and finally, unlike some of my colleagues, i don't think our founders intended the united states supreme court to become a mini congress. i don't think our founders intended members of the united states supreme court to try to rewrite our statutes, or the united states constitution, every other thursday to prosecute a social or an economic agenda that they can't get by the voters. and that goes on in america every day. we've reached the point where one single, solitary federal judge, in a limited venue, can enjoin a federal statute or an executive order of the president of united states for the entire country. and our founders never intended that. i want to close with two very short quotations, the first stated much more eloquently than i can, is justice curtis in 1857. you've probably read it. he was dissenting in the dred scott case. this is what judge curtis said. "when a strict interpretation of the constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is

campaign for the united states senate, so it is especially gratifying to be here this evening and yet another opportunity to put a well-qualified constitutionalist on the supreme court of the united states, so like my colleagues i would congratulate amy coney barrett as the new associate justice on the supreme court. >> before coming to the united states senate i served as the governor of north dakota for ten years and in that time i had the opportunity to appoint a lot of judges on the order of a dozen. many to the state district courts but also to the state supreme court and the first thing i always looked for is judicial temperament and there's no question amy coney barrett has judicial temperament. i don't think anyone can argue that. but the other thing i always look for is a judge that would enforce the constitution and the law. not legislate from the bench, and again judge amy coney barrett has demonstrated not only an incredible knowledge and understanding of the constitution and the law, but very clearly that she would uphold the constitution and the law as is her duty on the supreme court. that's what is best for my state of north dakota and what is best f

fore today also in support of the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to serve on the united states supreme court. she is terrific. so exceptionally well-qualified to take this renew responsibility but the part that sheem has fixed is predictably the backfired and the majority of americans on the supreme court so that's what they saw when they watch the hearings last week somebody who is ready to serve our nation to apply the law not legislate from the bench. >> this is an important moment mr. president in our history the american people deserve the hearing that match the moment that is highlighting her qualifications and capabilities. regrettably that was turned out to be a partisan infomercial on obama care. this is a law democrats are still trying to explain to the american people american people , more than doubled. more than doubled. . . . . false attacks on healte that frighten people they never mention they voted five times to protect people with pre-existing conditions including today on the bill every one of those democrats voted against with a targeted relief plan. there was a component

to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. i believe this

we look to federal judges to toe united states -- and the united states supreme court to tell us what reasonable and unreasonable means. but in all cases, our federal judges and the united states supreme court is supposed to demonstrate judicial restraint. when it's a close question, when it's a matter of social -- major social or economic policy, then the federal judiciary is supposed to show deference to the united states congress, but more and more, it's not. and some americans like that. some of my colleagues in this chamber like that. they think that the united states supreme court ought to be a mini congress. they think that the united states supreme court should be a political body. they like the fact that if they can't pass a law changing social and economic policy through the united states congress, they get a second bite at the apple and can go to the united states supreme court. i don't believe that is constitutional. nor does judge barrett, i concluded, after 30 hours of testimony, and that's why her confirming will not be unanimous in this body. let me tell you what i bel

mike goes up to the united states supreme court however, the united states supreme court unanimouslyersed. but they do so under very different rationale. and justice clarence thomas the author of the majority opinion. justice clarence thomas said we have to take thatt crucial first step. if a law doesn't make distinction based on content, it is content based and as as such is subject to strict scrutiny. justice kagan for example had a concurring opinion in which she essentially says that no, a lot of time something that may draw facial distinction does not have an underlying purpose of content discrimination. thank you. >> thank you david and ron, fascinating stuff but i will remind the audience that if you have questions you can either submit them on a webpage about is where god viewing this, or through our facebook and twitter and youtube lap form using the #. with that i will turn it over. >> so i just want to thank the cato institute for letting me be here today. my focus as a scholar has been on the media both old media, mainstream media and new media. my remarks today are focus

united states, didn't she? judge barrett: president clinton. sen. kennedy: clinton v. jones, famous case. president clinton nominated justice ginsburg and justice breyer to the united states supreme court. they heard that case. did anybody ask justice ginsburg to recuse herself because president clinton nominated her? judge barrett: i don't know if any motions were filed. sen. kennedy: do you think she should have? judge barrett: that is not something i would opine on. i'm sure she discharged her oath. sen. kennedy: did any of my colleagues ask that justice breyer recuse himself from hearing clinton v. jones because president clinton appointed him? judge barrett: i don't think that has come up. sen. kennedy: i don't think so either. i want to finish this housekeeping, because i want to talk about the law. i want to give you a chance to respond to something. ate butthead professor boston university says that because you and your husband have two children of color, that you're a white colonist. the implication is that you are racist. and that you use your two children as props. do you use your children as props? judge barrett: senator kennedy, it was the risk of people saying things like

