Transcripts For CSPAN Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 4 Part 1 20240712

Takes a look at the intelligence communitys role in predicting covid19. We will have that at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Today, the Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to move forward with the nomination of judge barrett to be a judge in the Supreme Court. Wasstponement motion proposed but it was sent down. Thank you all. We have business before the hearing. The legislation will be held over. Johnson, taylor mcneil, catherine mosel, thompson diaz, United States court of federal claims. Policycontent modernization act. All those will be held over. Mr. Chairman . Under the rules of this committee can i proceed with the business of the Committee Even with a quorum present, there unless there are two members of the minority present as well. I and the only member of the minority that is here. We cannot conduct business until the second member of the minority arrives. Yes, sir. Thank you for the way you have conducted yourself yesterday. It is clear from reading in the paper what is going to happen is we will be denied the ability to operate as normal. That senator schumer said everything is on the table. We have given this nominee a chance to be questioned. Fairly, firmly. I want to congratulate my democratic colleagues for setting a disposition i think will help us all. I know what awaits us. I will now make a motion to report the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. A motion to vote on the motion to report from the committee the nomination o Amy Coney Barrett on october 22, 2020, at 1 00. You cannotrman, conduct that business without another minority member present. A this point i will make motion to adjourn this meeting until we have completed the hearing on Amy Coney Barrett. We still have a panel before us. We have never done this before as a committee. If we are going to honor the rules and show mutual respect, the fact is we cannot move forward without another member of the minority present. Sen. Graham with all the respect, we have had this problem in the past. If we create this problem for you in the future, you are going to do what im going to do which is move forward on the business of the committee. The clerk will call the roll. [indiscernible] no by proxy. No. No by proxy. No by proxy. No by proxy. [indiscernible] no by proxy. [indiscernible] no by proxy. No by proxy. Mr. Chairman, i failed to answer no by proxy for senator feinstein. Aye. Vote the motion is passed. We will vote on Amy Coney Barrett, the associate justice of the Supreme Court at 1 00 on october 22. Now before the committee is senator durbins motion to adjourn. I withdraw the motion. Sen. Graham thank you. Now we will move forward with the hearing. Mr. Chairman . I would like to make a motion. I seek recognition to make a motion. Postponeo indefinitely the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. To be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sham processs rush is that his service to our committee. Rushed in a way that is historically unprecedented. There has never been a nomination and Election Year after the month of july. The purpose of doing it is simply to have a justice on the Supreme Court, as the president said, to decide the election and a strike on the Affordable Care act. We have had inadequate time to review this nomination has indicated most recently yesterday. A cnn report that there are seven more speeches or talks she has given that have not been disclosed to this committee. The consequence of this rushed process is that we have given inadequate scrutiny to this nominee. I move to delay the proceedings so we can do our jobs and ask again for all the documents. The 2006 open letter. Documentsr among the previously undisclosed. We now have apparently reportedly seven more. I moved to delay the proceedings. Sen. Graham thank you very much, senator blumenthal. Those letters will be made available. I think everyone understands the issue about judge barrett and the position she takes as an individual. As to the process, they will be seven days from the time of the hearing to the vote. Times last 50 years, 676 we have done exactly what we are doing today. Over half about half of the nominees nominated by president have a hearing within 16 days. We have had two Supreme Court justices confirmed totally from the time they were nominated to being on the voting by the senate 17 to 19 days. Justice ginsburg was 33 days. There is nothing out of the norm in terms of the time we have given this matter. We have had two days of hearings. Each member had 50 minutes. With all the respect, we will call the roll mr. Chairman . I wanted to join in with senator blumenthal. This is a sham. I heard you talk about presidence. What you said mr. Chairman and what senator mcconnell said where he set the precedent. He said the American People should have a voice in the selection of the neck Supreme Court justice. When he was looking back at the mary garland time, this vacancy should not be filled until we had a new president. This is closer in time than that. Is best president we have when Abraham Lincoln was president. It was the closest in time we have had in history to this when it justice died close to the election he waited until after the election to make a selection. I look at the words of my colleagues in this committee, people i work with very well all the time. I look at that historical example and i think it leads us to one and. One end. We should allow the winner of the election to pick. We should do this after the election and we should remember we have literally millions and millions of people voting as we speak. You all know that. The final thing that concerns me is the president himself has been making it very clear why he wants this justice on the court. He said he wants nine people after the election. He said he wants the court that will overturn obamacare. He has made all of this clear. To me, not only do you have your own precedent, not a the example of Abraham Lincoln, but you have the fact that because of what this president has been saying, it undermines the process, undermines the court. That is why we should delay. The final word is we are not working on a covert relief packets in the middle of a pandemic. That is what we should be doing. That is what the American People want. 74 say we should be doing that instead of working on this. I think the time has come to be honest about what is going on here. You are just trying to ram through this justice against your own words in light of everything this president has said. He wont even commit to a peaceful transition of power. That is the world we are in right now. It is not some ivory tower where people talk about the dormant Commerce Clause. This is about peaceful transition of power and the effect this has on peoples lives, the effect on their lives with the Affordable Care act hanging in the balance and whether or not people will be kicked off their Health Insurance for preexisting conditions. That is what we should be focused on and i joined senator blumenthal in this motion. Sen. Graham i will recognize senator feinstein a moment. As chairman i want to hear anybody that wants to speak on this motion. We will vote. We have a panel from the american bar association. We have an eightperson panel chosen by the minority and the majority. I will do whatever my colleagues want in terms of motions and being heard. Panel hatethe it for the panel but i will let you decide what we do today. We will vote for the judge on october 22. I would prefer if possible we could hear from the panel. I will leave it up to my colleagues. Senator feinstein . Know, this is being done without any precedent in the time ive been on this committee, which is about 25 years. It is being done i guess to show power and push someone through. Really abrogates the value of hearings that this committee should treasure and respect. Somebody that has been on this committee for a while, i have come to value the hearings. The search for information. The desire to do justice to individuals. I really dont understand why it makes a difference whether it is two weeks or three weeks or four weeks. It allows us to complete a process which we have put in place that has worked i think very well for a long time. When we do this we breach i was going to say the etiquette of the committee. Im not sure etiquette is the right word but it breaches everything we have held dear and the processes we have moved forward with. I very much hope this does not happen. There is no need for it. It will create a lot of bad will that does not need to be created. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham i will recognize senator cruz. In october a camper member when it was in 2013. I got a call from senator schumer saying we will change the rules regarding court nominations. It was relatively late in the evening. I said please dont do that. There will be no going back. You will live to regret it. My view is that set in motion a lot of things that have taken the senate in the wrong direction. No longer do you require 60 votes. That started with Circuit Courts. The belief in 2013 was we will pack the d. C. Circuit court with people firmly to our cause. All litigation regarding the government goes there. Nobody thought you would lose in 2016 including me. I have gotten to know the president that he voted for somebody i wouldnt know if they walked in the door. 2016 gave an outcome different than anybody in the country thought except the people who voted for the president and the right states. Isnt that ironic . The American People actually get essay get a say. Day forward there has been an effort to say that election was not legitimate. As much as i was disappointed that barack obama be john mccain, i excepted the outcome of voting for his nominees. There is no way you will convince me that Amy Coney Barrett is not qualified using any reasonable standard of qualification. If i applied to Justice Sotomayor and kagan the standards being imposed upon every republican nominee since i have been here, i would not have voted for them. Senator lakey voted for justice laheys senator voted for Justice Roberts. I have to reevaluate where i am. It is to be fair but silly to play a no one else is playing. In august of this year, i said i will noth sit on the sidelines and watch one of our nominees be destroyed after showing respect for two democratic nominees. That is not right and i am not going to do that. The timege barrett, periods we have talked about extensively, the same party as the president , the same party as the senate. Senator cruz is very smart on all this stuff. Major had a chance to test her. You did and i want to complement each member of the democratic side for being firm but not kavanaughn the ca road. Senator cruz . Mr. Chairman . Sen. Graham after senator cruz will go to senator durbin. Heard atd like to be some point. Sen. Graham i promise you everybody will be able to talk. Uz its important for the record to reflect moving forward on this nomination is consistent with two centuries of precedent and tradition in the senate. Numerous democratic members of this committee have given speeches. They have charts prepared to give more speeches. All attacking the legitimacy of these proceedings. Factsn adams observed, are seven things. Stubborn things. The scenario of a Supreme Court vacancy occurring during a president ial Election Year is not a new thing. It has occurred 29 times in our history. Nominationsave made all 29 times. The president is unequivocal and uniform when a vacancy occurs in a president ial Election Year, the president makes a nomination. That includes republicans and democrats. A total of 44 people have served as president of the United States. 22 made a Supreme Court nomination doing a president ial Election Year. What has the senate done . The precedent is clear. Of those 29, 19 of those occurred when the president and the senate were of the same party. Of those 19, the Senate Confirmed 17 of them. President is clear from the precedent is clear that if the president and senate are of the same party, the senate and all but extort new circumstances confirms that nominee. Have about in the senate and president are of different parties . That has happened 10 times. The senate has confirmed the nominee only twice. 2016, which are friends on the democratic side invoke and i understand why the invoke it, they were frustrated. 2016 was an instance in which president obama was a democrat in the senate was controlled by republicans. They had differing views on the kind of justice is that should serve on the court. The election resolved those views. One example that has been pointed to senator klobuchar just pointed to it. Senator harris pointed to it. Abraham lincoln. We are told that honest dave, founder of the honest abe, founder of the Republican Party show the example on why we should not proceed. It is worth noting that example misses a lot of the story. 1864, 27incoln, in days before the election, chief Justice Roger tani passes away. He had been the author of the infamous dred scott decision, and abominable decision of the Supreme Court. Suddenly there was a vacancy 27 days before the election. Senator klobuchar and senator harris pointed out the fact Abraham Lincoln did not make a nomination in those 27 days. What both of them omitted was the senate was not here. The senate had left. They had gone home. This was not the age of jet travel over the age of Community Every weekend commuting every weekend on a united flight. The senate would not return until december. There was no senate physically present to confirm that nominee. When the senate did return in december, Abraham Lincoln nominated in december a justice to fill that seat. Simon chase, which the Senate Confirmed the next day. 24 hours later they confirmed him. I would note also Abraham Lincoln was in the midst of a president ial reelection. As Doris Kearns Goodwin writes atutifully, he was very good assembling the Political Coalition he needed to win. He had multiple factions of the Republican Party that were splintered. Some things have not changed since 1864. Playershad multiple that wanted that chief justiceship. They were working hard to reelect him. Salmon chase had been treasury secretary. He had been a pain in the rear to lincoln. As a result of this vacancy, salmon chase campaigned like crazy for lincoln to get him reelected because he wanted the nomination. None of that should be shocking as a matter of history. There are many members of this committee that enjoy being students of history. But to suggest that is somehow a precedent and requires us not to ithis vacancy now is cant put it better than the Washington Post who factcheck senator harris on this claim. Conclusionton post was that senator harriss argument wasnt exactly true. So i recognize our democratic friends wish a different president had been elected in 2016. I am sympathetic to those arguments. I recognize our democratic friends wish there was a democratic majority in the senate. But the voters decided otherwise. This committee moving forward is consistent with over 200 years of history and precedent. Sen. Graham i wonder in our times it was the salmon chase of the Republican Party. So many to choose from. Senator durbin . Durbin i want to thank the senator from texas for his sympathy. [laughter] what we are witnessing this morning and this week is different than anything we have seen. Some of us have robert bork stuck in our craw. Others have merit garland stuck in our craw in terms of what is happening here. We all need to concede we are not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and the senate, the relationship with the Supreme Court. The chairman started this hearing reminding us about votes 80 for antonen 9 scalia. 3 for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. How did we manage to put together five partisan coalitions or people on such opposite ends of the political inctrum who we knew going were very clear in what they believed . Now today we struggle vote to vote, daytoday when it comes to filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I think there are a lot of explanations for it. One of the things we have witnessed here in the time i have served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it is almost useless. We have reached a point now where gifted, experienced jurists, legal scholars take that seat behind the table and then deny everything. Refuse to answer anything. Consider that. Asked then where we nominee, can president unilaterally delay a president ial election . She could not answer it. Too political. Too political . That is the standard for the United States of america. She can certainly have alluded to that. I asked cap president unilaterally deny a woman the right to vote . Sorry, cant answer. The case could come before me someday. It reached the point where senator kennedy asked this learned attorney, professor and jurist if she had any opinion on the issue of Climate Change. Basically she said ive never thought about it. Dont have any views. What are we dealing with here . We are not dealing with the reality of who this person is and what she believes but some kind of artifice we have constructed between the nominee and our questions. I would be afraid to ask her about the presence of gravity on earth. She may decline to answer because it might come up any case in a court someday. I look back in history at other nominees, both conservative and liberal, who have answered questions along these lines. What was the purpose of this hearing if we dont know what she thinks about any issues . Any major issues . She hides behind originalism. Many do but wont go to their original words of the transition when it comes to the trent were to the constitution when it comes to the transition of power. We are measuring a person who will spend the rest of my natural life and many other committee will serve on the court if nominated and approved and confirmed. We know this process is really stacked. The president told us so repeatedly. We cant get a direct answer from the nominee. We get direct answers every day from the tweets of the president. We know what his motives were in nominating this person for the Supreme Court. He does not cover it up. It was to make sure there was someone on the court to eliminate the Affordable Care act. You have been respectful of the fact that we brought these photographs before you. Thankful. They are meaningful to each and every one of us and they should be for you as well. These are people genuinely concerned about the future of health care in the midst of a pandemic. They are worried its being stacked to limit the only protection they have at a time when they are facing a lifeanddeath scenario everyday over masks and their conduct as citizens. To think with this president has said. One never said i will not put for anyone until i am certain she will overturn roe v. Wade. Getting the are deck stacked again as to what we can