i cannot confirm this nomination process. it should wait until a new senate and president takes office following an election to take place in a few days. so for this reason and many others i will not be voting for judge barrett's nomination and will cast a no vote. so, mr. president, you know, here we are, instead of bringing folks together to find common ground on coronavirus relief, our country is being forced to go through a divisive supreme court nomination process. it simply did not have to be this way. i continue to stand ready to roll up my sleeves and put together a comprehensive, bipartisan, and meaningful covid relief package. ask any michiganand der what they are worried about? they are worried about putting a roof over their head, worried about supporting their families, they are worried about catching a virus that has killed over 7,000 of their family and over 250,000 people across the nation, they are worried if they survive a covid infection, it will compromise their health for the rest of their lives. they wil

mary garland was nominated -- merrick garland was nominated.on theblicans had senate, and they said there should be a rubber match for the people to decide who should make the pick. it was a gamble that ultimately mitch mcconnell won, risky one, i think more people expected trump to lose, and hillary clinton could have nominated someone less moderate than garland. and the unusual nature of donald trump's candidacy, the resistance to his presidency on going to this day, you have the garlands nomination. partisan ever filibuster of a supreme court nominee. knew thismer probably would mean ultimately the filibuster would be gone and he would have much less leverage over the future, presumably kennedy replacing nomination let agon -- let alone ginsburg. blood.e wanted ultimately mitch mcconnell voted to eliminate the filibuster and gorsuch was confirmed. and a was confirmed 52-48 leader was 58-42, and it could have been filibustered. there was an attempt to filibuster alito. joined by about half the democrats, including joe biden, barack obama, hil

the president gets to nominate but we get to decide whether to act on the nomination.dless to say, after the unprecedented senate checking steps that senate democrats have taken, republican senate inclined to depart from presidents and president obama favorite. our decision in 2016 was fully in line president, fully within the constitution and completely within the senate rules. i understand why they didn't like it. i wouldn't have either. of course they didn't like it. but elections have consequences. america had chosen a republican senate in 2014. but there is no parallel between actually breaking the rules as democrats did in 2013 and merely applying the rules and ways democrats did not like. the difference between breaking the rules and applying the rules and ways democrats did not like. if the senate is going to function, we must maintain a distinction between when people break the rules and when they apply the rules in ways we may not like. president trump in 2016, democrats took yet another reckless and unprecedented step, the first ever successful partisan fili

-- nomination?lya: we have the most contentious confirmation processes when big shifts are possible. he was nominated to replace thurgood marshall among the most progressive, left side of the court, the first african-american on the court, and here was clarence thomas, even though he was also african-american, was then and still is the most conservative member of the court. that shift is probably even bigger than the one we will see if judge barrett replaces justice ginsburg. that goes into why we are living in such a controversial moment. thomas was young as well, i think 42 or 43 by the time he joined the court. and he is on the court nearly 30 years later and he could still serve, he is in his early 70's, for a while yet. we talked about inflection points and this was an indication of a shift on the court. susan: george bush brought john robertson samuel alito to the court. john roberts quickly became chief after the death of william rehnquist. you're right that he is the byhe's most remembered c

vote no on this nomination. and to those who choose to put this president and the profoundly lost republican party above anything else, to those republicans who are capping these brutal last four years off with such a staggering show of fealty and partisanship and callousness, no. the consequences of this vote will be felt long after this president is gone from offices regardless of the outcome of this election. people of this country will not forget and neither will your democratic colleague. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: objection.

, when they were nominated, how they were nominated, what the process look like, what it didn't lookke. it is an irreplaceable resource and it's a fascinating read. i'm now in the process of revising my casebook my constitutional law casebook for the fourth edition and the casebook has taught in a narrative way, i've changed narrative i've added, i've enriched the narrative by relying on this book and deciding this book one of the lessons revealed by this is something that kerry has already alluded to and that is you learn from this history of supreme court nominations is that the supreme court nominating and confirmation process has always been political. it's always been political. if you think about it for two seconds you realize why it has to be political. that is because a politically elected president always chooses the supreme court nominee and they are then confirmed by a politically elected senate. because it's always political doesn't mean it's always ideological. whether it's ideological or not depends on whether there is a consensus that exists amongst the political elite

