Transcripts For ALJAZ NEWSHOUR 20240712

Already attracted criticism. And Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim pushes his case for becoming the new Prime Minister of malaysia. And im santa hummus and i have all the sport. Major League Baseball welcomes back fans as the Atlanta Braves win the opening match of the National League championship series. The government says cyprus is suspending a controversial citizenship for Investment Program after an undercover investigation by aljazeera the countrys attorney general has also announced an investigation into possible criminal offenses fall. The revelations that expose high ranking officials expressing a willingness to see aides convicted criminals to obtain citizenship in august all to serious investigative units released the cyprus papers which revealed serious flaws in the citizen buy Investment Program well lets say across live now to our Investigative Reporter David Harrison he joins us now from nicosia david its the cypriot government has always tonights there was any any wrongdoing so what reason are they giving for suspending the scheme. Well its very interesting to have deputy to shift but this morning the announcement was made at the president ial palace no less and they were approaching we this is under the beauties of the Passport Program its you know the the people the protagonists is the ones they feature the undercover documentary they all initially denied isnt there still that they still have that mr any wrongdoing but they were playing things like conspiracies they were blaming just you know having a huge was a country and to be trying to tarnish cyprus but that view has really shifted it was it was initially taken up by all the public opposition media but since the documentary actually appeared theres been a sea change in attitude and now this announcement by the attorney general of the investigation into possible criminal offenses shows that they are really taking this seriously and that they believe this is credible enough to warrant a very serious inquiry ok David Harrison there live in the case for now thank you very much indeed and if you want to find out more about the cyprus papers and that investigation weve got a podcast up on our website so you can find out more there just head to al jazeera dot com forward slash podcasts forward slash out to sea or investigates to listen at any time and at your convenience and of course you can watch that documentary in full papers under cover were screening that again at all 100. 00 g. M. T. On wed and state. A Senate Confirmation hearings are getting underway this hour for a new u. S. Supreme Court Justice to replace the lakes with Bader Ginsburg ripping the life pictures and i phone the hearing on capitol hill where Lindsey Graham is speaking and lets listen thats a political fight im in a campaign at home if it were up to me we would block grant this money send it back to the states in a more fair allocation and we would require preexisting conditions to be covered as part of the block grant we want sick people covered but i got an idea i think South Carolina may may be able to deal with diabetes better than and different than california if you want good outcomes in medicine you need innovation and the best way to get innovation is to allow people to try Different Things to get Better Outcomes so the debate on health care is consolidating all the power in washington have some bureaucrat youll never meet running this program versus having it centered in the state where you live under my proposal South Carolina would get almost a 1000000000. 00 for the state of South Carolina would be in charge of it ministering obamacare they couldnt build football stadiums with the money they have to spend it on health care that have to cover preexisting conditions but if as a patient in South Carolina you would have a voice you dont have today if you didnt like what was happening to you on the health care front you could go to local officials and complain in the people youre complaining to live in your state they send their family to the same hospitals you go thats a structural difference thats got nothing to do with this hearing its got everything to do with politics we all decide. Do not believe obamacare is the best way to provide Quality Health care over time our friends on the other side this is a placeholder for Single Payer Health care if you dont believe me just ask them so thats the fight going into 2020 doesnt make them bad it just makes them different if we were up to me bureaucrats would not be administering health care from Washington People in South Carolina would be Running Health care if it were up to me would get more money under bamma care than we do today 35 percent would not go to 3 states and sick people would be covered so thats the political debate were involved in a campaign in South Carolina my fate will be left up to the people of South Carolina so thats what obamacare is all about now how do you play and here judge there is a lawsuit involving the Affordable Care act before the Supreme Court well talk about that in a bit and the difference between analyzing a lawsuit in having a political argument is fundamentally different and i hope to be able to demonstrate that over the course of the day and i hope that my colleagues on this will not feel shy about telling my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why we think we have a better idea on health care now the bottom line here judge you said yesterday something that struck me and i want the American People understand what you meant you said youre an originalist is it true what does that mean in english. Here past a button i mean we all love senator lee but. In english and english ok so in english that means that i interpret the constitution as a law that i interpret its text as text and i understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it that meaning doesnt change over time and its not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it so in other words youre bound by the people who wrote it at the time they wrote it that keeps you from substituting your