Good morning. Ince becoming chairman january, ive been trying to find a solution to the problem that we all acknowledge which is a border out of control, laws being abused, humanitarian crisis, a National Security crisis in the making, and in march, the Committee Held a hearing to learn the scope of the problem. , the numbere of families have doubled, the problem is beginning to be unmanageable, we are all concerned about the humanitarian conditions which is why we supported a 4 billion appropriation to provide better housing, but we have done nothing to stop the flow until today. A bill i introduced after the scope of the hearing that was based on the best advice i could get from those in charge, and the dhs director who testified in june said the bill we had before this committee would stop 70 to 90 of the flow. My colleagues on the other site said what about Central America. You are right, we need to invest in Central America, but there is not enough money to invest until we change
House and tried and found guilty by the senate. And he only needed to be found guilty on one article of impeachment to be thrown out of office. Richmond nixon, seeing the writing on the wall, he was a very gifted, in many ways, a gifted odds maker in political games. He saw the writing on the wall and he decides to resign before he is actually thrown out of office. He announcing resignation on august 8th one 1974 and leaves office at noon on august 9th, 1974, 40 years ago this august. Timothy who served as the director in your california, now the director of library at new york university. Thank you for your perspective on the events of 40 years ago. And up next, more from the debate before the House Judiciary Committee on july 29th, 1974, including the vote on article ii, the abuse of power against Richard Nixon on cspan 3, american tv. The gentleman from california. Recognized for five minutes. I would like to speak about article ii which i suggest is an expression of our deep devoti
Justice antonin scalia, in prepared remarks. It was the content of Justice Scalias reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. If we can get this wonderfullyqualified, conservative woman on the court, well be making a statement to all young conservative women theres a place at the table for you. Your health care is on the lewin. A justice who on the line. A justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care act. Doesnt matter who judge barrett is, doesnt matter what shes done, doesnt matter her record, doesnt matter. Sandra here we go on to day two. Weve got todays hearing covered, bret baier, as mentioned, Chris Wallace, that maccallum, but we begin with chief Legal Correspondent shannon bream. Shannon, good morning. Here we go, day two. They want it in the books. 30 minutes of questioning from each of the senators today, thats about 31 hours, take us 11 hours, take us well i
Imposing their policy preferences is because its inconsistent with democracy. No one wants to live in accord with the law of amy. My children dont want to do that. As a judge i cant say im going to live with my policy preferences because i have life tenure and you have to live with them. Constitutionally, even if the Supreme Court strikes down a statute, congress can come back and revisit that topic and do so in a way that doesnt violate the constitution as determined by the court. Ultimately, it doesnt happen very often, but ultimately we can amend the constitution itself, correct . That is correct. So the basis of legitimacy of governmental power is concerned of the governed. Do you agree with that . I do agree with that. Not what nine people in black robes, the high nine on the potomac, i think theyre sometimes called, the decisions they make. Thats not the final word in our government, correct . We are a government of laws, not of men. Judge barrett, im almost through, but i cant p
Its inconsistent with policies. Nobody wants to live in the world of the law of amy, my children dont want to do that even. So i cant get up on the bench and say you have to live by my policy preferences because i have lifetime tenure and you cant kick me out if you dont like them. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down a statute, congress can come back and revisit the topic and do so in a way that doesnt violate the constitution. Ultimately we can amend the constitution itself, correct . That is correct. The basis of legitimacy of governmental power is consent of the governed. Do you agree with that . I do agree with that. Not what nine people in black robes, the high nigh on the potomac i think theyre sometimes called. Thats not the word we are a law, a government of laws, not of men. Judge barrett, im almost through but i cant pass up the opportunity to ask you a question about the establishment clause. I did with Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch as well. Its borne out of my fr