Transcripts For CSPAN Part 1 Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 1 20240712

Bird will judge barretts family, welcome. Barrettserrick family, family, welcome. I appreciate everyones cooperation. Will have a hearing that hopefully the country will learn more about judge merrick and the and willdge barrett learn more about the law and maybe the differences in the party. As to the hearing room, i doubt if there is any room in the country given more attention and detail to make sure city of the architect of the capitol working with the attending physician has set up the room in a fashion we can safely do our business. Senator lee is back and has been cleared by your physician. Welcome back. The covid problem in america is real. It is serious, dangerous, and we have to mitigate the risk. I would let every american know that many of you going to work today and have probably been at work today, and hope your employer will take care of your health care needs, but we do have a country that needs to move forward safely. Millions of americans, cops, todaysses, going to work to do their day and we are going to work in the senate to do our job in one of the most important jobs the Senate Judiciary committee will ever do is have hearings and confirm a justice to the Supreme Court. Purposes, weeeping will do 10 minute rounds and everyone will have 10 minutes to talk about their views to talk about what it is all about. Then we will have a panel to introduce judge barrett, and she will make an Opening Statement. We will try to finish mid afternoon if that is possible. Tuesday and wednesday will be long days. There will be 30 minute rounds for every senator followed by a 20 minute round. My goal is to complete that wednesday at some reasonable hour in the evening. Thursday we will begin the markup and i intend to hold it over and bring the committee back on the 22nd to vote on the nomination. I will start off with an Opening Statement. And say why are we here . Number one, Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg died on september 18. What can you say about Justice Ginsburg . She was confirmed 963. Those or day that have since passed. I regret that. 963. This was a person who worked for the aclu, some who was known in progressive circles as a icon, apparently every republican voted for her. Her good friend on the court, Justice Scalia, got 97 votes. I dont know what happened between then and now. Justn all take blame, we want to remind everybody there like time with someone Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seen by almost everybody as qualified being on the Supreme Court, understanding she would have a different philosophy than many of the republicans who voted for her. 27 years on the court before becoming a member of the court. She was active litigator, pushing for more equal justice and better rights for women throughout the country. Her close friend, until his herh, Justice Scalia, calls the leading and very successful litigator on behalf of womens rights. Thurgood marshall the Thurgood Marshall of that cause. What high praise. Any more than that statement says. Appearing, the person for this committee is in the category of excellent, something the country should be proud of, and she will have a chance to make her case to be a worthy successor and to become the ninth member of the Supreme Court of the United States. 26, judge barrett was nominated by President Trump to the Supreme Court. Who is she . Theis a judge sitting on traditional circuit. She is highly respected. She was a professor at notre dame. Three years during that tenure, she was chosen by the students of being the best professor, which i am sure is no easy task at any college. She is widely admired for her integrity. ,he grew up in new orleans graduated from Rhodes College in memphis, tennessee in 1994, graduated summa can lottie and suma cumsukhum laude. She clerked for judge Lawrence Silverman on the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit judge and then for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. She practiced law in washington, d. C. She joined the faculty of notre dame in 2002. She has published numerous articles in prestigious journals, including the Columbia University of virginia and cornell law review. She has been a Circuit Court judge at the seventh circuit since 2017. She was confirmed to that position with a bipartisan vote. She has heard hundreds of cases in that capacity. She said, i clerked for Justice Scalia within 20 years ago, but the lessons i learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine. A judge must supply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. Statement, buter i think that is a good summary of who she is. Thats who amy barrett is in terms of the law. As far as amy barrett the individual, she and her husband have seven children, two adopted. So nine seems to be a good number. This is an Election Year. We are confirming the judge in an Election Year. What will happen is my democratic colleagues will say this has never been done and they are right in this regard. Confirmed in an Election Year past july. The bottom line is Justice Ginsburg when asked about this several years ago that a president serves four years not three. There is nothing unconstitutional about this process. His is a vacancy this is a tragedy of the loss of a great woman and we will fill the vacancy with another great woman. Dutyenate is doing its constitutionally. Garland, the opening that occurred with the passing of Justice Scalia was in the early part of an Election Year. The primary process had just started. And we can talk about history, but here is the history as i understand it. There has never been a situation where you had the president of one party and the senate of another with the nominee where the replacement was made in Election Years. It has been over 140 years ago. There have been 19 vacancies filled in an Election Year, 17 of the 19 confirmed to the court on the party of the president and senate are the same. Timing, the hearing is starting 16 days after nomination, more than half of all Supreme Court hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee. Stevens, 10, pollock, 13, blackman, 13. We are doing this constitutionally. Our democratic friends object to the process. I respect them all. They will have a chance to have their say, but most importantly, i hope we will know more about how the law works, checks and balances, what the Supreme Court is all about when this hearing is all over. Why hold this hearing . A lot of people on our say aside say just ram it through. I hear that a lot, so i dont listen to the radio much anymore. I think it is important. This is a lifetime appointment. I would like the world and the country to know more about judge merrick. Judge barrett. This is probably not about persuading each other unless something dramatic happens. All republicans will vote yes and all the democrats will vote no. That will be the way the breakout of the vote. The hearing is a chance for democrats to dig deep into her philosophy, appropriately asked her about the law, how she would is on hernt, what mind. It gives republicans a chance to do the same thing. Most importantly, it gives the American People the chance to georgia about george judge barrett. Is she as qualified as soda sotomayor andn kagan . I think so. They had a different philosophy than my own, but i never doubted one moment they were not qualified. I thought gorsuch and kavanaugh were qualified. Hassenate in the past looked at qualifications more than anything else. We are taking it we have taken a different path at times. Toms, alito, cavanaugh thomas, alito, cavanaugh. That, and ideserve dont think it makes this hearing any better. Believe,can people, i do not deserve a repeat of those episodes in the Senate Judiciary many history. , imy democratic colleagues respect you all. We have done some things together and had some fights in this committee. I have tried to give you the time you need to make your case, and you have every right in the world to make your case. I think i know how the vote is going to come out, but i think barrett is required to listen to your questions. Lets extent possible, make it respectful, challenging, lets remember the world is watching. Senator feinstein. Sen. Feinstein thanks very much. I want to address your last statement. We feel the same way and i believe we want this to be a very good hearing. I certainly will strive to do my best to achieve that. , andmorning, judge barrett welcome to you and your family. At less than one month ago, the nation lost one of our leading voices for equality, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She left very big shoes to fill her judge ginsburg loved the law and she love this country shoes to fill. Judge ginsburg loved the law and she love this country. We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, included all of the people, not just a few, elite few. She was a standard bearer for justice. Justice ginsburgs nomination was the first one that i participated in when i came to the senate. It was a real thrill to be part of that hearing for someone who shebroken down barriers staunchly believed in a womans right to full equality and autonomy. In filling judge ginsburgs , it is high for the American People in the short term and for decades to come. Most importantly, Health Care Coverage for millions of thiscans is at stake with nomination. Colleagues and i will focus on that subject. We will examine the consequences if, and it is a big if, if republicans succeed in rushing this nomination to the senate before the next president takes office. But most importantly, in just a , the Supreme Court vll hear hearings in texas california. , and act to strike down the aca. The president has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law as a candidate, he criticized the precourt for upholding the law and said, and i quote, if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right robertslike bushs john. Obamacare the president said eliminating the Affordable Care act would be quote a big win for the usa. Judge barrett you have been critical of roberts opinion upholding the law saying that roberts push the four character beyond its possible meaning to , end quote. Tute ifs can melt mean that judge barrett is confirmed, americans stand to lose the benefits. I hope you will address that in the series. With130 million americans preexisting conditions like cancer, asthma, or even covid19. Ould be denied coverage this includes within 16. 8 million californians with preexisting conditions, and we are just one state. But i think you should know how we feel. Secondly, some 12 million working americans are covered through the acas Medicaid Expansion. If the act is struck down, they lose their health care. Third, more than 2 million americans under the age of 26 are covered by their Parents Health insurance, and they could lose that coverage. Fourth, insurers could charge higher premiums for women, simply because of their gender. In fifth, women could lose access to critical Preventive Services and maternity care, including cancer screenings and well women visits. The bottom line is this there have been 70 attempts to repeal effort, but clearly the to dismantle the law continues, and they are asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care act. This, i believe, will calls tremendous harm because tremendous harm, consider people like Christina Garcia of my home state. At 860, christinas eyesight cap at age 60l at age 60, christinas eyesight started to fail. The cost of coverage when it was even offered to her averaged between one to 500 and 3000 a month, far more than she and her husband could afford. 2010, she was able to obtain coverage through the Affordable Care act. Within weeks she was able to have cataract surgery. This saved her life. She described her reaction when she was able to get coverage through the California Health exchange following passage of the aca. And let me quote, it was like heaven. I cried. After all these years of struggling to obtain coverage, i was able to get insurance through the california exchange, no questions asked about my preexisting conditions. The premium was worth 200 a month as compared to the 2500 to 3000 monthly Premium Payments i would have to pay before the aca if i can even get an insurer to offer me coverage. As she further explained, and i quote, people just dont understand what it was like, the incredible fear before the Affordable Care act. Ing to worry about being covering medical expenses and not being able to find affordable insurance. We cant afford to go back to those days when americans could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant amounts. Thats what is at stake for many of us for america with this nomination, and thats why the questions we will ask and the views hopefully that you will share with us are so important. Days from thet 22 election, mr. Chairman. States. S underway in 40 Senate Republicans are pressing forward, full speed ahead, to consolidate the court that will carry their policies forward with, i hope, some review for the will of the American People. President trump said last week that he had instructed my representatives to stop negotiation over a covid19 leave package until after the election. And to focus fulltime on arrett to thedge b Supreme Court. Died, senatescalia republicans refused to consider a replacement for his seat until after the election. At the time, senator mcconnell said the American People should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. 