we need to keep fighting this nomination. we need to do everything we can to protect our democracy [inaudible] it's past the house. the right to vote, that means [inaudible] there ithere's nothing more impt for a government if it claims to be for the people, by the people, for the people, not by a dictatorship. senator durbin. >> today on the floor of the united states senate, we are discussing a supreme court vacancy. we should be talking about another topic. america is in the throes of the deadliest pandemic and more than a century. 222,000 americans have died. many states are reporting record numbers of infections and deaths. in my state of illinois, the governor has recently called on the restaurants and the four major counties surrounding chicago to close because infection rates are out of control. it's personal. a friend of mine feeling ill last saturday told her daughter i need to go to the hospital. she went to the first hospital near her and was turned away because there was no room. she went to the second hospital.

we will fight this nomination. colleagues will be held accountable for disregarding the will of the american people who want their voice heard so the next president and the next senate will choose the next justice. i am happy to yield to my great colleague from hawaii, senator hirono. --. hirono: [erratic yelling] sen. hirono: i am very committed injoining my colleagues other protests of what is happening with this nominee. when are not normal times we ask mitch mcconnell and senate republicans, why are your priorities so screwed up that in the middle of a pandemic, we cannot work on a covid bill that helps people, and you are pushing through this nominee. when thatnormal question becomes a rhetorical question, but here we are. barrett is that amy a clear and present danger to the affordable care act. on november 10 when republicans get their way she will be sitting there in the courts to hear this case. she has already let it be known that she thinks chief justice roberts made a mistake when he upheld the law whic

nominated that process has always been political. and if you think about it for two seconds because the up president always chooses a supreme court nominee and then they are confirmed by a politically elected senate so politics is baked in to the supreme court election process so because it's political it is ideological that depends there is a consensus that exist among the political elites because those are the people who are doing the nominating of how the constitution should be interpreted so there has been that consensus whatever there is how it should be interpreted with a constitutional republic that the only thing the confirmation will focus on sometimes we call qualifications and how smart are you. those sorts of things if there is a disagreement calling the judicial philosophy then becomes relevant and ever since 1980 when reagan was elected president to be a disagreement reflected in that political parties system as to how it should be interpreted in that only intensified in the developed to the point where they originally

from the announcement of the nomination to the start of hearings, eight supreme court nominations in the last six years moved more quickly than this one. years moved last 60 more quickly than this one. hearingm the end of the to the committee vote, half of all confirmations six -- since 1960 move faster than this one. in the past, justices have been confirmed in one week. some in one day. there is no argument that judge movedt's nomination has at some breakneck pace. facts are facts. number four, contrary to what has been claimed, the senate has absolutely confirmed supreme court nominees later in presidential election years than this one. multiple justices were confirmed after elections had already happened. we had multiple supreme court justices confirmed in december of election years. senates have even confirmed nominees for lame-duck presidents who just lost. another non-issue. these false of claims embarrass those who repeat them, but the most important point is this -- in legitimacy does not flow from the whims of the politicians. legitimacy does not depend on which political p

he said, i've been nominated for a federal judgeship. and i finished law school, that i had not cracked a logbook since law school, since civil procedure. and i don't have any opinions. i don't have any principles. i don't read newspapers. i don't even read the news. i haven't read a book since law school. i'm like bluto in animal house. [laughter] i'm just fat, drunk, and stupid. i think the germans are the ones that bombed pearl harbor. i think climate change, i think -- didn't it cause the cold war. -- cold war? but i your guy. ambecause i don't have any values. i'm a blank slate. that's what is required, isn't it? for me to be impartial? do you think we ought to confirm that gentlemen? then chieftt: well, justice rehnquist wrote an opinion on this issue addressing recusal. basically, that if someone reaches middle years, if one would be a justice on the mindme court and had a that was a blank slate and had no opinions, then would question one such a person's fitness for office. sen. kennedy: my colleagues seem to think you are only q

because of this nomination. it's not about qualifications, it's about what the american people need and want and will and unelected body take those rights away from them. i hope my will think about that . take a moment. take a moment to think about it. and then think about what it says about this sham of the process and the passion that we on this side of the island about protecting those people's rights that we were forced to take the extraordinary step of refusing to participate in this process. because while they may realize it or not, our republican majorities monomaniacal drive to confirm this justice in the most critical most is inconsistent of circumstances will forever defile the senate and even more importantly, curtail the fundamental rights of the american people. for generations. to come. democrats will play no part in that. i yield the floor. class after a number of folks today and delaying the debate on judge amy coney barrett for the us supreme court, the senate has recessed until tomorrow when ot

