Good morning. I appreciate you all of my colleagues being here promptly. As you know, our democratic colleagues informed the Committee Last night they will not participate the hearing. That was their choice. It will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee. Were not going to allow them to take over the committee. They made a choice not to participate after allowing judge barrett four days, 22 days to be questioned. I thought she did an exceptionally good job of handling the questions asked. I thought she was aggressively challenged but not inappropriately. I want to complement my democratic colleagues for not going down the kavanaugh road. I want to complement the republican members of this committee for asking questions that mattered to you about showing tremendous amount of discipline to make sure that on our side the hearing went well. Each of you, when this is over, i hope you feel like a sense of accomplishment. This is why we all run. Its moments like this that make everything you go through matter. Its moments like this where you can tell young conservative women theres a place at the table for you. This is a groundbreaking, historic moment for american legal community, and really, politically. Senator blackburn and ernst spoke eloquently what its like to be a conservative woman in america. You try to be marginalized, and i just want you thank both of them for theirth participation, and a bit about the judge and then were going to vote. I have been here a while and ive never seen anyone more capable than judge barrett on the law. Todays without a note, senator cornyn made that obvious to us. I did notice didnt have any notes until you mentioned it. But a but a deep and wide understanding of the law. But the most important thing to me, understanding what the judge does versus what we do. And to all the people out there wondering about judge barrett, i can tell you this. The law of amy will not be applied to a case in controversy. It would be the law as written in the constitution or by statute or whatever regulatory body she is going to review. She will take her job on without agenda. But important to me is this okay to be a complete person and be on the Supreme Court. Its okay to be prolife. She embraces the prolife calls in her personal life, but she understand that judging is not a cause. It is a process. She embraces her faith, like millions of other americans. And there are some things being said about her and her family that areab disgusting. I just want to complement her family for giving her the backing she needed to take on this job. At the way to thank the members of this committee for standing up against some pretty vile things. But again my democratic colleagues did not go too far, in my opinion. But we will end with this. We think as what political. For a moment. All of us are, in the political process, in 2013 when they change the rules t to require a simple majority to back the d. C. Circuit court. You could see days like this coming. It was a a decision that senator schumer and senator reedre maden collaboration. I remember the night before the rules changed, both senator schumersc called me and informed of it and i was very disappointed because ive i bea bunch of groups around too tryig to keep the traditions alive of having a 60 vote requirement to get on the court. I remember telling senator schumer you will regret this. Today he will regret it. And all i can say is that judge gorsuch was filibustered two or three times required as to change the rules. They started this. Not me. If the rep to meet would be a 60 vote requirement in the senate today. Denying judge gorsuch the votes necessary to go to the floor was just the beginning of the end of a process that it served the country well. How could anybody in the right might believe that judge gorsuch wasnt as qualified as sotomayor and taken . How could anybody in their right mind after listening to judge barrett not understand shes not just qualified, shes incredibly qualified. So qualifications apparently dont matter anymore. Its about trying to create a situation for your favor, politically. I dont know where this answer how it ends but i do know this, after listening to the excerpt of t Vice President bidens explanation about court packing, i am more confused than ever. One thing i can say is that the real energy and the Democratic Party is to pack the court, is to expand from nine to whatever number they need toth make it a liberal. And as to my good friend senator feinstein, what happened to her by showing an active humankind is tells youou all you need to know about what with a half for our nation. Beginning with the court. The day we start changing the number after every election to make it theg way we would like politically partisan wise is the end of the independence of the court. Lots at stake in this election but today i want to celebrate, i want to celebrate the fact that judge amy barrett would be reported out of this committee unanimously, that to all the young women out theret like amy barrett, this is a big day for you. To the country as aig whole, you are going to have an associate justice on the court that you should beou proud of. This is a good day. If you dont believe