2018 ifed in october republicans intended to honor their own rule if an opening were to come up in 2020, chairman graham promised if an opening comes in the last year of President Trumps term in the primary process is started, would wait after the next election. Republicans should honor this word for their promise and let the American People be heard. Simply put, i believe we should not be moving forward on this nomination, not until the election has ended and the next president has taken office. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham senator grassley. Ginsburgsley justice delivered a eulogy for her friend, Justice Scalia. We wereinsburg said different, yes in our interpretation of written text, yet one in our reference for the the u. S. D its place in system of governance. Generation and also Justice Scalias . The senate is tasked with its most solemn duty under the constitution. As we go through this process, we should heed Justice Ginsburgs words with a shared reverence for the court and its place in our constitutional system. This idea of place in our system of government is critical. Hours is a government of separated powers, the power to make, enforce, and interpret law isnt centralized in one person or one branch of government. Thats not a mistake. Know what the American Revolution was all about and what the constitution is all about. Because people at that time were sick and tired of one person, george the third, restricting american colonies of freedom that englishspeaking people elsewhere exercised. Us,ustice scalia reminds the framers recognized the separation of powers as the absolutely central guaranteed of a just government, because without a secure structure of separated powers, our bill of rights would be worthless. Systems constitutional only succeeds if each branch respects its proper role. A good judge understands its not the courts place to rewrite fit. Aw as it sees its not his or her place to let policy, personal or moral principles take an outcome of a case. We are fortunate judge barretts clearly reflects the standard. She said a judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views that they might hold. Service reflects intellect and deep commitment to the rule of law. So we look to those who know her well. She has received praise across the Legal Profession and the ideological spectrum. Former colleagues at notre dame describe the judge as brilliant, industrious, gracious, and kind, and as a person of most integrity with an open mind and an even temperament that is prized in a judge. Also known as a generous mentor. And she is known for her humility, graciousness, and her ability, born of her credibility, to build consensus among differing views. Express awe with the power of judge barretts intellect and with her professionalism. Leaders of more than 200 liberties and supporting groups across the country say judge merrick possesses the judicial judge barrett possesses the judicial and institutions of government. State governors advisor saying she is devoted to her beauty, family, and faith like many americans. The wall street Journal Editorial Board says President Trumps nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court is the highlight of his presidency. Made,ise kept, a promise a promise kept. Harvard law professor called judge barrett quote a principled , brilliant lawyer principal, brilliant lawyer, highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Thats a pretty high praise. Moreover, judge barrett is a tireless mother of seven. For decades i have led efforts in the senate to improve foster care and promote adoption, so its a privilege for me to welcome a justice like that to the Supreme Court. To sum up judge barretts qualification and character are impeccable. Unfortunately, i suspect the minority will try to rustle up basis claims and scare tactics, as theyve done for decades, anything to derail the confirmation of a republican nominee. Lately, the left is buttoning to pack the Supreme Court in retaliation for this confirmation process. Even the democrats nominee for president and Vice President have not ruled out such latently partisan policy grabs such blatant policy grabs. The republicans are following the constitution and the precedent. It seems democrats would rather ignore both. The left is also suggesting judge barretts confirmation would demise of the fargo care act and protesting and protection from preexisting the Affordable Care act and protesting protection from preexisting conditions. Lets set the record straight. Thatfessor barrett the formal care act penalty was actually a tax. Democrats say her view is radical and a preview how she might vote on the court. Comments dealt with provisional law that is no longer in effect. So the legal question before the court this fall are entirely separate. Her criticism of roberts reasoning is mainstream, not only in the conservative legal community, but well beyond. Im the chairman of the finance committee and was Ranking Member when democrats unilaterally coddled together obamacare. I know a tax when i see one. This was never discussed in committee as a tax. Even the democrats, who forced it through congress, insisted it wasnt a tax. Wrote thatbin roberts tax argument was not a persuasive one. President obama even said i absolutely reject the notion that it was a tax. Further, democrats and their allies shouldnt claim to know how any judge would rule in any particular case. Just look at history. Left slammed stevens for his consistent opposition to womens rights. They called Anthony Kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. They said david souter would and freedom of women in this country. Ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. Their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. Democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they wont stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. I saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. Try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett religious affiliations. They suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. When senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. Another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. Let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. Judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. I expect that you will follow the example of Justice Ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no hints at how he or she will vote, because thats the role of a judge. Thats the place of a judge in our system of government, unbiased, fiercely independent, faithful to the rule of law, and a steadfast defender of the constitution. Judge barrett, i look forward to our conversation. Once again, congratulations. Sen. Graham thank you. Thank you. Certainly you can hear me all right . Sen. Graham yes, and we can see you. I think about the fact that i served in the senate for 46 years. 20ing that time we had nominations, 16 confirmation hearings, and i can tell you right now none was anything like this. Time ofn two weeks putting judge ginsburg laid to rest. It is true that it is the responsibility of this committee to consider her replacement on the Supreme Court, but this isnt the way we should do it. We should not have a nomination ceremony before Justice Ginsburg was even buried. Was mourningion her passing. We should not be holding a hearing just 16 days later, when this committee has afforded three times as long to get other nominees to the highest court. We shouldnt holding a hearing three weeks from a president ial election, when millions of americans have already voted. Doing so requires literally half the senate goes back on their word. My republican colleagues, nearly half had to break their word, statements made four years ago about the American People needing a voice during electionyear vacancies. We should not be holding this hearing. Two members of this Committee Just now emerging from quarantine after testing. Ositive for covid others have declined to get tested and the chairman has to keepto keep a regime judge barrett and her family safe. We shouldnt spending time on this when we are doing absolutely nothing to pass a muchneeded covid bill. Pray for their commitments. Covid. Than 200,000 have died due to covid. Senate republicans have nothing to say about that. The senate is wearing blinders to the growing realities acing americans. Instead of talking about covid and doing something for the American People, to a Supreme Court vacancy on the people of a president ial election. And why . It is painfully clear. President trump and Senate Republicans see the potential to radically swing the balance of the court. Ability toat the take the court from being inndent to making them the Republican Party. What they failed to accomplish, votes in the halls of congress. The top of the hit list is the Affordable Care act. It is no secret or coincidence that republicans are rushing to confirm judge barrett before the Supreme Court considers the latest republican led lawsuit onr the formal care act november 10. The president has promised any judge he nominates overturn the formal care act. One has promised you wont vote for a judge unless he has that one has promised he wont vote for a judge unless he has that promise. Judge barrett made it unequivocally clear she considers the act unconstitutional. In fact, overturning the Affordable Care act has been the single most important policy objective of the Republican Party during the past decade. If republicans are successful, the results will be nothing short of catastrophic for the millions of americans who depend upon the coverage. These are real people. I believe you have in the committee and you can actually , this is mary scott. She lives in vermont. 20s, mary was diagnosed with a rare neurological disease. , and i apologize, i know you have this picture in the committee room. Nurse. Ked as a she would no longer be able to career she loved and she asked them to rotate her through different areas so she could help as many people as she could. Now she is a wheelchair and can no longer practice nursing. She does everything she can to take care of her two children. I had the pleasure of calling one of her sons on his birthday last spring. She helps in their remote school. This because her medication and home care is paid for by her insurance. But she is worried. Even with some state protections, she is worried that the Supreme Courts kate next month and what it will mean for people Supreme Courts decision next month and what it will mean for people with preexisting conditions. She is worried she will lose her inhome support. She is a fighter. What i think when i think about with the Affordable Care act means to millions of americans and what is online for this nomination, i think of mary. I think of what she is going to lose. And she is not the only one. I talked to vermonters all the time. Think of another one, arthur richards. She is an amazing, amazing martha richards. She has an amazing, amazing woman. She reached out to my office concerned about the fate of the Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care act. Earns just over the minimum wage in vermont. She works for the vermont state parks and has raised two kids on her own. Just look at this person. She began experience experiencing debilitating pain in her hair behind her i. It led to extensive tests, including two m. R. I. s that eye. D cost behind her it led to expensive tests, including two m. R. I. s that would cost 6,000. The attorneys general have suggested a hearing before the Supreme Court. People like martha would have known. I dont suggest that judge barrett wants to devastate the lives of these two vermonters, but these are the consequences if her stated views on the law prevail in the Supreme Court and if republicans are successful in filling this vacancy prior to november 10. These views will almost certainly prevail. That is what is at stake here. That is what ways heavily on mary in the minds of the vermonters i represent. I have heard from them often and Justice Scalia is passing. They are scared your confirmation would rip away their Health Care Protections for millions of americans and for which commerce has repeatedly rejected limiting. They are scared that the court will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and where it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace. They are scared that a time when we are facing the perilous impacts of climate change. They are scared that your confirmation would result in the rolling back of the voting rights, workers rights, and the rights of the lgbtq community. These arent just thoughts. These are reallife implications and decisions made by the court. Majority dont support taking our country in that direction. Just one hour after her death and the process has been nothing but shameful. Will almost certainly lead to disastrous consequences for americans. Ginsburg, i am certain, would have dissented. , on behalf of vermonters and the integrity of the senate and on behalf of the georgie of americans who oppose this process. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you. You, welcome to you and your family. The Senate Judiciary committee undertakes no more important duty than the one we undertake today, considering the nomination for a seat on the United States Supreme Court. As the chairman said, these used to be routine. Even the two justices who were once considered the ideological book ends on the Court Received overwhelming support in the senate. The two justices had a different judicial philosophy, were nominated by president s of opposing parties, the senate used to recognize that exceptional qualifications were all that was required for a seat on the court. Throughout your impressive career, you have earned the respect of those who share your views on the law as well as those who do not. As Justice Ginsburg said of her unlikely friendship with Justice Scalia, you can disagree without being disagreeable. But i dont want to imply that you disagree frequently. In fact, during your time on the seventh circuit, you cited with your that she cited with their colleagues 75 of the time you sided with your colleagues 75 of the time. Letters pouring in from your colleagues, clerks, students, virtually everybody with whom you have come in contact. Folks with widely freight judicial philosophies agree that you are brilliant, respectful, kind, and when you disagree, you do so without personal rancor or malice. While your qualifications and reputation are on par with those justices who have sat in the seat before you, the Political Climate in which you are being vetted is quite different, as we all know. What are colleagues on the others of the aisle put Justice Kavanaugh through two years ago was an absolute disgrace. And hopefully a low point for the senate. They and some of their allies sought to destroy the personal character of a good man with innuendo, misinformation, and outright lies. I hope they resist the temptation to repeat that during this hearing. I do remain concerned about some of the early attacks on your faith. In a recent wall street journal column the wisconsin Supreme Court justice wrote, to put it bluntly, americas secular cultural elites sure that a faithful christian can be entrusted with the law. A former senior aide to former majority leader harry reid recently said the groups want blood. Democrats on and off the. Ommittee want a real fight but let me be clear, judge, as you know, there is no religious test to serve on the Supreme Court. Why . Because the constitution says so and i can only hope the civility you shown through a work will be afforded to you through these proceedings. But, judge, theres a question that comes up in my discussions with my constituents thats really more basic and more personal. They want to know how you do it. How do you and your husband managed to fulltime professional careers and at the same time take care of your large family . Ill bet there are many young women, like my own two daughters, who marveled at the balance that youve achieved between your personal and professional life. Important, iry and also look forward to revisiting the appropriate role of judges and our Constitutional Republic, something there appears to be some dispute about here. You and i know that judges should not be policymakers. But could it be that one of the reasons these confirmation hearings have become so contentious is become some americans have given up on the idea of fair and impartial judges do not winners and losers , that theyve given up on an independent judiciary. I hope not. Judges should not be super legislators give political allies wins they could not secure through the rough and tumble of the political process. Our founders, through the constitution, provided judges would be independent of political pressure. Chief Justice Roberts reminded all of us recently that we do not have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges, or clinton judges. Ideally, that is true. Youve said judges constrain themselves by making the choice to follow the law where it leads, trying to check their own preferences at every turn. In the end, a judges internal compass and commitment to the law is the most important constraint upon any sort of judicial willfulness. But youre being asked to abandon that, judge. You stand accused of intending to violate your oath for you even take it. Further, our democratic colleagues want you to guarantee a result in a case as a quid pro quo for your confirmation. Its outrageous. Well, theyve said that if this confirmation proceeds, they intend to pack the court with more justices who will turn the Supreme Court into a second legislative body. We heard what Justice Ginsburg had to say about that. That would be a terrible mistake. Judge barrett, i am confident at the end of this hearing your stellar character, credentials, and body of work as a judge will demonstrate that you understand the limited but Important Role of the judiciary under our constitution. Im confident you will demonstrate that you will faithfully and fairly interpret the text of the law and the constitution and dutifully apply them to the disputes that come before you. Im confident that at the end of this process, you will be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Judge barrett, and your family, welcome. In the throes of a devastating pandemic, with over 216,000 americans dead and over 7. 7 million infected with this virus. Each day we are reminded of how this invisible virus has changed our lives and changed america. In sight we no end face an economy and crisis with millions of jobs lost and challenges facing workers, businesses, and families all across america. And we are in the middle of an election season, millions of americans have already cast their votes. This may be one of the consequential elections in our nations history, because for the first time in the history of the United States, and incumbent president refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election. This resident come in his vanity and constitutional recklessness, refuses to commit to accept the president , and his vanity and constitutional recklessness, refuses to commit to the will of the American People. Justice ginsburg spent her entire life and every ounce of strength and talent she was given in pursuit of americas highest ideal, equal justice under the law. Her absence is deeply felt. This is the context in which the Senate Majority republicans are defined the traditions of the senate and rushing forward with President Trumps third nomination to the Supreme Court. It has been recounted earlier that Justice Ginsburg was approved by the senate by a 963 vote. Thinking,of liberal advocate for the aclu, 96three before the United States senate. And then Antonin Scalia a on the opposite polar end of the spectrum, approved 980. Amazing. Can this be the same senate . Its not. The reason those votes were so overwhelming was because people lived by the rules, they lived by the traditions of the senate, and they had Mutual Respect for one another. Processnow that this does not adhere to those guidelines. Pursuit before us today is unfair to the senate and unfair to the nominee. The nominee before us was announced 16 days ago, the day after Justice Ginsberg lay in state in the United States capital. We received the nomination paperwork 13 days ago and have learned since then that some materials are missing. The speed with which republicans are moving to fill this vacancy stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by the same Senate Republicans the last time there was a vacancy in an Election Year, in 2016. Ehind me is the mcconnell rule on february 13, 2016 when Justice Scalia died he said, the American People should have a voice in the selection there Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a a newent area president. This was made to 69 days before the selection. The republican members fell obediently behind mcconnells statement of principle. They sent a letter, this committee will not hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next president is sworn in. The letter noted that the election is well underway, that was 269 days before the election, and said it was one of a necessity to protect the will of the American People. Yet when Justice Ginsburg passed away on september 18, senator mcconnell said that very same night, and i quote, as it trumps nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States senate. He made this 46 days before the election. People had already again casting votes. My republican colleagues marched in for the cameras, looked down at their shoes, dutifully reversed their positions, and lined up obediently behind their leader. If the American People do get an election your voice regarding a vacancy on the Supreme Court or they dont. In 2016, mcconnell said give them a voice and now he says you dont give them a voice. It is a shameless reversal. Why are Senate Republican so afraid to give the American People a voice about the future of the Supreme Court . First must out that donald trump will be reelected. Second, they want a 63 court to carry we know november 3 is election day. The president has made it clear he wants another one of his appointees on the court before the election because he anticipates challenges of the vote. Especially over mailin ballot inc. Which she mailin balloting which he has attacked. The president has indicated he would be happy to have a close election decided by the Supreme Court rather than by the votes of the American People. The other date is november 10. We know that date well. That is the date the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in california versus texas, a case in which the administration is urging the court to strike down the entire Affordable Care act including protections for millions of americans with preexisting conditions. It is unimaginable in the middle of a pandemic the republicans want to strike down a law that 23 million americans rely on for their Health Insurance and millions more for the protections given to the writing of future policies. On september 27 the president the treated he wants to see aca terminated. To be honest about this, this ansident has never suffered unuttered thoughts. It clear that he wants this Supreme Court to eliminate the Affordable Care act. This is his litmus test. How many times have we heard it, his criticism of chief Justice Roberts for failing to strike down obama care . When he was running for president , he tweeted that if i win my appointments do the right thing unlike john roberts. Think what it would mean if the republicans when their wish. All of the people would lose. Heir coverage republicans in congress have been obsessed with repealing obama care, but they do not have the votes to do it. They could not get it done in the house. They could not get it done in the Senate Thanks to three brave republicans and now they have to rely on the court to do their work. The record. Re on he wrote an article in which you chiefized the case where Justice Roberts was the deciding vote. Now your nomination is moving forward at unprecedented speed. What is at stake . I will show you. This is kenny murray from illinois, and his family. I met his family in my office. Sue. Is a picture of 2 they told me their son was diagnosed with multiple heart defects. Before his first birthday kenny surgeriesenheart outside chicago. He had surgery for the third four months aths his young life he was staying in the intensive care unit and his health bills had reached 1 million. When he was born in 2013 his Health Insurance through his dad of 1lifetime maximum cap million. The aca band Insurance Companies from imposing these annual limits. Int band went into place january of 2014, 6 days before his first surgery. If it were not for the aca, he limitve hit his lifetime in just four months. They told me they would have and bankrupt. Because of the Affordable Care act, kenny was able to get the care he needed. , wouldnt youure want him on your team . I would. Kenny is a real person whose life depends on the Affordable Care act. Judge, your nomination for lifetime appointment comes before us under a cloud you have been nominated by a president who shows contempt for the constitution but doesnt hesitate to tell his followers that you are being sent to the bench to do his political chores, abolish the aca, rule in his favor on any election contest and more. We cannot feel good about this president cheapening this moment. The future of the aca and so many other issues hang in the balance. Environmental protection, gun safety, marriage equality, dreamers, these are