expect. The president said as much. The gracenote. The president said we should have nine justices in case the risen election contest. Be . Obvious can this we do with the president had in mind when he came up with his name. She may deny it but she has denied she even has a view on Climate Change. I met a point now where i have to say we have to believe that the president says. He picked the nominee he thought would achieve his political goals. We are breaking the rules of the senate, the rules of this committee. We are defying our own tradition and common sense and the mutual to 980 and led 963. I dont how we get this train back on the track. This nomination at this moment is not usual, not normal, and it is beneath the dignity of this committee. The rules would have told us to wait, as senator mcconnell told us four years ago, until after the president ial election. When we discarded the mcconnell rule it was clear that all bets are off. We are going for this nominee at any cost. One of them is the integrity of this committee. Sen. Graham i recognize let me give you my take on what i saw. How did we get here . We are talking about things unrelated to qualifications. She taught extensively about whether or not zero becomes a tax. She would apply the law. The holdings of fnib. Did the change by Congress Change that holding for you went from a dollar or whatever it was to zero . If you cross the threshold, it would be unconstitutional and still have to ask the question, can you say the statute, the analysis with a presumption we try . An Climate Change. Anybody who has doubts about Climate Change is weird in your world. You are trying to make her something she is not. You are asking her questions about what happens if the president pardons himself. What is she supposed to all i can say is donald trump is the nominee, not her. It is pretty obvious to me what you are trying to do to this nominee. Every time you talk to her about the law, she gave you rational, common sense answers. She talked extensively about originalismin and how people can come out with different conclusions using the same process. I personally reject the idea she was not forthcoming. I thought she was incredibly forthcoming about who she is and the way she would judge. Now, the game has been since she has been nominated to get back at trump. I understand this. That is probably what i would do if i were you all. If anybody in america is ready to go to the Supreme Court, it is amy bryant. If anybody has done the homework to be ready for this moment, it is judge barrett. If anybody has the character and disposition to handle the job, it is her, in my view. Sen. Lee thank you. Covered the first point i was going to raise, which leads essentially to the observation that there is no indication from the historical record that Abraham Lincoln would have deferred to George Mcclellan on the issue of filling that seat that went to sam chase, had the election of the fall of 1864 gone differently. None whatsoever. Just not what happened. Secondly, the dormant clause has been brought up. It is an issue that is deeply personal to me and should be to every american. Look, sen. Graham we believe you. It is not entirely uncontroversial. It has been the subject of some controversy. It impacts the way a political subdivision of a state can treat an article of commerce and whether or not it can be discriminated against based on its origin outside or inside the United States. It is controversial, including the fact that it affects revenue how theyor states and can access them, and it is based on an interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the u. S. Constitution, one that is often understood as providing congress with an affirmative grant of authority to your late interstate commercial transactions and interstate commerce. It has also been interpreted by the courts as creating a cause ,f action against states municipalities, and other subdivisions of states, where discrimination against interstate commerce has occurred. This is a significant thing. To call it insignificant only highlights the fact that there are some issues, and not others, that my colleagues want to focus on. They have wanted to focus almost exclusively on those issues. Why . I dont know. Perhaps in some ways to convert this nominee and other nominees into somebody who can be measured against the backdrop of a democratic politician. If you are looking at a democratic policymaker, Amy Coney Barrett is not a policymaker. As far as im aware, she is not a democrat. You are upset with the fact that she will not uncritically commit as some other nominees have to upholding certain sacred cow president s, but it is not as though your observation is that she lacks commitment to president s generally, just that she will not commit to president s who may be subject to additional litigation in the future. It is important to remember that elections still have consequences. In the election of 2014, the American People voted, and the elected and they elected republicans to the senate. In 2016, the American People elected republicans to the senate and republican to the white house. Which ilection of 2018, would note here, followed on the heels of abominable treatment by members of this committee on the other side of the aisle of Brett Kavanaugh. The American People in the immediate wake of that missed treatment of Brett Kavanaugh and your manipulation of the committee hearings, elected a republican majority to the senate. Those terms for each of those senators the last six years, not two years, not four years, not five and threequarter years, six years. Those terms matter. Just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in 2016, there is nothing in the constitution that indicates the president is no longer the president in the final term of his office, so, too, here. So, there is nothing that makes us less senators depending on our proximity to our next election. Certainly there is nothing about left asinee that can be suggesting that she is anything other than an extraordinarily gifted terrorist, and wellprepared or her service on the federal judiciary in a different capacity. Instead of being on the seventh circuit. The fact that she will not controversialain policy positions makes her more qualified for the job, not less. Mr. Chairman . Sen. Graham yes, maam. I just wanted to respond sen. Graham we will. You have spoken i know. Both of these comments by senator cruz and senator lee have provoked my name. Sen. Graham go ahead. Be. Omise you will kolbuchar i have nothing against that clause, but you are bringing this up for a reason, to make it seem esoteric and apart from the lives of the American People. I believe that is why you are bringing this up, and that is why we are spending, on your side, so much time on some of these things that are not relevant to peoples lives. Plopped thiss nomination proceeding in the middle of an election, it is our job to make people understand how very much if this nominee gets on the court, it will affect their lives. The case coming up right after this election is about the Affordable Care act, where the Trump Administration has argued very clearly that they should throw the whole thing out, the Affordable Care act. So whatever academic discussions you have about severability with a nominee, that is the case they are making. What i did the last few days, and what so many of my colleagues did was politely make the case about where this nominee is. She would not even answer if she knew that Donald Trumps position was to try to get favor of who were in striking down the Affordable Care act. She would not answer our question, so i have to look at the tracks. As i said the other day, up in northern minnesota, we followed the tracks. We followed the deer tracks to see where the deer went. I am left with her tracks. What her tracks showed me was that she blatantly criticized Justice Roberts for his legal reasoning for upholding the Affordable Care act. She then goes and says she thinks that scalia has a stronger argument in another case, which had upheld the Affordable Care act, but scalia is on the other side. She then takes on precedent that had been set that felons should not possess guns, that senator durbin got out. That is another track i followed. She then signs onto unpaid newspaper ad that refers to roe v. Wade as barbaric on the anniversary of roe v. Wade. That is another track. You can have different views, but this is what im left with. And what the American People are left with, to look at the tracks. You cannot separate this from the election we are in, so that is why i think it is a plan to talk about things like dormant Commerce Clause is so we can get away from what the real world repercussions are of this judge and of doing this to the American People in the middle of an election. But do i come out of this, as i said, as Justice Ginsburg would say in her dissent, they were blueprints to the future as opposed to what someone once said of cries of defeat. I dont come out of this with cries of defeat, and you know why . You are motivating more people to vote. Lets go out and vote. This should not be Donald Trumps judge. This is your country i say to the American People, not Donald Trumps. This should be your judge, not Donald Trumps judge, and they are watching. Sen. Graham thank yousen. Graham . I will recognize someone on our side after i have a moment. We will keep talking here. Number one, the tracks were clear to me when it came to Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. I did not need a bloodhound to tell me where they were going to go. I understood based on their writings and philosophy that they would be with the liberal majority most of the time. They have been. I was not surprised at all. I accepted that as the outcome of president obamas election, but it was equally obvious to me, senator klobuchar, that whatever personal opinions they had, did you think it would be hard to follow the tracks of Justice Ginsburg . She worked for the aclu. She was a prominent, progressive thought leader. She openly talked about her prochoice views, and she had every right to hold them. And she was true to herself. And when the senate voted, they knew they were getting someone very special, but from a conservative point of view, with a different philosophy. And the senate saw the same thing in scalia. How much tracks did you need to figure out that scalia would be and the bottom line with judge barrett, she is someone that a republican would pick. Atublicans generally look people with a disposition like judge barrett. Democrats generally look at people with a disposition like Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. You all have a good chance of winning the white house. I dont know where the polls are going to be a l klobuchar thank you for knology now. Sen. Graham yeah, it is true. It will be that important to people. I think that judge barrett is the exactly kind of person that you would expect any republican president to consider, not because there was a bunch of money to get us there, just because of who she is, the way she has lived her life, and the philosophy she expositors. And respecterence to senator klobuchar, this is not hard to figure out. It was not hard for me to figure out that sotomayor and kagan were of a disposition different than i have, but i trusted them in the big moments to apply the law and not turn it upside down, and they had been with a liberal majority, but i dont believe they have been activist judges. I really dont. Every time they rule in some fashion that the conservatives in america do not like, i get blamed for it. Now, i am getting blamed for everything roberts did. All i can tell you is that i found them all eminently qualified. And if judge barrett decides can the Affordable Care act stand because of severability, i do not want you to be surprised because it is pretty obvious to me she is thinking long and hard about that. Had no idea how she would roll. At the end of the day, i cannot i do not own what they do once they leave here. I make a judgment. These people, the people before anyare they qualified by reasonable standards of intellect and character . The answer is, yes. How did we get 96 and 97 votes for scalia and ginsburg . The analysis was qualification. If we go any deeper than that, president obama voted against bush nominees. He said qualifications get you to like 70 or 80 . The heart is what you need to get over the line. I do not know how to do that. Senatorsident, then obama, apply that standard, i said, oh my gosh, basically what you are saying is im not going about anybody who does not think like me judicially. It is as if the election did not exist when it came to judges. So, to my colleagues, it is ok to have this hearing now. It is ok to vote now because as Justice Ginsburg said, president ial terms are for four years. I want every american to think long and hard about who would you like to be on the court, knowing the difference between the party preferences. That, to me, is more important today than it ever has been. With that, i will yield to senator lee. I would like to be recognized sen. Graham you are on deck. Klobuchar, youor are making the point i am trying to make. The dormant Commerce Clause does impact peoples lives and local forms of government. And in fact impact did in fact impact the formation of this country. It was the economic fall canonization during the articles of confederation that led to the need for the Commerce Clause to begin with. There are some questions as to whether or not the courts ought to have the power to create a private right of action to enforce it, or whether that should have been created by congress, which we have the power to do. Regardless regard this as uncontroversial, we ought to do it. Dormantn a Commerce Clause together, and we will incorporate the antidiscrimination dormant clause jurisprudence and make it law once and for all rather than a judicial creation. I would love to do that. The point is, this one matters, too. It has not yet become a subject of political tugs of war based on fear mongering, based on fundraising by politicians in both parties. Yet, there are a lot of similarities there. This is what we have reduced the courts to. , this is the American People seat. That is why we have elections. 2016,elections in 2014, 2018 that i mentioned mattered. We have got the authority to do this. We have historical precedents on our side, and we have also got the constitution. The best nominee i have seen in a long time. Sen. Graham senator . Thank you. There has been so much talk about precedents. When historycome books are going to use senator theins comments about president. I certainly think he stated it as well as i have ever heard it stated. We have another precedent, and that is that senators have always kept their word. Andainly by the, craddick Republican Leaders when i came to that certainly by the republican and Democratic Leaders when it came to the senate. Chairman, i know we have been friends a long time, and your reasons for delaying any would have kept what you said them. You have not. Committee got through the confirmation for judge barrett, but now we are officially through the looking glass. Confirmation just two weeks after judge barretts nomination, three weeks before an election, and a pandemic affecting Committee Members, as if that was not enough of a sham, we are now proceeding to bench a nomination before the hearings are even concluded. Before we even have a chance to ask the nominee all of our questions. Many senators submitted which she did not answer, i guess knowing we are going to vote before we hear those answers. We have not even had a chance to hear from all the witnesses this committee needed and deemed necessary. Apparently, before we even reviewed all of judge barretts record, records of her undisclosed speeches that continue to pour in. I think there are half a dozen or more from last night. All of those were admitted for questionnaire. Suggesting that judge barrett intentionally failed to disclose all of these records and the committee, but, normally, we back andgh time to go see that they fail to. [indiscernible] so, there is no reason why these deficiencies cannot be ensured. There is no reason why this nomination cannot be delayed. If President Trump wins the election, well, then take up his nomination in january. That process would be legitimate. This one is not. In fact, this process is a caricature of illegitimacy. The fact that we have a nominee before Justice Ginsburg was even thisd, in order to jam nomination before the election, that is a mark on the United States. It will be the mark of a process paradigms. L it is no secret why President Trump is so desperate to install judge barrett before the election. President trump is always going to say the quiet part out loud or very loudly. He expects his nominees side with him in any electionrelated dispute. Impossible for americans not to question judge merricks impartiality judge barretts impartiality if she has to vote on such an occasion as a justice. Incrediblyit disappointing. If she decided in the president s favor in any election dispute, it is going to cause harm to both the court and our democracy. Not placeould integrity of either in such jeopardy. I worry about what is happening in these processes that we are going to diminish the respect that all americans can have for our federal judiciary. Have another horse in the race. They are launching to strike down the Affordable Care act on november 10. The attorney general does not just want to strike down some of the aca, they want to strike everyll of it, and almost republican on this committee has joined those briefs. Republicans on this committee have tried for years to overturn the Affordable Care act, both in congress and the courts. It serves Many Americans with preexisting conditions. How long do you think they have an opportunity with judge barrett . Certainly President Trump has said that is expected. She repeatedly criticized the constitutionality and the galley of the law and has never defended it. Clear,e has been very very outspoken about. That is why we are here today. See an republicans opportunity to wildly swing the balance of the court for decades. Instead of having a court for both democrats and republicans, they look at it and think it is going to be evenhanded. I know i have voted for more republican judges since i have been in the senate, then probably anybody on this committee. In evenhanded federal judiciary. I do not believe in a president of the United States backed by republicans in the u. S. Senate to say which way a court is going to go. That is why republicans have. One backward they are worried about giving the American People a voice one aesident obama nominated judge 10 months before an election. Not 10 weeks, 10 months. Person with many republicans who served in the Committee Said they would not vote for until republican leader told him to shut up. That is why republicans are andnishing the committee the senate and to remind us where we are