that nomination goes nowhere.ichard nixon wins the election and ultimately gets to replace earl warren with burger. susan: how did that work out? ilya: the language they used was a little different at the time, they talked about strict construction which justice , scalia would say is a misnomer, you want narrow construction. strict construction is what they talked about. burger was a moderate conservative, that was known for changing his vote, was known to be cagey in various ways, and both in terms of intellectual or jurisprudential output or management of the court by modern historians is not given very high grades. another appointment nixon made -- nixon was moderately happy with burger, but another appointment nixon would be disappointed in, harry blackmun, who authored roe v. wade among other opinions and votes on the left he would take. blackmun had been buddies with burger, they were known as the minnesota twins, but at the end of their lives, blackmun did not go to the funeral of burger's wife. they had ha

we need to keep fighting this nomination. we need to do everything we can to protect our democracy including -- past the house. to pass it here. we have to be clear what is at stake for this nomination. there's nothing more important, and for the people. not a dictatorship. i yield to senator durbin. >> thank you, senator leahy. on the floor of the united states senate we are discussing a supreme court vacancy. we should be talking on another topic. america is in the throes of the deadliest epidemic in more than a century. 222,000 americans have died. ministates recommending a number of infections and deaths. my state of illinois, the governor recently called on the restaurants and the four major counties surrounding chicago to close because infection rates are out-of-control. it is personal. feeling ill last saturday, told her daughter i need to go to the hospital. she went to the first major hospital near her and was turned away because there was no room. she went to the hospital -- the second hospital, turned away. no room

i cannot confirm this nomination process. it should wait until a new senate and president takes office following an election to take place in a few days. so for this reason and many others i will not be voting for judge barrett's nomination and will cast a no vote. so, mr. president, you know, here we are, instead of bringing folks together to find common ground on coronavirus relief, our country is being forced to go through a divisive supreme court nomination process. it simply did not have to be this way. i continue to stand ready to roll up my sleeves and put together a comprehensive, bipartisan, and meaningful covid relief package. ask any michiganand der what they are worried about? they are worried about putting a roof over their head, worried about supporting their families, they are worried about catching a virus that has killed over 7,000 of their family and over 250,000 people across the nation, they are worried if they survive a covid infection, it will compromise their health for the rest of their lives. they wil

postponeo indefinitely the nomination of amy coney barrett. to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. sham processs rush is that his service to our committee. rushed in a way that is historically unprecedented. there has never been a nomination and election year after the month of july. the purpose of doing it is simply to have a justice on the supreme court, as the president said, to decide the election and a strike on the affordable care act. we have had inadequate time to review this nomination has indicated most recently yesterday. a cnn report that there are seven more speeches or talks she has given that have not been disclosed to this committee. the consequence of this rushed process is that we have given inadequate scrutiny to this nominee. i move to delay the proceedings so we can do our jobs and ask again for all the documents. the 2006 open letter. documentsr among the previously undisclosed. we now have apparently -- reportedly seven more. i moved to delay the proceedings. sen. graham: thank you very much, sena

i oppose the nomination. think this whole sham is an attempt by the republican party to weaponize the supreme court. pushing across justices to confirm the policy as it relates , the aca, they are using the supreme court to push across the legislative agenda. they get confirmation from the american people. this young lady has a very limited judicial record. when you look at other federal justices in the things they have done, there's a lot of gas lighting going on trying to make this young lady into something she is not. she is a tool of the republican party in the senate that has not done the work to try and get the american public to buy into the aca. to buy into the precedent that has been set by the supreme court over the years. this is just a scam. i disagree with it all the way. host: spencer, south dakota. good morning. barrett --upport any amy coney barrett. -- mute yourr set set, you are having a little feedback. go ahead with your comment. has all ofhink she the qualifications. i think she would do

