Disagree more. I have been here for a few of these, i have voted for every nominee that has come before the committee. They have one thing in common, all of you are highly qualified, cape will people. I saw that in just a sotomayor and Justice Kagan submitted by president obama. Definitely did not share their legal philosophy, i expected them to be fairly solid votes for the liberal side of the court and generally speaking, they have been, that they have done so honorably. I think they have kept their commitment to be fair and impartial, but we do understand judicial philosophy matters. Theres difference is, i think, everybody in america can get three hours of credit for if the most detailed explanation of a legal philosophy any nominee has provided to the senate and i appreciate that. Senator harris mentioned about how much more candid Justice Ginsburg was. With all due respect, senator harris, i dont agree with that. I think Justice Ginsburg established the ginsburg rule for a reason, but what she decided in terms of evidence of candor was a very articulate statement by Justice Ginsburg as to why she embraced the prochoice point of view. Thats not being candid about the law. That is being candid about who you are. I think its pretty clear to everybody who has been watching these hearings that you and your family are prolife, that you are a practicing catholic, and to the tenants of your faith but i hope people also understand that you have made a pledge to the committee and to the country at large that you will set aside whatever religious views you have when it comes time to decide the law. There has already been an example in the seventh circuit where you upheld a legislative provision that restricted access to abortion clinics in terms of protesting. Confident that you will judge every american based on their case, not the law of amy. Here is what is important to me. Senator blackburn and ernst are two conservative women on this committee. It is a very give and take society called america, but there is one group in america i think is having a hard time of it and that is conservatives of color. And women conservatives. There is an effort by some in the liberal world to marginalize the contribution because you come out on a different side of an issue. Particularly, abortion. This hearing, to me, is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. Youre going to shatter that area. I have never been more proud of the nominee than i am of you. You have been candid to this body about who you are and what you believe. Youve been reassuring in your disposition and this is history being made, folks. This is the first time in American History that weve nominated a woman who is unashamedly prolife and embraces her faith without apology and she is going to the court. A seat at the table is waiting on you and it will be a great signal to all young women who share your view of the world that there is a seat at the table for them. This wont be celebrated in most places. Find much hard to commentary about this moment in American History, but in many of our worlds, this will be celebrated. This has been a Long Time Coming and we have arrived. So i want to thank President Trump for giving you the opportunity to showcase your talents. Sotomayorthat justice and kagan were incredibly qualified women of great character, disposition and integrity, and i believe the same about you. So, lets talk a little about yesterday. Obamacare. This hearing has been more about obamacare than it has you. Obamacare is on the ballot. If you want socialized, singlepayer health care, that is on the ballot. Why didnt any of us object to obamacare . Sed on aritten and pas partisan line i think on christmas eve. Most big changes in society have that. Uyin than we were talking about 1 5 of the American Economy and as i said yesterday from a South Carolina point of view, this has not worked out well. We started with five exchanges, we are down to one, you have one choice. Four rural hospitals have closed. Premiums have gone up, not down. And when you look at the formula used by obamacare, i can understand why senator harris likes it the way it is. I can understand why Chuck Schumer likes it the way it is. States get 35 of all obamacare dollars. New york, california, massachusetts. They are 22 of the population. In South Carolina, if you had a per patient formula in a matter where you live, you got the same contribution from the federal government. South carolina would receive almost an additional 1 billion. I dont blame california, new york, and massachusetts for wanting more. People in South Carolina should blame me for accepting that construct. Care, weomes to health all have our different positions, but today is about you. Or nots about whether youre qualified to serve on the highest court in the land. Severability. Can you tell me, again, i know you have been asked 100 times, the doctrine of severability, what does it mean . Push the red button. I think so. No, i cant hear you now. Its not t host there we go. Judge barrett ok. So the doctrine of severability is a doctrine essentially of statutory interpretation and what it means is if you have a statute and the Affordable Care act is obviously a very long statute, if there is one provision within the statute that is unconstitutional, the question is whether that one section can simply be rendered null and excised from the statute, severed, so that the rest of the law stands, or whether that provision is so essential to the statute that it unconstitutionality, once it is pulled out, the