university of california berkeley, president of the ethics and public policy center, partner of gibson dunn, independent woman's law center, and the associate dean of the george washington university law school. i think that you have their full resumes, so you should look at them. she is probably sick of hearing about it, but erin's is the most interesting one. first, we are going to start with erin, and she is going to talk about one of the most not