judgment for theirs is that correct yeah all right Justice Scalia his original is right yes he was people say that youre a female scalia what would you say i would say that Justice Scalia was obviously a mentor and as i said in the when i accepted the president s nomination that his philosophy is mine too you know he was a very eloquent defender of originalism and that was also true of textual islam which is the way that i approach statutes and their interpretation and similarly to what i just said about originalism for textual ism the judge approaches the text as it was written with the meaning it had at the time and doesnt inform your own meeting into it but i want to be careful to say that if im confirmed you would not be getting Justice Scalia you would be getting justice barrett. And thats so because originalists dont always agree and neither do textualists justices glia and thomas disagreed often enough my friend judge animals the part teaches a class called scalia versus thomas you know its not an mechanical exercise our way to the movie comes out so. The bottom line for me is there is a narrative building in this country and again you can. Standdown this is just me speaking for me Justice Ginsburg was an iconic figure in American History just not the law she was a trailblazer she fall for better conditions for women throughout society she was unashamedly progressive in her personal thought she was devout to her faith she worked for the a. C. L. U. She was proudly prochoice personally but all of us on this apparently when they voted excepted that she was highly qualified but i want the American People to know i think its ok to be religiously conservative i think its ok to be personally prochoice and think is ok to live your life in a traditional catholic fashion and you still be qualified for the Supreme Court so all the young conservative women out there this hearing to me is about a place for you i hope when this is all over that you will be a place for you at the table will be a spot for you at the Supreme Court light there was for judge ginsburg and to President Trump i dont know if youre listening or not by picking judge barrett you have publicly said you find that you and all of these characteristics but beyond anything else you find judge baird to be highly qualified i would say youre one of the greatest picks President Trump going to may and from the conservative side of the aisle youre one of the most qualified people of your generation lets talk about brown versus board of education cosigned though senator blumenthal will im going to. Talk about that you said in writings it was a super president what did you mean. Well in my writings so as a professor i talked about the doctrine of star decisis and super president is not a doctrinal term that comes from the Supreme Court and i think maybe and political conversation or in newspapers people use it different ways but in my writing i was using a framework thats been articulated by others and in that context super precedent means president that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled and there are about 6 cases on this list that other scholars have identified was talk about brown talk about why it would be unthinkable 1st lets talk about whats the process that would lead to it being overruled what would have to happen for brown to be overruled you would have to have congress or some state or local government. Impose segregation again opens the kayleigh start right there if you want to make yourself famous by the end of the day you can say we want to go back to segregation i promise you youll be on every cable t. V. Channel in america i doubt if youll go very far but the point were trying to make here is the court just cant wake up and say lets revisit brown it has to be a case in controversy is that right yes thats right so before brown decision could you could review brown somebody out there would have to be dumb enough to pass a law saying lets go back to segregated schools is it fair to say that is fair to say you see that happening any time soon i do not see that happening anytime soon yeah i dont either. So lets talk about the process in general theres the heller case was that about the heller case as a case decided by the Supreme Court which held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms now my friends on the left some of them have a problem with heller they may try to challenge the construct of heller if a state or local government passed a law in defiance of heller what would happen. In defiance of heller or that would challenging the construct of power that challenge the concept of heller if it was a lower if it was brought in a lower court heller binds i mean hellers lower courts always have to file a Supreme Court precedent and so you know if the Supreme Court wanted to revisit pillar what would they do. If someone challenge heller below because a state or local government passed a law contradicting heller the Supreme Court would have to take that case once it was appealed all the way up to the court would have to decide yes we want to overrule heller and we have enough votes to grant cert and then do so so thats the way the process works yes it would start because there was a law then there was a lawsuit then there was an appeal then the Court Granted cert and then the court decided the case is that true no matter what the issues with Abortion Health care or Campaign Finance does that process hold true for everything yes you always know judges cant just wake up one day and say i have an agenda i like guns i hate guns i like abortion i hate abortion and walk in like a a royal queen and impose their will on the world you have to wait for cases and controversies such as the language of the constitution to wind their way through the process all right well senator says give us a good civics lesson out does the basic lesson along here so if a state said you know i dont think you should have over 6 bullets and somebody you believe that violated the 2nd a member there would be a lawsuit in the same process would work right the same process would work in that case there would be