was she worthy of the nomination. did she conduct herself in a manner to be worthy of our votes and i think that is a very easy question. my democratic colleagues denied her your vote, i regret that. are participating in the hearing, they didn't go too far. for that i very much appreciate that part of the hearing. so we will go to the floor now and take up a nomination, judge barrett, on the floor of the united states senate. i doubt if a single democrat will vote for her and i will end with this. elections do have consequences, i understand a lot of kagan and sotomayor will be the type judge a democratic person would be looking at, highly qualified, closer to president obama's than mine, that is why i voted for both of them. now we find ourselves in a situation where qualifications no longer matter. it is about holding open seats to have them filled after the next election, we've lost sight of individuals being nominated matter, i think they do matter. i just want to again complement donald trump for sending to the s

what is happening in this nomination is shameful and embarrassing. through a sham process is am this nominee through disgrace to the senates, to america. let me just say, the reasons are transparent. ,s senator durbin has said there are two dates. november 3, november 10. wantser 3, donald trump the supreme court to decide the election, not the voters. clear, hen absolutely wants a ninth justice to decide the election, and this nominee would not even answer questions about whether he can delay the election. on november 10, he wants her on the bench to decide the affordable care act. the american people can see through it and they can also see through her avoidance of questions. that i asked every one of my democratic colleagues asked. what we saw in this hearing was the barrett's rule. answers, the questions are abstract or hypothetical, there is ongoing litigation, or potential litigation, or maybe just can't answer. that is the kind of avoidance that does a disturbance -- a disservice to this committee but it is become standard operating procedure

estrada'sd mcgill nomination for partisan reasons. they slandered justice thomas, justice alito, and justice kavanaugh. they knew the filibuster -- nuked the filibuster for partisan reasons. now they are trying to scuttle this vote for partisan political reasons. when it comes to the judiciary, abuse of power is their agenda. now, the left seems to think the supreme court exists to impose their very worst ideas onto the public. onto those recalcitrant members of the public. those members recall citizens that refuse blindly to go along with their entitled extremism. they want the court to empower abortion activists, perforce -- performance artist to tell everyone how to live without votes, without accountability, and without debate. putting debatable matters beyond debate seems to be there formula. they don't want democracy. they don't would -- wen -- amy coney barrett will not politicize price -- the supreme court. she is going to turn back policy decisions and political debate back to the people and their elected accountable represen

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. nixon pushes senate republicans. saying we cannot let the senate democrats do this to us twice. you have to stay with me on carswell. it looks as if carswell, despite the embar

supporting the nomination. am calling in support. -- to begin with, the integrity of this judge seems impeccable. i have been impressed with her answers. i have been impressed with the way she has reacted when asked things that were off-color and unnecessary. it seems like this judiciary hearing is trying the affordable care act. that seems unfair to me and a waste of our time -- and like a waste of our time. i am in support of this judge after hearing her, but i am tired of hearing different news outlets saying -- and different senators saying let the people decide, the people need to have a voice on this, the people need to have a voice on this. the people had a voice on this. this was one of my number one issues when i voted in 2016. this is why i voted for the president i voted for. i think the makeup of the supreme court is important for our nation and matters now more than ever that we have someone that does have integrity that what decisions based on the constitution says. and i am 100% behind judge barr

this nomination process is a sham. it shows have republicans. but nothing to strip health care for millions of americans with pre-existing conditions." this morning after the vote senate democrats gathered at the capital to explain the decision. [no audio] >> let's go over why we are here. we are waiting for her. i wonder if that is going to stop. sen. schumer: ok, everybody. thank you very much for coming, and thank you for joining us this morning. i am here to stand with my colleagues on the judiciary committee who are boycotting today's committee markup on the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to the supreme court. this is not a decision the members of the committee have taken lightly, but a republican majority has left us no choice. we are boycotting this illegitimate hearing. the nomination of amy coney barrett is the most illegitimate process i have ever witnessed in the senate, and her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequences for the senate , for the supreme court, and our entire country for generations to come. the se

nomination. we will be co-presenting today on behalf of san francisco heritage, the project sponsor. first, i'd like to provide a little background for the genesis of the project and acknowledge all those involved. between 203 and 2014, when on staff at san francisco heritage, the california office of historic preservation invited us to participate on an advisory board for the latino in california documentation form. the goal of the initiative is to increase the number of places associated with latinx history on the national register. in a state that has long been home to people of latin descent, there are still few properties designated for their latino history. the latino mpds was completed in 2015 and signed by the keeper of the national register that april. soon after, the california office of historic preservation distributed eight grants to prepare nominations for historic properties associated with latinx history throughout california. next slide. here's one of the sites. theater in fresno