me, just listen to what the aba said. The American Bar Association is note high on senator lees list, and many of you. I think they do give some republican nominees a hard time but but i continue to usea them because teaches many traditions in place as i can. But the folks who are watching this hearing, their job is to evaluate the nominee in three categories. Professional competency, character, judicial disposition. They spent hundreds of hours, talked to hundreds of people of all walks of life about this judge, judge barrett. And heres what they found. The americann Bar Association Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed the evaluation of the professional qualifications of judge amy barrett. And as you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. A substantial majority of the Standing Committee determined that judge barrett is wellqualified and a minority is of the opinion that she is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. The majority represents the Standing Committees official rating, which isng the highesu can get. I asked the two presenters a question. What both of you feel comfortable going before judge barrett . They replied, absolutely. Another piece of information was from ms. Ohara. She was the dean of Notre Dame Law School while judge barrett was the professor. Hat she had t. I have only communicated with this august committee on two occasions. The first was 10 years ago and i wrote a strong letter in support of nowjustice elana kagan. Whose term as dean of Harvard Law School overlapped with my own. The second is today introducing ,nd endorsing Amy Coney Barrett an in equally strong terms. Some might find these inommendations juxtaposition. I find them entirely consistent. I voted for both. The committee will hold over s4632. That,unanimous consent notwithstanding the motion of october 15, setting the vote on the barrett nomination at 1 00 p. M. , the committee proceed immediately to vote on the barrett nomination. Any objections . Without objection. On the motion to report the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to being associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the clerk will call the roll. Favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. [voting] mr. Chairman, the boats are s. Yea senator cornyn. Sen. Cornyn mr. Chairman, i will take a couple of minutes. I find this to be a surreal environment we are in, where our democratic colleagues announced they are going to boycott one of the most important votes this committee will have, probably during our entire senatorial tenure. That is a vote to confirm, to provide advice and consent to a nominee of the Supreme Court of the United States. I just want to comment on the pictures that are in their chairs, like this is some sort of sporting event during covid19 and rather than show up and do their job, they choose to continue the theater that was part of the hearing. Of course, this is all pretextual. Their argument, as i understand it, is somehow Amy Coney Barrett will violate her oath of office, contrary to everything she has done and who she is, and somehow that the Affordable Care act is in jeopardy. She explained, i think with great skill, the issue before the Supreme Court. It is one of severability, which is a very technical doctrine. It doesnt have anything to do with the merits of the Affordable Care act. It has to do with whether you can sever the unconstitutional portion from the rest of the aca , and that it will survive. The fact is, democrats have already moved on from the aca. And my state, the premiums for an individual under the aca have gone up, i believe, 57 . The average deductible is about 3000. For a family of four, the deductible is 12,000. It means in essence, he did have insurance. You do not have insurance. All of the promises that were made to the American People leading up to the passage of the aca, they have been broken. I remember president obama saying, if you like your policy, you could keep your policy. None of that is true. They said we would have essentially universal Health Insurance coverage. That is obviously not true. Aca has failed our democratic colleagues recognize that. Have, from they president ial candidates running in the primary, all the way down to people running in this election on november 3, have advocated a singlepayer system. Sometimes called medicare for all. It is all a slippery slope toward a singlepayer system. I think it is important to point what they are advocating. It is extraordinarily radical. The 180 million americans who get their Health Insurance on the job, they would eliminate that. They would take that away from them in order to put them on a singlepayer government program. Know, has itse own financial problems 3 millioe into the Medicare Program will bankrupt it. And we know that providers depend on a payment mix between medicaid, medicare, and private insurance in order to pay the bills. Without the private Insurance Health or payments our care providers, our hospitals, including those in rural parts of our states, would be bankrupt. I think it is important to just lay out the facts here. This is all for show. They have given up on the aca notuse they realize it did