their promises to follow it as they engage in the outright theft of yet another seat on the united states supreme court. you can't spell shameful without sham, and that's what senate republicans have turned this supreme court nomination process into -- a sham. what else is unprecedented about the circumstances surrounding the barrett nomination? well, in donald trump, who made the barrett nomination, we have a president who has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, should he lose the upcoming election. and in donald trump, we have a president who has openly stated that he needs judge barrett on the supreme court to cast a crucial vote, if cases arising out of a disputed election reach the court, like bush v. gore did after the 2000 presidential election. in donald trump, we have a president who has vowed to appoint to the supreme court a justice who would vote to overturn roe v. wade and take away a woman's reproductive rights and freedom, even before he was elected in 2016, he pledged, quote, i will appoint judges that will be pro-life, yes. in donald trump, we have a preside

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

when it goes up to the united states supreme court however, the united states supreme court unanimously reverses but they do so under very different rationales justice clarence thomas was the author of the majority opinion and what justice clarence thomas said is we have to take that crucial first. if a law does make distinctions based on content, and its contents based and as such is subject to strict scrutiny. justice kagan for example wrote a concurrent opinion in whichshe essentially said that no , a lot of times something that may draw facial distinctions does not have an underlying purpose of content termination. >> thank you david and ron, fascinating stuff and i'll remind the audience that if you have questions you can submit them on our webpage if that's where you're viewing this or through our facebook and twitter and youtube platforms using the hashtag cato scotus and with that i'll turn it over to lyrissa lidsky . >> i just want to thank the cato institute for letting me be here today and my focus as a scholar has been on the media, both old media, mainstream media and new m

supreme court nomination. throughout our history, americans have brought cases to the united states supreme court in an ongoing fight for civil rights, human rights, and economic justice. decisions like brown versus the board of education, which opened up educational opportunities for black boys and girls, roe v. wade, which opened up a woman's right to control her own body. lovenizing that love is and that marriage equality is the law of the land. the united states supreme court is often the last refuge for equal justice when our constitutional rights are being violated. justice ruth bader ginsburg devoted her life to fight for equal justice, and she defended the constitution. she advocated for human rights and equality. she stood up for the rights of women. she protected workers. she fought for the rights of consumers against big corporations. she supported lgbtq rights. she did so much more. thenow her legacy and rights she fought so hard to protect are in jeopardy. by replacing justice ruth bader ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy, president trump is attempting to rollback americans' rights for

harris: would you do that if you are actually voted onto the united states supreme court? judge barrett: senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties , will affect people, it is part of the decision-making process and i will continue engaging in that process. sen. harris: if the affordable care act is struck down more than 100 million americans with pre-existing conditions would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. than 20 million americans could lose their coverage entirely, including nearly 3 million black americans and over 5 million latino americans who receive access to health insurance because of the affordable care act. insurers will once again be able to discriminate against more than 50% of african-americans -- african-americans and more than 40% of latinos with pre-existing conditions. insurers will be able to deny than oneto more quarter of native americans with conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. the midst of a pandemic that is not going away anytime soon. a pandemic, that when age is taken into acc

when it goes up to the united states supreme court, however, the united states supreme court unanimously reverses but they do so under very different rationales. justice clarence thomas was the author of the majority opinion. what justice clarence thomas said is we have to take that crucial first step if the law does make distinctions based on content, then its content based and as such its subject is strict scrutiny. justice essentially says no, a lot of times something like that doesn'tn, have an underlining purpose of content discrimination. thank you. >> thank you, david and ron. fascinating stuff. if you have questions you can either submit them on the webpage if that is where you are viewing this, or through the facebook and twitter and youtube platforms using the hashtag cato. with that i will turn over. >> i want to thank the cato institute for letting me be here today. my focus as a scholar has been on the media, both old media, mainstream media and new media. my remarks today will be focused on the roberts court and what it had to say about the media. in the last 15 years since

