Youre going to see democrats frame their questions along the line of political arguments. Democrats are going to focus on the Affordable Care act again, on abortion, all again arguing that she would turn the court to the right. For the nominee herself, judge barrett, she will follow whats called the ginsberg rule as stated by Justice Ginsberg during her 1993 hearings, and really say i cant answer how i would rule on a particular case. What case i might ciriticize frm the past in the Supreme Court because that could lead to bias when i do consider those cases but we do know about her judicial philosophy, and thats what theyre going to be talking about, she sees the law much like her old boss, the conservative justice antonin scalia. The way Justice Scalia ruled on abortion, and other controversial topics, you clerked for scalia and you follow his judicial philosophy. That would a dramatic departure from the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw the law. Lets listen in to senator lindsey graham. This is not a question directed at you. From my point of view, obamacare has been a disaster for the state of South Carolina. All of you over there who want to impose obamacare on South Carolina, we dont want it. We want something better. We want something different. You know what we want in South Carolina, South Carolina care, not obamacare, now why do we want that . Under the Affordable Care act, three states get 35 of the money, folks, can you name them . Ill help you, california, new york and massachusetts. Theyre 22 of the population. Senator feinstein is from california, nancy pelosi is from california. Chuck schumer, the leader of the Democratic Senate is from new york. And massachusetts is elizabeth warren. Why do they get 35 of the money when theyre only 22 of the population. Thats the way they designed the law, the more you spend, the more you get. What does it mean for the people ofof South Carolina . If you had a perpatient formula where you got the same amount from the federal government to the state, whether you lived in charleston, columbia or San Francisco or new york city, if you leveled that out, it would be almost a billion dollars more for us in South Carolina. So to my friends over there, were going to fight back. We want our money. If youre going to have money allocated for obamacare, were not going to sit back and quietly let you give 35 of it to three states. What else is happening in South Carolina . Four rural hospitals have closed because the Revenue Streams are uncertain. 30 increase in premiums in South Carolina for those on obamacare. I was on obamacare for a few years before i got on tricare. My premiums went up 300 . My coverage was almost nonexistent. A 6,000 deductible. So i want a better deal, and thats a political fight. Im in a campaign at home. If it were up to me, we would block grant this money, send it back to the states, in a more fair allocation, and we would require preexisting conditions to be covered as part of the block grant. We want sick people covered but i got an idea, i think South Carolina may be able to deal with diabetes better than and different than california. If you want good outcomes in opini medicine you need innovation, and the best way to get innovation is allow people to try Different Things to get better outcomes, so the debate on health care is consolidating all the power in washington, have some bureaucrat youll never meet running this program, versus having it centered in the state where you live. Under my proposal, South Carolina would get almost a billion dollars more. The state of South Carolina would be in charge of administering obamacacare, they couldnt build football stadiums with the money, theyd have to spend it on health care. They would have to cover preexist conditions. As a patien South Carolina, if you dont like what was happening to you on the health care front, you could go to local officials and complain, and the people youre complaining to live in your state. They send their family to the same hospital as you go. Thats a structural difference. Thats got nothing to do with this hearing. Its got everything to do with politics. We on this side do not believe obamacare is the best way to provide Quality Health care over time. Our friends on the other side, this is a place holder for Single Payer Health care. If you dont believe me, just ask them. So thats the fight going into 2020. Doesnt make them bad, just makes them different. If it were up to me, bureaucrats would not be administering health care from washington. People in South Carolina would be Running Health care. If it were up to me, we would get more money under obamacare than we do told. 35 would not go to three states. And sick people would be covered so thats the political debate. Were involved in a campaign in South Carolina, and my fate will be left up to the people of South Carolina, so thats what obamacare is all about. Now, how do you play in here, judge . Theres a lawsuit involving the Affordable Care act before the Supreme Court, and well talk about that in a bit. And the difference between analyzing a lawsuit and having a political argument is fundamentally different, and i hope to be able to demonstrate that over the course of the day. And i hope that my cloolleaguesn this side of the aisle will not feel shy about telling my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why we think we have a better idea on health care. Now, the bottom line