fulfill the promises that were made when it passed. Now it is unaffordable to most ordinary texans and americans. So they have thrown that out the window in favor of a singlepayer system. Said,y, senator schumer every thing is on the table. I think you have observed, mr. Chairman, that if the shoe were on the other foot, we have no doubt what they would do. But beyond that, senator schumer has said that the legislative filibuster is in jeopardy. That they will turn this into simply a partisan body, where you dont need to do the hard work to get bipartisan support. They would consider turning d. C. Into a state, and the state would get two senators. And get two estate senators. They want to permanently transform this country. This is not about incremental change. This is about revolutionary changes in our country. Finally, as we have all observed, they are advocating packing the Supreme Court with additional partisan judges. Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, there goes the crown jewels of the american public, which is our independent judiciary. It becomes nothing but another political body. A second legislative branch. I wanted to take a minute and thank you for your patience to lay out my thoughts and observations with regard to these theatrics with which our democratic colleagues are presenting us today. This is all for show. This is to try to capture a narrative which is simply false and to cover up what they are really about. So, thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham thank you, senator cornyn. I agree with what you said. Why dont we do the business of the committee . We have a few more judges and the subpoena request. Lets get to that and if anybody wants to speak, we will do so. On the motion to report the ,omination of benjamin j deaton the clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the cracks the boats are 12 yeas, and to not present. Sen. Graham on the motion to report the nomination of Kristi Johnson to the United States district judge for the Southern District of mississippi, favorably to the floor the clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the mr. Chairman, the voats are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham denomination will be sent to the floor. Favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. E roll]g th mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham reported favorably to the floor. Next, catherine mosel. Favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Of. Graham nomination thompson needs to the United States district judge for excuse me, to the United States district judge with United States court of federal claims. Favorably to the court, the clerk will call the roll. The roll] mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham the nomination will be reported favorably to the floor. Now we have a subpoena request. I have been asked by my democratic colleagues to hold it over. I think there is a lot of interest on the others of getting some of the social media folks here to answer questions about their platforms. Im going to move forward with the request today for the subpoena. Hopefully will give us some leverage to secure their testimony. Chairmansut on the october 22, 2020 motion to authorize subpoenas to Mark Zuckerberg and jack dorsey, relating to online content modernization. The clerk will call the roll. Roll]ng the mr. Chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, and 10 not present. Sen. Graham motion is passed. Thank you. All right. Thank you all. I will be glad to listen to any comments you would like to make. But we did it. We did it. Judge barrett is going to the floor. I hope you look back on this time on the committee and say, i was there when it mattered. And you were. Senator lee . Sen. Lee thank you, mr. Chairman. Be heredeed an honor to on this historic occasion, when we have confirmed judge barrett and forwarded to the floor our recommendation. As i have said ever since she was nominated to this position, judge Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most impressive legal minds in the United States. Andis a thoughtful fairminded lawyer. A loving daughter, wife, and mother. And a devout believer in her faith and in the constitution. She was arguably the most impressive judicial nominee i have ever seen in any of these hearings. I have been watching them intently since i was a kid. Make barrett is going to an absolutely outstanding Supreme Court justice. The American People will be lucky to have her on the bench. It is a shame that our leagues on the others, other side, having failed to lay a glove on judge barrett, have walked out on this process. And so doing, walk out on the American People. This is sad, but in context it is not surprising. Grateful we should be that i walk out as all the democrats will do to judge barrett today. Not all nominees have been so lucky. Important point for those watching these proceedings who might be tempted to believe the pious proclutching and Performance Art of the media and the Minority Party about this particular nomination. I would like to take a few moments to set the record straight about this process and why America Needs and deserves to have judge barrett