parties would have to sue the state to have a you know arguing that that law was unconstitutional it would wind its way up and if it got to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decided to take it a whole Decision Making process begins you hear arguments from litigants on both sides they write briefs you top 2 clerks. As a judge you talk to your colleagues and you write an opinion opinion circulate and you get feedback from your colleagues so its a its an entire process its not something that judge or justice would wake up and say are we hearing this case i know what my votes going to be lets talk about. The 2 Supreme Court cases regarding abortion or the 2 leading cases in america regarding the abortion life think most people think of roe versus wade and casey as the case after roe that preserved Central Holding but grounded it nestle different rationale so what is that rush no rationale is that its not impose an undue burden on a womans right to terminate a pregnancy ok unlike brill there are there are states challenging on the abortion front there are states that are going to a fetal heartbeat bill i have a bill judge that would. Disallow abortion on demand at the 20 weeks the 5th month of the pregnancy where one of 7 nations in the entire world allow abortion on demand and that the 5th month the construct of mobility is because the child is capable feeling pain in the 5th month doctors tell us to save the childs life you have to provide in a stage if you operate because they can feel pain the argument im making is if you have to provide in a stage or to save the childs life because they can feel pain must be a terrible death to be dismembered by an abortion thats a theory to protect the unborn at the 5th month if that litigation comes before you where you listen to both sides of course so do that in every case so i think 14 states have already passed a version of what ive just described so there really is a debate in america still a light brown versus board of education about the rights of the unborn thats just one example so. If there is a challenge coming from a state they state passes a law and. It goes into court where people say this fall lates casey how do you decide that well it would begin in a District Court and a trial court you know the trial court would make a record you know the parties would litigate and fully develop that record in the trial court and it would go up to a court of appeals that would review that record looking for error and then again it would be the same process someone would have to seek search or are at the Supreme Court the Supreme Court would have to granted and then at that point it would be the full judicial process would be briefs oral argument conversations with law clerks in chambers consultation with colleagues writing an opinion really digging down into it its not its not just a vote you will do that you will have a policy new cast a vote the judicial process is different ok so when it comes to your personal views about this topic but do you want to go on. We do own a gun ok. All right. Do you think you could fairly decided case even though you want to gun yes all right youre catholic i am i think weve established that. The tenets of your faith mean a lot to you personally is that correct that is true youve chosen to raise your family in the catholic faith is that correct thats true can you set aside whatever catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you i can i have done that in my time on the 7th circuit i stay on the 7th circuit i continue to do that if im confirmed to the Supreme Court i will do that still i would dare say that there are personal views on the Supreme Court. And nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their believes theres no real question no reason to question yours in my view. So the bottom line here is that theres a process you fill in the blanks where this about guns and heller abortion rights lets go to Citizens United to my good friend senator wyden us man youre going to come closer and closer about regulating money because i dont know whats going on out there but i can tell you theres a lot of money being raised in this campaign id like to know where theyll some of its coming from but thats not your problem Citizens United says what. Citizens united extends the protection the 1st amendment to clipper a chanson engaged in political speech so if congress wanted to revisit that in. In somebodys challenge dinner under Citizens United that Congress Went through for what would you do how would the process work well be the same process ive been describing 1st somebody would have to challenge that law in a case somebody presumably who wanted to spend the money and a Political Campaign it would wind its way up and you know judges but decided after briefs and oral argument in consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. Same sex marriage was the case it established same sex marriage is the law of the land oberg ok if there was a state who tried to outlaw same sex marriage and theres litigation would it follow the same process well it would and one thing i have neglected to say before thats occurring to me now is that not only would someone have to challenge that statute and you know somebody so if they if they outlaw at the outlawed same sex marriage thered have to be a case challenging it and for the Supreme Court to take it up youd have to have lower courts going along and saying were going to flout oberg of and the most likely result would be that lower courts who are bound by a bird to fell would such a lawsuit down and it wouldnt make its way up to the Supreme Court but if it did it would be the same process ive described lets turn now to senator hollings favorite talk. Substantive due process as a legal theory what im talking about can you explain it for the country because if you cant were in trouble i think all of our time doing so both the 14th and 5th amendments protects life provide that the state cannot take life liberty or property without due process of law and that sounds like a procedural guarantee but and Supreme Court precedent it has a