and secondly, judge barrett had been on the bench three years. so it had been three years since the consideration of the judiciary committee for her circuit position and the supreme court approval. in this case, judge jackson will have been less than a year when she comes in for a hearing. i am looking forward to this. it is an awesome responsibility and possibly the greatest responsibility of the senate judiciary committee to advise and consent to a president nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. i want this to be fair, timely, and professional. i'm going to beseech my colleagues on both sides to keep this at a high level of discourse. because we are considering issues of great constitutional moment and issues that are very important for the future of this country. so let me open with any questions you have. reporter: the nature of the nominee anybody have. [inaudible] >> your mind to me of a question i did not address. let me address it. yours is a good question, i think mine is too. [laughter] that's the factor g

you would join justices sotomayor, kagan and barrett on the bench. this would be the nearest we have ever come to gender equity on the supreme court. there would be four women on a court with nine justices. so i have my own thoughts about why gender balance is important on our nation's courts. but i would really like you to tell us all what are your thoughts on what it means for our country to have women serve in meaningful members -- meaningful numbers on the federal bench? and in particular, what it would mean to have four women serving on the supreme court for the first time in history? >> thank you, senator. i think it's extremely meaningful. one of the things that having diverse members of the court does is it provides for the opportunity for role models. since i was nominated to this position, i have received so many notes and letters and photos from little girls around the country who tell me that they are so excited for this opportunity and that they have thought about the law in new ways because i am a woman, because i'm a black woman. all o

but barrett was the full trump program in their minds. cbs news praising jackson stellar academic and legal credentials and her compelling life story, but they literally had the network had to warn about barrett's strong antiabortion rights abuse and how confirmation what "move the court to the right for generations." hysteria, hyperbole, and other disrespect for the current conservative nominee beer that's the opposite of what we are seeing for this nominee. >> both of these women are women of faith who clearly love their family. i remember amy coney barrett's family coming out with her. i remember one commentator talking about her as a white colonizer and accused her of having her kids for props. i was so sickening. >> she was deprived of a civil hearing like the one we are watching a television. they've not only brought up her religion, they brought up her personal life. they dragged her through the mud. this the way confirmation hearing is supposed to go. not only that, but they also dragged her doubt -- and i'm talking about the medi

second, a judge barrett had been on the bench three years. it was three years between the consideration of the judicial committee for her nomination and the supreme court approval in this case judge jackson will have been less than a year when she comes in for her hearing. i'm looking forward to such an awesome responsibility and possibly the greatest responsibility to advise and presidents nominee for an appointment to the highest court of the land. want this to be fair and timely and professional i will beseech my colleagues on both sides to keep this at a high level of discourse because we are considering the issues of great constitutional moments that is very important for the future of the country sought me openness to any questions you may have. >> anybody having anyone on —- any conversations? >> you remind me of a question i did not address. but yours is a good question i think mine is to. [laughter] it's the fact that we have to make sure judge jackson is available to all members of the senate judiciary committee before march 21st. a

ketanji brown jackson getting the respect that amy coney barrett was denied.ely to vote on pending cases, they also declared they would vote against her purely for holding a conservative judicial philosophy. some people think a number of these senators have been disrespectful, they really mix it up with judge jackson. what do you make in comparison this to the last confirmation hearing. >> certainly the senators have been forceful with her, particularly when it has to do with her views on critical race theory, her views on abortion and how she would vote in those kinds of cases. i think what they are trying to do is give a message and to send a message about the difference between their questioning her and the way amy coney barrett was questioned. certainly amy coney barrett was questioned very happily about her religious beliefs, about when life begins and about what she thinks about abortion and that is certainly not something that we are seeing here where judge jackson is being questioned as heavily about her beliefs in that area. ultimately what matters mo

he would join justices sotomayor , kagan, and barrett on the bench. this would be the nearest we have ever come to gender equity on the supreme court. there would be four women on a court with nine justices. i have my own thoughts about why gender balance is important on our nations courts. but i would really like you to tell us what are your thoughts on what it means for a country to have women serve in meaningful members -- meaningful numbers on the federal bench? and in particular what it would mean to have four women serving on the supreme court for the first time in history? judge jackson: thank you, senator. i think it is extremely meaningful. one of the things that having diverse members on the court does is it provides for the opportunity for role models. since i was nominated to this position, i have received so many notes and letters and photos from little girls around the country who tell me that they are so excited for this opportunity, and they thought about the law in new ways because i am a woman, because i am a black woman. all of thos