on the Supreme Court. Of the first 200 years history of our republic, Supreme Court nominations of both Political Parties were almost always polite and even boring. Relatively nonpartisan, nonpolitical affairs. Judicial nominees were examined further qualifications and rejected by the senate only in relatively rare instances. Generally common Mutual Respect and in 1987. When a Democraticcontrolled Senate shamefully and slanderously defeated the nomination of one of the countries most respected lawyers and constitutional scholars. That is judge robert bork. The cynical attacks against judge bork, his only offense was that he was a conservative, or dirty were dirty and downright dishonest. Wolf,ke the boy who cried Senate Democrats got away with it, at least the first time. Four years later president George Herbert walker bush nominated clarence thomas, then serving on the court of appeals d. C. D. C. s are circuit judge democrats on the Judiciary Committee democrats, not republicans tried to do to judge thomas what they had done to judge bork. The public was now wise to the democrats game. , whilerticular attack injurious, failed. So they resorted to the next tactic. Organizing what thomas rightly called a hightech lynching of a black man who dared disagree won back theewhen Democrats White House in 1992, when the she was on the other foot, Senate Republicans did not retaliate. In kind. Not respond 1993, judge ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court with 96 votes. In 1984, judge Stephen Breyer was confirmed with 87 votes. Want, and in response we w ent high. Did republicans good faith behavior improve the democrats behavior . No. It only encouraged them. Within a decade democrats reached norms. The unilaterally escalated their war over the judiciary by filibustering for the first time in history a judicial nominee. And remains to this day one of the most respected lawyers and constitutional scholars in the country. He was a natural and inspiring choice to serve as a federal appellate judge. Left, that was precisely the problem. Mr. Estrada was latino and brilliant and charismatic and young, and widely seen as a future nominee to the u. S. Supreme court. So the left decided to strangle mr. Estradas nomination with false, insincere attacks and unprecedented obstructionism. They filibustered his nomination. Not once, not twice, but seven times. Service to hateful leftist groups who are vilifying an honorable man and a tantrum of little cynicism and blatant racial condescension. During this ordeal mr. Estradas family suffered irreparable tragedy, but at least the New York Times was happy. The leftcenter clear message to latino americans about what they can expect if they dare question liberal orthodoxy. Thus, democrats ushered in another new era. In their judicial culture wars. Judicial filibusters. Remember, the time of the estrada filibuster, republicans take control of the white house and the senate. They could have invoked the Nuclear Option to break the unprecedented obstruction. We didnt. We did not retaliate. Not after the estrada filibuster. On after the democrats malignant smearing of than judge sam alito on his way to the Supreme Court. It is not the narrative but it is the truth. Once again democrats went. Went low. Disgustingly low. Once again republicans took the high road. Under president obama republicans accepted the practice and required super majority cloture votes for judicial nominees. After a few years of this democrats got tired of having to play by their own rules so they broke them. A number of Obama Policies being challenged for unconstitutional and other grounds in the courts, democrats invoked the Nuclear Option over senate rules so they could confirm judges with only 51 votes. Republicans pleaded with harry reid to do it. We warned democrats they would soon live to regret it. Hubris makes the powerful d eaf and blind. They rammed through their Appellate Court judges. We could not stop them. They did it because they could. In response, the American People did what they could. In the next election, and in every single Congressional Election since the democrats went nuclear in 2013, the American People returned a republican majority to the senate. That included the election of 2014, which meant when president obama wanted judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia the senate, following president ablished by president ident democrats once again filibustered and feigned outrage as republicans followed democratic p precidence again. Let me go on record. I initially had concerns about this move. Can conference meetings for sometime i argued we ought to try to find another way. Try to see if he could figure out a way to restore the filibuster and preserve this important part of the senates institutional design and president ial prerogative. I lost that argument. My position may have been principled but in the context of relentless,s relentless and endless pattern and practice of abusing their power, it was untenable. Colleaguespersuade for a bipartisan solution. Solutions were easy to imagine. The lefts good faith was not. Precedents where bork, thomas, estrada, and the Nuclear Option. Democrats embrace traditional power of