here, judge, you said yesterday something that struck me and i want the American People to understand what you meant. You said youre an originalist, is that true . What does that mean, in english . Ill pass the button, i mean, we all love senator lee, but in english. Okay. So in english, that means that i interpret the constitution as a law, that i interpret its text as text, and i understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesnt change over time, and its not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it. So in other words, youre bound by the people who wrote it at the time, that keeps you sfrm substituting your judgment for theirs, is that correct . Yeah. Justice scalia, he was an originalist. Yes. People say youre a female scalia, what would you say . I would say that Justice Scalia was obviously a mentor, and as i said when i accepted the president s nomination that his philosophy is mine too, you know, he was a very eloquent defender of originalism. And that was also true of textualism, which is the way that i approach statutes and their interpretation and similarly to what i just said about originalism, for textualism, the judge approaches the text as it was written with the meaning it had at the time, and doesnt infuse the meaning in it. I want to be careful to say that if im confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia. You would be getting Justice Barrett. And thats so because originalists dont always agree, and neither do textualists. Justices scalia and thomas disagreed often enough that my friend teaches a class called scalia versus thomas. Its not a mechanical exercise. Ill wait until the movie comes out. So the bottom line for me is there is a narrative building in this country, and again, you can stand down. This is just me speaking for me. Justice ginsberg was an iconic figure in american history, just not the law. She was a trail blazer, she fought for better conditions for women throughout the society. She was unashamedly progressive in her personal thought. She was devout to her faith. She worked for the aclu. She was proudly pro choice personally, but all of us on this side, apparently when they voted, accepted that she was highly qualified. What i want the American People to know, i think its okay to be religiously conservative. I think its okay to be personally pro choice. I think its okay to live your life in a traditional catholic fashion and you still be qualified for the Supreme Court. So all the young conservative women out there, this hearing to me is about a place for you. I hope when this is all over that you, there will be a place for you at the table. There will be a spot for you at the Supreme Court like there was for judge ginsberg. And to President Trump, i dont know if youre listening or not. By picking judge barrett, you have publicly said you find value in all of these characteristics, but beyond anything else, you find judge barrett to be highly qualified. I would say youre one of the greatest picks President Trump could have made and from the conservative side of the aisle, youre one of the most qualified people of your generation. Lets talk about brown v. Board of education, because i know senator blumenthal will, and im going to talk about that. You said in writings it was a super precedent, what did you mean . Well, in my writings, as a professor, i talked about the its not a term that comes from the Supreme Court, and i think maybe in political conversation or in newspapers people use it different ways. But in my writing, i was using a frame work thats been articulated by other scholars and in that context, super precedent means precedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled and there are about six cases on this list that other scholars have identified. Lets talk about brown and talk about why it would be unthinkable. First, lets talk about whats the process that would lead to it being overruled. What would have to happen . For brown to be overruled, you would have to have congress or some state or local government in post segregation again. Lets stop there. If you want to make yourself famous by the end of the day, you can see we want to go back to segregation, youll be on every cable tv channel in america. I doubt if youll go very far, but point were trying to make is the court cant wake up and say lets revisit brown, it has to be a case in controversy, is that right . Yes, thats right. So before you could review brown, somebody out there would have to be dumb enough to pass a law saying lets go back to segregated schools, is that fair to say . That is fair to say. Do you see that happening anytime soon . I do not see that happening anytime soon. Yeah, i dont either. So lets talk about the process in general. Theres the hellor case whats that about. It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Okay. Now, my friends on the left, some of them have a problem with hellor, they may try to challenge the construct, if a state or local government passed a law in defiance of hellor, what would happen . In defiance . That was challenging the construct of hellor. If it was brought in a lower court, hellor binds. Lower court haves to follow Supreme Court precedent. And if the Supreme Court wanted to revisit hellor, what would they do . If challenged hellor, the Supreme Court would have to take that case once it was appealed all the way up. The court would have to decide, yes, we want to overrule