i agree with justice barrett. sen. durbin: do first amendment free-speech protections apply equally to conservative and liberal protesters? judge jackson: yes, senator sen. durbin:: do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental? judge jackson: the supreme court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. sen. durbin: can you tell me how you might go about deciding what a fundamental right is under the constitution? judge jackson: i do not know if i can tell you that. it is abstract in the way you posed the question. there is precedent in the supreme court related to the various rights the court has recognized as fundamental. the court has some precedent about the standards for determining whether or not something is fundamental. the court has said that the 14th amendment due process clause does support some fundamental rights, but only things implicit in the ordered concept of liberty are deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this country

i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agree with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to, quote, obey all the rules of stare decisis if faced with the question of whether to overrule casey. she said she had, quote, no agenda to try to overrule casey, end quote. so here's the question. do you agree with justice kavanaugh that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent and will you, like justice barrett, commit to obey all the rules of stare decisis in cases related to the issue of abortion, end quote. >> thank you, senator. i do agree with both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett on this issue. roe and casey are the settled law of the supreme court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy. they have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed and in order to, as justice barrett said, looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle. it provides and establishes predictability, stability, it also serves as a restraint as the

they were really in my view out of line with now justice barrett. they are clearly going to give judge jackson the confirmation hearing they denied to justice barrett and that's a good thing. it is just that the hypocrisy is so high you need waders to get through it. >> harris: we sometimes but that to music. i want to get to this. 25 senators on the judiciary committee who will make their opening statements today. we'll hear later in the afternoon from judge jackson. she will make hers and then the questions in earnest will begin tomorrow. that's how it is laid out. senator ben sasse talked about what he would like to hear this week. >> i want us to vet judge jackson's judicial philosophy. i don't want us to attack her as a human but a debate what her judicial philosophy is. if you get lifetime tenure you don't confuse yourself with a super legislator and we need to know that's there. >> harris: that's a nuance on something that senator blackburn expressed and your first expression today, too, what you would be most concerned about. what i understa

>> many of us were shocked during the barrett hearing. i covered all the confirmations for virtually everyone on the court and never saw anything like the circus put on around judge barrett. they surrounded her with giant pictures of people who were using the affordable care act. the suggestion being these people and people like them are endangered by judge barrett based on a false claim that she was nominated to kill obamacare. some of us wrote at the time this was a radically misrepresentation of the case. the case was not a serious threat to obamacare and if anything, she would likely vote to preserve the statute in that case. that's exactly what she did. but the display around her was really quite disgraceful. they treated her quite badly throughout the hearing. >> trace: it's interesting. andy, he makes a good point. i want to go back to the confirmation process with judge kavanaugh. andy, can you hear me? where you had gillibrand, senators duckworth and blumenthal and harris all declaring judge kavanaugh guilty before any evidence w

surely things would be better for judge amy coney barrett?re would be less absurdity, a desire for civility after the kavanaugh fiasco? surely not, one democrat senator asked judge. a mother of 7, whether she ever committed the crime of sexual assault, that senator could have asked her in private, nominees do meet with senators ahead of time, but no, she wanted to asked that dumb question on national television so your children and judge barret's children could hear it. and another senate member, now vice president said they were coming after all your rights, and other thought that dogma lived too loudly. i find is ironic they want it now, but they didn't want it back then. there is always a temptation to treat others as they have mistreated you and wrong others because you have been wronged, we should resist, a candid judicial philosophy is a fair game, fair to ask if a nominee can uphold a law they disagree with. it is fair to ask about criminal sentences imposed or not imposed and rules and orders and decisions. the confirmation process sh

you would join justices sotomayor, kagan and barrett on the bench. this would be the nearest we have ever come to gender equity on the supreme court. there would be four women on a court with nine justices. so i have my own thoughts about what depend are balance is important on our nation's courts, but i would really like you to tell us all what are your thoughts on what it means for our country to have women serve in meaningful members, meaningful numbers on the federal bench? and in particular what it would mean to have four women serving on the supreme court for the first time in history. >> thank you, senator. i think it's extremely meaningful. one of the things that having diverse members of the court does is it provides for the opportunity for role models. since i was nominated to this position i have received so many notes and letters and photos from little girls around the country who tell me that they are so excited for this opportunity and that they have thought about the law in new ways because i am a woman, i am a black woman, all of thos