judicial total war. It was not a slide down a slippery slope. , it was a giddy enthusiastic leap that they still dont regret. Just look at the record since then. When Justice Anthony kennedy retired and President Trump dominated judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace him, was there any sign, any evidence whatsoever of an attempt to lower the temperature . Any indication democrats for rethinking were rethinking their decades of vicious, unilateral escalation . Just as before, of course not. During the kavanaugh nomination these duties to new lows, concocting a patently false accusation of teenage Sexual Assault against an honest, honorable and innocent man. Like inquisitors burning heretics at the stake, breaking norms, breaking rules to slander and strangle the nominations of constitutionalist judges. It is simply what the left does. This is a feature. This is how they operate. This is what they do. Liberals, not conservatives, turned the Supreme Court into a Super Legislature of sorts. Democrats, not republicans, escalated Supreme Court nominations into ideological knife fights at worst and made political outcomes the defining issue of this process rather than judicial philosophy and qualifications. What has happened to this isnt a bipartisan failure . Partisanuni strategy. Every active escalation. The democrats have been the aggressor in every single instance. Way theystep along the abused his authority. Its authority. There is no titfortat. There is just tat. Estradasd mcgill nomination for partisan reasons. They slandered justice thomas, justice alito, and justice kavanaugh. They knew the filibuster nuked the filibuster for partisan reasons. Now they are trying to scuttle this vote for partisan political reasons. When it comes to the judiciary, abuse of power is their agenda. Now, the left seems to think the Supreme Court exists to impose their very worst ideas onto the public. Onto those recalcitrant members of the public. Those members recall citizens that refuse blindly to go along with their entitled extremism. They want the court to empower abortion activists, perforce Performance Artist to tell everyone how to live without votes, without accountability, and without debate. Putting debatable matters beyond debate seems to be there formula. They dont want democracy. They dont would wen Amy Coney Barrett will not politicize price the Supreme Court. She is going to turn back policy decisions and political debate back to the people and their elected accountable representatives where they belong. Judge merrick understands under our constitution policy is supposed to be determined by the priorities of the people, not editorial boards or twitter poles or School Faculty senates. That is why the left is so furious about this nomination. Problem youpious here on msnbc, and all you will hear on msnbc and those of the networks tonight, understand they are not angry because this process is unfair. They are angry because it is. Not because they think Amy Coney Barrett is going to be a partisan justice, but because they know she will not be. They are not afraid judge barrett will legislate from the bench, but she will force democrats and republicans to legislate from legislatures. As the constitution itself requires. Judge barrett threatens their power, not because she has a hidden agenda or hidden powers but because they do and she wont enact those powers or exercise them by judicial fiat. Why we needexactly to have Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court of the United States. Thomas,venge bork,istraught of, alito estrada alito or cavanaugh, but to return integrity to the Supreme Court and the senate, and all the institutions left is judicial abuse has twisted and desecrated for two generations. We need to confirm Amy Coney Barrett not to give political power to conservatives or republicans but to finally give it back to the American People. Whomhome it was stolen it was stolen 70 years ago. Left so many years ago. Barrett will take the constitutional highroad for decades to come. Every day earning in more ways than one new title of justice. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham both said. I have a statement i will introduce into the record without objection about the process. I think senator grassley would like to speak. Take your time. Sen. Grassley obviously our colleagues dont think they should represent their states by that is what they are not doing. Represent either people and they dont you appear. Im talking about my colleagues across the aisle. Those of us that are here are amy,ed to have voted judge uh, barretts nomination to the floor. The reason for doing that is she has the temperament and humility we would expect of a judge. She approaches cases without bias and agenda. Understandsntly she a judge should interpret, not make the law. Thorough, candid, and forthright in the hearing. But when pressed on how she might rule in a case, judge barrett applied to ginsberg rule. Her rule demonstrates independence by not showing any hints, previews, or forecasts. Those three words are from the ginsberg testimony. About 28 years ago. Judge merrick clearly respects judge barrett fairly respects the president and practices