in a few moments, we will proudly swear in the newest member of the united states supreme court, justice barrett. [applause] she is one of the nation's most brilliant legal scholars and will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in our land. justice barrett's oath will be administered by the courts longest serving member currently on the bench a man whose allegiance to the law has earned him the respect and gratitude of all americans, justice clarence thomas. [applause] our country owes a great debt of thanks to the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell. we appreciate it very much, mitch. thank you. and we are grateful as well to the senate judiciary chair man lindsay graham. thank you. [applause] also with us, senator marsha blackburn, mike braun, bill cassidy, kevin kramer, ted cruz, steve daines, ron johnson, james langford, mike lee and martha mcsally. and i hope i didn't leave anybody out. [applause] and a very special thanks to our great vice president, mike pence. thank you, mike. [applause] also, i want to thank white house counsel, that si pat said i want to welcome

and finally, unlike some of my colleagues, i don't think our founders intended the united states supreme court to become a mini congress. i don't think our founders intended members of the united states supreme court to try to rewrite our statutes, or the united states constitution every other thursday because they -- to prosecute a -- a social or an economic agenda that they can't get by the voters. and that goes on in america every day. wi we've reached the point where one single solitary federal judge in a limited venue, can enjoin a federal statute or an executive order of the president of the united states for the entire country. and our founders never intended that. i want to close with two very short quoations. the first stated more elquantitily than i can is justice curtis in 1857. you probably read it. he was dissenting in the dread scott case, when a strict interpretation of the constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretations of laws is abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitutio

amy coney barrett: yes. >> senator: what happens when a state supreme court construes its fourth amendment differently than the united states supreme court construes the federal fourth amendment? >> hon. amy coney barrett: so the state is free to construe its fourth amendment differently, as a matter of state law. but of course, the federal constitution also applies to the state supremacy clause. a state is not free to violate the fourth amendment. but one thing states often do, which i'm sure you know because of your interest in state constitution and we talked about louisiana constitution yesterday. many states interpret their version of the fourth amendment or other provision to be more protective of rights than the united states constitution. >> senator: so the federal constitution sets a floor? >> hon. amy coney barrett: but not a ceiling. >> senator: so if louisiana wants to construe its fourth amendment as not having any exceptions to the warrant requirement, we could do that? >> hon. amy coney barrett: states are free, they are free to fashion their policies as they want within limits of the constitution, so

and he is in the united states supreme court with his toy bill barr trying to sue getting rid of the affordable care act. let's step back for a moment and think about this. this man before he was running for office when he questioned the legitimacy of the first black president of the united states has been so weirdly obsessed with trying to get rid of whatever barack obama created. think about that. we don't need presidents who have sessions. what is that about? so he is in court right now trying to get rid of the affordable care act which brought health coverage to over 20 million americans, covered people with pre-existing conditions. do you know anybody who has diabetes, high blood pressure, breast cancer, lupus? and he wants to get rid of the thing that brought karen dignity to tens of millions of americans. this is one of the reasons donald trump has got to go. got to go. we are in the middle of all these crises, the economic crisis. over 30 million people in just the last several months had to file for unemployment. we are looking at families that are getting up at the of dawn

in a few moments, we will proudly swear in the newest member of the united states supreme court, justiceoney barrett. [applause] she is one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars and she will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in our land. justice barrett's oath will be administered by the courts longest-serving member, currently on the bench, a man whose allegiance to the law has earned him the respect and gratitude of all americans, justice clarence thomas. our country owes a great debt of thanks to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. we appreciate it very much, mitch, thank you. [applause] and we are grateful as well to the senate judiciary chairman, lindsey graham, thank you, lindsay. [applause] also with us, senators marsha blackburn, mike braun, bill cassidy, kevin cramer, ted cruz, steve daines, ron johnson, james lankford, mike lee, and make sally. i hope i didn't leave anybody out. [applause] and a very special thanks to our great vice president, mike pence. thank you. [applause] also pat cipollone, thank you, pat. [applause] and very importantly, i want

moved to the process to have a successful an accomplished woman and then confirm to the united states supreme court all of that all of us need to celebrate the fact as we learn more about her decisions and choices we will all make the decision if we will be voting to confirm her to the court. i'm pleased to have her before us in before the nation. >> i'm pleased here to talk about judge amy coney barrett the president's nomination to the united states supreme court i have the pleasure to meet her in a few hours face-to-face i look forward to asking her not just questions of judicial consideration but also relating to her as we all do to talk about how have you managed and what has your journey been in the choices you have had to make and that we consider the nomination i can't expand upon what everybody else will say most about the qualifications as a mother and her grandmother if i get all seven grandchildren in a room together i can only last about half an hour she was was seven children and doing it quite well. but that cannot be easy so i am forward to the rest of the nation to be rejoicing in