hellor, and we have enough votes to grant cert and do so. Thats the process. It would start because there was a law, a lawsuit, then an appeal, and the Court Granted cert. Is that true no matter what the issue is, gun, abortion, health care, campaign finance, does that process hold true for everything . Yes. You always judges cant just wake up one day, and say i have an agenda, i like guns, i hate guns, i like abortion, i hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world. You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the constitution, to wind their way through the process. All right. Well, senator sasse gave us a civics lesson. If a state said i dont think you should have over six bullets and somebod believed that violated the Second Amendment, there would be a lawsuit in the same process would work, right . The same process would work. In that case, there would be parties would have to sue the state, you know, arguing that that law was unconstitutional. It would wind its way up and if it got to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decided to take it, a whole Decision Making process begins. You hear arguments from litigants on both sides. They write briefs. You talk to clerks as a judge. You talk it your colleagues. Then you write an opinion. Opinions circulate, and you get feedback from your colleagues. Its an entire process. Its not something that a judge or justice would wake up and say, oh, were hearing this case. I know what my vote is going to be. Lets talk about the two Supreme Court cases regarding abortion. What are the two leading cases in america regarding abortion . Well, i think most people think of roe v. Wade and case is the case after roe that preserved roes Central Holding it but grounded it in a slightly different rational. What is the rationale. That the state cannot impose an undue burden on a womans right to terminate a pregnancy. Unlike brown, there are states challenging on the abortion front. There are states that are going to a fetal heart beat bill. I would a bill that would disallow abortion on demand at the 20 weeks, the fifth month of the pregnancy. Were one of seven nations in the entire world that allow abortion on demand at the fifth month. The construct of my bill is because a child is capable of feeling pain in the fifth month, doctors tell us to save the k d childs life, you have to provide anesthesia if you operate because they can feel pain. The argument im making is you have to provide the anestheia to save the childs life, it must be a terrible death to be dismembered by an abortion. Thats a theory to protect the unborn at the fifth month. If that litigation comes before you, will you listen to both sides . Of course. Ill do that in every case. So i think 14 states have already passed a version of what i have just described. There really is a debate in america still unlike brown v. Board of education, about the rights of the unborn. Thats just one example. So if theres a challenge coming from a state, if a state passes a law, and it goes into court where people say this violates, casey, how do you decide that . It would begin in a district court, in a trial court. You know, the trial court would make a record. You know, the parties would litigate and fully develop that record in the trial courtment then it would go up to a court of appeals that would review that record looking for error, and again, it would be the same process. Someone would have to seek, and at that point it would be the full process, briefs, oral arguments, conversations with law clerks in clahambers, writi an opinion, digging down into it. Its not just a vote. You all do that. You have a policy and you cast a vote. The judicial process is different. Okay. So when it comes to your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun . We do own a gun. Okay. All right. Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun . Yes. All right. Youre a catholic. I am. I think we have established that. The tenets of your faith mean a lot to you personally, is that correct . That is true. You have chosen to raise your family in the catholic faith is that correct . That is true. Can you set aside whatever catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you . I can. I have done that in my time on the 7th circuit. If i stay on the 7th circuit, ill continue to do that. If im confirmed to the Supreme Court, i will do that still. I would dare say that there are personal views on the Supreme Court, and nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their beliefs. Theres reason to question yours in my view. The bottom line here is that theres a process, you fill in the blanks, whether its about guns and hellor, abortion rights. Lets go to Citizens United. Senator whitehouse, me and you are going to come closer and closer about regulating money. I dont know whats going on out there, but i can tell you theres a lot of money being raised in this campaign. I would like to know where thats coming from but thats not your problem. Citize Citizens United says what . It extends the protection of the First Amendment to corporations engaged in political speech. If congress wanted to revisit that and somebody challenged it under Citizens United that Congress Went too far, what would you do . How would the process work . Well, it would be the same process i have been describing. First, somebody would have to challenge that law in a case. Somebody presumably who wanted to spend