judicial restraint. Per method is rigorous and exacting, but fair and openminded. I specifically asked judge barrett if she made any promise to anyone about how she might rule on a case. She responded, the answer is no. The answer is no. It would be inconsistent with judicial independence. Expectt expressed but we what we expect and learn from whatth grade civics the checks and balances of government are all about. The courte court is where we expect them to make branch andecutive the legislative branch doesnt go outside the bounds that the thisitution sets for congress and the executive branch. Evenhanded, is and has ruled for plaintiffs and defendants and all kinds of cases since she served on the seventh Circuit Court of appeals. When asked if she would follow the law wherever it leads, she said yes. The Affordable Care act was brought up quite significantly , maybeost every person in this committee but more so by democrats that were trying to make it look like she would be a force to just have her mind made up already that the Affordable Care act ought to go out the window. But throughout the hearing democrats spun a bunch of nonsense about judge barrett and the Affordable Care act. They claimed her critique of chief Justice Roberts reasoning dictates12 aca case how she would vote in the upcoming case. Froml know that is bunk how she has described her approach to that aca. Judge barrett made clear then she doesnt have an agenda. She testified, i have no hostility to the aca. Critics, Court Decisions all the time. Obviously she was doing that as a person, a tenured professor at Notre Dame School of law. Robertssue of reasoning was shared by legal commentators across the political spectrum. Moreover, the question before the Supreme Court this fall are entirely separate. So it is pointless to speculate. Portrayemocrats want to the judge as a threat to health care. They want to distract from the fact they recently filibustered just yesterday, and three days ago covid relief bills on the senate floor that would have protected preexisting conditions. Although none of us republicans are threatening preexisting conditions. All just a democrat Election Year scare tactic by voters are not buying it. A political poll released yesterday showed a majority of americans want the senate to confirm judge barrett. That is what we are going to do. She made it easy for us with her outstanding performance here three days before this committee. Shows s record judges record she shows judicial restraint. A judge that approaches a case as an opportunity i better say this is her quote a judge that approaches her case as an opportunity for an exercise of the will has betrayed her judicial duty. The judge will not be a politician on the bench. She will make decisions as they should be decided in an impartial manner, and in accordance with the law and the constitution. I take the judge at her word. In my time as judge, job, my boss is the rule of law. Not imposing my policy preferences. So i am pleased that we have voted judge barrett out of committee to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham senator hawley for theke to present record and without objection, senator cruz. Sen. Cruz i want to commend you on conducting a remarkable set of hearings last week. I want to commend every member of this committee for the result improving judge barretts nomination, giving it to the floor where i have every confidence she will be confirmed on monday. This is a major victory for the American People. Ways the single most important accomplishment President Trump has achieved in office. In nominating a principled constitutionalist to the Supreme Court, President Trump was honoring the promises he made to the American People. In confirming that principled constitutionalist to the court, the republican majority in the senate will likewise be honoring the promises we made to the American People. I want to take a moment to highlight something we have learned in the last two weeks. Democratshe understand that their radical agenda for the Supreme Court is profoundly unpopular. The democrats are unwilling to defend their radical agenda for the Supreme Court. That is illustrated powerfully today by the fact that every democratic chair is empty. This markup. Otting they are boycotting this markup because their substantive arguments are not persuasive. They are not effective. Last week it was striking. Democrat asked any questions that defended the farlefts view of religious liberty. That the Supreme Court should go through the Public Square, scour the Public Square to remove any reference to god almighty. Defendedgle democrat the farlefts radical view of religious liberty that the government has the power to punish you for living out your faith. I noticed these lovely photographs in the place where our democratic colleagues normally would be. In one photograph i dont see the sisters of the poor. The Little Sisters of the poor, whotholic convent of nuns the Obama Administration persecuted because they were living according to their religious faith. And who joe biden pledges to once again persecute if he is elected. Not a single democrat in this committee defended that radical view of religious liberty because