the name of somebody on the face of somebody on the united states supreme court. in that sense, she was not a role model, a trail blazer because people would look at her and see this is attainable, and this makes a difference. you have each been very much out in public. you've written a best selling book, justice sotomayor. you've got your own t-shirt factory. so, to what degree relinquishing your privacy. the court won't let cameras in the courtroom, and there are various reasons we don't need to talk about that. you're relinquishing your privacy to explain, or make available to the american public your experiences, and your feelings, and who you are. that has to have a big impact on the american people. and women in particular. you make that decision consciously, i'm going to go out there because i'm not just a justice. i'm a public figure, and it's important for me to be out there and answer questions, you go to a lot of places and give interviews to law schools and bar associations. you speak and public a lot justice sotomayor. what goes through your mind with

changed the priorities of our campaign quickly from sanctuary cities to suddenly the supreme court of the united states. that happened just two years and a couple of weeks ago. as much as anything -- as much as any reason, as much as any issue, the supreme court is why i am here today, and i don't mean just today. i mean why i am a united states senator. so when president trump nominated judge amy coney barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of justice badr ginsburg, i knew there could be no amount of political harassment to cause ma owe to shrink from this -- to cause me to shrink from this obligation. the singles that i or my -- the suggestion that i or my colleagues would squander the right under the constitution, consider waiting until after an election that may create opportunity for someone that my constituents don't agree with to be momented to the court would be a dereliction of my duty and would rightly -- rightly -- enrage the people that sent me here for exactly this moment. and i refuse to shrink. so let's talk about the nominee. judge amy coney barrett, by all accounts a brillian

in a few moments, we will probably square in the newest member of the united states supreme court, justice coney barrett. [applause] she is one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars and she will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in our land. justice barrett's oath will be administered by the courts longest serving member, currently on the bench, man whose allegiance to the law has earned him the respect and gratitude of all americans. justice clarence thomas. [applause] our country owes a great debt of thanks to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. we appreciate it very much, mitch. thank you. we are grateful as well to the senate judiciary chairman, lindsey graham. thank you, lindsay. also with us, senators marsha blackburn, mike braun, bill cassidy, kevin cramer, ted cruz, steve daines, ron johnson, james lankford, mike lee, and martha mcsally. i hope i didn't leave anybody out. [applause] and a very special thanks to our great vice president, mike pence. thank you, mike. also i want to thank white house counsel pat cipollone. thank you, pat. [applause] and very

florida supreme court, interpreting florida law. >> the real issue is which court ought to be making that decision? historically, it was always the state supreme court. historically, the unitedr intervened in a presidential election. >> reporter: but this time, it would. >> they have reached a decision. that word is imminent. don't leave cnn. >> the judge of the supreme court of florida is reversed. >> by a 5-4 vote, the supreme court decided the recount would not continue. it was over and bush had won. news that would, soon, reach republican headquarters in tallahassee. >> we got a heads-up call about ten minutes beforehand that said the opinion's coming. watch your fax machine. >> fax machine. >> fax machine. >> i got a call from austin, from governor bush. and i answered the call and i said, congratulations, mr. president elect. >> we gathered everybody together. >> to the next president. >> everybody fought really hard. they had -- had done an incredible job. it was an incredible setting. and precisely the outcome we had hoped for. >> you're still emotional. >> i'm still emotional about it, sure. you know, it's just moments of pure -- of pure joy. >> reporter: or devasta

-- are in the united state supreme court. d no on that confirmation by the way. they are in court right now suing to get rid of the affordable care act that brought health care to over 20 million americans, that said people with pre-existing conditions should not be denied access to coverage. people who have diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, lupus. do you know over one million nevadans have pre-existing conditions? they are in court right now trying to get rid of the affordable care act. just -- it is a statement about who this person is. the midstdent who in of the kind of suffering we are continuing with this very weird obsession he has had since he ran for president to undo whatever barack obama created. it is a weird obsession by the way. we do not need a president with weird obsessions. let's move beyond that thing too. right? we are in the midst of a public health crisis. we are in the midst of an economic crisis. being compared to the great depression where over 30 million americans in just the last several months