substantive component and so the substantive due process clause says that there are some liberties rights that people possess that the state cant take away or cant take away without a really good reason so the right to use Birth Control the right to abortion are examples of rights protected by substantive due process these are judicially created rights not found in the document called the constitution is that correct well the Supreme Court has grounded them in the constitution that theyre not written theyre not express ok so is it fair to say theres a great debate in the law about how for this should go and what limits should apply if any. Thats fair to say theres also a lot of debate and Supreme Court opinions im not aware of anybody proposing to throw it over entirely but theres certainly a debate about how to define these rights and how far it should go well lets just say that youre in the camp or anybody is in the camp that serve to due process is a legal concept is unbounded it basically makes the constitution no more certain than the 5 people interpret any given time in the country whatever rights they think you have you get whatever rights they want to take away from you they can is a pretty nebulous legal concept thats sort of my view of it im not imposing my views on yours but then theres a thing called precedent lets say you didnt like a case decided under substantive due process you thought the whole concept was constitutionally in error how does president ploy. So precedent is the principle that cases that have been decided by the court before this one lands on the docket are presumptively controlling and so you know president comes from a concept called stari decisis which is a shorthand for a longer latin phrase that means stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the com so a precedent is a principle that youre not going to overrule something without good reason or royal up the law without justification for doing so so you could say the underlying analysis that led to any case just case eriks i reject that analysis but i will meld pli president to whether or not it should be reversed is that what youre telling us that is because president it what are the factors would a judge look at in terms of overruling a president well of course the inquiry begins because theres been some argument that the president was wrong but thats not enough to justify an overruling you also can you could say structurally this case should constitutionally it was wrongly decided but that doesnt mean the debate is occurring no thats right you have to look at reliance interest you have to look whether the law of the fast up right quick reliance interest by who reliance interest by those who have relied on the precedent so people of the United States people of the United States have ordered their affairs around it so the heller case people relied upon the 2nd amendment being individual right is that correct. Precedent yet presumably so people have well abortion to be the right to have abortion. Thered be a reliance factor on the courting cases and a lot of time describing their reliance of people on the right to an abortion so what i want the public to know is if you over rule for us in the court youre watching aljazeera weve been listening to the Senate Confirmation hearings for Donald Trumps proposed new justice to the Supreme Courts Amy Corney Barrett shes been questioned by Lindsey Graham whos the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee amy coyne baratz under questioning said she would be able to set aside her religious and personal views were she selected for that position on the Supreme Courts lets get more now from our serious hour and fresh air whos been listening to those hearings alongside me. Initial rounds of questioning touched on many cases that people unfamiliar with the intricacies of american law might not know all but essentially that questioning touched on guns health care and money and politics all of these subjects fiercely divides the United States and barrett was giving her views and her take on the judgments that surrounded those issues what did you take out from that initial period of questioning of any komi barretts. Theres a couple of things to notice 1st of all that these are all touchstone issues when you Start Talking about guns and segregation and abortion and money and politics all touch tone issues for both sides what Lindsey Graham is doing given that theres been so much concentration on american domestic law here lets use an american football analogy hes essentially running interference for him equaling about it he is setting up her defense on a number of issues that will be raised particularly by the democrats so when he mentions the Affordable Health care act where he sees problems and the fact that it should be changed hes saying look this is not for a judge to decide youre wasting your time because the democrats have said their battle plans very clearly they are going to go to the American Public to the voters and say look if this judge is confirmed then preexisting conditions are at rest no why would that be thats because a week after the election the Supreme Court will be hearing a case brought by the trumpet ministration that could supported by the Top Administration officials say. Could screw up preexisting conditions which would impact 23000000. 