the specter of the amy coney barrett as you referenced. judge jackson rempbs her answer on the issue of court packing. it will i'm sure not you not at all there is some political posturing here. we're going to see that throughout the day today. we've already seen some of it on the democratic side you heard references to, for example, what happened with merrick garland, somebody who democrats wanted to be the former president wanted to sit on the supreme court whose nomination did not get moved forward. you also heard from republicans i think senator graham. we expect to hear it later in the afternoon from senator josh hawley of missouri. senator marcia blackburn later any day i'd be watching too given how sharp her omitting were. but overall you really saw judge jackson try to put line, barriers around her judicial philosophy. she said a couple of times she believes in staying in her own lane. this is a question when you look broadly at the way you would rule as a supreme court justice that democrats and republicans are interested in. the

surely things would be better for judge amy coney barrett?vanaugh fiasco? surely not, one democrat senator asked judge. a mother of 7, whether she ever committed the crime of sexual assault, that senator could have asked her in private, nominees do meet with senators ahead of time, but no, she wanted to asked that dumb question on national television so your children and judge barret's children could hear it. and another senate member, now vice president said they were coming after all your rights, and other thought that dogma lived too loudly. i find is ironic they want it now, but they didn't want it back then. there is always a temptation to treat others as they have mistreated you and wrong others because you have been wronged, we should resist, a candid judicial philosophy is a fair game, fair to ask if a nominee can uphold a law they disagree with. it is fair to ask about criminal sentences imposed or not imposed and rules and orders and decisions. the confirmation process should be thorough, rigorous and fair. if you of the justices to

we use the same standard for each nominee and we follow the process with justice barrett. i was not on the committee at the time. certainly, our report is a matter of public record. the bottom line is she received a well-qualified rating from this committee. sen. grassley: give me a rough idea of the objective measurements. judge williams: her analytical skills were excellent, if i recall, from the report. you can refer to that report. our rating was well-qualified. sen. grassley: why did you choose to limit your review of her record to her over 240 published opinions on the district court? judge williams: you mean judge jackson? we focused on published opinions, other writings, we had the reading groups focus on those. we did not delve into the other orders, many of those were short. many of those did not give us sufficient -- many of the orders were short, i guess that is the easiest way to say it. the published opinions that people view, we felt were more important to review. we also consulted with academic committees and our practitioners group. we felt those writings

let me show you headlines from bret kavanaugh and amy coney barrett from a couple of years ago. did with johnny carson. "washington post". republicans make jackson's hearing about their own victimhood. hard to find anything critical in the outlets looking at the nominee's record and the questions around them, trace. >> dana: i think comparing what happened with amy coney barrett and bret kavanaugh is legitimate: >> nomination of amy coney barrett to the supreme court which could bring potential setbacks on women's rights. >> she said something that should scare all of us. >> gorsuch, kavanaugh and let's do a hail mary with a right wing lunatic. >> dana: there are some significant differences. one is supremely qualified the other is a right wing lunatic. >> "washington post". democrats grandstanding on kavanaugh. good. kavanaugh's defense misleads or veers off points. democrats have an intense start to the kavanaugh hearing. during your time in the white house, dana, late 2000s, 2007 supreme court had a 62% approval rating. it is now down to 40%. i think media coverage in terms o

amy coney barrett also well qualified.ation into brett kavanaugh. i want to make this very clear about some of the distinctions and the reaction to some of these nominees. i wonder what you thought about republicans, what they did during this hearing, and how they seem to say, well, brett kavanaugh was treated very poorly. >> look, as someone who was a republican for years 25 years of my life as a black woman, i understand how difficult it is to be a part of that party. but the shenanigans and the disrespect we witnessed this last week was race-baiting. nothing that this judge has done or said in her past warranted those type of attacks. you made a good distinction about justice kavanaugh. i didn't think justice kavanaugh was well treated, brianna. i thought they should have gone into private session with that information and spared the judge and the witness, most importantly, the type of attacks and scrutiny they came under. but the point here is that if you look at the record, republicans supported ketanji brown jackson