at stake. If we wait a few more days we will know what the American People have to say. En. Graham thank you , mr. Chairman. Judge barrett, you and i have a number of things in common. We were raised in large families, and we are both one in seven children. You are the oldest of seven children which means that long before you had your own seven children you are also the de facto mother too many, the way things work in large families such that the oldest child often takes on responsibilities at an early age. Those have undoubtedly helped you throughout life with leadership roles in your career as a lawyer and a professor and now as a judge. Those roles mean Something Different in the Traditional Branch of government than they do in the executive branch or in the legislative branch. We have heard a number of arguments that are essentially policy arguments, many geared towards policies, actual pieces of legislation. We have to remember we have three branches of government within our system we have two that are political, legislative, where we work, and the executive headed by the president or the laws are implemented and enforced. Of course the Judicial Branch where you work where the laws are interpreted or people come to disagreement as to their meaning. The branches are referred to sometimes as equal. I think the best description is that they are coordinate ranches. They each exist within their own sphere. They are not equal in the sense the least Dangerous Branch was, is, always has been and always will be the Judicial Branch for cannot decide where we are going to go today or tomorrow. The judiciary is confined to those cases and controversies brought before your jurisdiction. Future, not into the but in the past. Your job is to decide what the. Aw says when people disagree those laws consist of words and particular had a manning on the day of their incorporation into the constitution, and that is your job. If you are watching the hearing today, some of the statements , in i some of my colleagues fact if you look at any of the posters put up, you would think this was a political discussion, a policy discussion, a legislative discussion. You are being reviewed for a position on our nations highest court where you will be asked to decide cases based on the law and the facts. This is not something that should result or should be considered by us, something that requires us to examine to what extent in what way you have compassion for in the of the individuals in these photos. Just based on might limited and are action with you i am certain that you have compassion for all. This is not the question nor is it the question before us, whether you would agree or disagree as to any policy embedded within any particular statute. You understand this is not your job, not as a judge on the u. S. Court of appeals nor would it be if you were to confirm to be confirmed as an associate justice to the United States Supreme Court. One might have the impression from watching these proceedings so far that the Supreme Court is , remarkably bitter, cynical overwhelmingly partisan place. It is not. We have both clerked at the Supreme Court and we know that you look at the numbers, and he will see something remarkable. Despite the flaws and despite the fact it sometimes makes , the Supreme Court of the United States sits atop something that is the envy of systemld, a judicial that despite the fact it is run by human beings and therefore is imperfect, it is the best judicial system ever existing on planet earth. One of the ways in which this has manifested, if you look at the members of the Supreme Court and the fact they come from different backgrounds, appointed by different president s, to the extent that some have indicated what their political leanings might be, they indicate they come from different backgrounds as well. Yet the most common configuration of a Supreme Court decision is not 54, not even 63. Fact 81, 72, or 90 make up the vast majority. This is remarkable and you consider the fact that the Supreme Court typically takes up only those cases as to which lord courts have been unable to reach agreement, when interpreting the same provisions of federal law, federal statute, or a provision of the constitution. Lower courts, very smart man and no one very smart men and women have been unable to reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the same group of words. Then and only then the Supreme Court takes up those cases, and yet they overwhelmingly decides those cases either unanimously or near unanimously. Without these divisions, that would make one think that that is the breadandbutter of this work. When it does arise, it is not even always involving a hot button issue most of the docket does not even consist of the hot button issues. A lot consists of stuff that i the fascinating like dormant comet cause, but american does not wonder about that . Case thate kind of comes before the Supreme Court and might be decided on a 54 basis, but not necessarily along the lines that one would predict based on the appointment of each justice and the Political Party of each appointing president. Decisions that are politically charged and that americans worry about more than others, that might affect more americans than a decision about context ofsal in the the dormant Commerce Clause. Also, there we cannot overstate or overplay the role the supreme in thatght exert context. In those circumstances, when the Supreme Court rules that something has been done that is not constitutional, that does not mean that is the end of the policy road. Sometimes it might mean the wrong government enacted. Sometimes it might mean the federal government enacted when a state should have. Other times it might mean 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 are talking about health care, privacy and individual liberty, each person serving anywhere in our government has the obligation to look out for the best interests of those they represent. Each person serving as an officer of the United States government is required under the consultation to take an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. The constitution, this document written merely to an half centuries ago, has helped foster the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known, and it is not just a judicial thing. Best when and works everyone of us reads it and understands it and takes and honors an oath to uphold and protect it and defend it. When we do our jobs in this branch, when our friends in the executive branch do their jobs, it requires us to follow the constitution the same way. Fear tactics of creating and doubt, that result in outside ofprotests the one branch of government that is not political, astound me but they disappoint me and they reflect the fact that we have allowed for the politicization of the one branch of the government that is not political. We can turn that around. We ourselves within the legislative branch have got to do a better job by focusing on the fact that the constitution is not just a judicial thing. It is also a legislative thing, and executive thing, an american thing. It is one of the reasons i will anytime tries to attribute to you a policy. Osition and hold you to that you are not a policymaker. You are a judge. That is what we are here to discuss. Thank you. Sen. Graham some good news. Dormantusiasm for the Commerce Clause convinces me he made a full recovery. Senator whitehouse. Barrett,an, judge america is worried about one thing above altright now, and that is our health. Microcosm ofis a the dangerous ineptitude of pandemic,th the covid trump cannot even keep the white house safe. It is the chairmans job to see to the committee safety, and though his words were reassuring, i do not know who has been tested, who should be danger, whats a Contact Tracing has been done on infected and exposed senators and staff. Nothing. The whole thing, just like trump, is an irresponsible botch. Slapdash is that this hearing targets the Affordable Care act. This Supreme Court nominee has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the aca must go and preside president cedent does not matter. Rushnfluences behind this see this nominee as a judicial torpedo they are firing at the aca. I hope republicans consider what is at stake for the many people who depend right now in this pandemic on aca health coverage. Rhode islanders are calling in writing me either thousands asking me to say no to this nominee mostly because they see aimed a judicial torpedo at their essential protections. My constituents want my colleagues to stand up to it for once and to the big donors driving this process and for the sake of regular people say stop. Heres one person to consider, laura from rhode island. Her brother saved her life when he donated one of his kidneys to her. Battled wass laura a preexisting condition protected under the aca just like covid is now a preexisting condition for nearly 8 million americans. Laurette tells me without the aca, for people with preexisting conditions, cremeans, if unable to get insurance at all, would be financially out of reach for me and i would not be able to afford the health monitoring, specialists and treatment that are essential for my kidney to function. My medications alone cost about 48,000 annually. Before the aca people like me wouldence times when they come up against a wall, not in treatment that in the annual or lifetime caps on coverage insurers were allowed. I cannot imagine what this would mean for me. Bankruptcy or worse. Laura is not alone. We are in the middle of a Deadly Health crisis that trump has botched which tested touches nearly everyone. Americans are dying by the hundreds of thousands. Millionomy is down 10 jobs despite all of the warnings , and people on the front line, health care workers, teachers, police officers, others still struggle for the resources they need. More and more Small Businesses are closing for good. Any hospitals teeter on the edge of insolvency. Facesand features challenges brought on by this. Since may the house has passed two covid relief bills. Mitch mcconnell and the Senate Republicans will not budge, no urgency he said. After we learned of Justice Ginsburgs death mcconnell signaled he would fill the vacancy. The white house chose a replacement three days later. Justice ginsburg had not been buried when the president and Senate Republicans celebrated judge barretts nomination. 180 for a hypocritical many republicans. When they locked Merrick Garland we heard nonstop about the importance of the election, nonstop that you should not have a nominee appointed to the court after the primary season had begun. Now with americans voting right now and the general election, we get this mad rush. Why . Look at the calendar. Exactly one week after the election on november 10 the Supreme Court will hear california versus texas, the challenge to the aca. It survived the last challenge by one vote. If the new challenge succeeds, the case will tear out the aca, the law on which over 20 million americans rely for help insurance. Getr which 129 million preexisting conditions covered and under which millions of seniors enjoy lower drug costs. Aca nominee signals on the are clear, clear enough to move her to the top of the big donors list. Three years ago she wrote that Justice Roberts pushed the aca got its possible meaning to save the statute. Clear signals that are likely why she is before this committee now. , with storiesra like hers coming in, why would we rush forward . The answer is not pretty. There is a promise to big donors. When david coke ran for Vice President he campaigned on getting rid of medicare and medicaid. Imagine his fury when obamacare passed it his groups are spending millions on this nomination. Republicans in congress try to repeal the aca more than 70 times. It is in the Republican Party for justices to reverse the aca decision. Trump has said this is his reason, and now we are in this rush to meet the november 10 argument deadline and colleagues pretend this is not about the aca. Right. This case leads to one senators doorstep and a political article yesterday the senior senator from texas tried to say this rush is not targeting the aca. Look at the record, the district judge in texas who struck down the aca now headed for the court is a former a to the senator who has become what the texas. Ribune called the favorite the scene in her the senior senator texas introduce the judge who wrote the decision on appeal striking down the aca. A brief after brave arguing for striking down the aca. He led a failed senate charge. He said i have introduced and cosponsored 27 bills to repeal , and now obamacare talking about socialized medicine, the old republican battle cry against medicare, the senator and his colleagues are pushing to get this nominee on by november 10. Please do not tell us this is not about the Affordable Care act. When texans lose their aca Health Care Protections, hop to see whos doorstep that sits on. Lost in this rush is the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Let me remember her for a minute and this charade. She fought for equality and equity and dignity and forged a path for women in law, from Harvard Law School to the pinnacle of academia and onto the Supreme Court where she defended reproductive rights. The rights of workers, voting immigrants rights of and countenance countless other freedoms. She bent the ark of the moral universe towards justice for all, how fitting that she should be the first woman to lie in state in our capital. As to this charade, big donors may love it. Americans see what is going on. They see this hasty power grab and they know what it means for the health care in the middle of a pandemic. For republicans there is no washing hands of responsibility for the results that your president has told us will ensue. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham thank you. Senator cruz is with us virtually. Thank you good morning. Welcome. Some observations about what we have heard this morning. At the beginning, let me observe as Sherlock Holmes famously the one speaks the loudest is the one that did not bark. Which is today for every democrat who has spoken, we have heard not a single word about judge barrett. We have heard a lot of attacks in the president. We understand our democrats are not supporters of the president. We have heard a lot of rhetoric. We just heard the senator from rhode island directing some attacks at the senator from texas. I understand there is an election in a few weeks so those attacks are not surprising. We have heard little about the nominee who is here. I think part of the reason is that on any measure, her. Redentials are impeccable this is a woman who graduated number one in her class at notre dame law school. Say thatenture to there is not a Single Member of this committee who graduated number one in their class of law school. Perhaps my colleague mike lee can disagree, but that is impressive. Clerkbarrett went on to for Justice Scalia, one of the greatest ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Fromard celebration senator lakey about the fact that he was confirmed 980. Then she became a law professor for two decades at notre dame , whereool, teaching law she was respected and she was a careful scholar. And now she is one of the most respected federal court of appeals judges in the country. None of the discussions from our democratic colleagues addressed that. Areuse those credentials impeccable and indeed the american bar association, which typically means hard left and has a pattern of favoring democratic nominees over nominees appointed by republican butidents, had no choice conclude that she was well qualified as a majority of the board did. Qualifications are sherkable, and i believe will serve as an excellent Supreme Court justice. So what have the democratic friends focusing on . One thing is history, and they claimed the fact that this nomination is occurring at all is illegitimate. It does not matter who judge barrett is, what she has done, the timingcord is, our friendsation tell us makes it illegitimate. , it doesr the history not accurately reflect what the senate has done over two centuries. This question of what happens when there is a Supreme Court vacancy during a president ial Election Year, 2020 is not the first time america has faced that. That question. Ed bac indeed, in our country posing history, the question has come up 29 times. 29 times president s have faced those same circumstances, and 29 times, the president has purporting nomination to fill that seat. Matter ifes, does not it is republican or democrat, each time, you make a nomination. Of the 44 president s, half of them, 22 of the president s we have had, have made a nomination for a vacancy that occurred on an Election Year. What has the senate done . The Senate President is quite clear, and it is something that our democratic friends do not want to address, do not want to confront. Of those 29 times, 19 of them occurred when the president and the senate were of the same party. And when the president and the senate are the same party, history shows that those nominees get confirmed. 17 of those 19 were confirmed for vacancies that occur during the president ial Election Year. On the other hand, for those who home, theh at remaining 10 occurred when the president and the senate were different parties. When the president and senate are different parties, the senate has confirmed only two of those 10 nominees. Again, history is clear. The overwhelming majority of instances that the president and senate are different parties, that nominee does not get confirmed. That is of course what happened byh judge garland, nominated president obama. President obama was a democrat, the senate was in republican hands, and following tradition of 200 years, the senate did not confirm that nominee. Now, some might think the difference between whether the senate and president are the same party or different party, that is just a question of partisan alignment, partisan pattern. But that actually misunderstands the constitutional structure. The framers of the constitution deliberately set up a system of checks and balances, so that nobody can become a Supreme Court nominee without both the president and the senate. Checkwas designed to trick the other. Of checks and balances limits power and protects the voters. And indeed, the voters made a clear choice. You know, one of the things that is clear from this discussion this morning is democrats and republicans have fundamentally different visions of the court, of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do what its function is. Democrats view the court as a super legislature, as a policymaking body, as a body that will decree outcomes to the American People. That vision of the court is something found nowhere in the constitution, and it is a curious way to want to run a country. Particularis not any policy issue, you might happen to agree with where a majority of the court is on any given day, who in their right mind would want the United States of , ruled by five unelected lawyers wearing black robes . It is hard to think of a less democratic nation than unelected philosopher kings, with like tenure, decreeing rules for 330 million americans. That is not, in fact, the courts job. The courts job is to decide cases according to law and to leave policymaking to the legislatures. Legislators. Policymaking is not important. Policymaking is very important. Rogue courtt, if a emblems policies you do not like, u. S. The American People do not have much you can do. Youhe legislators do it, can elect the bums out, voting them out and electing new representatives. Much of the concern this morning has concerned around obamacare. According in the senate, the right place for them occurred, in a legislative body. But our democratic colleagues want to promise from the judicial nominee that this nominee will work to emblem and their policy vision of health care. That is not a judges job. That is not a response ability of a job. In fact, making that promise would be violating a judicial oath. I do not know what will happen on the litigation on health care , but i do know this body should be the one resolving the competing policies and issues. Many of our colleagues talked about preexisting conditions, and i think they have made a clinical decision, they want this to be the central issue of the confirmation. Well, remember this. Every Single Member of the agrees that preexisting conditions can and should be protected, period, the end, there is complete unanimity on this. Now, it so happens there are a number of us on the republican side that also want to see premiums go down. Obamacare has caused premiums to skyrocket. The average familys premiums have risen over 5,000 a year. Millions of americans cannot afford health care because of the policy failures of obamacare. Those questions should be resolved in this body, in the elected legislature. Tois not the justices job do that, it is not the courts job to do that. Kate is the legislators job to do that. Age barrett brings judicial temperament and a faithfulness to the law. That is what we should be looking for in Supreme Court justices. And if Democratic Senators want to engage in policy arguments, they can do so here, not by filibustering every bill, as they have done, over and over again, whether it is pandemic relief or obamacare relief to lower premiums that expand choices. Today, our democratic colleagues filibuster everything and then complain nothing gets passed. This is the body that has to resolve those questions. It is also the body that is consistent with two centuries of precedent, can, should, and, i believe, will confirm judge barrett as justice barrett. Thank you. Sen. Graham senator klobuchar. Klobuchar welcome, judge barrett. This committee is gathered today for what i consider one of its most solemn duties and one that i take very seriously. Federal judges, senators, the president of the United States, we all take an oath to uphold the constitution. We make promise to do justice, to tell the truth. At its core, that is what justices do, right . Figure out the truth, figure out justice. My mom come a secondgrade teacher, spent her life teaching little kids what was right or wrong, what was true or false. I still believe it matters, and so do the American People, but we are dealing with a president who does not think truth matters, and he has allies in congress who, in the past, defended our democracy that are now doing his bidding. Senators who clearly set out that the president , a precedent that the president in an Election Year should wait, that we should have an election, and that then the People Choose the president , and the president chooses the nominee. That was your precedent. It has been said that the wheels of justice turn slowly, and justice, on the other hand, can move at lightning speed, as we are seeing here today. We cannot, and you watching at home, should not separate this moment from the hearing and a judge he is trying to rush through. To respond to senator cruz, this is not a rush to justice, this is a rush to put in a justice, a justice whose views are known and who will have a profound impact on your life. Thatyes, these policies support, they matter. Where they can go to school, who you can marry, decisions you can make about your own body, and, yes, your health care. The president knows this. We have a president who has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after an election. Every candidate does that, but not this guy. We have a president who has fired or replaced five inspectors general, senator grassley, who has fired an attorney general, and fbi director, and is now going after their replacement. We have a president who divides our country each and every day. Called our military suckers and losers, he has refused to condemn weiss premisess, and he has white supremacists, and he has the gall to hold up a bible as a prop instead of heeding its words to act justly. And now he says this election will end up in court. Why, senator cruz, does President Trump matter . Courtputting the supreme in his words to, quote, look at the ballot. Whatnow at home exactly the president is up to. If that is why you are voting, that is why you are voting in droves. Why are you voting . Well, you know that your rights, your health, your health care is on the line. You know that they are trying to push through a justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care act, and they are doing it in the middle of a pandemic. And you can see here in this room the misled priorities of this republicanrun senate, and it is in your hands to change it. I have been working to pass a bill to get americans the testing they need to save their lives, to help the moms trying to balance a toddler on their lap while a balancing a laptop on their desk. Are they trying to help seniors missing isolation and birthdays . Are they passing bills to help our economy . That is not the priority. They are choosing to do this. We cannot separate this nominee and the election we are entered we did not decide to do this now, to processing Supreme Court nomination in the middle of an election. They did. So the reason people are not going to fall for this is , touse it is so personal the tune of the 200,000 people who have died, the schools canceled, the jobs you dont have, the degree you could not get. It is personal to me, because my husband got covid early on. He ended up in the hospital for a week on oxygen with severe pneumonia. And months after he got it, i found out the president knew it was airborne, but he did not tell us we were cleaning off every surface in our house, and my husband got it anyway. We did not know. And my dad at 92, he got it in his assisted living. I stood outside his window in a mask, and he looks so small and confused. He knew who our family was, but he did not know what was going on. I thought it was going to be the last time that i saw him. He, miraculously, survive, but marty sean, she didnt. A rising star, the chairman of the st. Paul school covidand just 31 when took her life. Her dad felt sick, she went with him to the hospital because he was scared, then she got sick, never got off a ventilator, and she died. Refugeehter of a young her sevenrny and siblings grew up in st. Paul. Their family the american dream. This is who this virus has taken from us, someone who has left behind a mother and a father and seven siblings who loved her and someone who undoubtedly would have made the world a better place. The president could have saved so many lives. Instead, he has been reckless, packing people in without masks for your nomination party, judge barrett. 