00 americans and that would be almost overnight that they would disappear so that is why Lindsey Graham is trying to say this is not for you to decide its for politicians to decide we need to sort this out what is interesting too is that this is a very easy start to what will be roughly 12 hours of questioning for him about it and certainly the democrats are going to go a lot harder on her then weve heard over the 1st 30 minutes from the Committee Chairman who is a republican and donald trump has been watching yesterday on monday he tweeted out saying that he didnt think the democrats should be allowed to speak so long and as you just push through with the nomination the 5th this is the norm normally 3 days of hearings you normally get a 20 minute Opening Statement which is what we saw on monday and then the. Will be 30 minutes of questions from all of the senators on the committee and then a 4th of the road of 20 minutes of questioning on whedons the from the other center so donald trump didnt like what he saw yesterday he better buckle up because its going to get a lot rougher in the next few hours it certainly will not least because this confirmation hearing at really is quite remarkable and sounds of the speeds that republicans in the senate are trying to get it through lets not forget were just days away from the u. S. Election and the republicans are really aiming aiming to boots. On the Supreme Court before the election just tell us more about why thats how you make us of particular note here al and then are the republicans likely to succeed do you think. Its not hugely unusual that 16 days after the announcement of her nomination the confirmation hearings there have been people who have come to the senate in a lot tighter time scale why this is so contentious is that voting is already under way in the United States and 4 years ago when justice died Justice Antonin Scalia and amy but it was a clark for him at the Supreme Court and many people see that she is if you middle school year when he died barack obama suggested Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court but the republicans who were in charge of the senate refused to bring any hearings and there was no vote and that was months before the election here were just 3 weeks away and so the democrats are saying they should be given the same cut to see the republican argument is that theres nothing constitutionally wrong with doing what they are doing that the president has made the nomination and its up to the senate to confirm of course if the republicans when that will essentially in green a conservative majority on the Supreme Court of 63. 00 something that Mitch Mcconnell the leader of the republicans in. The senate has been keen on doing for some considerable time will this go through well heres whats going to happen its almost certainly going to get out of committee the Committee Vote will be on thursday they need at least 11 republicans in the room on that day doesnt matter if the democrats dont turn up as theyve been threatening to do as long as there is a majority of Committee Members in the room on that day and they say yes that then goes to the senate what the democrats are hoping is that Public Opinion will force people to form republican senators and say look im really worried about preexisting conditions i dont want you to carry this foot at the moment i want you to we talk after the election no 2 republican senators have already said they wont vote because they dont believe its right that they should do that before an election so essentially the democrats are hoping that theyll be able to flip at least 2 other republicans and stop the vote going ahead but the battle lines are drawn we know what the republicans are saying you know what the democrats are saying and certainly Mitch Mcconnell the leader of the republicans believes he has the votes and that he will push this through before the election and it will become a justice on the United States Supreme Court also play for that thank you very much thats alan fisher joining us live from capitol hill we are following these hearings for amy courtney barretts donald trump Supreme Court pick were listening in to Lindsey Graham the head of the Senate Judiciary committee making the case for ecoli baratz you can see on your screens there that stand feinstein shes the shes the senior ranking democratic senator on that committee as are hearing from alan justice judge barrister beg your pardon will be facing robust questioning for quite some time to come so well dip in and eights of those hearings as and when but certainly a long road ahead for corney lets take a quick check on the weather now. Rob mchale way is here with you weather thank you would have done to South China Sea again the tropical psyco nunca its been designated a Tropical Storm which means the winds have come up now they extend as far north as hong kong but only is gale force so hong kongs line is number a signal its got 2 more to take it up to thai food it wont get the same number 8 but it does become pleasant weather in very rough seas which will last in the harbor up through to wednesday and then things will improve as hong kong things are actually sitting over high in an island thats where its doing its worst damage and winds are the main problem drain will be and that rain has been a problem. As you well know from cambodia which is what were seeing here towards the now many thousands of people displaced some of course killed but not that many reported thankfully but things are improving this is the scene just also dying and this is sort of parts of vietnam no one cares going on shore a bit to the north of that and take a lot of rain with it several 100 millimeters see just make more flooding in this part of the n. M. By which time it will still have a potential for wind damage and its way fight of 5 beaches suggest some wind damage as well it goes on land it falls apart but it could have a brother forming already. Always had box of those hearings night and listen and since i am feinstein the ranking democrat since questioning from Supreme Court pick be equally forthright with your answers in planned parenthood of southeastern pennsylvania versus casey Justice Scalia as was said earlier joined the dissent which took the position and i quote we believe that roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled consistent with our traditional approach to starry decisis and constitutional cases do you agree with Justice Scalias view that roe was wrongly decided so senator i do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as i can i think on that question you know i mean and Justice Kagan this description which i think is perfectly put when she was in her confirmation hearing she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a up or thumbs down and i think in an area where president continues to be pressed and litigated as is true