funny how he never asked for amy coney barrett's scores. all that and what we can expect from conservatives next week and the overall confirmation hearings. the senior editor of law and policy. great to see you. thanks for joining us on this. so we just put up some of what we have been hearing from republicans when it comes to the confirmation of ketanji brown jackson. i want to read for you some of what we heard actually about amy coney barrett before she was confirmed to the supreme court. murkowski saying she has intellect discipline and the built to hold the place in the supreme court. graham saying she has intellect and judicial disposition. tucker carlson, amy coney barrett represents everything that made this a great country. amani, your reaction. >> i think it speaks to the highly partisan nature of the supreme court. you know, there used to be a time where a republican president could nominate a justice and not expect that person to rule lock step with the other conservative justices. not expect that person to rule in lockstep with

privateers oh, said barrett, cried the town.s crew ♪ oh, damn them all! i was told ♪ we'd cruise the seas for american gold ♪ we'd fire no guns, shed no tears ♪ but i'm a broken man on a halifax pier ♪ the last of barrett's privateers ( cheers and applause ) >> stephen: an honor. michael buble. the album, "higher," is available march 25. stick around for a performance from michael buble. we'll be right back with rose matafeo! ♪ ♪ ♪ ( applause ) fight back fast with tums chewy bites. fast heartburn relief in every bite. crunchy outside, chewy inside. ♪ tums, tums, tums, tums ♪ tums chewy bites a practiced spicy crispy chicken sandwich eater knows: keep one hand on the sandwich and one hand on the drink. ♪ ♪ ♪ ba da ba ba ba ♪ real cowboys get customized car insurance with liberty mutual, so we only pay for what we need. -hey tex, -wooo. can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ staying up half the night searching for savings on

he rushed amy coney barrett through.e line is fast, i don't see how that was not. >> this is a big deal. a lifetime opponent. this is one of the most important factors for a lot of people's votes. it is a lifetime appointment. it is important and imappear i have the that we slow down. let the senators engage in their advise and consent process. and yes, there is a bit of hypocrisy. if you look at the actual numbers interesting average time line is around 53 days. amy coney barrett in total was 30 days. the democrats' schedule in this case where judge jackson is around 24. so this is a. shorter time line. the most important thing is to have an accurate vetting process. >> do you think they'll get any republican votes? >> i don't know. i've given up on predicting what republicans will do. i think that this is, we're talking about a if you days between what you just said. it is not really -- >> 24 and 30. >> there's not that big of a difference. and i agree. it is a very important decision in this country. judge jackson, th

i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett 2020.i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to quote obey all of the rules if faced with the question of whether to overrule casey. she said she had quote no agenda to try to overrule casey". here's a question. do you agree with justice kavanaugh that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent and will you like justice barrett commit to obey all of the rules of stare decisis in cases related to the issue of abortion? hon. judge jackson: thank you, senator. i do agree with both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett on this issue. roe and casey are the settled law of the supreme court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy. they have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed and in order to revisit as justice barrett said the supreme court looks at various factors because starry decisive's is an important principle. it provides and establishes predictability, stability, it also serves as a restraint in this w

amy coney barrett were surrounded on people relying on affordable care act. voted to preserve it which is what was expected. what ask your take on how the media handling the nomination? >> they have been unfair at all. any criticism of president obama was racist. any criticism of this nominee is racist. it wasn't racist, it wasn't anti-catholic when they attacked justice barrett. it wasn't anti-woman, it wasn't sexist when they attacked her. the idea what they did to justice kavanaugh was are inhumane. that fraud was continued to be perpetrated after he was sworn in. the idea we are treating or the senate is treating this candidate unfairly is ridiculous. the purpose of going through these hearings is to make sure that the american people have confidence in the nominee and ultimately probably the supreme court justice. in this case they don't. and they shouldn't. elizabeth: congressman mike johnson an ken buck, good to see you both. come back soon. great to have you on. >>> we have growing outrage, alarming new price tag for the amount of tax money stolen fro

. >> yes, i know that's how justice barrett answered that question as well in her recent hearing. i'm going to turn to an area that senator lee and i, we both chaired the subcommittee on antitrust, and so it's near and dear to my heart, so i thought i would spend a little time -- it usually gets rel gated to the second round but i'm putting it up on the docket here. u.s. antitrust law has been described as a comprehensive charter of economic liberty and i agree. and effective antitrust enforcement plays a critical role, as you know, in protecting consumers and workers promoting innovation, ensuring new businesses have an opportunity to compete. it actually from really early on in our country's history has been a very important part of assuring that capitalism works. and in january for the first time since the dawn of the internet, the senate passed a tech competition bill out of the judiciary committee, a bill senator grassley and i lead many of the members of this committee supported the bill 16-6 vote. it's called the american innovation and choice online act. it's now headed to