at now. Glossis really nowhere to over how long and biggest processes. The damage inflicted in the wake of this outrageous power grab is going to be considerable, perhaps irreparable. All to the u. S. Senate and federal judiciary. It does not have to be this way. This does not have to be the story of judge barretts nomination. But it is what republicans have chosen. Certainly, you could have waited until the election was over and then gone forward. In the pursuit of raw power, the drive to deprive millions of americans of their basic health care protection, republicans are going assured every principle this place has stood for. Of this asought being the contents being a violation of the conscience. Hope the American People will, too. You are. Sen. Graham thank you, senator leahy. Anybody else . I will make sure everybody gets to speak. It is my motion, i will ask to speak for a second time if i may . Sen. Graham you may. Thank you, mr. Chairman. A roll call to have vote on this motion because i think it is so serious. Sen. Graham do you want it now or do you want people to speak . I would like everyone to speak who would like to speak and thank you for the opportunity. Know, there are very few written rules around here. The most important rules are the unwritten ones. Ist important of those rules you keep your word. We all know the United States senate works and our democracy works because people keep their promises. Committee on the when merrickomised garlands nomination was given no hearing, no vote, members will not even meet with him, that never would a Supreme Court nominee be considered during an Election Year. You are breaking that word. Aboutth all the rhetoric precedent, history, and anything else, and about the wrong direction that the senate is going, in essence, you are taking another step in that direction. Side to bringour into this room real people who would be affected by this nomination. We cannot bring them to the hearing room as witnesses. We cannot have them be present here because we are in the midst of a pandemic, and we should be dealing with that Health Crisis instead of considering nomination of someone who has said, in effect, that our nt health law should be struck down, but we put them in the room here, and we saw their faces and voices. Natalie, who is brother was killed in newtown, and who won sensible gun violence prevention said this nominee is a prophetical to upholding. Kristin and michael, whose son perished as a result of the lack of safe storage of a firearm, and who once a safe storage law, ethans law, nationally, veterans who want emergency risk that theiralerts so friends and fellow veterans will not commit suicide because they weapons taken away if they are going to use them to commit suicide. Nickel for every time i have heard this term, elections have consequences. We all know elections have consequences. Here is an seeing exercise of raw political power. You are moving ahead with this , butation because you can right does not make right. Heremerican people put up to do what we think is right. In your hearts you know that what is happening here is not right. It is not normal. So the real people, eventually, will judge us. Haunt this raw exercise of political power that threatens to strike down protection for people with preexisting conditions, including now covid19, as well as heart disease, asthma, cancer , about half of all americans. At least half the people in connecticut, 1. 5 million, 130 million across the country, suffer from those preexisting conditions. Their lives are at stake area that is why i brought into this their lives are at stake. That is why i brought into this room a person who suffers from a disease that would have killed him by now if not for the Affordable Care act. But the most Important Message tom him was what he wrote this nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Oath,d, doctors take an first, do no harm. Can you take that oath . Same question might be put to us. First, do no harm. Can we take that oath . I hope that we will recognize, my colleagues will recognize, ist delaying this nomination the right thing to do here. We are talking about moving ahead on it before we have even finished the hearing. We have not heard from those witnesses who are going to comment on the qualifications of this nominee. And, yet, we are talking about moving ahead. Word senatoran, yield a question . Sen. Blumenthal i will be finished in about one minute and then yield at that point. Sayingjust close by there is more information that is coming out every day. Disclosedoned, cnn last night additional statements and speeches and talks, which is one of the reasons why i made this motion. There is more to be learned here. An opportunity and an obligation to scrutinize this nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court what is reallyd insulting to the nominee is the president has, in effect, said he wants to put her on the court as a result of a rushed process so she can decide his election. She refused to commit. She would recuse herself from sitting on that case. Eventually will do great harm to the court itself. To leave that question unanswered for the American People, and, as we know, and she said it, the orders of the Supreme Court are not self enforcing. The Supreme Court has no armies, no police force. Its authority depends on the trust and faith of the American People and its legitimacy. I reviewed the Supreme Court. I was a law clerk there. I have argued cases in front of it, including both Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg. Both gave me an equally tough time, but i trusted that they were going to take a position based on the law. Damage to the Supreme Court by politicizing it in this way. I asked my colleagues to vote aye on this motion and delayed indefinitely the proceedings on this nominee. Now will the senator yield a question, mr. Chairman . Senator, you know how much i respect you. Sen. Blumenthal i appreciate that. I know you know that. But you just accused me of breaking my word. Want to know how you reached that conclusion. When did i promise in representing the good people of the state of louisiana that i would not vote on a supreme when aomination president , any president , brought it before me as a member of this committee . I have read the constitution. I know you have. I have listen to your eloquent questions for 3. 5 years here. The constitution is unaffected by the electoral calendar. When it deals with Supreme Court nominations. When have i broken my word not to vote on this nominee . Blumenthal if i may respond . Sen. Kennedy yes, that is a legitimate question. Blumenthal i never said any specific member of this committee, but i can name some names, and i was not going to do so, but i think the record will confirm that the chairman, in effect, made that commitment, and sen. Kennedy the chairman can defend himself, but i have heard you say, richard, that the republicans in this committee have broken their word. I take that seriously because of my respect for you. Are you alleging i broke my word . Sen. Blumenthal im not saying you personally broke your word. I am saying that any member of the committee or the senate, and there are others, and i do not think we should be personal in this committee meeting. The fact of the matter is, and you know well, that there were numerous statements at the time that Merrick Garland was denied a hearing, was denied a vote, meetings that it was improper to have this nomination go forward during an Election Year. That was nine months, not 30 days. Votings committee is less than three weeks before the election. The full senate will vote literally days before november 3, and right now, americans are voting. We are in the midst of an election. Americans are going to the polls in more than 11 states. Probably it is now more than 15. I am just saying the commitment year, and iing last am asking the members of this committee to abide by that. Sen. Kennedy but you are not saying i made that commitment . Sen. Blumenthal but you are not saying i person but i am not saying you personally do. Sen. Graham and senator blumenthal, i am not taking personally what i said. That is fair game. Just look at everything i said from august of this year, i said there was an opening, we will see what the market will bear after Brett Kavanaugh. Up is down and down is up there that is what i said, also. Nothing personal. Mr. Chair, ir have quotes from 15 senators. I will put them on the record. Sen. Graham without objection. Mr. Chairman, i associate myself with the remarks of my democratic colleagues as to the legitimacy of his hearing. Mr. Chairman, you know that ruth with ginsburg had tracks her position on important issues. He also noted that elena kagan course, i, and, of know that republicans have voted over 70 times or at least 70 times to constrain or repeal the Affordable Care act. The tracks of this nominee are that she will strike down the aca. Those are her tracks. Thank you for not hiding that from the American People as they worry about their health care in the middle of a pandemic. As for the lifeline you tossed judge barrett about severability to save the Affordable Care act, that is a smokescreen. Severabilitynvoke when she criticized cj roberts for, as she put it, stretching the limits of the constitution to uphold the Affordable Care act. If cj roberts had followed her reasoning, he would have voted to strike down Affordable Care act. Isall know that severability a canon of construction, and the as trumpo that is just and the republicans are arguing in the Supreme Court, nothing in the Affordable Care act can be severed as to sustain it, and that is why we are so concerned why she is being rushed in this process. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you. Booker,kunz and then and then feinstein, and anybody over here. Align sorry, could you redo that order and say feinstein and then booker . Sen. Graham kunz, booker, feinstein, corner after senator kunz align i am happy im happy to defer. Sen. Graham sure. To stay here until 1 00, october 22. All right. If i may, mr. Chairman . Sen. Graham you may. I listened carefully to these comments, and i must say the argument for really giving due regard to this nominee i think has been cogently made on our side. I would hope that the republican side would listen to that. These are lifetime appointments. They last for decades. Here willt is done affect policies long before or long after our lifetimes end. Time i we are in the have been on this committee, the 25, 26 years, there has never been a situation quite like this. I think history will regard as if wef we are considered are diligent and patient if we are considerate, diligent and patient. . En. Graham senator chairman, during my opening statement, i quoted james manley, who we all remember worked here at reed for many years. He was quoted as saying on this the groups want blood. Democrats off and on the Committee Want a real fight. I guess this is what passes for a real fight. I am really struggling to find out and to understand why judge merrick judge barrett is such a threat to them. Is it because they have become accustomed that when they lose elections and votes in congress they depend on the courts to bail them out . That is not what judges should be doing. Toges should be trying determine what the intent of congress is because we are the ones accountable to the voters. They are not, by definition, by the fact that they have lifetime tenure. That is why it is so important to have judges like Amy Coney Barrett. She does not want to substitute her opinion for ours. She wants ours to prevail. She wants majorities respected. That is the american system. Think a lot of the arguments, and maybe it is so obvious that nobody wants or needs me to say it, but call lisa stroman but keephese strawmen they racing, or the unspoken accusation against judge barrett issue will violate her judicial oath. That the sort of integrity and character she demonstrated here that somehow she will leave that all behind in order to accomplish a result. In a future case she has not even heard. It is absurd. I think the regret, the of our democratic colleagues israel because they have become accustomed to the Supreme Court being policymakers and being a body that bails them out if they cannot win the election or a vote in congress. I understand the disappointment, but i think their loss is the American Peoples game. Gain. Sen. Graham senator kunz . You, mr. thank chairman. Today, my constituents have been asking for weeks the same thing. Thehis particular context, question is, and i got one while we were sitting here, why is the senate Judiciary Committee meeting to race through your process and this confirmation on the senate itself is not in session . I was delayed a few minutes this morning because i went and got tested for covid by the Senate Physician so that i can return with some competence to my family this evening that i have not picked it up while here. Descendent of the United States is not in session because we have an outbreak amongst senators, and im not confident we have provided for senators, staff, for the white house, frankly, for the American People. My little state is 900,000 people, and how many people filed new unemployment claims last week . Almost exactly 900,000 people. My hope is we will get back to the work of people trying to deliver the relief of those infected and unemployed desperately need, but i worked hard to bring the voices of real delaware ians into the discussion because delawarians into the discussion because it is easy to miss things that matter to lawyers, like the dormant Commerce Clause, and i look forward to our long delayed debate on that, senator lee. Conversations about regionalism, originalism, what is or is not the president for this committee for confirmations, or for the Supreme Court cannot leave the millions of americans struggling in the middle of this pandemic and the recession i would argue made worse by the bungling handling of this pandemic by our president a little cold. I am greatly concerned, mr. Chairman, that you, and the majority, are standing on the edge of a precipice of pushing through a nominee in a way that you yourself said was unthinkable two years ago in the last days of the last quarter of this presidency. We are 19 days from the president ial election. The majority of states are voting. People stood outside for 10 hours enjoyed yesterday. That is the good news. I think they are that determined to vote. We heard repeatedly from the agenda,that she has no but i will tell you the agenda of President Trump in choosing her, and the agenda of the republican majority in racing forward with this confirmation. That is clear. Saidlleague from illinois that this process has turned into something that your average american has trouble discerning what is going on. We keep asking earnest questions, the nominee keeps declining to answer them in any substantive or meaningful way. Ourselves if ask there is any path toward getting a confirmation process of this body onto a real and rational footing. We are about to have a vote in this committee. That is why i will support my colleagues from connecticuts motion, we have not even heard from the last panel of witnesses today. We have not heard responses for questions for the record. This is an unprecedented context , and with unprecedented speed. A supreme convene Court Confirmation hearing in the middle of a pandemic while the senate is on recess, while voting has already started in the president ial election and the majority of states because we are simply concerned about abstract ideas or the neutral application of law. Mangle andnot mishandle my predecessor and attribute to him some rule and then restated as the mcconnell rule, ignore and then state up is down and down is up when nothing could be further from the truth. This is not on the level. You do not go against your own promise after you already claimed as a matter of high principle that justices should not be confirmed in elections, and after you have already blockaded decentrist, competent, highly qualified nominee for that reason because you solely care about methodology. President st the disastrous response to pandemic and a decadelong, unfilled pledge embodied in one partys platform to overturn protections for the majority of americans in the middle of a pandemic. As my democratic colleagues and i have been working and laboring to lay out, there will soon be, if judge barrett is confirmed, a hard turn to the right on the Supreme Court. A change in methodology, a change in approach and principle that will have lasting consequences for the majority of americans. After studying judge barretts record, im convinced she would come to the Supreme Court with a deeply conservative originalist philosophy and judicial activism with regards to president that would put numerous longstanding rights the American People have come to hold dear and nearly every modern aspect of life at risk. Simply put, i believe she will open a new chapter of conservative additional activism, unlike anything we have seen in decades. First, judge barrett as Justice Barrett may well past the deciding vote to overturn the Affordable Care act with potentially disastrous consequences for the majority of americans. Everyone watching at home has heard my colleagues say that for the last 10 years, their top priority has been repealing the aca, and every single republican on this committee has talked repeatedly about their desire to get rid of that law at some point previously. So, too, has President Trump. Despite their best efforts, they have so far failed to do so here, and in my view, have failed to advance the credible alternative plan for how to deal with preexisting conditions and give them lasting protection. Best shotk the last for accomplishing this goal is at the Supreme Court. That is where judge merrick comes in. As judge barrett comes in. As she proceeded to our exchange, she has written a no Uncertain Terms she thinks Justice Roberts got it wrong in his ruling, upholding the law against the constitutional challenge. She wrote that article in early 2017, and then months later, found herself on President Trumps short list for the court. Meanwhile, the Trump Justice Department joined a challenge to the aca that is back in front of the Supreme Court to be argued on november 10. And hist Trump Administration are arguing in no Uncertain Terms the court must tear down the entire law. My colleagues have said this is fear mongering. This is baseless political theater. Thinks thiso challenge is farfetched, just read the brief. Filed by thef solicitor general of the United States, or the one filed and cosigned by 18 Republican Attorney general. Our president himself said what he expects from his judicial nominees. Chief justiceat roberts over and over for his decision upholding the Affordable Care act, and pledged as a candidate, his nominees would do the right thing and overturn the law. It is not just the aca that is on President Trumps agenda for the