if thejudges american people would really like to know, if the judges confirm to the supreme court of the united statestion, going to pack the supreme court to get your way? i am so glad we went through a little history lesson let's do that a little more. in 1864... mrvice president, i'm speaking. in1860 a little more. in 1864... mrvice president, i'm speaking. in 1860 for one of the political heroes of the president and i assume of you i assume is abraham lincoln. he was up assume is abraham lincoln. he was up a real action on interest 27 days for the re—election and a seat became open on the united states supreme court. abraham lincoln's party was in charge, not only of the white house, but of the senate. but honest abe said it is not the right thing to do. the american people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the united states, and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest core of ourland. and so a lifetime on the highest core of our land. and so joe a lifetime on the highest core of our land. and sojoe and i are very clear. the ameri

and finally unlike some of my , colleagues, i don't think our founders intended the united states supreme court to become a mini congress. i don't think our founders intended members of the united states supreme court to try to rewrite our statutes, or the united states constitution every other thursday to prosecute a social or an economic agenda that they can't get out the best that they can't get -- that they can't get by the voters. that goes on in america every day. we've reached the point where one single, solitary federal judge in a limited venue, can enjoin a federal statute or an executive order of the president of united states for the entire country. and our founders never intended that. i want to close with two very short quotations, the first stated much more eloquently than i can is justice curtis in 1857, you probably read it. he was dissenting in the dred scott case. this is what judge curtis said, "when a strict interpretation of the constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are al

united states. judge barrett: president clinton. sen. kennedy: clinton v. jones, famous case. president clinton nominated justice ginsburg and justice breyer to the united states supreme court.hey heard that case. did anybody ask justice ginsburg to recuse herself because president clinton nominated her? judge barrett: i don't know. sen. kennedy: do you think she should have? judge barrett: that is not something i would opine of. i'm sure she discharged her oath. sen. kennedy: denny out of my colleagues ask that justice breyer recuse himself from hearing clinton v. jones because president clinton appointed him? judge barrett: i don't think so. sen. kennedy: i don't think so either. i will finish this housekeeping because i want to talk about the law. i want to give you a chance to respond to something. at bostona professor university says that because you and your husband have two you're aof color, that white colonist. the implication is you are racist. and you use your two children as props. do you use your children as props? judge barrett: senator kennedy, it was the risk of people saying things like that which would be so hurtful to my family that when i told senator grah

tonight, the republicans in pennsylvania seemingly on behalf of donald trump asked the united states supreme courtpardon me, to consider this issue, again, and we'll see, ultimately, what the united states supreme court decides to do. i would hope they would honor the percel principle and allow the top court in pennsylvania, the pennsylvania supreme court, to interpret matters of state law and have an election. move forward and have the election. >> i'll let you get back to your kids and your friday night. thank you so much. >> good to be with you. >>> all star group of campaign surrogates hitting must-win states. president barack obama hitting florida tomorrow. lizzo stumping in michigan today and there's a whole lot more. we'll speak with the co-chair of biden's campaign that's congressman cedric richmond. he's next. >> they out there trying to make america great again but we need to finally bring america together because i don't want to go back to the way it was. online last night ♪ ♪ and a yoga mat, to stay zen ♪ ♪ now, i'm gonna just buy a bike for him ♪ ♪ rakuten! cash ♪ back on the stuff al

but there, too, we can't overstate or overplay the role the supreme court of the united states might xert in that context. even in those circumstances. when the supreme court rules that something has been done in a way that's not constitutional, it doesn't mean that that's the end of the policy road there. sometimes it might mean the wrong government acted. sometimes it might mean the federal government enacted where a state should have or the other way around. other times it might mean that the wrong branch of government acted. other times it might mean that they went about it the wrong way. there is nearly always another way around a particular policy concern. whether we're talking about healthcare, whether we're talking about privacy and individual liberty, each and every person serving anywhere in our government has an obligation to look out for the best interests of those they represent. in fact, each and every person serving as an officer of the united states government is required under article 6 of the constitution to take an oath to up hold, protect and defend the constitutio

changed the priorities of our campaign quickly from sanctuary cities to suddenly the supreme court of the united states. that happened just two years and a couple of weeks ago. as much as anything -- as much as any reason, as much as any issue, the supreme court is why i am here today, and i don't mean just today. i mean why i am a united states senator. so when president trump nominated judge amy coney barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of justice badr ginsburg, i knew there could be no amount of political harassment to cause ma owe to shrink from this -- to cause me to shrink from this obligation. the singles that i or my -- the suggestion that i or my colleagues would squander the right under the constitution, consider waiting until after an election that may create opportunity for someone that my constituents don't agree with to be momented to the court would be a dereliction of my duty and would rightly -- rightly -- enrage the people that sent me here for exactly this moment. and i refuse to shrink. so let's talk about the nominee. judge amy coney barrett, by all accounts a brillian