>> sent a dear, i agree with justice barrett in her response to that question. again, my northstar is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional scheme, and in my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues, and certainly not a nominee for a position on the supreme court, so i agree with justice barrett. >> do the first amendment free speech protections apply equally to conservative and liberal protesters? >> yes, senator. >> do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right? >> senator, the supreme court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right . could you.tell me how you might go about deciding what a fundamental right is >> >> -- is? >> there is precedent related to various rights that the court has recognized as fundamental. the court has some precedence about the standards for determining whether or not something is fundamental. the court has said that the 14th amendment use process clause does support some fundamental rights, but only things

amy barrett was asked about it when she appeared. i quote, could not opine on it. on many other policy issues, judge barrett said repeatedly she could not share her views stating, i quote, i will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that is inconsistent with the judicial role. i do believe we should have rules and traditions and presence but we shouldn't have a separate set of rules for republican nominees and democratic nominees. so judge jackson, if a senator were to ask you today about proposals about changing the current size of supreme court, what would your response be? >> senator, i agree with justice barrett in her response to that question when she was asked before this committee. again, my north star is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional scheme and, in my view, judges should not be speaking in to political issues and certainly not a nominee for a position on the supreme court. so i agree with justice barrett. >> let me address another issue that came up

it was the same thing judge amy barrett said during her confirmation hearing. as another matter, this is not something that the supreme court would decide. this is a question for congress to decide. this is something that justice stephen breyer has addressed and he said the supreme court should not be expanded because people will view the court as political and it will sap the supreme court's authority. host: the supreme court is 20 years old, is that correct? guest: it will turn 20 this fall. host: how cognizant were the justices about this idea of faith in the court? guest: it was something that at that time they were quite cognizant of because bush v gore was not that far in their rearview mirrors. that was certainly something that that many -- that led many members of the public to question the extent to which the court was politicized. along conservative liberal lines , ruling on the outcome of the presidential election. the supreme court stayed in and out of the public consciousness over time depending on what is going on and the nature of the court's rul

i felt judge barrett was treated very poorly. hon.ketanji: she was a judge on the court was -- that i serve. we did not overlap. i am struggling to remember if i met her. she was a judge on the circuit court. >> you were a district court judge. is that right? hon. ketanji: i was but i don't know -- >> where they in the same

susan collins held on to her seat after opposing barrett who was unpopular in maine.l and joe donnelly may have sealed their fates after voting against kavanaugh. part of the risk for republicans could be uniting the democratic base which has been split over issues like covid. 88% of democrats favor ketanji brown jackson's confirmation. 7% oppose. it could also motivate black democrats after the party failed to deliver on issues like voting rights. still, with president biden's approval numbers among black voters slipping into the mid 60s, there's room for improvement. overall i buy this one. partisan opposition may be the norm for supreme court nominations, but that doesn't mean it's politically wise. >> thanks to nate for that. the round table is here. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ hey, i get it, commitment can be scary. but not when you're saving up to 15% with subscribe and save at amazon. you get free repeat delivery on your favorite items and if things don't work out, you can always cancel. seriously, no one will judge you if you call it off. ok! learn all the ways t

senator graham clearly still smarting from the kavanaugh hearings, the barrett hearings, references to even earlier hearings today that that's how nominees have been treated and said a bit of a double standard. she does not deserve mistreatment, but a bit of him going off on the double standard. >> but it just appalls me, a system in america if a conservative woman wants to stand out and say i love my family just as much as you love yours and my faith means as much to me as it does you, and all of a sudden they are some kind of weirdo. >> he wanted to make it clear judge jackson has talked about her faith, he wanted to press her on that and also get her to weigh in on how the hearings have gone with past nominees. did not really take the bait but said she was glad to be here and defend her own positions. >> sandra: two things to follow up with you on there, shannon, lindsey graham ended up standing up and walking out after some frustration that he felt with some back and forth in that room. i'll get to that in a moment. but to your point about what we have heard so far from judge jacks