whole house of cards collapses. In the presumption is always in favor of severability. It is the question of your intent. Im sorry, go ahead. Chairman graham the main thing is the doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham i want every conservative in the nation to listen to what she just said. The doctrine of severability presumes, and its goal is to preserve the statute if that is possible. So from a conservative point of speaking, wely want legislative bodies to make laws, not judges, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham would it be further true that if you can preserve a statute, you try to, to the extent possible . Judge barrett that is true. Chairman graham that is the law, folks. Abortion. Ett chairman graham abortion. Your recent statements by i think, what is the name of the Prolife Group . Judge barrett the st. Joseph county right to live. Chairman graham and you were asked by senator blumenthal whom i respect whether or not their policy positions were illegal, the remember that . Judge barrett i remember him asking me whether i accepted other policy positions on in vitro fertilization and whether it was a rejection of roe. Chairman graham i remember an exchange where they took a statement from that group or some other group, arguing for the criminalization. Remember that . The criminalization of ivf. judge barrett i think so. Chairman graham and here is my problem with that analysis. That was a position taken by a prolife county organization. It is not your job to pass judgment on the thoughts and beliefs of americans, is it . Judge barrett no, it is not. Chairman graham so when they argue that something should be criminal, they have a right to make that argument, right . Judge barrett they do. It also wasnt in the ad that appeared next to the statement chairman graham how do something become criminal in our legal system in america . Judge barrett when a legislative body passes a statute. Chairman graham so here is what i want you to know. Statements by political organizations are not laws. And what we tried to do yesterday was turn a Prolife Group into a legislative body. They tried to get you to rule on their beliefs. I think that is a dangerous thing for americans to be asking a judge to do whether it be on the right or the left. Here is a statement from an organization i dont particularly agree with, and i want you to pass judgment as to whether or not that is legal. The question for you would be if some legislative body tries to criminalize this procedure, that would be subject to litigation, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Inirman graham a case controversy does not arise because you disagree with a statement of a private person or a private room, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham a case in controversy arises when somebody passes a criminal statute, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham then, and only then would you determine the constitutionality of that provision, is that correct . Judge barrett not even then. The statute would have to be enforced against somebody so the prosecutor would have to try to hold someone criminally liable getting ivf, for for example. Chairman graham so it would have to mature. Judge barrett it would take quite a lot of maturation. I just want to note it is not the role of a Supreme Court justice to pass judgment on your opinions. A supremerole of Court Justice in very limited circumstances to pass judgment on laws passed by legislative bodies in other circumstances, regulation, i would suppose. Now, voting. A it appropriate for legislative body to protect the integrity of the ballot box . So, any specific measures that legislative bodies took to protect the integrity of the ballot box could be subject to litigation, subject to challenge. Chairman graham thats right. Develop, the courts will hear cases and controversies arise, right . Judge barrett yes. Chairman graham one of the reasons we dont have an agreement with the houses because they are mandating ballot harvesting. As a national policy. Pe for fraud, righ we have seen evidence of ballots being dropped in digits. I think there will be an effort, i hope, to protect the integrity of the ballot and also to ensure easy voting. Idle think they are contrary goals for the nation. Now, when it comes to being on the court itself, and collaborating with other members of the court, what has your experience been in the seventh circuit level . How has that played out . We allarrett collaborate and had wonderful interactions with every single one of my colleagues. Chairman graham do you think you have the capability to fit in at the Supreme Court . Judge barrett i hope so. Chairman graham we talk a lot about laws, legalizing samesex marriage, what is the name of the case . Judge barrett obergefell. Chairman graham if anybody tried to change that precedent, one of the things you look at is the reliance interest that people have formed around that piece of legislation. Judge barrett yes. Chairman graham same with casey and roe . Judge barrett yes. Chairman graham so reaching a decision that the case was wrongly decided doesnt end of the debate in terms of whether or not it should be repealed, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham and there is a very rigorous process in place to determine precedent. Judge barrett many factors, reliance being one. Chairman graham is there any constitutional right to a polygamist relationship . Judge barrett um, lets see. That might be a question that could be