court. He has made clear he wants to overturn the aca, roe v. Wade, me,most concerning the to he repeatedly made statements that he expects his nominee to hand him the election if there is a dispute in the courts. As i made clear in my exchange with judge barrett, i am not suggesting she engaged in inappropriate commitments with the president. That is not what im saying. It was the president s conduct himself that has put this issue and from the American People in front of the American People. His repeated undermining of the safety and security of our election should be alarming to to commit his refusal to a peaceful transfer of power and the results of the election should give all of us concern, those of us who have pledged to uphold the constitution under all circumstances. Sen. Graham im sorry. Could . Ons if i i will not speak after this. Sen. Graham i did not mean to interrupt you. Sen. Coons judge barrett also refused to answer whether she believed scalia was correct in his criticism of griswold versus connecticut, a case decided when i was two years old that protects the right to use contraceptives in the privacy of ones home and it is an important marked case because it is the anchor marked jurisprudence. Roberts wases willing to say that griswold was right, but what truly concerns me is her approach to president. President s is called the Foundation Stone of american law, giving predictability to it. As i walked through yesterday, i concluded that judge barrett is even more willing than Justice Scalia to overturn precedence with which she disagrees and makes clear is that justices should feel free to overturn cases they believe were wrongly decided, which if she deeply holds the original philosophy she has espoused, may means that dozens and dozens as i detailed in a chart yesterday, more than 120 cases long settled in many cases may be at risk of reconsideration. They will cover, yes, health care, yes, privacy, but education, consumer protection, marriage equality, criminal justice, a range of cases the majority believes are long settled. I was concerned that judge barrett would not specifically tomit to recruits will recusal in the event there is something arising from this eminent president ial election. I think nothing could be more challenging to the role of the Supreme Court in our natural life. I urge my colleagues to first consider seriously the senator from connecticuts motion and to delay the final stages of this process until after the election. But, equally, if not more importantly, to think about the moment we are on. Because if the selection in some way is interfered with, does not go appropriately, i think that our democracy itself is at risk. Clear,very least, to be i thought nothing was stopping judge barrett for making a commitment to recuse herself given what President Trump has said. I was greatly concerned she did not. Mr. Chairman, i will not be voting to confirm judge barrett to the Supreme Court, but, i frankly think we should not be taking this boat and proceeding today. Vote and proceeding today. We should be turning to the process of ensuring the safety and security of our election and keeping our word. Sen. Graham senator kennedy. Want tonedy i associate myself with part of remarks. Oons lessnk i have been here than amount of time that anybody on this committee. You are the most interesting people i have ever been around. I mean that. The senate is. I have not met a dummy yet. I realize that might be debatable by some. Single solitary member of the senate that does not want what is best for america, and i certainly include you in that, senator coons. I think we ought to do something about the economic consequences of the coronavirus. I dont know why bad things happen to good people, but it has happened to the world, and it has had Public Health consequences and private health consequences, but also economic consequences. I am not trying to score political points here. I mean what i am about to say. Senator mcconnells has put the coronavirus will put the coronavirus bill on the floor next week. I understand any of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle get is not a perfect bill. So, if you will talk to senator schulenberg, i will talk to senator mcconnell, a on the side of the aisle that have more friends than i have contacted senator mcconnell. Lets agreed to proceed with lets delete it and start the amendment process. Lets debate it and start the amendment process print lets debate and decide. I did notcome come up. In may, and i know you did not either, chris, and lets try to pass a bill next week. I think everybody on this committee tests their assumptions against the arguments of their critics. That is one of the reasons that i find you also interesting. I am willing to consider democratic amendments to that bill, so lets do it. But it will require my democratic friends to vote to proceed. So i am asking you, respectively, vote to proceed on that bill, and then lets start amending it. Lets pass something. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham senator booker . Booker mr. Chairman, let me apologize for this metaphor. I know it will insult the two vegans on the committee, me and senator cruz. [laughter] call it personal privilege. I am sorry. Sen. Graham may be one step below the Houston Astros thing. Sen. Booker i just want the people of texas to know the truth, he is a closet vegan. I recognize, mr. Chairman, that this is pretty much cooked. Postures of all of us around, people talking, and when people say things original like mr. Kennedy just said, folks listen, and repeat what others consider to be the routine partisan posturing. I see lots of heads go down to the cell phones. Let me try not to do anything routine but with the hope that my colleagues will listen to me. First of all, just with the hearing, i do think some of the things you said earlier are right. This was a hearing conducted with the quorum and profession d quorum and professionalism. That is something we can all agree to. We had criticisms back and forth. I found things troubling to me during this hearing. I tried to elicit in both private conversation and in the hearing just conversations about what i think is one of the issues we dont speak enough about in United States of proud ofen extremely the fact that we have a senate that has more blacks serving on it than in any time in history, and i have been grateful to watch my colleagues, often on , tim,oor, my colleague speak about the truth of race. And the last time he did it get applause from republican colleagues about his experience as a United States senator and i have my own. With theexperiences Capitol Police that have been stunning. I think many of my colleagues recognizes this goes on. And here we are in a backdrop of what i think is, and somebody can correct me, the largest period of demonstrations in the United States, greater than the civil mites star symbol write units, predominantly coming out to protest issues of race, and i was surprised that in this backdrop, issues of race were so important to the Supreme Court that we had a nominee who could not talk to a law review article that they wrote. I heard senator kennedy asked her yesterday which made me smile ask her if she is a racist, clearly she is not, nor is anybody who is serving in this committee, but it is not out of the bounds to ask questions about this being in the lifetime of my family there have been members affected by Supreme Court decisions in profound ways, and these are issues that will continue to come up. I found it surprising thank you, sir. I found it surprising that this conversation, and i am new to this committee, and this conversation about does this nominee answer questions that reflects their philosophy, i thought that there were a lot of questions in bounds that she refused to answer and that is the erosion of precedent that will continue in this committee. We are getting to a period where the instructions will get say do not answer things to not be able to answer whether you believe in the peaceful transfer i found that stunning, i really did. I do not think we could ask anybody in the United States senate, house members, High School History teachers if they dont think that is something somebody should do, i found that surprising. I am not here to rehash comments that i made about why think this is wrong to do this. What i would rather do, and chairman, i think you will send me a note or flowers, but tomorrow will be the 70 year to the date of when i got elected into the united the seven year date of when i got elected to the United States senate. Just a congratulations will be sufficient. I appreciate it. Before you move on, this is a contentious time and twitter is blocking the story about biden and the world is turning sideways and we will talk about it in a minute, but, they would be no first steps act if senator booker at a very Crucial Point in time decided to find common ground. I will attest to the fact that when it was about to fall apart, you kept it together and kept your eye on the prize, i wanted to say that. Sen. Booker i want to attest to the fact that other colleagues that when i talked about race had a conversation about the work that we can still do together on those issues. I came to the senate and people said it was impossible to pass some of the legislation that dick durbin, on our side, really lead. I am proud of some of the work we have done on this committee. So, i just want to actually talk about that moment i came to the senate. I was elected on the 16th, my dad had died six days earlier, and i came down here grieving. My staff knew before Vice President joe biden swarming into take me into see john lewis, explore me in to see john lewis and my mom walked me onto the floor of the senate on october 31st. A week later the rules of the senate were changed, which ive heard a lot about from colleagues about breaking the senate. Imagine me, i was a little bit naive to the function of the senate, this was a truth. I got sworn in and we had a vote and i did not know how to vote, i thought there was eva a button to press and menendez has to say raise your hand and say aye. And i have senators coming to lobby to change a rule that surprised me because the the word they used was nuclear option. Why the heck are we doing something called the nuclear option. I thought we would talk about treaties to try and prevent Nuclear Proliferation more catastrophe. And, i had senators who i respect, people i saw speak for them and women explaining to me about what they saw was the leader mcconnell was putting on the ability of senator obama to put executive positions and judges on. Heard mitchrecently mcconnell brag about that, that he was able to choke the number tojudges that obama was able put on to give President Trump a historic number of vacancies to fill. I am not bringing this up as a point of argument because i have haseded to this both hashed out on both sides. I believe i did the right thing with my vote. With private santos conversations that this is people telling me that this body and committee is terribly broken and, remarked to me that we are tumbling towards a very bad reality. And, that is what concerns me right now in this moment. That this is another moment where we are, as an institution, eroding norms to the point where we all are bemoaning it, everybody, i have heard on both sides bemoaning it. But this is not happening in a vacuum. It is not. It is happening in a time of terrible crisis for our country, and sometimes i walk around the halls of the senate and i feel like a frog in boiling water that has been having the temperature turned up so slowly that they are barely remarking on it. Colleagues to ask my to think about what is happening in the context of American History right now, and some of you all might not agree with me but i have had a couple of republican colleagues of mine who have spoken out about these things that are troubling to me. I sigh president of the United States bringing in military and gas and rubber bullets on Peaceful Protesters in Lafayette Park and for what . There are people all of us there are people of faith all of us around here, to hold up a bible for a photo op. That was such a stunning moment that i watched a lot of what i called states people in america, out strongly against it, including people in this body on the republican side. Mattis,shed general who believes in the restraint of power to call the president of the United States a danger to our democracy. That is stunning. But it does not stop there. I do not know if i can point, but there are better students of history, of a president before an election doing things to compromise the outcome and saying if i dont win, clearly and unequivocally, this election is rigged. That is something in the presence of my lifetime, george bush, Ronald Reagan would have never have said. And for those of you who do not think it is problematic, we have armed militias gearing up. Go to the website armyoftrump. Com. That worries me because i like my conservatives because we pick on, this isl agree the colts of a personality, cult of a personality. Am i exaggerating when we literally are sitting here while we have people like our governor of michigan where people are putting together plots to abduct elected officials in the United States of america. Does this not trouble us . The things that are going on are stunning to me. A president staying stand back and stand by to an organization that is doing that, standing by. We have literally, in this moment, a president refusing to talk about the peaceful transfer of power. All of these things are troubling, and i know some people want to cast them in partisan ways, but even the constitution mentions the census and post office and yet both of those are under attack right now. Usee these signs all around that should make all of us concerned, and worried about what is going to happen 19 days from now. I never thought i would have rational conversations with republican colleagues and members of my family that i am fearful of the violence that might happen around and election. I am having conversations on my side of the aisle with people saying what are we going to do to protect the polls and black communities from what happened in 1981 in new jersey where people with arms came in to try and undermine people voting . This is actually going on and these are real conversations by rational people. This is not partisan rhetoric, but that is facts, and it happens when something deeper. And i texted this person on the republican side and talked about these deeper issues. I really appreciate what you wed senator kennedy, because do have common virtue, we do have common values, we have common cause. The lines that divide us are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us in this country, i still believe that. Call me earnest or naive, i still believe that. Tit right now we are doing for tat, i hear people calling us extreme and there are times i sit back and i remember in 2016 that many of our colleagues were saying let us keep it open, people were saying let us keep the Supreme Court open for four years if Hillary Clinton lives. They are things that have been going on on both sides. But we are doing this and failing as a body to lead in a time of crisis. We have food lines in america that have not been seen since the great depression. We have Unemployment Rate that we have not seen since the great depression. Business starts have been going down for years and now we have Small Businesses closing at rates we have not seen since the depression. If anybody not know heard, i ran for president last and wend there are farms are seeing the closure of the independent American Farms at a rate we have not seen that we have not since the 80s and before. Let me go know more because my colleagues are concerned. Life expectancy in america is going down. And every other industrial nation, it is going up. You want to talk about national anxiety, rates of depression, clinical depression is going up, usage of antidepressants going up. That all of these signs the great experiment in democracy and in all comparison, in fact, mr. Chairman, you ran for president and lost, sir. What youam way behind were able to do, not even a tshirt. Sen. Booker when i came to this body as an executive i was interested in data. I had dashboards when i was mayor of my city that showed us how successful we were doing. Ooked for the bore of the dashboard of america, one the World Economic forum that keeps data. We were number one on every one of their metrics and measures in quality ofa, infrastructure, education of our children, even the research and development, we were the innovators of the planet. Now we are not even in the top 10 for most measures. China built 18,000 miles of highspeed rail, have we done a major infrastructure build . The busiest rail quarter runs half an hour slower than it did in the 60s. We stabbed the most College Graduates port cap per capita, we are not in the top 10. Trying to compete in a knowledgebased economy when r d, countries are and we are drafting off of the investments we made, we are not the number one anymore. Or in research intensity. I want to go on but i want to come to this conclusion. Body toailing as a serve the purposes to which we all care, and the best we can do is blame each other. And each of us are participating in the erosion of this body. And, this is yet another example of that. People here think this is wrong, and im not saying just people on our side, because in the words of my colleagues, this group this ghost goose is cooked. I am appealing right now, but during times like this, i have been texting with my friends that i text on the others of the style and i hope that that they will never make those public. Now,i am appealing right that we have to find a way to stop this. The only thing that heals this body is a revival of civic grace. Somewhere along the line there will be a moment, it is coming, i think it has gone past, but there has to be acts of heroism when it comes about grace. I will quote you, because you will not take offense. You said we have the authority to do this. I know you are a student of history. The greatest acts of American History are when people have the authority to do something but they showed the restraint of power and did not use the authority. This is one of those moments where that is the kind of grace that can stop this tumbling of towardstitution further what i think will be a real constitutional crisis, and will help us begin to rise together to save this nation. Whate now at a point with we are about to do here, unless somehowagues resolution passes where we will see another firm to the erosions of arconic of our institutions, and i hear rational people telling me things like, it is the first time in Supreme Court history that we had the most antidemocratic Supreme Court because they bring up facts like this is the president was not elected with the majority and confirmed by a senate that has 10 million less votes the majority then the