a completely different conversation than what democrats were having with amy coney barrett, conservative, but who had said the same thing that ketanji brown jackson is singing now, they can keep all of that out of how they do their job. decidedly very different than what we saw with cavanagh coming out justice kavanaugh and justice thomas. it's worth taking a look at how these things progress. nobody's going to fight the nomination for the genoa democrat so she gets there come a conclusion is already made. but if you look at the process that puts the bar appear. the next time, when the shoe is on the other foot and it is a conservative who was up again as a nominee, let's see if democrats can hold that. we know politics are the swamp. we understand that. but what lindsey graham was laying out was not about politics, he will he wanted to get to the core of why are you always below the sentencing on some of the most important cases that affect children in america? the comparison in in the back and really fascinating. it is worth noting that they sort of went out ad ad. you heard the interr

and now justice amy coney barrett seemingly anti-abortion views under attack by democrats in 2020.licans reframing the conversation. >> it is only one side of the aisle that with justice clarence thomas was so reprehensible. this will not be a political circus. this will not be the kind of character smear that sadly our democratic colleagues have gotten very good at. >> the republicans have a very deep sense of woundedness around supreme court nominations going all the way to the nomination of judge robert bork back in 1987. one of the lions of the conservative movement way back then whose supreme court nomination was defeated. republicans in some ways have never forgiven democrats for that. >> i'm admiring how you're sitting so stoically through all of this senator talk. >> reporter: this time around it is republican senator josh hawley, questioning part of brown's sentencing record. last week hawley published a lengthy thread on twitter, writing in part "i've noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to judge jackson's treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on child

>> senator, i agree with justice barrett in her response to that question.n she was asked before this committee. again, my north star is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional scheme. and in my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues and certainly not a nominee for a position on the supreme court. so, i agree with justice barrett. >> let me address another issue that came up yesterday in the opening phase of this nomination hearing. and it's the issue involving child pornography. i want to turn to that issue because it was raised multiple times, primarily by the senator from missouri, and it was -- he was questioning your sentencing record in child pornography cases that do not involve the production of pornographic material. they're known as nonproduction cases. i wanted to put some context here. the senator from missouri has, in his tweets, said of your position on this issue, judge jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and a policy maker

justice barrett outpaced them both. she wrote almost 100 appellate opinions in just three years, plus years of scholarship as a star professor that senators could actually examine. judge jackson has been on the d.c. circuit for less than a year. she's published only two opinions. beforehand, judge jackson served as a trial judge on the district court. she testified on tuesday that that role did not provide many opportunities to think about constitutional interpretation. yet when senators tried to dig in on judicial philosophy, the judge deflected and pointed back to the same record she acknowledged would not shed much light. one senator simply asked the judge to summarize, summarize well-known dimpses -- differences between the approaches of some current judges. the nominee replied that two-weeks notice had not been enough to prepare an answer. president biden said he would only nominate a judicial activist. unfortunately, we saw no reason to suspect that he accidentally did the opposite. third, and relatedly, we're in

i didn't believe that about amy coney barrett. about me asking how faithful she was, could she judge somebody of a different faith because i think most americans are uncomfortable. if she was uncomfortable with that, where was she and others when they were destroying amy coney barrett? who is a faithful woman, a traditional catholic, her faith means a lot to her. they basically said that your faith is too much for us and that we believe you, amy coney barrett, that the dogma lives loudly within you and that questions your ability to be a fair judge. but they did to judge barrett was despicable. >> judge jeanine: agree. but you also asked judge ketanji brown jackson troubling. she said in the past about her time defending guantanamo detainees. take a look. >> did you ever accuse someone of your petitions the government of -- war criminals? >> i don't remember that accusation but i will say -- >> do you believe true? that america was holding these detainees? >> what i was doing in the context of these petitions come in the very earl

i went back to look at what went on during amy coney barrett's hearings.ry booker go off. filled with joy. i myself am excited about it. we saw senators tillis, graphically, graham going on and on. amy coney barrett is a mother. she has seven children. lindsey graham opted to nine children. have two more. john cornyn had her hold up her blank page of notes. >> jesse: a nice moment. >> jessica: why is it a nice moment question when you thought it was cool she doesn't have to take notes? that should make you more qualified to be on the supreme court? >> jesse: she knows what a woman is. everyone does this. the democrats. they are nasty with the republican nominees. vice versa. the media act like this is the first hearing we've ever had. >> judge jeanine: it doesn't take much to say that the way this judge is being questioned is so much more polite than what they did to amy coney barrett and what they did to brett kavanaugh. it was a circus. let's admit it. everybody said they didn't wanted to be like that. the republicans have been kind enough to make sure i

