the maus coney center project is maus coney center transformation of the convention center and it is not only addition and increased space but also a transformation of the urban neighbor around it in a positive way. >> 25th largest convention center in the country but the conventions are getting bigger so with this extension it is 13 largest >> we have been under construction a year and a half and set to complete the construction in 2018. it generated over $9 billion in san francisco >> 35 percent of viz #2rs coming to san francisco are coming to maus coney. >> 2500 jobs will be created. >> if we didn't do the expansion we would luce $200 million in taxes a year. the conventions they are talking about going other cities with ample [inaudible] and exhibit space and not come to san francisco. >> there is a lot of [inaudible] we are at a point now where our [inaudible] two halve oz the mos connie and think what we desire is one space. >> we are adding space about 200,000 space. we are connecting the two existing north and south exhibition halls that excavate under howard street to incre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and then, of course, often the laboratory for the methods of drac coney and control that migrate back to the united states. but perhaps you can talk a little bit about how seamless these inner and outer wars are and why her. thank you so much, chris, and thank you for having me. i'm a big admirer of your work war of the force that gives us meaning is one of the books that really shaped some of my perspective on these questions. i started writing these essays during the iraq war, the afghan iraq war really mid, mid, early, 2, thousands. and they were written over a 10 year period. and, and one of the things i was trying to make sense of is how the united states continues to oscillate. between a kind of moral equivalent of war at home that often involves state sanctioned violence against vulnerable communities and populations from the war on drugs that you mentioned war on crime that really begins in the 1900 sixty's in 1900 seventy's . and then the outer wars which as you noted and which have been continuous throughout our history. and of course, the outer wars that we now think of as

of 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

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 media, so she was deprived of these things thanks to media experts, but the media deprived -- they painted her out to be someone who is harming sick people appear that she was going to not uphold the affordable care act. they were showing images, if you remember, on mainstream television of sick people saying that if she's confirmed she's in fact going to prevent you from receiving health care. she in fact did end up holding aca. it was predicted that she wed, but it was a narrative in which she was described as someone who is going to pre

her rating of plus 28 is higher than recent nominees like judge kavanaugh who was a plus 4 or amy coney 5. in an election where republicans have a lot going for them, they're taking a real risk. supreme court confirmations is one of the most important things the senate does. susan collins held on to her seat after opposing barrett who was unpopular in maine. claire mccaskill 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, commit

and in comparison amy coney barrett came before the committee 16 days after president trump's announcement. in this case it is 24 days. 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 ja

about her approach, the constitutional interpretation and after the hysteria they came out at amy coney barrett, that we might discover what my democratic colleagues think would be more effective than a constitutionalist but i will note, to ask that, you are not supposed to do that, but suddenly, judicial philosophy meant nothing, they said don't asked that question, what roll thehe constitution place in jude ketanji brown jackson meant nothing to them and to ask that question. wanted to be very bad news but this is not a subject the american people are willing to ignore, they want you to ask the question, they get answers and they don't expect it to agree with the justice 100 percent of the time, but they do expect those nominees to appear to have standards and they want the constitutional list, not the judicial activist, and at this point coming up no idea what rules she will follow if indeed she is confirmed. all we can do is look at a record it, judge ketanji brown jackson spent a lot of time defending her work, tennesseans are just as worried about what she was trying to distance h

in comparison, amy coney barrett came before the committee 16 days after president trump's announcement. in this case it is 24 days. 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

host: it was amy coney barrett who went to the university of notre dame law school. guest: she did.ost: is there another non-ivy league school represented on the bench? guest: at this point every other justice is either a harvard or yale law school graduate. host: why has that happened? guest: it is an interesting question. part of it is people go to harvard and yale get themselves in the pipeline to do things like be supreme court clerks, be appointed federal judges and those credentials also help them get into higher courts. it's may be a question that doesn't have a perfect answer, you may have to ask the people who advise the president and the president's why they frequent to land on someone who went to the top law school spring -- law schools. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just have a couple of comments. if judge jackson is qualified, more power to her. my thought is though. everybody knows even she knows that she was chosen for the nomination based on the color of her skin and her gender. she must not have much self-respect if she's not embarrassed to even accept the

i would recommend that senator mcconnell go back and look at the record on amy coney barrett, the justice on the supreme court she was asked the same question, she says she will not opine on that matter. the same answer that was given by judge jackson. multiple republicans accused her of being soft on crime. this baseless charge took multiple forms, none more vile than the outright falsehood that she let child pornography offenders off the hook. as an independent fact checker, judge jackson's record is well within the mainstream of 70-80% of federal court judges. even a conservative formal prosecutor dismissed many of the attacks as meritless to the point of demagoguery. some members of this committee used the entirety of their question time, all 50 minutes to focus exclusively on child pornography cases. this may play well to the qanon crowd and the french conspiracy theories who help drive the insurrection on january 6, 2021, but the american public sees it for what it is. i want to make a point, not all committee republicans are treated judge jackson unfairly. the majority starting wit