minority, that these are antidemocratic things and we have to stop them, just in the same way that my colleagues are hearing when Hillary Clinton seemed to be the winner, were talking about trying to stop. To get things to stop. What has to stop is that. I will end with my favorite point, you may have had these moments, it was in iowa, chuck grassley, i was running for a town hall and im about to leap up on the stage in a big guy sees me mr. Chairman, i am a big guy, the older i get, the better i was, and im about to jump up on the stage and the guy stopped me and says i want you to punch donald trump in the face and i looked at him and said dude, that is a felony. Near, i am a shadow of the kind of grace that john mccain showed when somebody was eviscerating barack obama personally and he grabbed the microphone from him and talked about how good of a family person barack obama was, rather than the easy vilification. I cannot imagine for the life of me the current president doing Something Like that. What this body has to rise to, and i hope it is now, is to understand is that what the nation needs from us is that this, and i have failed in , but this has come the moment that we need to show it. I pray that my colleagues will join the other two republicans and stop this from happening to show this grace now, because this is a point when millions of americans are suffering, hurting, and losing the idea of what it means to be an american in terms of the dream and promise of this country. This is the moment that this nation needs from this body, actions of grace. Sen. Graham , it is ifhouse if if it is ok i would like to dispose of the motion. If it is ok after senator whitehouse, we will take out the vote. Sen. Whitehouse , i will try to be brief. The me first say how surprised i am that senator kennedy finds us , i haveresting because operated under the principal for many years that everybody from louisiana is more interesting than i am i would like to associate myself just for the sake of time, and particularly with the remarks of senator blumenthal, who spoke in a way that was very true and eloquent and does not need my repetition i do want to suggest to colleagues that the rule of because we can, which is the rule that is being applied today away from aleads lot of the traditions and commonalities, and values that the senate has embodied. There are republican members on this committee of whom i am very fond. But, do not think that when you have established the rule of that showed the shoe be on the other foot that should the shoe be on the other foot that you will have any credibility to come to us and say i know you can do that, because you shouldnt because of x, y, or z. Your credibility to make that argument of at any time in the future will die. Room, and on that senate floor, if you continue to proceed in this way. I hope that that is not the case. But please, do not think that there are two separate rules. When there is republican majority the rule is because we can. When there is a democrat majority rule is you cannot do it that way. Senator cornyns questions about why are we concerned, let me associate myself with obstruction that senator kunz gave coons gave. We are concerned because of what you have said, and what other senators have said in briefs and public pledges about the Affordable Care act, about roe fell. E, about oberg we are concerned about these things because of what President Trump has said. , andan who made the choice told us that that choice was being made specifically to cover election litigation and to terminate Health Coverage under the aca. He is your president , why should we not take him at his word . You do not answer that question. Your Party Platform, the Republican Party platform calls reverse theo obamacare cases, the affordable wadeact, that is, roe v. And the gay marriage case. We did not say that that is what your plan was. You said that was what your plan was. And you said in your Party Platform that you were going to do it through your judicial appointments, that is how you reverse decisions. Play, andat threat in i got to say, i have an awful lot of Rhode Islanders that depend on the Affordable Care act. I have a lot of Rhode Islanders who want to have some autonomy over the decisions about their body that roe v. Wade protects. I have a lot of Rhode Islanders who either are married to someone of their sex, or wish to , or havean to be friends and family members who they love who either are married to somebody of their samesex or wish to be. So, when you put those rights in threat intting that your party by putting that threat in your Party Platform, you have no standing for criticizing us for taking it seriously. Reversewhat you said, the obamacare cases, reverse roe gafell. , reverse ober dismay andpress our concern about the significance and disturbing procedural anomalies that are happening in this nomination. All of the last three nominations have been, characterized by significant procedural anomalies. Garland andhe gorsuch episode, the kavanaugh confirmation, and this one. That is a commonality to that is very disturbing, and it suggests the presence of outside forces and interests that are driving these conspicuous, disturbing anomalies. Last weekend, i was at home, preparing for this, and i was sitting at a desk with papers around me, trying to assemble my thoughts, and i was in a room with the windows closed. And i could not feel any breeze. We have pretty good windows in my house, and the wind does not through them blow through them. But, i look out the window, and we look out over a pond, and i could see the water on the pond and iing as rippling, could see the trees bending as the wind blew through the trees. I could see the russias along me at rushes flipping back and forth as the wind blew through them. I did not need to feel the wind to know that it was blowing outside. Because, the clues were obvious. Clues are obvious that something is happening behind all of these significant and disturbing procedural anomalies and, i for one, intend to find out exactly what has been going on. It has been going on behind front groups and using anonymous not, i do nots think, what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they stood up this democracy that big interests would hide behind phony front groups and use big money to get their way. That is not what generations of americans fought, led, and. Bled, and died for. I make a commitment here that i will spend every effort to get to the bottom of why these anomalies have taken place. Thank you, chairman. The biggest anomaly i saw was kavanaugh, but it is no look use looking backward. Motion by seminary blumenthal to before the election is before the senate. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Cruz. No. Mr. Hawley. No. Mr. Tellis. No. Mr. Kennedy. No. Mrs. Blackburn. No. Mr. Leahy. Aye. Fall ewman blumenthal. Aye. Mrs. Harris. Mr. Chairman. No. Graham the business meeting will now can conclude and we will move to our first panel. Thank you for saying on what was on your mind eloquently and we will move on to panel one. Mr. Chairman could i have a point of personal you sit behind the panel. Are we on now . For the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the american bar associations Standing Committee. Tois an honor to be here explain to you our process and our evaluation of judge barrett. Rating judge barrett a of wellqualified, as you know, our highest rating. , the Standing Committee has conducted thorough nonpartisan, nonideological, impartial peerrevieweds of all nominees of of the federal courts. e assess the nominees integrity, professional, competence and integrity. The Standing Committee does not propose propose or recommend nominees. Our sole mission is to evaluate the professional qualifications of a nominee to serve on the court. And, we do that through a thorough, fair, and independent peer review, the only one that they will get that entails reaching out to hundreds of lawyers and judges, bar andciation leaders, deans, others across the country that has firsthand knowledge of the nominees professional endeavors that touch upon their integrity and professional competence and judicial demeanor. The information given to us by these individuals are done under strict confidence to ensure that the comments that we receive are candid, open, and honest. Ofm joined by Pamela Roberts South Carolina who is the lead evaluator for this nominee, and we were assisted by our Standing Committee members, a team of stellar lawyers from across the country who are handpicked and whose practices are in the litigation arena. To who are deeply committed the work of a strong judiciary. Joins know, david brown us today, and i can tell you that all of these people were diligently worked diligently to do what we always aspired to do. That is to provide a fair and independent rating within the timeframe established by the senate Judiciary Committee. To be a nominee to the Supreme Court one must possess exceptional professional qualifications, and as such, our investigation of a nominee to the Supreme Court is much more extensive than that for other federal courts. In addition to the usual approach of having a lead evaluator conduct and report on the nominee, every member of the committee from his or her own circuit conducts a separate evaluation, which is given to us. Second, while the Committee Members review the writings and opinions of the nominee, we engage academic Reading Groups. Distinguishedo professors from the law schools of mississippi and belmont universities and a third professional Reading Group that had Supreme Court practitioners and courts among the others. Clerks among the others. They read the opinions and writings of the nominee and independently evaluated factors analytical judges abilities, clarity of writing, knowledge of the law, application of the law to the ts, harm is a rising harmonizing a body of law, reasoning, scholarship, and the ability to communicate effectively. Our community had the benefit of evaluating judge barrett and 2017 when then professor barrett was nominated to the seventh Circuit Court of appeals where she now serves as judge. Interviewed judge barrett for over 3. 5 hours, robertsoberts mrs. And i and we received Additional Information in the interim. We concluded that her integrity, professional competence met the very high standards for appointment to suit to our Supreme Court. Our rating of wellqualified reflects the consensus of her peers that know her best. Thank you chairman graham and Ranking Member feinstein for your staff accommodating us today. They were professional and gracious at every turn. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you, there is contention about the aba at times, but as chairman i have always considered the input to be important even when i disagree with it, and during my time we have continued the practice of aba input and i hope those that follow me will do so. Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman. Feinstein, and members of the committee as my colleague just introduced, i am alamo roberts and i am the lead evaluator for the evaluation of judge Amy Coney Barrett to sit as justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is my honor to be here today and to present the testimony on behalf of the committees evaluation of judge barretts professional qualifications. We first start with what the committee did not do. We did not base our rating on or seek to express any view regarding judge barretts philosophy, political affiliate ossian affiliation or ideology. We did not solicit information as to how she might vote on specific issues and cases that might come before the Supreme Court. Rather, the Standing Committees evaluation of judge barrett is based solely on the comprehensive, nonpartisan, nonideological peer review of the nominees integrity, professional, permit competence and judicial temperament. Evaluating integrity we consider the character and general reputation in the Legal Community as well as the nominees industry and diligence. Ande barrett has earned enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity and outstanding character. Judges and lawyers alike uniformly extolled the nominees integrity. We can recount a few comments. She is incredibly honest, forthright and exactly who you think she is. Nothing about her is fake, she is good, decent, selfless, and sincere. She is an exemplar of living and integrative life and which her intellect, integrity, and compassion weve the different threads threads of her life together seamlessly. On the basis of these and other received comments, she we received through our comprehensive evaluation, the Standing Committee committed concluded that judge barrett processes possesses the integrity. Professional competence encompasses such qualities as intellectual capabilities, judgment, writing, and analytical and abilities. Knowledge of the law and breadth of experience. The Supreme Court nominee must possess exceptional professional qualifications including and especially a high degree of legal scholarship, academic talent, and overall excellence. Judge barretts professional competence exceeds these criteria. Herur evaluation of professional competence, the members of the Standing Committee not only evaluated the reports mentioned by my colleague by the practitioners in the academic Reading Groups, but went further to obtain the views of lawyers, academics, and judge barretts judicial peers. Descriptions of her intellect are captured with comments such as these, she has whip smart, highly productive and wellprepared. A brilliant writer, and thinker. She is quite pragmatic. Judge barrett is an intellectual giant with people skills and engaging warmth, an amazing student, which came from a professor. Without exception the smartest student that i have taught. Put it simply, one said the myth is real, she is a staggering academic mind. Given the breadth, depth, and strength of the feedback we received, the Standing Committee concluded that judge barrett has demonstrated professional andetence to an exceptional sufficiently outstanding to be rated wellqualified. In evaluating her judicial temperament, the Standing Committee considers their compassion, decisiveness, openmindedness, patience, and commitment to equal justice under the law. The following comments provide insight into her demeanor as a jurist. She is always willing to be helpful and engage with others on a topic, even when she has a different philosophy. When she writes a dissent, she is collegial. She is an efficient judge and always prepared. At oral argument he she asks insightful questions and there is never a hint of sarcasm in her questioning. She is also a good listener. She has a calm scholarly temperament. Skull rett has shown outstanding judicial temperament and meets all standards. In conclusion judge barrett meets the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. It is the opinion on the aba Standing Committee that judge barrett is well qualified to serve an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the unit Supreme Court justice of the United States. Extent tom to the say, it isou had to reassuring in terms of the bar associations taking the time and effort to do something that is important. We are all grateful. Were either one of you involved in the Justice Kagan or sotomayor process . Mr. Noel no sir. Mrs. Roberts i was not. Sen. Graham the same things that were said today about judge barrett were also set about Justice Sotomayor and kagan, and quite frankly every other nominee that i have had the pleasure to associate with on the Judiciary Committee. Areas that the three much time andhow attention went into this . Mrs. Roberts on behalf of the entire committee . Sen. Graham yes. Mrs. Roberts thousands of hours. Sen. Graham are you in agreement . Mr. Noel yes. Of both of in terms you are active in the practice of law . Mrs. Roberts except for the last 2. 5 weeks. Mr. Noel yes. Sen. Graham , i cannot show favoritism and i know you, and it is glad to have someone without an accent come to the committee. Are you involved in the practice of law. Mr. Noel i am a fulltime senior practicing partner. Sen. Graham and you have personal interest and Property Rights in your hands is a lawyer, is that correct . Mr. Noel yes. Sen. Graham same for you messes roberts . Mrs. Roberts yes. Sen. Graham would both of you feel comfortable going before judge barrett . Mr. Noel absolutely. Sen. Graham do you think folks would get a fair shake . Mr. Noel no doubt in my mind. Mrs. Roberts i would agree. Sen. Graham thank you all, you have done the country and invaluable service. Senator feinstein. Senator i would like to say thank you. One of the things i have observed over my tenure on committee is house torn early valuable the ada has been. As a nonlawyer, particularly to me. I wanted to say a word of thanks to you. I hope you keep it coming. We very much welcome your legal, counsel and professionalism. Thank you. Mrs. Roberts thank you. That is it. Thank you. Sen. Graham i have a list of letters supporting the nomination of judge barrett, i would introduce for the record. Senator cornyn. Senator i have a letter from the independent womens voice in support of the nominee. Unanimous consent, part of the record. Sen. Graham without objection. On our side, would anyone like to Say Something . You dont have to. Senator kennedy . Youtor i wanted to thank for your hard work and the time you spent on this. You. Oel thank sen. Graham senator kunz . Senator two questions for you on the broader role. President trump is named 10 judicial nominees that were subsequently rated is not qualified. By comparison, not a single judicial it nominee of the Obama Administration was rated as such. Does the ada take political consideration into account when it provides this committee with ratings . Mr. Noel thank you, senator. Our valuations are done in a political, neutral, impartial way. We do not take into account political affiliation, religious preference, philosophy, personal views. We focus solely on the professional qualifications. Add,roberts if i might senator, that under the two administrations, there was a different practice. ,nder the Obama Administration the process goes forward before going to the senate committee. Addresses problematic nominees before their formal nominees. Senator one of my concerns has been racing forward with nominees before we get your input on qualification, which i tend to rely on. One other question. By nearly every metric, Trump Administrations judicial nominees have been among the least diverse of any president in generations. Not one of them was black. In his over 200 nominations, 85 were white and 25 were women. Yesterday, in response to a question from senator booker, barrett could not name a single book that addressed racial inequity in law. Central, when the challenging issue for the United States and our legal system about how to address, recognizing combat the legacy of Racial Discrimination, i wondered if you could briefly speak to the importance of