. >> reporter: will barrett is the senior gillette director for clean-air advocacy. he says their study focused on the public health benefits of getting off of fossil fuels. >> there's a wide range of negative consequences associated with unhealthy air. it's everything from minor irritation, coughing and wheezing, to more serious health emergencies like asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes. >> reporter: occurring to barrett, widespread transition to vehicles powered by clean electricity would provide tens of billions of dollars in public health benefits locally by 2050. >> that comes out to about 3800 lives saved, over 100,000 asthma attacks avoided and over half 1 million lost workdays avoided because the air will be cleaner in the bay area. >> reporter: she thinks the findings are one more reason to make the switch to electric. >> we should become electric with all vehicles and trucks, because it will make a huge differencein air quality, standaofall rtatgas statioof ki e switchto elic mt . >> reporter: would you ever consider getting an electric car? >> yeah.

they were wrong in their strong declarations how justice barrett would rule.judge jackson, congratulations on your nomination. i look forward to hear and your jujs philosophy. thank you. . >> okay. so we are going to continue to keep a very close eye on the hearing, that historic moment at the capitol. i'm craig melvin picking up our coverage now. you just heard from the chairman of that committee, senator dick durbin and senator chuck grassley as well. senator durbin unsurprisingly hailing judge ketanji brown jackson and her judicial record. we should also note that judge jackson will be introduced and give her statement. that will not happen for several hours now. we'll check in and go back to listen live once judge jackson starts. perhaps you've noticed at the bottom of your screen there there's a qr code. we have put that qr code at the bottom of your screen because if you'd like to watch and listen, you can do that by scanning the qr code. that will take you to the hearing live in full but, again, you just heard senator durbin start the hearing and then y

when barrett, amy barrett was nominated, the democrats used it to say, you're going to kill obamacare what's terrible about trump's health plan-- by the way, she didn't. and to your point, we're now hearing, well, she was a public defender. we're looking at all the terrible people she defended. she was on a sentencing commission that unanimously argued for lower sentences. she's soft on sexual offenders. and that's because crime, as we talked about a few weeks ago, is an ascending issue. and the republicans want to make sure that the country, to the extent anybody listens, is hearing that this nominee is, to use the old phrase, soft on crime. and that's why the idea that, you know, there's going to be any light, as opposed toeat out of these hearings, i wouldn't put a whole lot of money on it. >> sreenivasan: jeff greenfield, thanks so much. >> good to be with you, hari. >> sreenivasan: last week, maryland announced it was delaying its gubernatorial primary election amid a legal challenge to its new electoral maps. it's just the latest state embroiled in litigation as the result of re

like an earlier nominee, amy coney barrett, she made much of her faith. i thought that was a pointed inclusion, one that underscored the republican party does not have a monopoly on faith and this was something that the democrat could invoke, fidelity to god, country and the constitution. >> there's only one more piece of the family part. i want to play senator cory booker again. he read from her daughter's letter. we all know how politics and partisanship work. i think anyone could relate to this precocious young person, 11 years old at the time, lobbying for their own parent. let's take a look at that. >> i suspect after these proceedings and please, god, after your confirmation to the supreme court, something new will happen in america, that that letter from your daughter will not be exceptional. whether they're daughters of white parents or black parents, biracial, we're going to see a new generation talking about their mamas and daring to write to the president of the united states of america that my mom should be on the supreme court. >> emily? >> i

although we up to amy coney barrett to be associate justice in 2020. it is all in one place at c-span.org. [indiscernible speaking] [indiscernible speaking] [indiscernible speaking] [indiscernible speaking] [indiscernible speaking] >> senate judiciary committee will resume. next up opening statements. >> i welcome judge jackson and her family. i congratulate her on her nomination. this important occasion, the biden administration is waging war in the federal powers and constitution. the board of judges who thankfully apply the law, to understand the ongoing what is considered president biden's nominee to lead the department of justice. thanks to the courage of some of my democratic colleagues, then nominee was with the job. the president was ever willing able to nominate someone to man ban every hunting rifle in america. and use it as a weapon to force virtually every american to get vaccinated are losing their livelihood. thankfully, the supreme court struck down the unlawful paragraph. look at the southern border, where secretary of security stepped