molly: we saw an extremely quick confirmation of amy coney barrett. particularly, in the senate which between certain steps of that process. i to expect democrats to move quickly, but we are obviously not looking at a situation where president biden names and a contribution the next day. or something like that. mary: with all of the efforts failed last week about eliminating the filibuster. if the filibuster were eliminated, what with the next year the senate would potentially look like, would it be the wild west? molly: i think this is an important question. to go back to the point i made earlier, there are things that are currently being stopped by the filibuster, that would pass if the filibuster was eliminated , as we were only looking at situations needing a simple majority to move to final passage. but i think that there is also plenty of things that is within disagreement within the democratic caucus, where even in a world without the filibuster, we would not see those legislations fall through. there are -- there is some good scientists that c

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

so all those things amy coney barrett went through that was unnecessary. >> greg: this was a powerfulwerful hearing. i didn't watch it. i didn't watch a single moment of it. i had no desire to. we know what happens with these things. if you are a republican nominee, you will be accused of being a rapists but if you are a republican questioning a democrat nominate you are a racist. if you are a or racist, the worst thing republican because she was soft on crime. ouch. but should they go hard on her? i don't think so republicans suffer from gutfeld failure. they know the outcome will be something they don't want, but they will do it anyway. >> jesse: you prefer the predictable story and story telling loop, even if you end up on the losing end. we know she is getting confirmed yet we have to play our roles and waste everyone's time and set you up for failure later. i prefer to keep your power dry, right? first, i want to have a confirmation fast-forward button. we know the votes are there so i can't one of the senators push a button and say, okay we are done already. the bottom line is w

this for instance, is lydia coney order was double. i was to order forms one bubble. it's not wilson's theater is not a psychological, no, naturalistic one. instead it finds science and abstract expression for particular experiences, developments, feelings, installations and events in long considered that so on. i never tries to depict a naturalistic or psychological image of a figure. always good, no knock at, sorry. the question is rather, what strength did this person, this historical figure? her father was hot and he's a figure. what motivated him. so what are progress? what emotions areas develop of human society did he insula in sooner? good meter and thick, long and all. what entrance did he have on the individual? how to see? i am fled on something changed. what's the trust for baked? ha. he only knows that when lose the refuse to retract his theses, he was condemned by the pope. brindley eventually banished. here rome's accusations, and luther's defence at the council of arms are symbolized as a rule, a cacophony over contradictory voices. ah ah ah, ah, i won

this for instance, is lydia coney or goose double. oh, oh yeah. i was the other one on bubble. it's not wilson's theater is neither psychological, no naturalistic, none of instead it fine science and abstract expression for particular experiences, developments, feelings, installations and events in long considered that so on. i never tries to depict a naturalistic or psychological image of the figure. lewis could no knock at, sorry, the question is rather, what strength did this person, this historical figure? her heart was hot and he's a figure. what motivated him, the little progress, what emotions, areas developments of human society did. he influence her in a guitar and vic long and arman or what entrance did he have on the individual? how to see i am for where did something change? what's the trust? evict? ah, do you know when your death, when lose the refuse to retract his theses? he was condemned by the pope and eventually banished. here rome's accusations, and luther's defence at the council of arms are symbolized as a rule, a company over contradictory voices. oh i oh,

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

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

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

the other time when she -- when he did that to her was when he brought up judge amy coney barrett withu go to church? what is your religion? she talked about being a protestant, nondenominational. he was there harkening back to questions about now-justice amy coney barrett's religion but those were in the context of how she might vote on reproductive rights, what she had already said about her opposition to abortion and religion and it wasn't as he was characterizing it as if the senators at the time were just asking about whether she was going to church. i wanted to make clear that context as well as the context on gitmo. >> context seems to be key through all of this. let's jump back into the hearing. they're starting back in with republican senator john cornyn. >> -- well-established now that the cases that overruled dred scott and pleasey were correctly decided. >> yeah, i mean, there is the means by which the courts can correct their mistakes, correct? by overrule ing previous decisions? >> if the various considerations that the supreme court has -- uses to make that determination