from the announcement of the nomination to the hurry -- hearings, eight supreme court nominations in the last 60 years moved more quickly than this one. years movede last 60 more quickly than this one. then, from the end of the hearing to the committee vote, half of all confirmations since 1916 actually moved faster than this one. justice stephens was confirmed in 19 days from start to finish. gestures sandra day o'connor, in about four weeks -- justice sandra day o'connor, in about four weeks. in the past, one week. some in one day. there is no argument judge barrett's nomination has moved at some breakneck pace. facts are facts. number four. --trary to what spin claimed what has been claimed, the senate has confirmed supreme court nominees later in presidential election years than this one. multiple justices were confirmed after elections had already happened. we've had multiple supreme court justices confirmed in december of election years. senates have even confirmed nominees for lame-duck presidents who had just lost. so and other non-issue. all of these false claims embarrass t

with background on some of nixon's nominations. the national archives posted a conversation with interpreters pretraining susan b. anthony, sojourner truth as at -- and al is long as they discuss the history of women's suffrage and the challenge they face along the way. at 10 p.m. eastern on "reel america," we feature four films about wildfires, firefighting and fire prevention. >> all right. so at iswhat we are looking the development of controversial supreme court nominations in the late 1950's and early 1970's. we are looking at the war in court. and the increasing search of controversial decisions on the court. two basic principles. the idea that it was a particular job of the supreme court to stand up on behalf of people who may not have majority support. whether it was atheists or civil rights activist or criminal defendants throughout the 1960's. second was the emergence of this philosophy that some historians have called right related liberalism. the idea that liberalism was protected individual rights. as a result, the sup

that's the great and terrible truth about this nomination. judge barrett holds far-right views well outside the american mainstream, and those views matter. to the vast majority of americans. they matter to women facing the hardest decision of her lives. they matter to lgbtq americans, like my daughter, who only five years ago won the legal right to marry who she loves and could lose it just as fast. they matter to little girls like 7-year-old penny fineman from west hemp stead, long island, born with a neurological disorder, bound to a wheel care, attached to a feeding tube, who is alive today -- alive today -- because of the affordable care act. we're talking about the rights and freedoms of the american people, the right to the affordable health care, to make private medical decisions with their doctors, to join a union, to vote without impediment, to marry who they love and not be fired because of who they are. judge amy coney barrett will decide whether all those rights will be sustained or be curtailed for generations. and based on her

nomination not on the level.epublicans are against their work, to hand the supreme court to the far right and i know it because effort so many about they were worried about using their healthcare and for many of the fundamental freedoms, they are worried about what it means for the future of the country. this debate is about the ginsburg beach. justice ginsburg was not just an iconic fighter for the rights of the powerless and vulnerable, she always said what she meant and she meant what she said. we do not get that from judge barrett. i oppose this nomination. >> thank you. my staff, i want to thank my staff on the h floor, brad for l the work they've done is we've gone through the nomination process and i t was reviewing my prepared remarks this morning and reflected back on a very

that is why the left is so furious about this nomination. for all the pious problem you here on msnbc, and all you will hear on msnbc and those of the networks tonight, understand they are not angry because this process is unfair. they are angry because it is. not because they think amy coney barrett is going to be a partisan justice, but because they know she will not be. they are not afraid judge barrett will legislate from the bench, but she will force democrats and republicans to legislate from legislatures. as the constitution itself requires. judge barrett threatens their power, not because she has a hidden agenda or hidden powers but because they do and she won't enact those powers or exercise them by judicial fiat. and that is exactly why we need to have amy coney barrett on the supreme court of the united states. not to avenge bork, thomas, estrada, alito or cavanaugh, but to return integrity to the supreme court and the senate, and all the institutions left is judicial abuse has twisted and desecrated for two generations. we need t

when the president offered me this nomination, i was deeply honored. but it was not a position i had sought out, and i thought carefully before accepting. the confirmation process and the work of serving on the court if confirmed requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. i chose to accept the nomination because i believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the supreme court in our nation. i believe americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent supreme court that interprets our constitution and laws as they are written. i believe i can serve my country by playing that role. i come before this committee with humility about the responsibility that i have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who have come before me. i was nine years old when sandra day o'conner became the first woman to sit in this seat. she was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the court. when i was 21 years old and just beginning my career, ruth bader ginsburg sat in this seat. she told the committee, what has bec