of casey it would be particularly it actually be wrong in a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge so if if i express a view on a precedent one way or another whether i say i love it or i hate it it signals to litigants that i might tilt one way or another and a pending case. So on something that is really a major cause with major of fact on over half of the population of this country who are women after all and its its distressing not to give a straight answer so let me try again do you agree with Justice Scalias view that roe was wrongly decided. Senator i completely understand why youre asking the question but again i cant precommit or say yes im going in with agenda because im not i dont have any agenda i have no agenda to try to overrule casey i have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come well what im as a person. I dont know if youll answer this one either do you agree with Justice Scalias view that roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court but i think my answer is the same because you know thats a case thats litigated it could you know its contours could come up again in fact do come up you know they came up last term before the court so i think you know what the case the standard is and thats just its a contentious issue which is a no one reason why it would be comforting to you to have an answer but i cant express views on cases or precommit to approaching a case any particular way. Well that makes it difficult for me and i think for other women also on this committee because this is a very important case and it affects a lot of people millions and millions of women and you could be a very important vote and i had hoped you would say as a person youve got a lovely family you understand all the implications of family life. You should be very proud of that im proud of you for that. But my position is a little different youre going on the biggest court of this land with the problem out there that all women see one way or another in their life and not all but certainly married women do and others too and so the question comes. What happens and will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not senator would i welcome it is that i will obey all the rules of started a sysiphus that if a question comes up before me about whether casey or any other case should be overruled that i will follow the law and start a sysiphus applying it as the court has articulated yet applying all the factors reliance workability being undermined by later facts and law to solve the standard factors and i promise to do that for any issue that comes up abortion or anything else to follow the law. Well i think thats expected and. Well i guess im going as far as i can let me go to another issue this country is facing great gun violence theres been a surge in gun sales during the cold in 1000 crisis which has led to more lives being needlessly lost according to the gun violence are cave archive excuse me an independent Research Organization there were 60 Mass Shootings in may alone these shootings killed 40 people they hurt 250 more also theres been a troubling spike in gun sales americans bought approximately 2000000 guns this past march its the 2nd highest month ever for gun sales that figure does not take into account all the gun sales that could not be completed because the purchaser failed a background test a check excuse me a number that has also skyrocketed for example this past march the f. B. I. Is background check system blocked 23692 sales more than double the 9500 sales blocked in march of 2019 do you agree that federal state and local governments have a compelling interest in preventing a rise in gun violence particularly during a pandemic. Well senator. Courses the constitutionality of any particular measure that were passed that was passed by state or local governments are by this body would be subject to the same judicial process that i described with senator graham what i will say as because this is just descriptive of Heller Heller leaves room for gun regulations and thats why there has been a lot of litigation in the lower courts which makes me constrained not to comment on the limits of it but heller does not make a right absolute by its you know says so in the opinion well let me ask one more question in a recent dissenting opinion that you wrote you said there was quote no question and quote that quote keeping guns out of the hands of those who are likely to misuse them quote is quote a very strong governmental interest do you stand by that statement so i dont lets say i cant remember precisely the words of cantor which is the case in which i dissented which as her kid to be von and every bar what i said in that opinion i stand by which is that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment and i went through a lot of detailed history in that case does the port the idea that governments are free to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous so for example the mentally ill or others who would be likely to misuse guns so where were does leave you on rome. The chairman asked i thought a very good question. For many people and particularly for women this is a fundamental question we all have our moral values we have our religions we live by that i respect you and your family for doing just that. But this is a very real problem out there and. If you could be more specific in any way with respect to how you would view your place on the court with respect to controlling weapons in this country. I think what i can say is that my opinion and cantor shows how i approach questions as a matter of judicial philosophy i mean i spent a lot of time in that opinion looking at the history of the 2nd amendment and looking at the Supreme Courts cases and so the way in which i would approach the review of gun regulation is in that same way to look very carefully at the text to look carefully at what the original meaning was that that was the method that both the majority and dissent and heller to so i promise that i would come to that with an open mind applying the law as i could best determine it. Ok let me