litigated. Polygamy, obviously, in many places, is illegal now but that could be an issue somebody might litigate before the court at some point. Chairman graham if somebody made the argument is possible for three people to love each other genuinely and that would work its way to the court if somebody wanted to make that argument, is that correct . Judge barrett somebody could make that argument. Chairman graham you have been asked a lot about roe v. Wade and casey and one of the differences in brown versus the board of education is there is active litigation regarding roe, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham i think a senator named eight or nine Different Cases that may come up to the court, cases and controversy. And one of the reasons you cant tell us how you would rule is because there is active litigation coming to the court, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Chairman graham and one of the reasons you can say with confidence that you think brown v. Board of education is a super precedent is you are not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation, is that correct . Judge barrett that is correct. Ive also said in lectures that brown was correct on the original matter, so that is the kind of thing that i felt i could express before the committee. Chairman graham when it comes to heller, there is legislative bodies all over the country passing laws regarding gun ownership, are you aware of that . Chairman graham i am aware of that. Judge barrett when it comes to citizens united, i think there will be some effort after the selection to maybe revisit that case. The thing that im trying to establish here is that heller, citizens united, roe, casey, are all actively being litigated because legislative bodies are playing in that arena, is that a fair statement . Judge barrett that is a fair statement. Sen. Graham your point to us is that when it is likely that controversies around the holding of a particular case are going to come to the court, theres only so much you can tell us about what you may or may not do. Judge barrett absolutely. Wadegraham roe v. Compared to brown v. Board of education is not super precedent. Judge barrett not super precedent as i was using that term in the article that of them referred to. Sen. Graham let me tell you from a commonsense point of the white is not super precedent. I have legislation, 14 states have passed a law that im trying to get past that here that in the fifth month of the, 20 weeks, an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. Im making the argument there is a compelling state interest to protect that unborn child from that very painful death abortion. Called abortion. Only seven nations on the entire planet allow abortion on demand in the fifth month. That is a political exercise we are going through. 14 states have passed a version of what ive just described. That will be coming to the court i imagine in the future. Listen tois that we both sides of the argument if it gets to you. Judge barrett i will. Sen. Graham thank you. Can say, i have met a lot of people, their impressive people. One of the highlights of my time on the committee is to get to meet incredibly talented, smart, squared away people. Righte roberts sat before you and did not have a note. A lot of people on my side were up to that with him about this or that. I do know this, that he is doing what he thinks is best for the court and for the country. Justices sotomayor and taking, delightful people, incredibly, wickedly smart. Justice kagan had a biting sense of humor and they are on the court because they should be. They are on the court because they live lives worthy of being on the court. They are on the court because there are some of the smartest people in the land about the law. They are on the court because they have lived incredibly productive and meaningful lives. Justice gorsuch and kavanaugh are both on the court for the same reasons. You, you are every bit in their league. View, this is exactly where you should be going to the Supreme Court. The United States of america will benefit from your participation at the Supreme Court. You will have Life Experiences that will round out the court. And you are going to inspire a lot of young women just like Justice Ginsburg did, just like justices sotomayor and Justice Kagan did, and the young women that youre going to inspire dont have a whole lot of role inels they can point to terms of the media world in which we live in uplifting them. Thats about to change. Colleagues, iic understand where youre coming from, i understand what you want the court to do. You want the court to do things differently than we do. I dont question your motives and i want to thank you for conducting this hearing and a way that has been respectful, that has been challenging, and the process will be moving forward here. From the committees point of view, i think we are on track to do it in a way that hopefully, people will say even though you feinstein judge, i must say im delighted to see your family here again and i hope they feel that very special sense of pride in you. Im sure they do. Know, i was you thinking of my children and grandchildren and this is really a onceinalifetime occasion. So, i hope they find it very special in their lives. Judge barrett thank you, senator. Sen. Feinstein youre welcome. Yesterday, you spoke of texas, the current case seeking to strike down the Affordable Care act. Think, that the issue before the court is severability. Meaning where the court could still uphold the affordable c