of course, it did give the democrats in power extra nominations. that they needed to expand the court because of an expanding country and they wanted more circuits. that is right. you could just add justices. if iterybody would know were done for political purposes now. host: let's, let our viewers take part in this conversation starting with michael calling from wilmington, north carolina on the democratic line. caller: i want to thank you for accepting my call. i have two questions. harris was speaking about abraham lincoln on the stage when she spoke about when he packing -- not court packing, but late vacancies. as far as, he did not feel that he was right -- that it was right for the president at the time during the election not to pick another court justice until after the election. that is my first question, why did she mention that. my second question is, kamala harris mentioned during the debate that there were 50 people chosen to be picked from the list. why out of all 50 on the list was there not a black african american? i want to under

court throughreme that, through this nomination. now, they -- [indiscernible] the only reason i say this is that if they would have left the -- like they would when antonin scalia passed away, if the republicans would have let the democrats have justice carbon -- [indiscernible] they would've had the nomination right there. it would have been a 5-4 court because the nation is split in half. just doing it this way, making this -- all of this is political to me. host: all right, thank you. guest: the caller is right. so-calleda "post-nuclear world." 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

with the nomination once it comes out of the committee. everybody's been saying it but this is an extraordinarily impressive woman with an outstanding academic record, strict constructionist who believes in applying the constitution and law as they are written and well deserves to be on the supreme court. >> last week a lot of democrats and i know others were objecting to were talking about the process, but i think the question about the historical precedent for this should be settled by now. this is very different circumstances as we pointed out than 2016. but right now the focus is going to be on the nominee and the qualities she brings to the job. as the leader pointed out, she's extremely qualified not only in her academic resume, but in her experience and background. i think if you look at the cases that she has heard and been involved in since she has been in the circuit, she's demonstrated a really very acute legal mind, but also the kind of restraint that most of us want to see in a judge. someone who will call balls and strikes, a

the nomination of new york's governor dewey was conceded almost before the convention opened.gressman martin, permanent chairman of the convention, chats with former governor landon, landon was the 1936 republican nominee for president. when de wendell willkie was the 1940 standard bearer. chicago has seen many a political convention, not since abraham lincoln was an election year happened to fall in wartime but the war has not ordered the established processes of democracy. 1,057 delegates represent the nation's 48 states. 529 votes are needed to nominate a candidate. every detail of the sessions is broadcast by radio and by newspapers from coast-to-coast. batteries of cameramen send pictures all over the world. no gathering is more colorful than an american political convention. national chairman spang ler calls the meeting to order. he introduces governor warren of california who delivered the keynote address. the republican party has pledged to full international cooperation for the war and the peace. in the governor's mansion at albany, new york 42-year-old thomas e. dewe

donald trump nominate you to be a judge on the court of appeals?s, i apologise, i don't member the timing of that on the mike article, i believe my nomination to the court of appeals was announced in may of 2017. that's correct. but i don't member when the article came out. the article was published in january came out. the article was published injanuary of came out. the article was published in january of 27 came out. the article was published injanuary of 27 —— january 2017, five months later. justice ginsburg, whose seed you are seeking to fill, provided the critical vote in the 5-4 provided the critical vote in the 5—4 decision that upheld the 5—4 decision that upheld the affordable care act. let's lay this out for everyone watching. as i've discussed previously, one, republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the affordable care act. two, donald trump promised to namea act. two, donald trump promised to name a supreme courtjustice and justices who would tear down the affordable care act. three, donald trump is before the supreme court

judge barrett's nomination has proceeded at a pace in line with other recent nominations. exactly 30 days ago she was nominated and tomorrow she'll be confirmed. that's 11 more days than the senate deliberated on the nomination of justice john paul stevens who was confirmed after just 19 days. it's only 12 fewer days than the senate deliberated on the nomination of justice ginsburg herself. and i would note that we went through this with judge barrett barely three years ago. it had been five years for then-judge stevens, 13 years for then-judge ginsburg. there's not a lot of material for this senate to have reviewed. less than three years of activities by judge barrett, fewer than a hundred opinions, even a senator could probably get through those in a couple of days. yet the democrats have repeatedly asked for delay after delay though they haven't identified any area in which they lacked adequate time to review her nomination. they haven't identified any bit of information that they don't already have. in fact, some of my democratic colleague announced their opposition to