move on. One of my constituents Christina Garcia was able to obtain Insurance Coverage and have surgery that saved her eyesight only before the Affordable Care act her experience is not unique senator tammy batten baldwin has a constituent Jimmy Anderson in her home state of wisconsin and she asked that this story be shared jimmy is a 34 year old and member of the Wisconsin State Legislature in 2010 a drunk driver hit the familys car as they were returning home from celebrating jimmys 24th birthday jimmys mother father and little brother were killed in the accident jimmy was paralyzed from the waist down his medical recovery was intense as jimmy has said quote doctors managed to patch me up with dozens of stitches and multiple surgeries and about a pound of steel on my spine and quote but soon after his Insurance Company told him he was nearing his lifetime maximums and he would have to pay for the rest of his Health Care Expenses as jimmy explains quote with hundreds of thousands of dollars still left to go i dont know what i was going to do i was scared i was terrified i was just a student i didnt have that kind of money fortunately a few days later the Insurance Company sent him another letter this one informed him that the provisions of the a ca had kicked in which meant there were no longer lifetime maximums and his care would be covered in jimmys own words i was able to put my life back together and i credit the Affordable Care act for that judge by. Or how should the loss of a cas protection against a Lifetime Coverage caps caps it can be used to and coverage for life saving care factor into a courts consideration of the validity of the. Senator so far as i know the case next week doesnt present that issue its not a challenge to preexisting existing preexisting conditions coverage or to the lifetime maximum in relief from a cap well what is your view of how it should factor in the ice lets say i think that any issue that would arise under the Affordable Care act or any other statute should be determined by a law by looking at the text of the statute by looking at precedent. The same way that it would for anyone and if there were policy differences or policy consequences those are for this body for the court its really a question of a hearing to the law and going where the law leads and leaving the policy decisions up to you for me my vote depends a lot on these responses because these are life or death questions for people its my understanding that you were critical of Justice Roberts for up holding the a c. A a stating that he quote pushed the Affordable Care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute and quote and in what way did justice did the chief justice go beyond the a. C. S. Plausible meaning. So ive written about this and that description is consistent with the way the chief justice describes in his own majority. That was king versus burwell where the court had to decide whether the phrase established by a state also included exchanges that were established by the federal government and the majority in that case acknowledged that treating the phrase established by a state as including exchanges established by the federal government was not the most natural reading but for other reasons other policy reasons and canons of interpretation they chose to adopt a less natural reading you see for me. The case coming up california v texas puts a whole new way on your nomination. Because the Affordable Care act is now being so well accepted i represent the largest state as senator harris. That we have and there are just. Over 10000000 people dependent on the activities under this act and that they be sustained and so there is really great concern about what your view is that cases coming up can you give us at least your view well senator the issue and the case thats coming up doesnt involve its not the same issue as the ones and f. I. B. Versus a bell yes or king versus burwell its a different issue well though then give us both well. Lets see so what i said which you quoted to me was that i thought that the interpretation of the phrase established by a state was stretched when the court held that it was established by the federal government thats not the issue in california versus texas the issue in california versus texas is if whether now that congress has just completely you know zeroed out the mandate whether its still a tax or a penalty and even if so is it constitutional and then even so is that fatal to the statute theres a doctrine called severability which sounds likely leaves but what it means is is it ok with the statute could you just pluck that part out and let the rest of the statute stand or is that provision which has been zeroed out so critical to the statute that the whole statute fall so really that issue in the case is this doctrine of severability and thats not something that ive ever talked about with respect to the Affordable Care act honestly i havent written anything about severability that i know of at all so you have no farts on the subject well its a case thats on the courts docket and the canons of judicial conduct you know would prohibit me from expressing a view ok ill move on. On july 30th 2020 President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggest to be one to delay the upcoming election does the constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances those federal law. Well senator if that question ever came before me i would need to hear arguments from militant aunts and read briefs and consult with my luck there and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process so you know if if id given off the cuff answers then i would be basically a legal pundit and i dont think we want judges to be legal pundits i think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind ok let me try Something Else in 2017 in a case called the e o c v auto zone the 7th circuit issued your circuit issued an opinion which permitted an employer to intentionally set a sign its employees to specific stores due to their race the dissent in this opinion argued the decision permitted employers to legally establish