35 people got sick, the president himself ends up in a hospital, and when he leaves walter reed, still contagious, he defiantly takes off his mask and walked into the white house. And then he lies and says the virus will magically go away. The truth matters, and the truth is, america, that this judicial nominee has made her view so clear, and this president is trying to put herself in a position of power to make decisions about your lives. The Affordable Care act protects you from getting kicked off of your insurance. That is on the line. The president has been trying to get rid of obama care since he got empower. John mccain went in and stopped it without big thumbs down. Then they went and brought a case to the u. S. Supreme court, and they are now try to stack the deck against you right now. The last time this was before the court in a big way was when Justice Roberts, not exactly a blazing liberal, voted the same as Justice Ginsburg to uphold the Affordable Care act. And this nominee, she criticized him. America, this is about you. It is about these two girls up here, evelyn and mariah, identical twins from cambridge, minnesota, honor roll students, star athletes. They play on the softball team, one is a picture, when is a catcher. Softball play on the team. One of them got diabetes. It does not matter which one, the pitcher, but catcher, they both deserve good health care. If millionsn decide of americans lose the right to keep their children on their insurance until they are 26 years old. One judge can decide that a seniors prescription drugs, which are already too high, could soar even higher. This is a judgeship that was held by an icon, who voted to protect your health care, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a woman who never took no for an answer. When they told her a girl should not go to law school, she graduated first in her class. And when they told her a mansion argue landmark People Protection cases, because maybe they would have a better chance of winning, she did it herself, and she won. She never gave up. Wellad her own hashttag into her 80s, the notorious rbg, and her last fervent wish was that a new president , the winner of the selection, would pick her replacement. Opinions,ook at her you realize she was not just writing for today, she was writing for tomorrow. To the women of america, we have name offar, and in the rbd, we should not go backwards. As the rabbi said at justins Justice Ginsburg memorial at the, her dissent, her strong words when she would disagree with the republicanappointed justices, words were never cries for defeat, they were blueprints for the future. So to all americans, this hearing, whatever these guys try to do, whatever you hear from a command will not be a cry of defeat, it will instead be our blueprint of the future. Yes, judge, i think this hearing is a sham. I think it shows real messed up priorities from the Republican Party, but i am here to do my job, to tell the truth. To all americans, we dont have some clever procedural way to stop this sham, to stop them from rushing through a nominee, but we have a secret weapon that they dont have. We have americans who are watching, who work hard every day, believe in our country and the rule of law, whether they are democrats, republicans, or independents. They note what this president and the public and party are doing right now is very wrong. In fact, 74 of americans think we should be working on a covid relief package right now instead of this. Let me tell you a political secret. That there will be a brilliant crossexamination that is going to change this judges trajectory this week. No. It is you. It is you calling republik and senators and telling them enough is enough, telling them that it is personal, telling them they have their priorities wrong. So do it. And it is you voting, even when they try to do everything to stop you. It is you making your own blueprint for the future instead of crying defeat. So do it. Trumpsnot donald country, it is yours. This should not be Donald Trumps judge. It should be yours. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator sasse. Sen. Sasse thank you, mr. Chairman. Judge barrett, congratulations. I want to say senator klobuchar said a number of things i agree with about covid. She cited a number of painful stories in minnesota, and several similar could be told across the country. I even agree with her partial criticism about the mismanagement of covid about washington, d. C. Do not know what any of that has to do with why we are here today. A huge part of what we are doing here in this hearing would be really confusing to eight graders, civic classes across the country tuned into this hearing and trying to figure out what we are going to do, and they hurt as much about the 2009 finance Committee Debates about what should be in a Health Care Reform package. I am lost, not just on the judiciary committee, but also on lotfinance committee, and a of what we heard today would fit better in a finance committee than agent sherry committee. I think we should do our best to help eighthgraders realize what a president runs for, what i senator is for, and what judge barrett is doing here before us today and what her job will be for. If we could back up and do a little bit of a gray civics, i think it would benefit us and those watching in the country and especially eighthgrade civics classes. I would like to distinguish first between civics and politics, because there was a time, the chairman set at the beginning of this hearing, there was a time when people that would be as different as ruth ader ginsburg and she was historic woman that is absolutely true and Antonin Scalia, and other brilliant mind and your mentor, people by different could both go through the senate and get confirmation vote of 95 or 98 votes, and the chairman said at the beginning of the hearing, he does not know what happened between then and now. I think some of what happened between then and now is we decided to forget what civics are and allow politics to swallow everything. So if i can start, i would like to remind us of the distinction between civics and politics. Civics is the stuff we are all supposed to agree on, regardless of our policy views, differences. Civics is another way we talk about the rules of the road. Civics 101 is the stuff Like Congress writes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, courts apply them. None of that stuff should be different if you are a republican or democrat or a libertarian or a green party member. This is basic civics. Civics is the stuff that all americans should agree on, like religious liberty is essential. People should be able to fire ,he folks who write the laws and voters cant fire the judges. Judges should be impartial. This is just civics 101. Politics is different. Politics is the stuff that happens underneath civics. Civics is the overarching stuff we americans agree in common. Politics is the less important stuff that we differ about. Politics is like if i look at my friend chris coons, and i say listen up, jack wagon, what you want to do on this bill is going to be way too expensive and my bankrupt our kids, or if chris looks back at me and says, listen up, jack wagon, you are too much of a cheapskate, and you are investing in the next generation, that is a really important debate. That is not civics. Thans is more important that. Civics does not change every 18 to 24 months because the electoral whims change or because polling changes. I think it is important that we help our kids understand that politics is the legitimate stuff we fight about, and civics is the place we pull back and say, wait a minute, we have things that are in common, and before we fight about politics, lets reaffirm some of our civics. I would like to have a basic grammar of fit civics for five minutes. One thing we should all agree on and two things we show disagree with, three things we are in favor of into things we agree on that we should all reject. First, a positive, grand, unifying truth about america, and that is religious liberty. Religious liberty is the basic idea that how you worship is not of the governments business. Government can wage war, government can write parking tickets, but government cannot save souls. Government is really important. War is important, parking tickets are important, but your soul is something that the government cannot touch. So whether you worship in a mosque or a synagogue or a church, your faith or your lack of faith is not of the governments business, it is your business and your familys and your neighbors and all sorts of places where people break bread together and argue. But it is not about power, it is not about the government. This is the fundamental american belief. Religious liberty is one of those five great freedoms closer to in the First Amendment to religion, speech, press, protest , these five agreements that are a pregovernmental right that are sort of civics 101 that we all agree on well before we get to any thing as inconsequential as tax policy. Civics should be the stuff we affirm together. Contrary to the beliefs of some e activist, religious liberty is not an exception could you the governments exception to have religious liberty. Because religious liberty is the fundamental role in american life, we do not have religious text. This community is not in the business of deciding whether the dogma lives too loudly within someone. This committee is not in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are good, which are bad, and which religious beliefs are weird. Someone who was subconsciously a christian, we have a whole bunch of really weird beliefs. Forgiveness of sends, virgin birth, resurrection from the death, eternal life, there are a bunch of crazy ideas that are a lot weirder than some catholic moms getting into other advice about parenting. And yet there are places where this committee has acted like it is the job of the committee to delve into peoples religious community. That is nuts. That is a violation of our basic civics. That is a violation of what all of us believed together. This is not a republican idea. This is not a democratic idea. This is an american idea. The good news is, whether you think you are religious beliefs might be judged wacky by somebody else, it is not the business of this committee to delve into the context of any of that, because in this committee, this congress, and in this constitutional structure, religious liberty is the basic truth, and whatever you or i or judge barrett believe about god is not anybodys business. We should all believe in that in common, we should all reaffirm that in common, and that should be on display over the course of the next four days in this committee. Now a couple of terms that all of our eighth graders no as things we should reject in common. Again, shared rejection, not republican versus democrat of democrat versus republican but i shared american rejection, and the first is this judicial activism. Judicial activism is the idea that judges get to advocate for or a dance policies, advance policies, even though they do not have to stand for election before the voters and because they have lifetime tenure. Judicial activism is a bad idea that tries to convince the American People to view the judiciary as a block of progressive votes or conservative votes, republican justices and democratic justices. This is the confused idea that the Supreme Court is just another arena for politics. When politicians try to demand that judicial nominees, who are supposed to be fair and tryrtial, when politicians to get judicial nominees to give their views on cases or to give their views on policies, to try to get them to precommit to certain outcomes in future cases, we are politicizing the courts, and that is wrong. That is a violation of our oath to the constitution. Likewise, when politicians refuse to get answers to the pretty basic question of whether or not they want to try to change the number of justices on courturt which is what packing actually is when they want to try to change the outcome of what courts do in the future by trying to change the size and competition composition of the court, that is a bad idea that politicize the judiciary and reduces public trust. On the other hand, de politicizing the court looks a lot like letting courts and judges do their job and that congress do our job. You dont like the policies in america . Great. Elect different people in the house come in the senate command in the presidency. Fire the politicians at the neck selection. But voters do not have the freedom