the American People dont want it. They want the court that will protect their religious liberty, not take it away. Not a single democrat during the hearing last week defended the democrats radical view of free speech, which is that the federal government has the regulate political speech, to regulate your free speech and assignments you if you dare criticize the politicians. Increase inrrifying government power. There have been four votes on the left for that proposition, that the federal government has the power to ban movies, the power to ban books. Position of Citizens United and not a single democrat would defend that proposition because the record people have no interest in a federal government that has the power to regulate free speech. On the Second Amendment, not a single democrat defended the that the Second Amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever. Which means government can make it a crime, a felony for any american to own a firearm and there is nothing you can do to challenge in court. Our votes for that. Not a single one of the defense that radical proposition. Us in they to all of majority, we should take solace from this. Propositions they are advancing our radical, extreme, not with the iraqi people want. See all the grassroots activists out there fighting right now less than two weeks away from election day, fighting to defend the constitution and bill of rights, take solace in the fact our absent democrats understand last week was not going well for them. They try to ask a few questions of judge barrett and realized this aint good. American people seeing this jurist pledging to defend the constitution, that is a problem for us, the democrats. 2 they had tw day gotten out of dodge. There were only two democrats even left in the hearing room. Two democrats is more than we have here today. It went from barely being present to being totally absent. Bidenis a reason why joe harris refused to answer if they will pack the court. The answer is yes. If they get power, they will move to pack the court to expand the number of justices to fill abuse of powern that would do immense damage to the independence of the judiciary. Why wont the answer the question . They know it is profoundly unpopular. The American People dont want to see the court politicized, its independence destroyed which todays Senate Democrats are pushing. The stakes of this confirmation in the stakes of this election coming up in two weeks are enormous. Reason the democrats want to see leftists on the court is so judges,ajority of beslected lawyers in ro can mandate policy outcomes the American People would never vote for without our colleagues having to take responsibility for it. Times when it seems republican senators dont necessarily understand the principles we are fighting for, the overwhelming majority of the megan people are with us American People are with us. You know who understands that very well . The Senate Democrats he refused to attend today. Congratulations, mr. Chairman. Sen. Graham thank you for your participation in this hearing process. You bring a lot to the table. And actually understand the process as well as anybody ive ever met. Thank you, senator lee, for reminding us how we got here. We got here through a tortured tale of abusing people, trying to get outcomes, changing the rules to accommodate political desires. It has ended today. I would love to go back to the Traditional Senate approach of having to grab some people on the other side of the aisle to confirm a judge. That was abandoned in 2013 for a purpose, to stack the d. C. Court of appeals. That is where litigation involving the federal government goes. Senator schumer, and senator reid to his credit said i would do it again and we should change the legislative filibuster. That is what harry reid said. Peopleping this election will listen to it senator cruz just said. Funde one boat away from one boat away from fundamentally changing second minute. Changing how free speech works in this country. And on and on and on. So, when they changed the rules and 2013 and filibustered justice gorsuch, requiring us to change the rules, it set in motion some things i have worried about for a long time. Heres some good news. The Judiciary Committee got it right when it came to just bear judge barrett. It would have been wrong to deny her a goat. If you are a republican, he would be crazy not to vote for her. As a democrat you may not agree with her judicial philosophy, which is rejection of judicial originalist an point of view how you approach but youcontroversies, shouldve seen what i saw in sotomayor and kagan, qualifications. You expected me to oppose the qualification to sotomayor and kagan, and i did. Way. Ed to not be this Justice Scalia got 96 votes. Justice ginsberg got 96 or 97. Senator thurman voted for ginsberg because she was qualified. Senator hollings of succulent of odiferous taleo because he was qualified. What happened . It wasnt us. Senator lee made a very compelling case that it changed alito, andthomas, ended with cavanaugh. I want to thank my democratic colleagues who did participate in the hearings so you could ask hard questions and suggest she would not be openminded. I think you lost