controversial at the time given the fact that he was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 to the supreme court of the united states. but over the next three decades or so while he served on the supreme court of the united states, justice scalia revived, he restored this concept, this constitutional understanding of the proper role of government and of the proper role of each branch of the federal government, including and especially the judicial branch of the federal government during his service on the supreme court of the united states, he was able to mentor a number of law clerks, including judge amy coney barrett. judge barrett has explained that she believes in the same line of reasoning. she believes that judges and justices need to tether themselves to the mast of the constitution. they need to confine their role to that that involves judging, and they need to not covet and ultimately try to overtake the role of the elected lawmaker or the role of the executive. one has the power of policy and the purse. the other the power of the sword. but as alexander hamilton explained in federal list 78, there isn't' f

very difficult time explaining to the american people why he would forward not pack the united states supreme courtpack the united states supreme court, in otherwords, expand the number of jurists on court, in otherwords, expand the number ofjurists on that bench from nine up to 15 or 16, so again, i was looking at this with the way the moderators we re with the way the moderators were treating the candidates not necessarily the substance of what they had to say when they met their antagonist or protagonist. this was a case in the joe protagonist. this was a case in thejoe biden protagonist. this was a case in the joe biden debate just reading some of the commentators online saying that joe biden was actuallyjust a bit boring. and i think a lot of voters would be fine with boring right now after the last four years, but i think there was a stark contrast tonight. donald trouble trying to win an argument and joe biden was trying to win a vote and this shows where this race is right i'iow. shows where this race is right now. donald trump goes into the underdog, he came out the underdog, he came out t

come as a teacher and a civil rights lawyer and as the second woman ever to sit on the united states supreme court, justice ginsburg broke many barriers for women across the country. i believe fondly we remember her fondly as a woman who has patience, and a person who had e will to make our country a more equal place and a more just place. one of the things she fought for was a woman's right to control her own body and to make decisions about her own body and health care and reproductive choices. the constitution of the united states protects a woman's right to choose whether or when to become apparent and protect a woman's right to choose aborti abortion. women of color, immigrant women, women of low income and women in rural areas face significant barriers when attempting to access birth control, cancer screenings and comprehensive health care. moreover, antichoice activists and politicians have been working to pass law and file lawsuits designed to overturn roe and the precedent that followed. the threat to choice is real. just last year, the court heard a case that gave it an opportunity to re

late tonight, republicans of pennsylvania, seemingly on behalf of donald trump, asked the united states supreme courtnsider this issue again. and we will see, ultimately, what the united states supreme court decides to do. i would hope they would honor the purcell principle and allow our state supreme court to just do what they do best, which is to interpret matters of state law. and just let us have an election. let's move forward and have these votes be counted. >> mr. attorney general, i will let you get back toure kids n y and your wife. joe biden's got an all-star group of campaign surrogates hitting must-win states. president obama hitting tomorrow. lizzo today. and there is a whole lot more. i'm going to speak with the co-chair of biden's campaign. that's cedric richmond. he's next. >> they out there trying to make america great again. but we need to, finally, bring america together because i don't want to go back to the way it was. stock slices. for as little as $5, now anyone can own companies in the s&p 500, even if their shares cost more. at $5 a slice, you could own ten companies for $50

and would you do that if you were actually voting on the united states supreme court, would you do thatn of a dispute will affect parties will affect people as part of the judicial decision—making process, and i will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability. so if the aca is struck down, more than a million americans with pre—existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. more than 20 million americans could lose their health coverage entirely, including nearly 3 million black americans and over 5 million latino americans who received access to health insurance because of the aca. insurers will once again be able to discriminate against more than 50% of african—americans and more than 50% of african—america ns and nearly more than 50% of african—americans and nearly a0 percent of latino americans with pre—existing conditions. they'll. .. with with pre—existing conditions. they'll... with conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. all of this in the midst of a pandemic that's not going a