separate but equal facilities and argued if a peled this decision would be quote contrary to the position that the Supreme Court has taken in analogous equal protection cases as far back as brown v the board of education the case was appealed to the full panel of the 7th and you cited as i understand it with the majority to deny a rehearing and let the opinion stand is that correct. That is correct and i think i need to give a little context for what it means to vote to deny to rehear something on bond. Our court just like the Supreme Court in the search for our process doesnt take cases just because we think the panel got it wrong theres a lot of deference to panels and roll 35 of the rules of appellate procedure. Constrains and limits the times in which we take the resources of the full court to rehear a case so i was not on that panel and i did not express a view on the merits a vote to deny to hear something on bond is like a vote not to to deny search for ari not a vote that expresses a view on the merits ok it was a statutory case it was not an evil protection case let me ask you a question. As a person yes if an employer can transfer an employee based solely on his or her race and that does not constitute a materially adverse employment action because it was purely lateral job transfer please explain what factors must be present for a policy based on race to violate brown v the board prohibition of separate but equal. Was senator to my knowledge brown wasnt at issue and the majority opinion it turned on statutory language in title 7. But again i didnt express a view on the merits and so i cant comment on whether i think that the Panel Majority got that right or got that wrong you know thats an issue that may well come before me even in the 7th circuits i may press for its overruling and i may be on a panel that has to decide whether that precedent was wrong well let me ask you as a person do you have a general belief as a person and i have a general relief that racism is important that racism is what abhorrence well i think thats i think we would all agree with that. So how should a lower court in the 7th determine when race based policies could constitute a materially adverse employment action. Well im not aware of cases presenting the exact same facts as that is to ask you for your view. You know i know that the material adverse consequence was the standard at issue and that case i have to confess that i would need to look at the statute and the precedent to. Even if i had a specific hypothetical in front of me i couldnt really say without looking at the statute in the precedent what factors are involved because i wasnt on that panel and havent decided a similar case ok let me go to another issue. The issue of l. G. B. T. Equality is very personal for me i spent 2 decades. As a county supervisor and mayor of a city i watch 1st hand as the l g b t Community Fought for legal recognition of their lives their relationships their personal dignity i was there before the law so i saw in San Francisco what was happening i want to speak briefly about one couple del martin and phyllis lyon who i met in the 1970 s. They were vibrant members of San Franciscos community i was president of the board of supervisors they worked with me to pass a citywide ordinance in 1978 that provided critical protection against discrimination in employment housing and public accommodations at that time this was one of the strongest protections for the Gay Community in the entire nation weve come a long way since then and i think we should never go back in june of 2858 years after they met my 2 friends were finally able to marry when the california Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples cannot be denied the fundamental right to marry dale died 2 months later. Before because of the federal defense of marriage act doma phyllis was denied Social Security Survivor Benefits even though her spouse had paid into this basic safety net for her entire working life still had a roof reply to rely on the help of friends and fellow activists. Ok weve been listening there to see it democratic senator Dianne Feinstein the Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary committee as shes been putting her questions suits on all trumps nominee for the Supreme Courts amy kone baratz lots of questions pits her about Abortion Health care guns and believe that discussion just now she was asking about gay marriage. Judge amy cooney barretts however was evading giving any opinion whatsoever or whether or when she stands on many of these touchstone issues she refused to say whether or not she the crucial abortion legislation was wrongly decided say its pretty controversial well keep across that for you to stay here and ill to syria ill be back with more after this very short break. Corruption it is that invisible behind a wall of silence by. The rapture is not something to be told in the. African. Country his email lets destroy this war. In 2020 the free space of encourages the heroes who are fighting against corruption this helps our communities to save the resources that we need in order to address the burning problems that affect us all. Shine a light on your Anti Corruption here and. Nominate now. Global pandemic. Family comes 1st. For every American Health care has never been more important. Because the new disease does not favor republicans over democrats bridge over poor or black over white. America decides how to care for a nation. Extensive coverage of the us elections. On aljazeera the oppression of an ethnic minority and me in my bag many dennings the intention was to make sure that rangers would no longer entitled to either a basic right or citizenship rights. Aljazeera explores the history and motives behind the systematic persecution of the ranger and me and my. Exile. On not just iraq. Al jazeera where every. Cypress suspends citizenship for Investment Program after an aljazeera investigation exposed flaws and the beasts in the system. And how his and this is al jazeera life from doha also coming out. Today to have confirmation hearings for another of President Trumps controversial