based on, you know, hold over anger from the confirmation hearings for judges brett kavanaugh or amy coney barrett. and by the way, we're showing a live shot down a hall, waiting to see the judge coming back from a short recess. >> great. and her parents and her family by her side throughout this entire hearing, by the way. i think that a lot of relitigating that could be done on the past. you heard our republican colleagues bring it up. you know, we could be talking about it all the time, too, because of the fact that one judge was rammed through right before the election, the other judge was held for the opening for a long period of time. but relitigating is behind us. what's in front of us right now is incredible woman, first black woman to be nominated to the u.s. supreme court, following 115 justices. she's the first one. and someone with such experience, going into this as a judge, she will have more experience than four of the people that currently serve on the court when they were nominated as a judge. so just gives you a sense of why she's doing well in these hearings. >> senator

this, the media being called out for its unfair coverage of hearings of judge brown jackson and amy coneythis. >> such a great day for history to be made, particularly with somebody with the credentials of judge ketanji brown jackson. >> the nomination of amy coney barrett to the supreme court, which could bring potential setbacks on women's rights. >> and she is the candidate of the base. she is the full trump program. >> judge ketanji brown jackson, president joe biden's overwhelmingly qualified pick. >> gorsuch, kavanaugh, do a hail mary with the real right-wing lunatic. >> make the sense the right will come for criminal justice reform. that is the only thing they can do this woman is so -- >> unasailable. >> she is unassailable. elizabeth: your reaction? >> it is ridiculous from what i've seen and read. the woman has not answered a lot of the questions. she somehow able to evade them which i find astonishing. we need to really know where she stands. from what i know there is a radical lib and things she supports and promotes are very concerning and she should not be on the supreme cou

john: if it was amy coney barrett, they just might. >> well -- >> for example, i can think of examplesre's no intimation that, you know, these were directed from clarence thomas. john: no. >> she came up with these independently and sent them to -- so she's responsible for the content. the question is, is how does this bear on the public perception of the court if a case comes forward in which -- john: is this legislation going to go anywhere? it's been languishing for nine months. >> so far, this might give it kind of the spur that it needs. nancy pelosi has talked about saying maybe we need something universal for all the courts. but the thing to watch in the next couple of days, tomorrow night the 1/6 committee meets. it's going to refer to the department of justice criminal contempt referrals dealing with dan and a vino and also peter navarro. i have seen the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting. this was friday. this was not on the agenda. now, whether or not this comes up, and there's going to be a lot of pressure on members of that committee to go after clarence thomas. and how t

. >> reporter: to blast democrats' treatment of now justice amy coney barrett in 2020. >> to stand outay i love my family just as much as you love yours, and my faith means just as much to me as it does you, all of a sudden there comes a weirdo >> reporter: and jackson was asked about her views on the second amendment >> supreme court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. >> reporter: and on landmark abortion rights cases. >> rose and casey are the settled law of the supreme court. >> reporter: with her confirmation assured if democrats stay united, reflecting on the historic nature of her nomination >> i have received so many notes and letters and photos from little girls around the country, even that they have thought about the law in new ways, because i am a woman, because i am a black woman >> and a historic moment, but the senate did not cover itself in glory yesterday >>> coming up in sport, a surprise retirement in women's tennis plus, no shots, no home games. new york city's mayor stands firm on covid-19 vaccinations for athlete

then judge amy coney barrett would not say something like that.ll say something like it is not appropriate for for me to opine on legal issues that are before the court right now. or it is not appropriate for me to opine on how i would rule in hypothetical case. as we know, justices are a student simply bolted to precedence and the rulof law. as we have seen over the last six months, abortion rights don't fall into that. roe has been functionally void in texas for going on for six months. there are states that are falling like dominoes that are rushing to enact these bounty hunter style bills which permit anyone in the world to test permit anyone in the world to snitch seven getting an abortion. all of these people are being entrapped by this bounty hunter system and it is chilling constitutional rights. this serpent court right now does not seem to care about that. you can tell it is very upsetting to someone like sonia sotomayor was written i think four distants -- dissents now. the supreme court is ignoring its own precedents. it seems the for

you brought up amy coney barrett and rhett cavanaugh. how do we change the process so that neither side has the complaints that you are bringing up about them? how do we change the process so it is fair and everyone is happy? caller: we have had seven decades -- host: we are talking about the confirmation process so that all nominees get a fair shot from the judiciary committee? caller: the issue is this. people will complain that the questions are being rude and offensive. then the democrats were rude and offensive to brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. host: how do we change the process. both sides have complaints. how do we change the process so it is fair to everyone? caller: it's about honesty. host: how do we make it honest for both sides? caller: the issue isn't changing the process. the american people listening to the confirmation hearings need to be informed. it's the issues. it's not about personalities. it's about addressing the issues. host: how do we make sure that those issues come up and it's not a political process li