to fire the judges, therefore we should not view judges and we should not encourage the public to view them as ultimately judges who hide behind the ropes. The antidote to judicial activism is a ritualism. A ritualism, also known as text realism, is basically the old that judges do not get to make laws. Judges get to apply them. Does not think of herself as a super legislator whose opinions will be read by angels from stone tablets in heaven. Judicial activism, on the other that theyhe bad idea are fakes and truthfully they are wearing red or blue jerseys underneath. Today, when we have a nominee before us, we should be asking questions that are not about trying to predetermine how certain cases should be judged. A final term we should be clear about, i mentioned earlier, but i think it is worth underscoring, we should underscore what is court packing. Is the idea that we should end the senate by making it another majoritarian body. Court packing would depend on the destruction of the full debate here in the senate, and it is a partisan suicide bombing that what end the deliberative structure of the United State Senate and make this job less interesting for all 100 of us, not for 47 or 53, because it is hard to get to a super majority that tries to protect the 5149,n people from 4951 swings all the time. What blowing up the filibuster would also really do is try to turn the Supreme Court into the ultimate super legislatior. Court packing is not judicial reform. Court packing is destroying the system we have now. Kate is not reforming the system we have now, and anybody who uses that language, the language that implies filling legitimate vacancies is actually just another form of court packing, that is playing the American People for fools. And the American People actually want a washington, d. C. That de politicizing is more decisions, not politicizing more decisions. Judge my am glad you are before a spirit i am looking for two hearing your Opening Statement today. Congratulations, and welcome. Sen. Graham senator cowan ons. You, mr. S thank chairman, and judge barrett, welcome. I have heard from my constituents, delawareans who are scared, worried about the health of the parent or child, because they do not know if it is safer their kids to go to school, if their businesses will survive, or if they are wondering why on earth this senate is focused on racing forward with a Supreme Court nominee that is not willing to take a vote to provide needed relief for them and their family. It is an understandable question when we are in the midst of a devastating and global pandemic. Beenthan 7 million have infected and have a new preexisting condition. Than 25 million americans are collecting unemployment. This is an Ongoing National emergency and as an exercise in we shouldt all text, be working day and night to deliver them that relief. Instead, my colleagues are barreling forward with a nomination that is distracting for our constituents and threatens to tear the nation of nation apart. Days, and there is no precedent in our nations history for confirming a Supreme Court nominee by the senate this closed would president ial election in which a majority of states are already voting. 6 million americans have voted. This process flies in the face of the very rule republican set en theyves in 2016 wh refused as a matter of politics, to even consider judge Merrick Garland nine months before an election simply because it was an Election Year. 2018, you wentn even further and said if an opening came up in the last year President Trumps term you would wait for the election let the voters decide. What changed . Sadly, nothing. At this time President Trump and his allies in the senate saw a chance in Justice Ginsburgs untimely passing to shift the balance of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Proceeding with this confirmation today is wrong. I agree with my colleague it is foundational. I will focus on your speeches as a law professor and judge. We willdo that, conclude the ways in which you may serve as a justice. Proceeding with this nomination at this time will also do harm to what remaining trust we have weut the, to the sen have in each other, to the senate as a whole. Is out of session today because of the members who have contracted the virus. That is why all of us when not speaking are wearing a mask. Inlight of all of this, light of the stresses on our country, i think this rushed process should not proceed. Instead, we are. Let me try to help explain to those who reached out why it mat ters. Centrally, its this, President Trump has promised over that he would yield the Affordable Care act. He ran on that promise but despite his best efforts, he failed. My republican colleagues here in the house have voted over and over to repeal the Affordable Care act since it was passed. Thankfully, for the people of our nation and my state, they have been unsuccessful. To make good on this promise to achieve what they could not accomplish, they are looking to the court, to this nominee. President explicitly promised that anybody he nominated to the Supreme Court would do the right thing and would be a vote to overturn the Affordable Care act. One week after the upcoming election, the Supreme Court will the a case in which Affordable Care act is at issue court which the supreme will hear arguments that support the trump Administrations Department of justices position to strike down this law. Just a week after the upcoming election, the Trump Administration will be telling the Supreme Court to tear down the very law that provides Health Care Protections in the middle of a pandemic. Judge merrick, judge barrett, you publicly criticized the Supreme Court ask about past decisions. Appropriately at issue. That is one of the reasons they are rushing to have this confirmation just in time. That thisnd ironic administration is rushing to confirm a judge that they believe will vote to strip away Health Care Protections. They cannot treat pregnancy as a. Reexisting condition it prevents Insurance Companies from charging anybody with preexisting conditions more. Americans dont have to go bankrupt because of an unexpected illness. Dont take my word for it. Listen to the voice of carrie who used to pay 800 per month for junk insurance. Coverage so skimpy she had to live in fear of going to the doctors office. Because of the aca, she was able to get better coverage to pay what she can afford. She has diabetes, she has high blood pressure. , care orthe aca coverage. She said this takes the stress for the worry out of it. She asked me, how is this even an issue . Wasnt it settled years ago . Shes right. She should have the peace of mind. I have heard so many war stories such as debbie from newcastle, a selfemployed Small Business owner who receives her Health Insurance the marketplace. Her preexisting condition requires her to attend multiple doctors appointments and physical therapy each month. Without the aca, companies would charge her more and she would not be able to afford her medical bills or support her Small Business. Woman from delaware who was diagnosed with cancer four years ago. After losing her health care she was able to find new coverage in the marketplace. My inbox is filled with stories like these women and they highlight the breadth of what the aca means to these people. Lower out of pocket cost for seniors prescriptions. These protections are on the line. In the ballot and on the docket of the Supreme Court. It is not just the aca at risk. Judge, im deeply concerned about ways in which you are approach to something which may sound abstract, like precedent, that means you are open to revisiting and overturning long settled cases. You may overturn some of the very principles for which Justice Ginsburg fought her entire adult life. What might this mean . Cases like griswold versus connecticut. That established married couples have a right to obtain and use contraception in the privacy of their own home. It means cases like roe v. Wade rightprotects a womans to make her own Health Care Decisions may on the line. Hodgess overfill versus hodges may be. Overruled. This is what i believe is at stake. Judge barrett, you will be deciding cases that have real i have heard my republican colleague say all they care about is finding a ure justice who will apply judge barrett, im not suggesting that you made some secret deal with President Trump, but i believe that the reason you were chosen is precisely because your judicial philosophy as repeatedly stated could lead to the outcomes that President Trump has sought. That has dramatic and potentially harmful consequences with regard to the election, the Affordable Care act, and longsettled rights. This is what i hope to lay out this week and this is what i hope the American People will hear in the course of this confirmation hearing. For planning purposes, we will go to senator hawley, senator blumenthal and senator tillis. We will take a 30minute break, grab a bite to eat, then come back and finish up. Senator hawley. Sen. Hawley thank you. Judge barrett, its good to see you. I see that some of your children are getting a break. I have two boys at home. How komal your children have been sitting for a couple of hours. Maybe you can give me some tips when we are finished here. Weve got to read a lot about your family in the last few weeks. Weve read a lot about you and in particular about your religious beliefs. One attack after another in the liberal media. Many echoed by members of this committee. Insularlong active with christian group. We have heard stories about how you raised your children and how you adopted your children. Beliefs. Olic doctrinal questioning whether you have the independence to be a justice on the United States Supreme Court. It is not just the newspapers but the members of this committee. Including the democratic nominee for the president of the United States who has questioned past members for their membership in catholic fraternal organizations such as the knights of columbus. Senator harris and others on this committee have repeatedly questioned the judicial nominees fitness for office because of their membership in the knights of columbus. The Ranking Member, when you were last before this committee, the Ranking Member referred to your catholic convictions as dogma that lives loudly within you, picking up the very terminology terminology of anticatholic entry in this country a century ago. Others asked if you were an orthodox catholic. One senator said she worried you would be a catholic judge if you were confirmed, as opposed to an american judge, as if you cannot be both a devout catholic and a loyal american citizen. Have comenees who before this committee for years have been asked their views on theirn the afterlife, on membership in catholic organizations, other christian organizations, and on and on. Lets be clear about what this is. This is an attempt to broach a new frontier. It is an attempt to bring back an old standard. The constitution of the United States explicitly forbids. Im talking about a religious test for office. Article six of the constitution of the United States, before we even get to the bill of rights, article six says clearly, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. 1787. As big news in it worth remembering life. Remembering why. History of thehe world has ever guaranteed citizens the right to freedom of conscience. Every other country that existed tied together their religious belief that would be approved the powerful and the right to serve in office. Citizen inor to be a every other country across history stop you hundred degree with what those in power agreed with in order to hold office. Sign a particular religious confession or disavow particular religious groups. You had to pledge allegiance to the god of the city or the god of the empire. This was true from 18th century britain all the way back to ancient rome. When our founders put article six into the constitution, they were making a very deliberate choice. They were breaking with that past history and saying that in america it would be different. We would not allow the ruling class to have veto power over your faith, over what americans believed, over who we gathered with worship, and why, and where, and how. Country, the people of the United States would be free to follow their own religious convictions, free to worship him a free to exercise their religion and pull of faith would be welcome in the books fear. They would be welcome without having to get the approval of those in power, welcome to comment could to bring their religious beliefs to bear and all that they do so long as they were peaceful citizens who followed the law. Religious people of all backgrounds would be welcome in public life and no person in controluld be able to with the American People thought or believed who they were shipped. Consciencem of undergirds all of our other rights because it tells the government they cannot tell us what to think or with whom we can assemble, or how we can worship, or what we can say. Theres why article six is even before we get to the bill of rights. Ofs bedrock principle american liberty is now under attack stop that is what is at stake we read these stories. That is what is at stake when my democratic colleagues repeatedly questioned judge barrett and many other judicial nominees about the religious membership, religious practices. That is an attempt to bring back test,ys of the religious to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the American People. That is what is at stake in this confirmation hearing. Catholic, we is a all know that. She and her husband have chosen to raise their family in accordance with catholic beliefs. 