diversity on the bench in the Legal Community broadly . Mr. Noel senator, we are not here to speak for the american bar association. We are the independent body of the Standing Committee on federal judiciary. In terms of this evaluation, the work we did, i can share with you, of the hundreds of people we reached out to, who confided in us and gave us candid views, we did not hear a hint of any concern by anyone that this from some kind of malady senator let me be specific. I was not intending to imply that in any way. Her failure to respond to the question yesterday with a specific example; i did not mean to imply suggested any bias. It led me to question whether or not having broader diversity on our courts would bring into the decisionmaking role, those who bring personal insight experience and whether or not all who serve on the bench and in congress should be more aware of this challenge facing our nation . Mrs. Roberts if i may, senator . Committeemind the there are two questions in the senate traditional question hearing that nominees complete that do address diversity. One is to membership of any organization or club that may discriminate. The other question goes to the view of diversity, usually followed up in the facetoface interview by the evaluator and nominee. Intentionale discussion about this important issue. Senator mr. Chairman, thank you. Senator senator cornyn. Senator mr. Chairman, it strikes me the nominee understands diversity, appreciates it, she has two children she adopted from haiti. Needst think she anyone preaching to her of the importance of diversity. Her family is racially diverse. It speaks volume of her and her husbands character, for what they have done in terms of adding to their already large family by adopting these children from haiti. Sen. Graham ok. Anyone else . Senator cruz . Senator i wanted to thank the witnesses, i know you put a lot of time into these interviews. Thank you for the thoroughness with which you approach the job and relating to the committee what you found from those interviews. I want to enter into the record a letter from first liberty, which is a Legal Organization that defends religious liberty, in which they support confirmation of judge barrett and say we are confident she will protect Constitutional Rights of all americans. Sen. Graham without objection. Thank you both for the input to the committee, for all the time and effort. It is invaluable to the country. General, hello. He was my boss in the air force. Mr. Noel thank you. Mrs. Roberts thank you. Our second panel. [indistinct conversations] sen. Graham sen. Graham take your time. Sen. Graham are we ready . Ok. Thank you. Heres what i will do. We have 8 witnesses, six virtual, two in person, for supporting the nomination four supporting the nomination, four opposed. Be patient with me. Dr. , carefree medical, lansing, michigan, already with us . Yes sir. Sen. Graham how do you say your name, sir . Thank you, dr. Griffin,able thomas retired judge, u. S. Court of appeals, washington, d. C. , are you with us . Yes, sir. Sen. Graham thank you. President clark, executive director for civil Lawyers Committeem washington dc, mr. Clark . Yes, chairman. Sen. Graham thank you. Akash, james monroe distinguished professor of law, university of virginia, charlottesville, are you with us . I am here. Sen. Graham im sorry. I apologize. Did i get your name right . Very much so. Sen. Graham thank you sir. Charleston,good, West Virginia. I am here. Sen. Graham ok. Dieri, grand rapids, michigan. Yes, chairman. Sen. Graham how do you say your name . Thank you. Lobbyist,gs, charlotte, North Carolina. Yes, chairman. Wolk. Raham last, laura yes. Sen. Graham from washington dc. Off will you please leaders will you please lead us off . You each have five minutes. Thank you for taking the time to attend and give input. Thank you, chairman graham and this committee for welcoming me. I am a family physician practicing in lansing, michigan, ceo of a nonprofit, carefree medical which provides medical, dental and optometry care to low income, underinsured and uninsured individuals. I am a board member at Michigan State for the committee to protect medicare, and National Organization in the north states who want to make sure our patients get the care they need regardless of financial status. Most of my patients a medicaid recipient, men and women who work two, sometimes three jobs. Because michigan expanded medicaid, 2014 under the aca, more than 750,000 michiganders can now get the treatment they need. There are countless stories from my daily work i could present. I will share just two. The first is a middleaged male with a long history of uncontrolled diabetes, recently acquired medicaid. Since he was not able to afford insulin from insurance, we tested his blood in our office and found his hemoglobin a1 c had risen to 17. 5 , when normal is 5. 6 or below. 17. 5 means his blood sugar was averaging 455 milligrams per deciliter and as a physician, my goal is to have diabetic patients average 150 or less. Blood sugar as high as his, if left untreated will almost certainly lead to death. Because of the aca, i was able to start him on intensive insulin regimen, within four months his blood sugar dropped 200 points. The blurred vision he was expensing significantly improved. His kidney function improved. He was able to find a job. The aca, literally saved this mans life. Another story is a patient with , who was stable and healthy until she lost her job and Health Insurance due to covid. I have been prescribing a medication that worked wonders to keep her mood stable but without insurance, that medication costs more than 1200 per month, which she could not afford. I tried prescribing older, inexpensive, generic medications so she could pay cash, hoping we would find an effective alternative. None of them worked. She developed a severe, depressive episode, energy and motivation damaged, she gained a significant weight, with side effects of the older, generic medications. She had uncontrollable crying spells. She experienced suicidal thoughts. Thanks to michigans expansion of medicaid, as allowed under the aca, my patients suffering ended because we got her and rolled. We resumed the medication she needed. It stabilized her dopamine and mood. She could once again contribute to the economy and support herself financially. These are a fraction of the many positive outcomes of the aca i have witnessed over the years. Simply put, as a frontline doctor, i witness every day how the aca has improved, is improving and will continue to improve the lives of ordinary, hardworking people. For those without Health Coverage, they live in fear they are one illness injury away from bankruptcy. Medical bankruptcy in this country is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It breaks my heart. During a pandemic that continues to kill 1000 americans each day, people need the aca and the freedom it provides now more than ever. Without it, Insurance Companies would be able to discriminate against a new generation of people with covid related, preexisting conditions. Anyone with a preexisting condition, by refusing to cover them or by raising cost. As a Family Doctor who cares deeply about my patients i am grateful to be here today to advocate for them and all patients in our nation and i am to urge against the striking down of this lifesaving program. Appointing to the Supreme Court anyone who would seek to do so. I cannot talk with expertise of concepts like textualism or original is him. As a doctor, i can talk about the realworld harm of ending the aca, to the reallife torents you have choose between going to a doctor and buying groceries. I engage with other doctors across the nation. I share the concern any judge who opposes the aca endangers the lifeline my patients count on to stay healthy and in many cases, stay alive. Thank you again for the opportunity to share my stories with you. Sen. Graham thank you very much. Judge griffin . Mr. Chairman. [indiscernible] Ranking Member feinstein and members of the committee. 2005 until last month i was a judge on the u. S. Court of appeals,. Before that i spent long hours, many years in the hearing room where you are now as the Nonpartisan Senate legal counsel. Im appearing virtually. It is good to be back in a room where i spent so much time working with such great senators. I am honored by the invitation to speak in support of the confirmation of my friend, Amy Coney Barrett, to the Supreme Court of the u. S. As a nation has seen during these hearings, how supremely wellqualified [indiscernible] members of the court. A recent survey found two thirds of the American People believe justices base their decisions primarily on the law, not on politics. In light of that, there is something deeply disturbing about much of the debate surrounding judicial nominations in our nation. Many political leaders and pundits assume a judge will cast a vote based on partisan preference. Madeexplanations typically for shortterm political gain do much harm. They undermine Public Confidence in independent judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the rule of law. The rule of law is a fragile possibility that should be more carefully safeguarded by our leaders. I agree with the chief justice. We do not have obama judges or trump judges or clinton judges or bush judges. What we have is an Extraordinary Group of judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. Having served 15 years on the circuit alongside judicial appointees of every president , carter to trump, i have seen firsthand judges can and do put aside Party Politics in a good faith effort to correctly interpret the law. Justice kagan made the same point at her confirmation hearing. She flatly rejected the idea that difficult cases turn on what is in a judges heart. Instead, as she put it with her characteristic wit, it is law all the way down. Jurist judgeype of barrett has been. Even though there were substantial arguments under the ordinance that violated the First Amendment under an aggressive reading of recent Supreme Court precedent, judge barrett joined the opinion that of how the ordinance. She displayed the same, impartial approach in ruling that allowed the first executions in 17 years to proceed, regardless of her personal views on the death penalty. Jonathan adler pointed out these decisions certainly are not in line with Church Teaching and further suggest judge barrett applies the law, whether or not that coincides with personal beliefs. She brings Something Else to who work as a judge her work as a judge that is vital to our nation in a time where many regard those with different views as enemies, not friends. In the words of judge lawrence silverman, my friend, distinguished former collared on amy combines a powerful analytical ability with innate kindness and decency. The Public Record makes clear she has powerful analytical ability. I dont think we can overstate the importance of her kindness and decency. Her colleague set of her at notre dame she generally seeks to understand others arguments. Time and again, i have seen her gently refrain arguments to make them stronger, even when she disagreed with them. Observes amyr always welcomed the opportunity to learn more from people whose perspectives differed from her own. She is always very generous to other peoples arguments. Finally, while some of the discussion has been tinged with bigotry, some of it comes from a sincere desire to know whether her faith will dictate her decisions as a justice. As a person of faith, who, me assure you, it will not. This is intended to transform the citizen into an impartial judge, whose loyalty while isforming her judicial role to the constitution of the u. S. And not to any president , party or religion. In taking the oath, the judge makes a solemn promise with god is witness, that when acting as a judge, she will be a different person than when she is not acting as a judge. Robert bolts per trail of thomas more, captures this point simply and powerfully. [indiscernible] god . Rds we speak to for a person of faith, the judicial oath is a promise to the nation and god that she will not do the one thing her secular critics most fear; reach for outcomes based on a religious worldview. When wearing the robe, there is no conflict between following god and caesar. It is caesar all the way down. Opportunityfor this and look forward to any questions you may have. Sen. Graham thank you, judge. Ms. Clark . Chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is kristin clark, president and executive director lawyersors Committee Committee under law, founded in 1963, at the request of president kennedy, we turn to the courts to protect the civil and Voting Rights of black people and other communities of color across the nation. We have conducted an exhaustive review of judge barretts writing, speeches and decisions during her time on court. Her views are far outside the mainstream and for evidence of this, one need look no further than her own words before this committee this week. Judge barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is section 11 bed by of the Voting Rights act, federal criminal law. She would not concede voting discrimination still exists, saying she could not endorse that proposition, calling it a charged issue. When questioned about the holder decision, even chief Justice Roberts, the author of that devastating ruling said voting discrimination still exists. No one doubts that. Judge barrett would not say whether absentee ballots are essential to voting in a pandemic, calling it a matter of policy on which he cannot express her view. Judge barrett has left open the possibility she would participate in cases that may arise out of the election now underway. It is troubling she would not recuse yourself under the circumstances and her stance sends a disconcerting message to the 17 million americans who have voted, to date, with millions more to come. These are voters who want their ballots, not an election season, to determine the outcome. Her record reflects the same. Bar, she versus suggested the right to vote deserves less protection than the right to own a gun. That is a radical point of view, no matter how one views the second amendment. In her words, she describes the right to serve on juries and vote has belonging only to virtuous citizens. She has made clear her judicial philosophy has been molded by Justice Scalia, who described the Voting Rights act as a perpetuation of racial entitlement. She refused to answer. Barrett has gone to Great Lengths to distance herself from the reality of Voter Suppression and discrimination we face today. This should sound an alarm to anyone in our country who cares about protecting Voting Rights for all americans. In this moment, we are in lower courts fighting efforts to shutter polling sites in communities of color, burdensome restrictions such as notary witness requirements for those casting absentee ballots during the pandemic. This term, the court will decide a case arising out of arizona where the issue concerns Racial Discrimination in voting under the constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights act. Given the judges unwillingness to recognize the threat that black people and communities of color face in voting i am deeply concerned about how she would handle this case and many other such cases that will come before the court. A brief word on employment discrimination. Reveals alarming insensitivity to racial harassment in the workplace, smith versus illinois, department of transportation, she held a black Traffic Control subject to at hostile Work Environment even though coworkers frequently subjected him to use of the word. Judge barrett concluded this racial hostility was not enough to prove his termination. This stance is incomprehensible. The nomination of justice where it arises Justice Barrett arises that one of the most Tumultuous Times in our nations history. We are wrestling with the pandemic. More. Injustice and our nation deserves a justice committed to protecting the hard rights of all americans, particularly our nations most vulnerable. For these reasons, the Lawyers Committee for civil rights under law opposes judge barretts nomination. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you, miss clark. Professor . It is a pleasure and an honor to be here with you today to discuss judge barrett. Thank you, chairman graham, to the committee. I had the pleasure of working for alan simpson over the summer. I fondly remember this building. We heard the aba rate the judge is wellqualified. I think the only reason why she was not rated higher is there is no higher rating by the aba. I think she is uber qualified. To use a sports metaphor, she is a five tool athlete. , a tremendousnt educator, and institutionalist, a role model, and an originalist. I think that is a good thing. I will briefly go over these points and i welcome your questions. With respect to her brilliance, i think her articles reflect a deep appreciation of complex issues and an ability to break down those complex issues in a manner people can understand. I would point you to her article entitled supervisory power over the Supreme Court, where she discusses the Supreme Courts follow evidentiary rules in the 1950s over inferior courts, and how that is problematic given that congress has occasionally granted the Supreme Court on thety to impose rules lower courts. It is an interesting time where she is basically a nominee to the Supreme Court and criticizing the Supreme Courts conclusions in this regard. I think her discussion of president is nuanced. I think it reflects a willingness to not overturn the entire Constitutional Order in order to get things right. She properly notes judges do not need to reconsider precedent in every case. That is appropriate. Dont just take my word or the word of the aba. Harvard law professor noah says she is brilliant and i agree. As an educator, you know she has won the teacher of the year award three separate times, there is distinguished professor of the year award, and i think this reflects her attention to students, her evident care for them, but we must never forget the justices and senators educating the nation about our nation and laws. I think she will carry that task off with ease, as you saw during your testimony. She is good at breaking down complex concepts. She is and institutionalist. It is reflected in her writing. She cares deeply about america. She does not want to bring hopeless down. He does not want to burn the whole face down. I think she has good company because i think all the justices try to level, even if they disagree with each other, and to understand each of the justices comes from the right place. They have the right values and the right instincts. She is a role model. I think senator graham has spoken to that at great length. I will not go into it further. Finally, she is an originalist. Believe that the meaning of the law is not what a judge or executive branch would make with the law later on. I am reminded of the biting condition named after senator biden condition named after senator joseph biden. He was disturbed i the reagan administrations of the abm treaty and he got the body to add a condition to the inf treaty which said the interpretation of the treaty that matters is the interpretation that we jointly had when we consented to your ratification of the treaty. You cannot reinterpret treaties decades later. That is an originalist argument. I would argue that is what every lawmaker wants. Get it marked up in committee and take it to the floor. There might be amendments there. They take it to the conference committee, there might be amendments, they take it back. They spend a lot of time thinking about the language in context. What they dont want is some judge or executive later twisting that statute, twisting that to suit other purposes. Alternative is the living constitution approach or the living statutory approach, but i dont think that honors u. S. Lawmakers. It leaves the lawmaking power with the judge or executive officer. If you look at our recent history, the living constitution has brought us things like the living presidency, a presidency that i think across all parties acquired parties not granted to it by the constitution. Think of the war power. Go back and read what washington and others have said. It would shock you. Think about your roles greatly diminished. I will end with caution, conservativesnd will be disappointed with judge barrett because she will render decisions they disagree with. I will end with a note of hope. Progressives should be happy because she will give the meaning to the law that is appropriate at the time you passed it. I dont think she will use her position to advance her personal or religious agenda. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you, professor. Its goode . Graham, Ranking Member feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for having me. I am a six generation West Virginian, a writer and poet, Small Business owner, graduate and advocate for survivors of sexual abuse. I have a daughter, a white mother, a black father, and im the proud mother of three brilliant children. These identities are parts of me but not all of me. Who i am today is only possible because at 16 years old, i had access to an abortion. As a minor in estate with required,ermission that access is granted by a judge because without a shadow of a doubt, i cannot trust the adults closest to me. I was sexually abused by my white stepfather. He was not convicted until 2012, more than 30 years after the abuse began. When i told the grown folks my life, they did not believe me at first, and then refused to hold my views accountable once the truth was out. At 16, while in a relationship that brought me joy and made me feel safe, i, like two point 7 million americans a year, had an unintended pregnancy. Immediately i knew i wanted an abortion. A safe medical procedure that one in four u. S. Women will have in their lifetime. For many reasons, including the decade of abuse she did not protect me from, i could not tell my mother. Instead, i sought a judicial bypass. I had to navigate not have to get to the judge but on a school day. I had no idea what i should wear or what information he would want. I thought i was going to court like on t. V. Instead, i was ushered in his chambers. It felt intimidating. I told him i was a good student. I was a leader in my school. I had opportunities that many young women from West Virginia did not. I wanted to go to college to be a writer. I said, your honor, i have a future. I choose an abortion. It felt like a miracle, an adult believed me. An Authority Figure deemed me to be a charge of my own body and future. I still think what might have happened if i did not have a list of accomplishments for the judge did not think i was competent enough to think when i could start my family, or if he believed the harmful stereotype i was raised to believe that black girls were fast and promiscuous. Access to an abortion should not depend on our gpa, the color of our skin, where we live, or the look of the draw. It should not depend on any shape, form, or fashion who your governor is or who was sitting on the Supreme Court. My entire childhood, every adult in my life has failed me. None of them deserve to make a decision about my body. I needed compassion and trust for my government. All i got was another barrier. There are thousands like me who are sexually abused by parents, guardians and grownups who are supposed to support them. Today, 37 states require parental consent or notification for a minor to access abortion. Most young people do involve their parents and their decision. For those like me, who cannot, these kinds of restrictions make abortions hard to get because we have to travel, miss work or school, save up for weeks and pay outofpocket. The average per capita income in t virginia is 25,000 479 25,479. In central appalachia, black and low income People Struggle to Access Health care, including abortion, and to have our decisions respected. The Supreme Court has made to historic decisions uphold our rights and freedoms. My right to an abortion, integration of my Public Schools , the Affordable Health care act that ensures i have Health Insurance, and workplace protection for my transgender daughter. I have put my faith in the Supreme Court. With this nomination, i am losing faith. Although the way i have chosen to create my families demonized by some politicians, the reality is we are like most families across the nation. I have had an abortion. I have two sons and a daughter who is trans. I love my children. Afrolatin afroappalachian family. My story is my own but represents so many people left out from the Supreme Court nominee hearings. An entire caste of people, that is caste, caste. President trump has been clear he would only appoint justices who would overturn roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, through learning about judge barretts record, i understand why the president leaves she passes the test. Please, listen to people who have had abortions. Hear us when we ask you do not confirm this nominee. Our future of our families, our lives depend on it. We, too, are america. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you, very much. Miss staggs . Good morning. Excuse me, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you all today. I am here to raise my voice against the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, and in support of the Affordable Care act, as well as to share my family story. Room i appear in this alone, i bring with me millions of families, including 130 million americans who live with preexisting conditions and millions of americans who dissent from this hearing and any confirmation to the Supreme Court before inauguration. My name is stacy staggs, though i am more frequently addressed as mommy. I live in North Carolina with my husband and twin girls. They have complex medical needs and disabilities. I advocate for their health care, education, and Community Inclusion with little lobbyists. A family led organization, advocating for children like my own. Barrettsdge hypotheticals. As a behavioral interviewer, i know that past conduct is an indicator of future decisionmaking. I am here today because judge barrett has repeatedly made on the Affordable Care act. A judge. A vote for judge barrett is about to take away health care. A vote for judge barrett is about to strike down the law that save the lives of my daughters. Many. Family is one of studies confirm the aca has saved thousands of lives, especially in states that have Medicaid Expansion accepted. My family is a reallife example of the acas success. Emma andaughters, sarah, are adorable and active sevenyearolds. There is they are the light of my life. A busy schedule of therapies and distancelearning. Sarah is my nature lover. She is happiest when she is splashing in the water or digging in the dirt. Smile that lights up her entire face. Her favorite day is tuesday, when we go to the farm for therapeutic horseback riding. I love them with the same joy and amazement i am sure you feel for your own children. Ago, their recent birthday would have been too much to hope for. Excited toand i were learn we were expecting. We were surprised to learn we were having twins. I had excellent prenatal care, which is one of the essential benefits under the Affordable Care act, and my pregnancy was going great until one day it wasnt. Pain, so myencing doctor suggested i come down to the hospital for monitoring. Hours, within hours, my vital signs faded. I was rushed to the operating room, where our small wonders were born via emergency csection at 28 weeks. They were rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit, where their survival was far from short. Weeks,in vigil for learning an entirely new language of medical terms, and holding our breaths in between heartbeats on their monitors. I was not able to hold either but theyseveral weeks, were about the size of my hand. Extremityvs in every and skin so fragile, you can see through it. Emmas birthrate was one pound, was ounces birth weight one pound, nine ounces. She has never taken an unassisted breath or made a sound due to vocal paralysis. She has an artificial airway through a breathing tube, and she eats through a feeding tube that was surgically placed when she was three months old. Her twin sister sarah was the bigger of the newborns at two pounds, and she needed heart surgery at two weeks old. Percentages day took on a new meaning for me. The surgeon told us the success rate for sarahs procedure was 98 . Then he leaned in and said, but that does not mean much to the parents of the 2 . Hear this day, when i discussions about recovery from covid19, for example, i am immediately transported back to the surgical waiting room. When i was finally able to bring my babies home from the hospital for the first time after 110 days, we received an explanation of benefits with total claims nearing 1 million for their care. In the first seven years, are combined claims past 4 million. Without the protections of the Affordable Care act, my daughters would have already hit their lifetime and now be rendered in uninsurable. We have primary insurance through my husbands employer. Medicaid support has been a lifeline for emma because she needs 24 hours of medical care. She has Community Based at home services, including nursing, which allows her to stay home with us where she belongs instead of living in a hospital or other medical facility. Our country is in a public Health Crisis right now, when getting worse by the day. In this moment, we need our legislators to protect our families, to provide relief and support, to do their job we have elected them to do. We do not need to rush through the nominations of a Supreme Court justice who is on the cared to revise our health protection. Shifting focus away from a relief package for families during a pandemic tells me the Committee Priorities are not in line with the American People. I urge you to listen to us and address the immediate need of covid relief. Last, i would like to thank you for the opportunity to give my testimony to say health care is a human right, and decency matters. As youremind you that constituent, my children and all children like ours are your children, too. I hope you will remember your duty to all of our children as you pass your vote to protect or take away the health care their lives depend on to survive and thrive. Lastly, let me share that today is the first day of early voting in North Carolina. It is a big day for me here, too. Is to cast my ballot accordingly. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you very much. I jumped out of order, sorry. We are at miss roberri, and then we will get to the next guest. Ranking members, i am deeply honored to speak to you today. I am a former [indiscernible] i know judge barrett to be a person of the highest character and i enthusiastically support her nomination to be associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Servethe privilege to during her first term on the bench, joining her chambers shortly after her confirmation in 2017. From the beginning, i saw judge barrett exhibit a rare and unique set of qualities that make her an exemplary judge. She is a brilliant speaker, analyzes and writes about legal issues, which strikes clarity and decision. She is patient, thoughtful and compassionate. Judge barrett is dedicated and disciplined, and as a judge, she is committed to the rule of law. As she has said and as i have seen, judge barrett understands policy decisions must be left of the local branches. The role of the judges to enforce the law as written. I have seen judge barrett [indiscernible] she approaches each case with an open mind and commits to the idea that either side might in the end have the better legal argument. Judge barretts openmindedness is grounded in her compassion. She has spoken about viewing views from her party. It would be easier in many ways not to take this more demanding approach, but i learned from judge barrett that the law is about fairness over efficiency, and every member of society and every party that comes before the court is entitled to equal justice. Applies the law fairly and she writes with empathy and appreciates the reallife impact of her decision. Alongside judge barrett upholding her commitment to the law is her determination and discipline in deciding cases. She has never relied simply on her sharp legal mind. She turns to that gift with a dedication to the whole process in each case and never takes a shortcut. She thorley examines the facts and applicable law in each case roughly examines the facts and applicable law in each case. Her work ethic, judge s to the views of her law clerks, ready to discuss eagle questions. It is a testament to her respect , eager to hear my thoughts on a legal question or discuss issues. It was in those conversations that she created a culture that urged us to voice our different even if we thought she would disagree. She sees the value in discourse and fosters that into her clerks, teaching us to be open, curious, and humble about law and life. From what i saw, she approached her colleagues on the bench with the same humility and openness i experienced from her. Judge barretts impact on my life runs far deeper than legal training. Joined her team in january of 2018, two weeks after my graduation from law school. I loved my time in law school, but i also spent much of it unsure myself. , often tried to downplay afraid i was wrong or in adequate. I was not certain i had the will to succeed. Judge barrett change that for me. Her example and mentor ship inspired confidence in me i did not know i had. Time or say a certain event when that event occurred. Acrossens gradually hundreds of conversations and hours shared. Ande barrett leads in law life with conviction, generosity and courage. She inspires me to do the same. I can tell you with certainty i would not have had the confidence to be here speaking to this Committee Without judge. s influence in my life without judge barretts influence in my life. She has the rare gift of listening to everyone around her and knows how to bring out the best in her clerks. She has her own large family, but that did not stop her from treating the clerks like her family, too. My three coclerks and i piled into the back of her minivan, and she drove us to chicago for her first set of oral arguments. She cared deeply about each of us, encouraging us to cultivate rich, fulfilling and wellrounded lives, in and beyond law. By judge barrett is an honor. She elevated my thinking, writing, and character. Imply by being herself as a Supreme Court justice, she would be a role model for generations to come, as she is for me. I am proud and honored to support her nomination to serve as associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you. Is miss walk. Ss members of the committee, my name is laura, and i am a former student and mentee of judge Amy Coney Barrett. In part because of her unwavering support, i am the first blind woman to serve as a law clerk on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is now my immense privilege to appear before you in support of judge barretts nomination to that same, great institution. You have heard over the past few days about judge barretts judicial qualities, which are beyond reproach, the country will receive something far greater than an unparalleled legal mind. It will gain the service of one of the kindest individuals i have ever known. Her brilliance is matched only by her compassion and her integrity is unassailable. I am not speaking in mere abstractions. Rather, i have experienced these characteristics firsthand with lifechanging results. Because i am completely blind, i rely on technology to compete on a level Playing Field as my cited peers. Before arriving at notre dame in 2013, i worked hard to ensure the university would purchase backup copies of the knology i use. Upon arrival, i discovered that i had no access to that technology. Laptop againrsonal to fail. Overnight, i found myself struggling to keep up in class, following increasingly behind with each passing hour. I needed help and fast. Barretts fange for a few weeks, but her graciousness and warmth gave me hope i coul hope she could provide me with that assistance pretty even so, i maintain low expectations. Based on the past, i assumed judge barrett would direct to proper very cute it to the proper bear craddick channel bureaucratic channels but she did something different. She silently listened with deep attention as i explained my situation, giving me the freedom to let down my guard and come apart. As a disabled person, i am accustomed to acting as if i have everything under control, when in reality, it feels like the world is spinning out under me. In front of judge barrett, i was able to let the mask slip and disappear completely. I poured out all of my concerns, not just about technology and my worries of failing classes, but the burdens i currently carried as a disabled woman navigating a brandnew environment. When i finished, judge barrett looked at me intently, laura, she said, with the same measure conviction we have seen her display through her nomination process, this is no longer your problem. It is my problem. Adequately thee relief that washed over me at her words. Her offer was rare enough in her own right, but even when offers are extended, many, unfortunately, do not follow through. It is hard to trust an offer of assistance, no matter how earnestly it is given. Not so with judge barrett. Anyone who has interacted with her nose she is a woman of her word. She means what she says, and she says what she means. When she promised to advocate for me, she commanded my trust. Whatis day, i do not know judge barrett did to solve my problem. It is a testament to her humility. All i know is that technology arrived probably, which allowed me to excel and placed me in a position that would eventually allow me to apply