a good enough answer for many republicans, if it was given by chief justice roberts or justice amy coney barrett. but they complain that she just won't come up and admit to a label. she did them one better. she gave us a thorough step-by-step explanation of how she decided a case, every case, and just some 580 separate written opinions. you don't need an electron microscope to find this judges judicial philosophy. she's written it down and published it over and over and over again. she established her independence, she says, by quote clearing her mind of any preconceived notions when she gets a case. set aside a personal views, evaluates the facts, listens to the arguments, then she interprets and applies the law, keeping in mind the limits of judicial authority. what i just described is what she told the committee, and is exactly what we look for and should look for in every judge. i can't recall ever hearing a nominee get such a clear and thorough explanation of their approach to deciding a case. judge jackson's even had a record on so many different issues, criminal law, labor relatio

different as republicans have said and heard you say it, too, in terms of how democrats treated amy coneyrett when she was the nominee. andy mccarthy, always good to see you. inflation is surging. gas prices, electricity, food prices hitting american's wallets. federal reserve chairman jerome powell says it could take years before we get back to some form of normality. >> inflation outlook has deteriorated significantly even before russia's invasion of ukraine. the rise in inflation has been much greater and more persistent than forecasters expected we'll be looking to actual progress on these issues at not assuming near term supply side relief. i believe these policy actions and those to come will help bring inflation down near 2% over the next three years. >> harris: that was almost a wagging of the finger to president biden. you heard the part about this started before putin's war. that's what everybody except biden and the white house has been saying. they claim inflation is the biggest concern of the nation's voters at the moment barring some enormous entirely unforeseen event inflat

reagan's nomination to william lane quest -- to william ryan quest to president trump's nomination of amy coney barrett in 2020. it is available on c-span.org and 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 cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet.

. >> reporter: to blast democrats treatment of now justice amy coney barrett in 2020. >> 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 just as much to me as it does you, all of a sudden they're some kind of weirdo. >> reporter: jackson also asked about her views on the second amendment. >> the supreme court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. >> reporter: and on landmark abortion rights cases. >> roe and casey are the settled law of the supreme court >> reporter: with her confirmation assured if democrats stay united, reflecting on the historic nature of her nomination >> i have received so many notes and letters and photos from little girls around the country, in that they have thought about the law in new ways, because i am a woman, because i am a black woman. >> and peter, this is just the start, judge jackson will face another round of questions tomorrow. >> reporter: that's right, lester and nothing really happened today that appears likely to knock judge jackson

this bill also honor, sonia society moyer, -- sotomayor, elena kagan and most recently justice amy coney barrett. i have no doubt that the legacy of the women on the court will continue. the art collections throughout the capitol grounds play a very important role. the pieces honor the ingenuity, currently, creativity and patriotism of so many who came before us. they inspire us and remind us of the extreme weight and honor of our duties as elected representatives. congress rarely commissions the additions of statues to its collections. a practice that signifies a rare and high honor. the addition of the first two female justices to serve on the supreme court is welcomed and i look forward to their presence in these great halls. i support this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. scanlon: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. frankel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognize

up next amy coney barrett. she gained the distinction of being the first mother of school-age children to sit on the supreme court. president trump named her to fill the seat left by the death of 87 year old ruth bader ginsburg. it was october 12 2020 judge barrett introduced her family to the senate judiciary committee and gave her opening statement. okay, judge if you don't mind you take your mask off, please. raise your right hand stand up, please. do solemnly swear that testimony about to give this committee is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the the truth so help you god. thank you. welcome to the committee to your family alva and a job over there. the floor is yours judge. cameron brown i'm not sure this is not. ranking member feinstein and members of the committee. i'm honored and humbled to appear before you today as a nominee for associate justice of the supreme court. i thank the president for entrusting me with this profound responsibility. as well as for the graciousness that he in the fir

at the background of every supreme court justice starting with the first going all the way to amy coney barrett. first this was a really fun project. this is an amazing group of americans. the second part of the point was to ask whether the background people are bringing to the court has changed over time. and it turns out they have quite a bit. >> you came to the conclusion that over the last couple decades, court nominees have -- this is your term, radical similarity. what does that mean? >> presidents have always sought to appoint the best people to the supreme court. we have always had some form of meritocracy. in the recent decades, it is a single version of merit. if judge jackson were to join the court, seven of nine justices would have gone to an ivy league undergrad institution. eight of nine would have gone to just harvard or yale law schools. . six of the nine justices -- three of them will have replaced the justice they clerked for. getting a clerkship at the supreme court is the hardest job to get after law school. they have similarities professionally after that. a cluster