65 million americans are catholics, and many millions more are christians of other persuasions. That theyo be told cannot serve in public office, that they are not welcome in the public sphere and list the members of this committee sign off on their religious beliefs . I do not want to live in such an america in the constitution prohibits it. The constitution says that people of faith like judge barrett are welcome in my office, welcome throughout our public life. I would say to my democratic years,ues, that these this pattern and practice of religious bigotry, because that is what it is, when you tell somebody they are too catholic to be on the bench when you say they will be a catholic judge not an american judge that is bigotry. The practice of bigotry from members of his committee must stop and i would expect that it be renounced. I disturb my colleague senator kunz make reference to an old case which iswold swipely assume is another at her catholic beliefs. This is the kind of thing im talking about and this is the sort of attack that must stop. Burr must stop. To. Blumenthal i want introduce you to one of my ofstituents, connor kern ridgefield connecticut. Used 10 years old and suffers from muscular dystrophy. Horrible and incurable disease. Ofslowly deprives children their strength and ability to move and eventually it robs them of their lives. Of providing his care are astronomical. For connor and his family it is worth every penny. Connor is a superhero but he has always had a real sidekick. He has had the protection of the Affordable Care act. It has shielded him and his arbitrary caps on coverage that would have cut off his care when it became too expensive. Romhas protected connor f losing insurance because of this insidious disease that he never cost caused. Act hasrdable care given his family a measure of relief, of hope, of peace. Connor and many others like him are why i will oppose your nomination. Your nomination is about the republican goal of repealing the Affordable Care act. It wants to ban tax credits that make health care more affordable, bans on charging women more simply because they are women. That is what my republican colleagues have been fighting to repeal. They have challenged it twice unsuccessfully in the United States Supreme Court. Fail, but now you hands of the state Supreme Court. Have turned again to the court to try to achieve judicially what they cannot achieve legislatively. President trump has found has vowed that any judge he s this testent pas and would strike down the Affordable Care act. No honesty you have addition for this job, through your academic writing and judicial opinions and you have passed that test. You have stated twice in effect that you would have voted to strike down the Affordable Care act and you been a justice had you been a justice at the time. They want someone who will legislate from the bench and who will strike down laws supported of thest majority American People. Anyhe American People have dedicated myow republican colleagues are the justg away health care, ords. Theytheir own w have been remarkably forthright. Repairy that you cannot this monstrosity called obamacare, you have to tear it down and start over. I supportnst says immediate action to repair obamacare and replace it. Senator former, it is time to repeal and replace. Senator tillis, repeal obama care, lets end this disaster. Saiddent trump himself has we want to terminate obamacare. Millions of americans have a. Reexisting condition lawsuit, nowican before the Supreme Court, and in this nomination. It is not just the Affordable Care act that is at stake. Decide womans right to when and how to have a family, control over her own body. An activist on the bench doing what congress could not do would strike down common sense gun safety laws. Connecticut has been at the forefront on gun violence protection, on gun safety, judge, you acknowledged that y our defending opinion sounds radical. Thats because it is. If your views on the Second Amendment are adopted by the Supreme Court, it would imperil common sense state laws like connecticut all around the country. Be working on to improving American Health care. We have to be fighting covid19 which has affected 8 million americans and killed more than 215,000. We should be implementing a National Testing strategy, instituting Contact Tracing and securing ppe. We havent even provided assistance to the millions of americans who have lost their jobs and faced Economic Hardship and heartbreak. President trump has failed to do any of it. Instead, he and our republican colleagues are riveted on rushing a judge through this process. President trumps failure to act will likely lead to 55,000 , 55,000al deaths additional americans lost over the next three months. Are refusingicans to address American Health care, covid19 or Economic Relief because they care more about putting an extremist ideological , and not justench on the Supreme Court. I have learned as a senator that there are very few written rules in this place, but there is one very important unwritten rule. Keep your word. All sorts ofave excuses for why they are breaking their promise. The promise that they would not conform a Supreme Court justice during an Election Year. Each excuse boils down to nothing more than raw political power. Might is not make right does not make right. They have the votes but they dont have the American People and dont have history on their side. The American People want a plan to fight and conquer this disease. They want to put americans back to work. Not rolling back rights and turning back the clock. I revere the Supreme Court. I clerked for Justice Harry blackmun. I have argued cases before the court four times. Now im deeply concerned that the Supreme Court is losing the trust and respect of the American People. The authority of the Supreme Court depends on that trust. It has no army or police force to enforce its decisions. The American People follow the Supreme Courts command even when they disagree because they respect its authority. Now President Trump and the republican senators are eroding and destroying that legitimacy. They have stripped the American People of their say simply to confirm a justice who will strike down in court, legislate from the bench, what they cant repeal in congress. Your participation, let me be blunt, in any case involving would trumps election, immediately do explosive and enduring harm to the courts legitimacy and to your own credibility. You must recuse yourself. The American People are angry and for good reason. It is a break the glass moment. Americans must use their voices to speak out and stand up, to contact my colleagues on this committee, despite their boas ts. Stand up and speak out to protect their own health, the Public Health and health of our democracy. We will now have senator tillis who is with us remotely. After his Opening Statement we will come back at 12 20. Senator tillis . Thank you, chairman graham and Ranking Member feinstein. I want to take a moment to honor the life and legacy of Justice Ginsburg. And as a Living Legend giant as a professor, a judge and a justice. She was an inspirational role model and we honor her legacy. I want to make sure that her family knows that the nation mourns their loss. To be gathered talk about the confirmation of judge Amy Coney Barrett. Her work is widely respected and it is clear why her former students voted multiple times for her to be the distinguished professor of the year. Its also why every fulltime faculty member of notre dame law supports her nomination. She is a remarkable mother, has seven beautiful children and she makesing busy, time to be involved in her community. This nomination is important because it will have a Lasting Impact on the republic. A justice serving on the bench involves every important issue facing our Constitutional Republic. What is the proper role of each branch of government . What are the fundamental protections that our constitution grants to all americans . These are foundational questions to the Supreme Court and they consider them every term. If confirmed she will be tasked with answering these questions and i believe she will do a great job. It is the document itself that ensures our freedom. Justice scalia understood this. Every country in the world has a bill of rights. What makes us free is our constitution. The word constitution means structure. Justice scalia understood the genius of our foundation. The real danger to our Constitutional Republic is the centralization of power. When that happens, liberty dies and charity reigns. That is white is critical that the Supreme Court justice maintains a proper law. Decades, the majority has been used to to resolve disputes rather than by leaving that to the American People acting through their elected representatives. Article three judges cannot and should not be policymakers. We have heard them speak today about the policies they would like to pass. Judgee described barretts nomination as an end to health care, abortion, labor rights, and the list goes on. These statements are unfair and untrue. Week judge barrett will do the policy outcomes rather than the work for the policy outcomes and the u. S. Senate. Just last month when they were falsely claiming her nomination would bring an end to the preexisting conditions, every democrat on this committee voted against the measure that would do just that. They want the court to do it for them. My review of judge barretts record convinces me she is not only one of the most qualified individuals to be nominated, but she understands the proper role of the article three branch. She reaches her conclusions based on the law, not her personal views. A nominee has a predetermined outcome in mind while at the same breath demanding a nominee that has their predetermined outcome. But hypocrisy is incredible. Judge barrett is not a legislator. That is our job. Get the minority cannot their bad policies in congress they turn to the courts to demand the judges turned to the law not as written. Congress, a politically accountable branch, nothing more. The 10th a memo, the 14th amendment, if they care about our constitutional liberties they should care about understanding the proper role. Ginsburg, reale change and enduring change happens one step at a time. It does not happen by judicial fee at fiat. Judge barrett knows the role of the Supreme Court justice and is highly qualified to do the job. Judge barrett, when i met with you and the capital, i asked you to sign two pocket constitutions for my granddaughters. In it, you wrote, dream big. When they are old enough to understand i will explain that just like justice. They can realize their american dream. When members of this committee mischaracterize your views and their allies in the liberal media are saying terrible things about you and your family, stand tall and true. I know that you are an inspiration to millions of young women in this country like my granddaughters. Thank you for being with us today. Congratulations for the recognition of your hard work and your character. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham we will be in recess until 12 20. We will start back with senator lerner. Followed by city of chicago. On wednesday, the justices here arguments followed by listen to the oral arguments live or ondemand at cspan. Org supremecourt. Cspans washington journal, every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day, and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. This morning, we will discuss the future of health care and legal challenges to the Affordable Care act. Journal, liveon at 7 00 p. M. Eastern this morning. Join the discussion. The competition is on. Be a part of the studentcam competition. Middle and high school students, be the start of the conversation by making a five minute documentary exploring the issues you want the president and congress to address in 2021. Be bold with your documentary and include cspan video. Prizes0 in total cash including a grand prize of 5,000. The deadline is january 20, 2021. Youll find more information on how to get started at our website, studentcam. Org. You are watching cspan, your unfiltered view of government, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. Day one ofg a break, hearings for judge Amy Coney Barrett continued before the Senate Judiciary committee. Judge barrett was sworn in and gave her Opening Statement outlining her judicial philosophy and thought process. The remni