the united states senate has approved the appointment ofjudge amy coney barrett to the supreme court.re live pictures from the white house — wherejudge barrett is about to be sworn in. we understand that any moment. the republican—majority senate voted largely along party lines to confirm ms barrett to the lifetime post. she is president trump's third appointment to the nation's top judicial body. the democrats had accused the republicans of hypocrisy for wanting to appoint a newjudge so close to an election. the white house has indicated a celebration of her confirmation will be held outdoors despite the mass infection of members of the administration at a similar event to mark her nomination. lebo diseko is on capitol hill for us. i guess people who are not staying completely across american politics will wonder why we are making such a fuss about the appointment of a judge, but it is a very big deal. absolutely. the supreme court rules on things that really impact on americans' lives, like the rights for women to have access to abortion, brown versus education, all sorts of things

the provisions in the constitution about vacancies on the united states supreme court are unaffected by the electoral capital. when there is a vacancy, if the presidents chooses to feel it and nominate someone, then the senate advises and consents and that's all we are doing, we are following the constitution. >> bret: i want to ask you about this other story that's breaking in "the new york post," i'm sure you've read it, about emails from hunter biden's computer that talked about a meeting with joe biden and what the company expects hunter biden to do for it. there's other stuff on that computer as well. we can't get to the provenance of how it gets to the fbi and how it gets to rudy giuliani through an attorney, we are trying to dig into this and a lot to learn. twitter and facebook have prevented people from linking to it, i want to get your take on the story and about the social media reaction to it. >> three points. number one, these accusations are as serious as four heart attacks and strokes. now we are talking about a major party nominee for president of the united states of

and people would really like to know if judge amy kone barrett is confirmed with the supreme court of the united states or you and joe biden if somehow you win this election going to hack the supreme court to get your way i'm so glad we went through a little history lesson let's do that a little more. in 860 well i'd like you to answer the question should be asked vice presidency again speaking. if 8641 of the i think political hero certainly of the president i assume if you also mr vice president is abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln was up for reelection and it was $27.00 days before the election and a seat became open on the united states supreme court abraham lincoln's party was in charge not only of the white house but the senate but honest aides said it's not the right thing to do the american people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the united states and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land and so joe and i are very clear the american people are voting right now and it should be their decision about who will s

supreme court nomination. of course there's more at stake. throughout our history americans have brought cases to the united states supreme court in our ongoing fight for civil rights, human rights, and equal justice. decisions like brown versus board of education, which opened upped occasional opportunities for black boys and girls, roe versus wade, which recognized a woman's right to control her own body, loving v. virginia and oberfelt versus hodges which recognized that love is love and that marriage equality is the law of the land. the united states supreme court is often the last refuge for equal justice when our constitutional rights are being violated. justice ruth bader ginsburg devoted her life to fight for equal justice and she defended the constitution. she advocated for human rights and equality. she stood up for the rights of women. she protected workers. she fought for the rights of consumers against big corporations. she supported lgbtq rights. and she did so much more. but now her legacy and the rights she fought so hard to protect are in jeopardy. by replacing justice ruth bader ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy

between 1791 1940, only 23 cases arising under the first amendment religion clauses reach the united states supreme court and not one of those cases did the court find in this talisman of religion or violation of free thisise rates -- find in -- of religion or violation of free exercise rights. protections of religious freedom, half of which were findings of violations of the establishment laws or the free exercise clause. clearly something changed dramatically in the 1940's, and i would like to use a couple of been its informally to explore what changed, why it changed, how it changed, and what the significance of that is for us in the 21st century. three main changes occur in this period from 1940 in cantwell versus connecticut, to 1947 and the supreme court case of emerson versus board of education. the first change is that the supreme court, for the first time, apply the first amendment religion clauses directly to state and local governments and created a uniform and universal law of religious freedom and enforceable by the federal courts. court readhe supreme the establishment clause guarantee and

repeal the affordable care act, and they have challenged it twice unsuccessfully in the united states supreme court. each time they failed. but now, just one week after the election election, as you know, the fate of the affordable care act will be again in the hands of the united states supreme court. republicans have turned again to the court to try to achieve judicially what they cannot achieve legislatively. president trump has vowed that any judge he nominates would pass the very strong test, his words, and that they would strike down the affordable care act. judge barrett, in all honesty, you have auditioned for this job through your academic writing and judicial opinions, and you've passed that test. in fact, you've stated twice, in effect, that you would have voted to strike down the affordable care act had you been a justice at the time. you've been vetted. you've been screened by the trump administration and special interests who want an activist judge. they want someone who will legislate from the bench and strike down laws supported by a vast majority of the american people. and that ac

