There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor. I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But i never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try. That is the approach i have strived to follow as a judge on the seventh circuit. In every case i have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law. Whatever my own preferences might be, i try to remain mindful that, while my Court Decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood. When i write an opinion resolving a case, i read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would i view the decision if one of my children was the party i was ruling against. Even though i would not like the result, would i understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law . That is the standard i set for myself in every case, and it is the standard i will follow as long as i am judge on any court. When the president offered this nomination, i was deeply honored. But it was not a position i had sought out, and i thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process, and the work of serving on the court if i am confirmed, requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because i believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our nation. I believe americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our constitution and laws as they are written. And i believe i can serve my country by playing that role. I come before this committee with humility about the responsibility i have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was 9 years old when Sandra Day Oconnor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the court. When i was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the committee, what has become of me could only happen in america. I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburgs seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led. If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the chief justice and seven associate justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And i might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the president noted when he announced my nomination, i would be the first mother of schoolage children to serve on the court. And i know it would make senators young and braun happy to know i would be first justice to join the court from the seventh circuit in 45 years. And i would be the only sitting justice who didnt attend law school at harvard or yale. I am confident that notre dame will hold its own and maybe i could even teach them a thing or two about football. As a final note, mr. Chairman, i would like to thank the Many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the committees questions over the coming days. And if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, i pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American People as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you. Thank you very much, judge barrett. Lets try professor ohara. Any luck with her . Im here, chairman graham. Thank you. Apologize for the problem. The floor is yours. Thats very kind of you. It is anticlimactic because you already heard from the most important person from whom you need to hear, but it is very kind of you to take the time. I have known judge Amy Coney Barrett for just shy of 20 years. And i want to thank you, the ranking member, senator feinstein, the distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, senator young and senator braun for the opportunity to speak about her here today. I first came to meet her when as dean of the law School Together with my colleagues we recruited her to the faculty in 2002. I was aware of her reputation as a law student, but i had not taught her. So i can well remember that in the initial interview for my standpoint i was not thinking of her so much as a notre dame alum, but rather that is a candidate in who many law schools would have an interest. After all, she was first in her class, she was executive editor of the law review, she held two distinguished clerkships for demanding jurists, judge Laurence Silberman and judge antonin scalia, a short period in private practice, at baker botts and fellowship at George Washington law school. So from my standpoint as dean, in a market in which law schools compete aggressively for candidates with sterling credentials like hers, Amy Coney Barrett was a big hit and a big win for us. In the course of the next few years, i was responsible for creating an environment in which she could take her potential and reach the maturation necessary to meet the demanding standards of excellence in scholarship and teaching for promotion to tenure. I want to assure you that it was the easiest task of my entire tenure as dean. I watched her develop into an exceptional teacher and a superb scholar. Except that i must confess to say watching her develop is a bit of a misnomer because in many ways judge barrett sprang full grown into the legal academy. The first three of distinguished Teaching Awards that she holds from our students was presented to her by only the second class that she taught. And in my annual visits to observe her classroom teaching, it became clear to me why that was the case. Our students then and now hold her in awe for the power of her intellect and for her consummate professionalism. To read her student teaching evaluations is like reading a thesaurus that only has superlatives in it. Her classes are known for the clarity of the presentation of substantive legal material, but also for open minded, nondirective discussion, questioning and answer, respectful of differences and of differences of style with our students. Our students strive to meet her high and demanding expectations because they just dont want to disappoint her. And they greatly appreciate her availability outside the classroom for meantering and support. At the same time that she was developing and building relationships with our students, she also produced an incredible portfolio of scholarships, superb in both its depth and its quality. Scholars around the academy hold