that debate what you did show up to ask her questions. You should be here to vote. She deserves a vote yes or no. If you vote no, you will solidify the idea that qualifications no longer matter. I dont know if you could stay the Democratic Party. I am still here. I voted for sotomayor and kagan and i did find. It is a shame we have allowed it to get to where we have. It is a shame my colleagues senator feinstein who opposed the process and domination had a interaction,an which apparently is not enough to agree with the cause. You have to hate the people they want you to hate. America is in for a real tough ride if it is not enough to agree with the underlying cause that you must hate to be a legitimate liberal. It is not enough you embrace the cause. You have to hate. I hope that does not come on our side. Then we will be reduced to hating each other rather than debating each other. It will not be about our ideas. Is the fact we just opposed the concept of each other. I want to end this on a positive note. President trump had a list that was vetted. He picked judge barrett out of the list of really qualified people. Isator cruz said maybe this the most important decision. Thisll be a historic moment. This to work for young conservative women knowing it is a place at the table for you. Its a historic moment for the court to have somebody like judge barrett on the court who openly embraces their faith. And has led the consequential life. America is for all of us. Africanamerican and people of color who embrace republican have and conservativism tough time of it in modern society. Same for women. This is a breakthrough moment. I regret we could not do it the normal way. Is reportingregret her out of committee. I could not have lived with myself knowing someone this qualified, to work this hard all their life to be a good decent when it comesant to understanding the law has the disposition that all of this when youre in for in a judge. I could not have lived with myself if i denied her her day. Combination of a well lived life. There is one more step in the process, and that is the floor the United States senate. Whatever you think about republicans or democrats, and i know we are very divided, i hope you will remember this was about judge barrett. This was about her and her qualifications. Was she worthy of the nomination . Did you conduct yourself in a manner to be worthy of our votes . I think it is a very easy question. To my democratic colleagues, you denied her her vote. I regret that. But in the process of participating in the hearing you pushed her hard but did not go too far. For that i do very much appreciate that part of the hearing. So we will go to the floor now. We will take up the nomination of judge barrett on the floor of the United States senate. I doubt if a single democrat will vote for her. I will end with this. Elections have consequences. Andderstood Justice Kagan sotomayor would be the type of judges a democratic president would be looking at. A philosophyied, close to president obamas than mine, and that is why i voted for both of them. Now we find ourselves in a situation where qualifications no longer matter. It is about holding open seats that have been filled after the next election. We have lost sight that the individuals nominated matter. I think they do matter. I want to complement President Trump for sending to the senate this outstandingly outstanding nominee. Incredibly well in every way you would want to judge. I dont know the future holds for the senate. It is an election around the corner. Party of 2020 is hellbent on changing all the rules. There will not be nightmares of the court if they get the house and senate and white house. It will be at least 13. The legislative filibuster will fall like the judicial requirement of 60 votes has fallen. D. C. Will become a state. The Affordable Care act will be replaced by some more aggressive form of socialized medicine. But that is for the ballot box. Today was a process t haa process thats been in place for aa couple hundred years advising consent. So, i am proud to have supported judge Amy Coney Barrett and i think the people of South Carolina would be very happy sittingebody like her on the court judging us all so the role of advise and consent has been around for a couple hundred years. The last couple three decades is taking a sinister turn but i would imagine that our Founding Fathers would be proud of the is on thea woman court, probably not possible when it first started as a nation. We have changed as a nation i think moving in the right direction. The constitution was a document written, and the words matter. Changed comes when the people of the United States have a say about change, not five people. The most important thing that we have done today is we have ensured that in the future the societal changes people hope and dream about are not excluded. She will redirect them to the process the founders had. In mind. That people make change, not five justices of the Supreme Court. With that, we will conclude the nominating process of judge barrett and i will end where i began. The committee did the right thing. [inaudible conversations]
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.