senate and in moments she will be sworn in as the newest member of the united states supreme court, a lifetime appointment. we are awaiting that swearing-in ceremony from the white house. we will take you there live as it happens and tomorrow after taking her official judicial oath, she will be able to fully participate as the newest member of the supreme court. my opening monologue is straight ahead but first joining usic no, guided the whole process as promised, senate judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham is with us. i did notice a little bit of a temper tantrum and there were a lot of threats going on about packing the court and ending the legislative filibuster. amnesty, a lot of power grabs. not easy. >> [laughs] the internet is melting down. there is an absolute desire to take me out. lindseygraham.com. i need your help now more than ever. to the american people, you're the biggest winner tonight. you have a constitutional conservative woman who understands the difference betweenth my job and being a judge. she's one of the most highly educated people ever to go on the co

will soon vote on the confirmation of judge barrett to become associate justice of the united states supreme court. i will be voting in favor of her nomination, and i urge my colleagues to do just the same. as was made clear to millions of americans who watched her hearing, judge barrett has the temperament, the modesty, and the humility that we should all expect in a judge. she approaches cases without bias or personal agenda. she made that very clear to almost every question asked to her by every member of the judiciary committee. most importantly, judge barrett understands the proper role of members of the judiciary and our constitutional system of separated powers. that is, a judge should interpret, not make the law. making law is under the constitution the responsibility of the congress. not the supreme court. she also made that very clear in almost every question that she was asked by members of the judiciary committee. judge barrett has an impressive command and of course a respect for the law and the constitution. clearly from her testimony she respected precedent, and she practices judici

american people fill that seat in the white house and then we'll fill that seat on the united states supreme court and to your point susan that the issues before us couldn't be more serious there is the issue of choice and i will always fight for a woman's right to make a decision about her own body it should be her decision and not that of donald trump and and the vice president michel i'm pro-life i don't apologize for. this is another one of those cases where there's such a dramatic contrast joe biden kamel her support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth late term abortion they want to increase funding to planned parenthood of america and for our part i would never presume a judge in the county bird would rule on the supreme court of the united states but will continue to stand strong for the right to life stacey the right to life abortion the very big issues once again in this cycle this election cycle was what's driving that well trump's base as what's driving it hissed he's not really trying to build he's just trying to get his base to come out and vote and he

or not aware that president trump made these comments about who he would nominate to the united states supreme court? >> senator harris, what i was saying -- i thought you framed the question is whether i was aware before this nomination process began. >> i'm asking you were you aware before this hearing began? >> you're asking me now i was aware before the hearing began? >> as a follow up question, i am, yes. >> what i said was, when i had my calls with democratic senators, this question came up and i don't recall but it may well have been that they referenced those comments in the course of those calls. even if so, that wasn't something that i heard or saw directly by reading it myself. >> senator leahy asked you do you think it's important to believe that supreme court justices are independent, fair and impartial. and that is a yes or no answer. >> yes, senator. >> a number of my colleagues asked you whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the affordable care act. you did not directly answer their questions but described a process by which that would work or happen. so my question is, isn

we are not going to put up with this, we are not putting up with stealing the united states supreme courtrom the american people. we are done with that. is in clinton, washington. we lost robert there. the lead opinion in usa today from jonathan turley, "nominating barrett is not court packing. responding to some criticisms of republicans, he writes, "filling a vacancy is not court packing under any possible definition, otherwise anytime you disagree court seven nomination -- guest: that is nothing but a word game. court packing, call the court stealing. i would rather call it that anyway. you are taking a seat from somebody who should be making combination. let's talk about the fact of what is happening and the fact that congress and the president have the power to decide how many justices there are all of the supreme court. so if we get away from the slogans and get down to the specifics, then the real issue is before us. host: we are joining you this arning from wisconsin, snapshot of real clear politics, their average showing joe biden ahead by six points. what is your on the ground l

[cheers and applause] to the united states supreme court. a lot of people said i got elected because of the united states supreme court. i don't know that it is true, but when i ran, people know who i was an old but they didn't know too much about my politics. they figured maybe i was liberal -- who knows, they didn't know. they weren't happy because they didn't know who i would appoint as supreme court justice. i would put a radical person. he's got to give a list and not lead to pack the court which would be horrible, horrible for a country, for the institution, but he's got to get the list of ten, 12, 15, 20, 25 that you only pick from. people have to be able to see who he is going to pick. you can't let somebody go up and put some crazy, radical, left justice in the supreme court. so i'm going to step further than that. they don't press him much. how about a guy if i said what he said. no, i will tell them after the election. that is great, wonderful. then these guys walked away. no, no, he's got to say about packing the court, but he's a