any president who is nominated gets confirmed. with this precedent, johnson may have some problems here. he is not a popular president, the senate did not have much of a precedent in terms of confirming late nominees. johnson is looking at one other vote. he fails to anticipate where the key opposition will come from in 1968. this is the chart johnson is looking at as he is making his selection. this is the roll call vote for thurgood marshall's confirmation in 1967. you will notice this is not a unanimous vote like many of the others in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's. there are 11 senators who voted against thurgood marshall's confirmation. the 11 are up top on the chart. if you squint closely you can pretty much identify where these people are coming from. they are all from the south. 10 of them are democrats. this is a peerriod, and the 11th -- a period where the 11th is a former democrat who is at this point a republican senator from south carolina. in johnson's mind as he is thinking of who will be a good replacement for warr

the nomination of amy coney barrett is truly historic. this is the most openly pro-life judicial nominee to the supreme court in my lifetime. this is an individual who has been open in her criticism of that illegitimate decision roe v. wade. this is a nominee who has been open about her faith and her faith commitments and the way she and her husband lived their lives immersed in their catholic faith and raised their children in their catholic faith and want others to have the freedom to be able to do the same. and her nomination and i anticipate her confirmation tonight in just a few hours on this floor will show that there is nothing wrong with any of that. in fact, people of faith should be welcome on the supreme court of the united states, people of judge barrett's conviction should be welcome on the supreme court of the united states, and in just a few hours in the vote of this body, we will confirm that that is indeed the case. and i have to say judge barrett's own positions, her convictions give me great confidence that she understa

the nomination, senator susan collins. justice barrett now takes the seat previously held by the late ruth bader ginsburg. ♪ >> you're watching c-span2, unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television company as a public service and brought to you by your television provider. ♪ >> coming up live on tuesday, c-span's campaign coverage to news with joe biden speaking in georgia, home of fdr's white house, 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span at 3:00 p.m., senator kamala harris campaigns nevada. 3:30 p.m., mike pence speaks to supporters in south carolina. the hill host an event host focusing on the pharmaceutical supply change. 2:00 p.m., the heritage foundation is from theaters of operation warp speed, a plan to create a coronavirus vaccine 7:00 p.m., the debate between eric and his challenges, democrat woody myers and libertarian candidate, donald rainwater. ♪ >> november 3 election day, when voters will decide who occupies the white house next year. watch campaign 2020 coverage everyday on c-span stream on-dem

that is the great and terrible truth about this nomination. she holdsca views outside of the american mainstream and those views matter to the vast majority of americans. theyt matter to women facing te hardest decision of their lives. they mattered to americans like my daughter who only five years ago one of the legal right to marry she loves and could lose it just as fast. they matter to little girls like 7-year-old penny from long island born with a neurological disorder, bound to a wheelchair and attached to a feeding tube who's alive today because of the affordable care act. we are talking about the rights and freedoms of the american people, the right to affordable healthcare, to make private medical decisions with their doctors, to join a union and vote without impediment to marry who they love and not be fired because of who they are. judge barrett will decide whether all those rights will be sustained or curtailed for generations. based on her views on the issues, not on her qualifications, but her views on the issues, judge barrett p

whonnot speak to those would attempt to undermine dear nomination, but -- your nomination, but as a fellow woman, fellow mom, fellow midwesterner, i see you for who you are and i'm glad the american people have the opportunity to get to know amy coney barrett. will be an opportunity to dig into your background further and understand more about your judicial philosophy, but what you're a political opponents -- what your political opponents want to cast you as is a tv or cartoon version of a religious radical, a so-called id that feeds into the ridiculous stereotypes they have fed out to lambaste people of faith in america. and that's wrong. it might be less comical if this was the first time the left has trotted out this partisan playbook. your political opponents have made these religious types attacks on nearly supreme court candidate nominated by a republican president in the modern era and every time, like clockwork, they say they really mean it this time. ins nominee, this woman front of us, she is the absolute worst. i'm struck by the irony how accusationseir against women really are,