host: we talked about demand justice barrett remind us what the federal say federalist society is.uest: it's a group of conservative lawyers -- a network of conservative lawyers who aim to influence debate in law schools and on the federal judiciary. the former federalist society official leonard leo was a key advisor to donald trump in his initial selection including the three supreme court appointments. host: when watching today's hearing and it starts in about 35 minutes this morning, in these recent hearings we hear the nominees answer questions saying i can give you an answer because this might be a case that comes before the supreme court, explain when did they start doing that and why do members keep asking them questions they can answer. guest: they've been doing it for decades. robert bork in 1987 was really the last nominee who really tried to engage in issues like that and defend this view of the constitution. since then judges have learned nominees have learned that talking about that sort of thing only gets them in trouble so justice ginsberg famously said she will giv

ronald reagan's nomination of william rehnquist and president donald trump's nomination of amy coney barrett and 2020, pulled together for easy viewing at c-span.org and on our free video app, c-span now. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government we are funded by these television companies and more, including mediacom. >> the world changed in a minute and media, was ready -- meciacom was ready. we never slowed down. schools and businesses when virtual and we powered a new reality. because we mediacom are built to give you -- >> giving you a-rosita to democracy. >> judge ketanji brown jackson, president biden's nominee to the supreme court comes up for her second day of confirmation hearings before the senate judiciary committee. all senators were given 30 minutes time to question the nominee. today began with judiciary chair dick durbin, democrat of illinois, giving judge jackson an opportunity to preempt

i'm referring both to ketanji brown jackson and amy coney barrett.ook on their face. they're thinking, i can't wait to get across the street with the adults and i'll never do this again. it's become a national embarrassment. >> i don't know if josh hawley was pushing qanon, but it's clear republicans have a problem with conspiracy theories. >> all of us at this table with part of some problem. >> it's clear that the base of the republican party, there is a strain that believes in this stuff. if you go to josh hawley's website right now, he's hawking a mug that has a picture of him raising his fist on january 6 to the protesters before the riot that day. if you look at what he said january 4th when he was asked about whether president trump was going to be remaining president, he said, we'll have to see what happens on january 6. that's clearly playing to a conspiracy mindset. if you look at things like kevin mccarthy, not going after marjorie taylor greene, leader of the republicans, not going after paul gosar who went to a conference led by an open

also i had this is where most of the buddies discovered in a mass grave outside logan square read barrett. and i say blood is because if you have been identified so far, uncovering the grim secrets of the past, the mass graves concerning the victims of 8 years of war in the dom bus. also in the program of russian cultural figures are being cancelled in europe for refusing to take sides amid ukrainian conflict. ah, from moscow to the world. this is our international i and peter scott's. and these are the top stories this hour with the conflict in ukraine into his 13th day. let's start the program with a quick recap of some of the latest developments. the russian ministry of defense says humanitarian corridors from 5 ukrainian cities. would you to open today? boucher now says those corridors evacuating civilians towards russia have been rejected by keir previous attempts to evacuate civilians were disrupted with moscow, claiming ukrainian nationalists refused to let people out. while care of insists evacuations failed due to sci fi violations by russian forces. agreement on the opening of t

also had this is where most of the buddies discovered in a mass grave outside lugens were re barrett and i said, but is because few have been identified so far. uncovering the grim secrets of the past, the mass graves concerning the victims of 8 years of the war and on bus. president biden chooses foreign policy over domestic well being as the bonds old russian oil and gas enforce saying this will hurt americans as petrol prices continue to rise. russia says any serious embargo will lead to disastrous consequences on global markets. and the use chief diplomat says the blog doesn't intent about the import of russian energy carriers anytime soon. ah. you're watching international mon is peter scott and wherever you're joining us from, welcome to the program with a conflict in ukraine now in. so it's 13, stay, let's just take a quick recap of some of the latest developments. the russian defense ministry says humanitarian corridors from 5 ukrainian cities were due to open today. russia now says corridors evacuating civilians towards russia have been rejected by keith. previous attempts t