for a clerkship on the Supreme Court. This encounter was the first in which such barrett demonstrated the depth of her generous spirit that from last. She has remained a constant source of strength, encouragement and solace as i have pursued professional and personal opportunities with no roadmaps to guide me. Through her mentorship, she has given me a gift of immeasurable value, the ability to live an abundant life with the potential to break down barriers so i can leave this world a better place than i found it. I am here today to share with you my story, the very best aspects of that story is it is hardly unique. Those who have had the benefit of knowing Amy Coney Barrett understand she possesses a boundless amount of energy and radical sense of love that she is ready to pour out on those lucky enough to call her teacher, boss, family, and friend. Judge barrett will serve this country with distinction, not only because of her intellectual prowess but also because of her ability to treat everyone as an equal, deserving of complete respect. As a beneficiary of oath of these qualities, i urge you to confirm judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you. Sen. Graham thank you all. Own waytimony in your was compelling in your life circumstances. We appreciate you sharing with the committee, whether you are in support or opposition to judge barrett. I really dont have any questions. Im going to turn over to senator feinstein for the committee. If you would like to grab a bite, i will press on, i just want to keep going. We will make sure everyone can ask questions. I am very impressed with what you had to say. My sister is the executive director for the commission for blindness, trying to bring better outcomes, and i have some understanding of the world that you just spoke of, and maybe all of us can Work Together to provide some upper game here when it comes to services. Senator feinstein. Sen. Feinstein i would like to ask this question, if i may, crystal goode. Thank you for being here and sharing your remarkable story with the committee. You have testified about a personal decision that you made as a teenager to have an abortion. I would like to just talk to you a little bit more about it know,e as you and i both this is very hard for a girl or a woman, and this personal is often not known, so i was wondering if you would discuss with us what it has meant for you to have that right, that right constitutionally to reproductive care . Thank you, senator feinstein. I just wanted to say that i here today with the support and prayers of my pastor, my friends and folks and my family, including my mom. My mom and i have come a really long way. We have been on a long, healing journey to build a strong relationship. Her actions then were not excusable, but i understand how women like my mom are meant to pray on a culture of silence and systems that knew what my stepfather was doing. They protected him and not me. My right to Access Health care is why i am here today. I am speaking from not a place of bitterness but to get caution and concern in this nomination that the government cannot and should not create terriers to health care. Thank you. Barriers to health care. Thank you. Sen. Feinstein we all wish you well, thank you. Doctor like to ask the can i ask that question . Ok, what would you say to people who have Excellent Health care coverage, as is true for us in the senate, to help us understand how important the aca is for your patients . Would say to i folks with insurance is that we are blessed. I have good Health Insurance, too. We are blessed to be in a position. As a society, we sometimes punish people when the only mistake they might have made is wisely. Sing a lot of my patients fall into that category. They are hardworking people and tried to do their part to contribute to society, but their stories do not often get told. That is why i am here today, to tell their stories, and to let folks know that the committee i am here representing, and me as an individual, the health care for all americans. That is what this is all about. Sen. Feinstein can i stop you for a minute . What is really important to me is what do you think of the longterm consequences that the pandemic will have on this Nations Health . I am very worried about the pandemic. We already had 217,000 deaths, 8 million americans have contracted covid, 14 million americans have lost their employerbased health care because they have lost their job since beginning the pandemic, so we need to take action to get the pandemic under control in order to save as many lives as possible. I am very concerned about our Health Response at every level of government. Sen. Feinstein last question, what do you believe the most critical Health Response is to be beneficial . If you could speak a little bit about that and the numbers of people, and your advice to us . Atwe need to do a better job the highest level of government, starting with the federal government with testing and contact tracing, and providing the resources to all they need to do that. As striking as the numbers are, they are a sharp underestimation of what the reality really is because we do not have the capacity at the ground level to perform as many tests as we need to know just how Many Americans have covid and how many people have become sick and have died from covid. The numbers are a sharp underestimation. Anything the federal government can do to empower each and every state to get more accurate counts, and then also to lead by example. Masks should not be a partisan issue. Washing hands should not be a partisan issue. Social distancing should not be a partisan issue. We need every elected member of congress to lead by example by engaging in acts of Public Health that we need every american to engage in. Sen. Feinstein such as, what kinds of acts of Public Health . Like having every number of congress commit to wearing a distancing, to not going into indoor places with more than 10 people, not holding large rallies where people are not wearing masks, standing sidebyside to each other. Every Congress Member has an obligation to lead by example, and that is what is going to help my patients the most. When they see elected officials that they trust leading by example and participating in or taking part in simple Public Health measures to keep everybody safe. Sen. Feinstein thank you. Does that include protests . I beg your pardon . With that include masked protests . Any large gathering of people. With that include writing . Rioting . I dont support rioting if that is what you are saying. Sen. Graham senator kennedy . Just wanted to thank all of our witnesses for to come by. Ime i particularly want to thank professor prakash, am i saying that right . Thank you, professor. You did me a favor. You may not remember it, but one of my colleagues in my office is sitting behind me, hannah freire. You recommended hannah to me. I wanted to thank you for that. You taught her well. She has made a substantial contribution in my office. We told your colleagues, rtiz, arehen and nan o friends of mine. We went to school together. Though at different schools. Paul and i were at one school together, and dan and i and another. Please they are in a word brilliant, and they are good mates, so tell them i said hi. Thanks again to everyone. Here is one. Thanks, senator feinstein. I want to show you a photo of nate. I produce a photo of someone from illinois every day. Nate is eight years old, a goodlooking young man. It is his eighth anniversary of her surgery that saved his life. He ended up needing anniversary of a surgery that saved his life. He ended up needing a liver transplant. Medical care cost more than 1 million in the first year of his life and it continues. He is in the third grade, plays soccer, videogames and plays with his younger sister. He has a preexisting condition for the rest of his life. His parents tell me that lifetime limits may have cost him his life, period. When we talk about the future of the Affordable Care act, and, thank you for reminding us, dcooctor. Im going to make a confession that may not sit well with colleagues, but when someone tells me, check the box, i am an originalist. It does not tell the whole story. It does not tell me much. Let me read to you what mayor lightfoot, a friend, said a couple of days ago at a news conference. I asked her if she was an originalist. Here is what she said. You ask a gay, black woman if she is an originalist. No, maam. I am not. That constitution did not consider me a person in any way, shape or form, because i am a woman, black, and gay. I am not an originalist. I believe in the constitution. I believe it is a document that the founders intended to evolve. They set the framework, but originalists say lets go back to 1776, and whatever was there in their original language, that is it. That excluded over 50 of the People Living in america today, so, no, i am not an originalist. I dont take any comfort when people proclaim i am an originalist. Trust me, im going to look at this constitution, and having taking a good and hard look at it, we will find the wisdom in these words. We have a case here which was important. We talked about it over and over each day. Barrett because judge took the time to write a lengthy, lengthy dissent, and being an originalist, she took this in history and went back 400 years. Years to find some guidance. What she missed in her conclusion it is what is happening 400 yards from where she lives, where crime guns are coming from indiana into chicago and killing innocent people. A notion that we would somehow drop our guard and make it easier for people who are convicted felons own firearms does not make sense from where i am standing, and i dont know if going back to the times of the british decisions is really much guidance and it comes to the reality today. Miss clark, if you are still on board, could you comment on mayor lightfoots version of originalism and her take on it . I have grave concerns about judge barretts commitment to regionalism and textualism as a theory of constitutional interpretation. It purports to rely on the understanding of our constitutional text at the time, when the language was adopted, which is not practical in a 21st highry, and goes to a objective of the framers understanding. If i could, senator, i would like to read a quote from justice kennedy. The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own time. The generations that wrote and ratified the bill of rights and the 14th amendment did not prove you to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions , so they interested to future generations a charter protecting the rights of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. Barrettthat judge stripped adherence to originalism and textualism stands to turn our country back decades and runs the risk that we will exclude from the constitution prominent africanamericans, womens rights, lgbtq rights, and more. Isnt it interesting that many of the questions and issues before us still relate to the evolution of thinking beyond the original constitution as it is related to americans, particularly as it relates to women today . We are in the middle of this. In the constitution, which i swore to support and defend, did not get those two aspects right. Women did not have a right to vote, and africanamericans were not even counted as full citizens, let alone have the right to vote. We are still debating that many hundred years later. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Similarly senator lee. Sen. Lee i would like to start with you, in addition to being a judge on the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit judge you have also been a professor. You have taught a course for a number of years at stanford law ,chool regarding the unique distinct role of the article free judge. If i understand correctly, you also started teaching that same course at harvard, and you will be teaching that at harvard and the university of virginia this year. What do you tell your students are some of the most important lessons that you have learned . Thank you very much. Answerve you the full , [indiscernible] i came upon this course because i wanted a better understanding of what my role was as a judge. What my supposed to do under a constitution . What role my supposed to play . If i can tell you a quick story that i think captures what i learned from being a judge and courses with interactions with students, it happened the day after i was confirmed by the senate for my seat on the d. C. Circuit judge. It was a happy day. I was in my office. The general counsel i was the recipient of many congratulatory phone calls from people from around the country who i had known. At fellow, he and i had been the same law firm in washington, d. C. , and he had clerked for a distinguished member of the clerk and then clerked onto the supreme and they went on to clerk at the Supreme Court. He wanted to give me advice on being a judge. I said, boy, i am teachable. He said, i will tell you what i was told first day in my judges chambers. He sat me down and said, the first thing that we do is we learn the facts of the case as best we can. These are real people. They have real struggles. They deserve to know that we know who they are, that we know the challenges they face. They deserve that, so we have to spend a lot of time to learn their circumstances. The next thing that we do is we think long and hard and deep and just fair result outcome, the equitable disposition, and once we figure law tot, we go find support our decision. Now, the purpose of the call was a congratulatory one. It was not to engage in the role of a judge, but i took a vow that i would do my level best to always heed the first part of that advice. Always heed the first part of that advice that these are real people who have real struggles, and we need to understand them. Never a vow that i would follow the last part of his advice. Why . Because it is the American People who get to decide what is fair, just, and equitable. And they express that through their politically accountable representatives, through legislation, numbers of congress, through the constitution of the United States. I was not appointed to take my own views of what is fair, just and equitable and use them to resolve a case. That is not what our system allows. Maybe that would be a perfectly good way of running a government, but that is not the system that our government was created to do. Originalist and textualist. There are many. One is a great religious originalist scholar, and in his book the constitution of biography, says something profound, and i will paraphrase him, according to the professor, the most fundamental liberty protected by the constitution is the right of we the people except the rules by which the government, by which our society is run. We do that through politically accountable representatives. We do not do that through judges. Our job as a judge is to be a faithful agent that we, the people, as they expressed their the through law, constitution is a very complicated lawmaking process. In the case of statutes, it is by passage and presentment to the president. In case of amendments, it is two thirds passage in congress, a very complicated process. Process, a in that description for the role sen. Graham judge, we need to wrap it up. Ok, that is no role for a judge in this. That is the lesson we learn. Sen. Graham thank you. Anyone over here . Senator blumenthal . Yesterday yes sir. Not the griffith, i was one responsible for interrupting your. Sen. Graham i apologize. We were going over, and i know you dont have a clock. I mention that because judge griffith sat on a case recently where i was present as a versusff in blumenthal term, and thank you for all the witnesses for giving your time. It is very, very important. Want to ask particularly ms. Because there is such a strong Racial Justice movement in this country now. We are in the midst of a Health Crisis and an economic emergency, but the Racial Justice movement is so deeply important. Asked judge barrett about the issue of gun violence prevention, and i brought with me the story into the room the voice and face of janet rice, who lost her son, shane oliver, in downtown hartford. Black. E oflso had the voice and face another family who lost their son ethan and Natalie Barton, who lost her brother. Every community, every part of the country is affected by the scourge of gun violence. Janet rice lost her son shane , probablythe shooting no fault of his, certainly not of hers. I wonder if you could talk about for preventative gun violence measures. Had taken at position that they should get class of felons without any Legal Support in the Circuit Court the right to possess firearms. I am extremely concerned about the effects of that kind of approach to commonsense measures like connecticut has. It protects everyone. Background checks and emergency Risk Reduction orders, ethans law, as it is known in connecticut because their son ethan was killed when a gun that should have been safely stored was available to the two teenagers who were in effect playing with it. Perhaps told me about the effects of striking down those kinds of laws on communities of color around the country, and on the country as a whole. Thank you for that question, senator blumenthal. We have examined her record closely with respect to the second amendment, and judge barretts jurisprudence reflects an originalist viewpoint. We see her originalist and contextual and textualist viewpoint shaping the law, and her record would incline that she would make it easier to obtain and use guns, and it would be more difficult for states to impose reasonable restrictions on the purchase and use of guns. I do think this is a very real issue for our country. Ofhave been through a state mass shooting, and we also know that access to guns is devastating and has impacts on vulnerable communities, including communities of color. I have deep concerns about her jurisprudence in this area. [no audio] affected a largely white community, Natalie Barton lost her brother. The grief still stays with her and that killing of 20 beautiful five, six, sevenyearolds, and six wonderful teachers. Andkristin Michael Kristin and michael lost their son when he was playing with a firearm because it was not vaguely stored. There is a long connecticut called ethans law, and i have induced it introduced it here. Orders have been adopted by at least 15 states. Connecticut has one that keeps hands out of the hands of dangerous people. If a judge finds they are dangerous to themselves, these kind of commonsense measures would be in jeopardy with judge barretts approach to the second amendment. Do you agree . [indiscernible chattering] i dont know whether we have missed clarksville miss clark still. I am sorry to hear that you are we can putbut maybe that question to you either in writing or later in the hearing. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham why dont we break for 30 minutes for lunch. Blumenthal thank you very