there have said that it s a bad idea. respectfully, senator, other nominees to the supreme court have responded as i will, which is that it is a policy question for congress and i am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because i am so committed to staying in my lane of the system because i just am not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body. then i would interpret your answer and you don t have to respond to this, but i think you re saying breyer and ginsburg should not have stated their views on that issue. during his opening statement yesterday, one member of this
there have said that it is a bad idea. respectfully, senator, other nominees to the supreme court have responded as i will, which is that it is a policy question for congress and i am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because i am so committed to staying in my lane of the system. because i am just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body. then i would interpret your answer you don t have to respond to this but i think you are saying breyer and ginsburg should not have stated their views on that issue. during his opening statement yesterday, one member of this
idea. well, respectfully, senator, other nominees to the supreme court have responded as i will, which is, that it is a policy question for congress and i am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues, because i am so committed to staying in my lane of the system. because i m just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body. okay. then i would interrupt your answer and you don t have to respond to this, but i think you re saying that breyer and ginsburg should not have stated their views on that issue. during his opening statement yesterday, one member of this committee suggested that the
0 get here today are some of the key answers. we have seen in hearings past nominees refuse to weigh in on what can come before the court, to the concern and consternation of members on this committee. expect some moments of contentiousness between republicans and this nominee. we ll see how she responds to pointed and direct questions. will she get tripped up and will anything change and will she win over any republicans to ultimately support her? one republican who could break ranks lindsey graham who voted for her for the d.c. circuit told me yesterday it is a different game when it comes to the supreme court. so we ll see where she comes down and today what will be a long day of questioning that could extend late into the night. poppy? manu, thank you very much. stay with us. let me bring in all of our experts to break down the headlines and, let me begin with you, her experience here is diverse and it is really important. when you look at the number, she has more judicial experi
0 misleading the public but taking the court out of context. she repeated testimony from someone else and he says it is her quote. hawley praised her experience and said he looks forward to questioning her today. also important to note many questions about her time as a public defender and for her to get on the bench this time where she was now at the court of appeals three republicans, murcowski, collins and graham all voted in favor. we ll see what they do this time. trace: david spunt live at the justice department. dana: two fox news contributors. andy mccarthy and constitutional law attorney jonathan turley. we have gone through this a few times together. one of the things i was thinking about is how different some of these hearings are when it is a democratic nominee versus a republican nominee. you posted a column in usa today saying ketanji brown jackson is getting the respect amy coney barrett was denied. the republicans say they will keep it civil. the democrats will alre