her work in the highest regard. And so when it did come time for her tenure case, i can only tell you without breaching the confidentiality of that process that it was as easy as a tenured case could possibly be. Her work appears in leading law reviews, university of chicago, columbia, cornell, virginia, texas to name but a few. I was not surprised in later years when she was tapped for service on the Appellate Advisory Committee on the several appellate rules of procedure and elected to the prestigious american law institute. In her three years as a judge on the court of appeals for the seventh circuit, her opinions have been characterized by the same qualities as her scholarship. Intellectual rigor, painstaking analysis, clarity of legal reasoning, and of writing. Accompanied by her deep commitment as a jurist to apply the law to the facts of the case before her. Stellar as her professional accomplishments are, no introduction is complete without talking about her personal qualities. She is brilliant, but humble. Fair and impartial, but empathetic. Open minded and respectful of differences, a skilled listener and able to build consensus, generous, especially to those in need. If i had to describe her in just a few words, i would tell you that Amy Coney Barrett is a woman who leads an integrated life of mind, heart and soul. And it is that integration that allows her to move so seamlessly between her professional responsibilities and her family commitments. It humbles me now as it did then 12 years ago that i was tasked at one point in my life with evaluating the professional qualifications of judge barrett in a university setting. Truth be told, she ran circles around me as a junior faculty member, and in the intervening years she has left me completely in the dust. And nothing gives me juror thmoo be able to say so. This is the standard of excellence we should demand for institutions of singular importance to us. I have only had two opportunities to communicate with this distinguished committee. The first was ten years ago, when i wrote a very strong letter of support for then nominee, now Justice Elena kagan, whose tenure as dean of Harvard Law School overlapped with my own tenure as dean here. The second is today, in presenting Amy Coney Barrett to you and endorsing her in equally strong terms. There may be some who would find those two recommendations in juxtaposition, but i find them entirely consistent. Over the course of my 40 years of the legal academy, ive been blessed with the opportunity to meet many Supreme Court justices. As to the justices i have met, while their judicial policy, philosophy maies may differ, wh they share is powerful intellects, rigorous work ethics, skilled listening skills, the ability to be open to persuasion and also to persuade themselves. To be fair and impartial, they are people of integrity and they have the commitment to applying the law to the facts of the case before them. They understand that their role as justices is to advance the rule of law, not to advance personal policy preferences. They understand their solemn responsibility to preserve the court as an institution, not lanes of the court, the court, a Single Institution that plays a singular role in our republic. I know firsthand from having worked closely with judge barrett for almost 20 years that she possesses all these same qualifications in abundance. And i trust that over the course of the next few days with the opportunity to engage in dialogue with her that you will come to the same conclusion and recommend her for confirmation as an associate justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you so much for taking this late opportunity to have to say a few words about professor barrett. Thank you very much, professor ohara. Thank you, judge barrett and to your family, congratulations and welcome. Were going to have a couple of long days ahead. Questions for the record will be due this friday at 8 00, which is Standard Practice for the committee. We begin tomorrow 30minute rounds followed by 20minute rounds, just do the math, got a couple of long days ahead of us, so get some rest. We will be in recess until tomorrow at 9 00. And with that, that ends the first day, a day of mostly of Opening Statements, im chuck todd of nbc news and were continuing msnbcs special coverage of the confirmation hearings for president trumps Supreme Court nominee justice Amy Coney Barrett. Opening day of the hearings is now wrapped up. Were going to keep an eye on what Senate Leaders have to say as they leave the hearing room. Democrats will hold a press conference shortly and with just 22 days to go until the election, millions of people voting early, it has been a day of raw partisan emotions, and frustrations. And it all came through in these Opening Statements from all the senators. Judge barretts Opening Statement seemed to acknowledge the divisiveness of these proceedings as she vowed to apply the law apolitically as written if confirmed. As she faces scrutiny from democrats about her conservative christian philosophy, judge barrett said she believes the value judgments of government should be made by the political branches, and not the courts. We have got a lot to talk about, so lets dive in and i want to begin actually with the value judgment issue when we get to t let me check in with Garrett Haake on capitol hill. Eventually, garrett, your last name will be hill if youre on capitol hill long enough. The mood of both sides behind the scenes, democrats and republicans, i sense a little bit of frustration on the right. With the democrats. I dont sense the same frustration on the left with the republicans, though. Reporter well, things got chippy here after the break, chuck. You saw several democrats, notably senator Kamala Harris criticizing the fact were holding this hearing at all given the state of the pandemic, the fact that several senators had tested positive for the virus in the last couple of weeks and a number of republicans took exception to that. You had the response from Lindsey Graham, the chairman, mike crapo who is generally one of the more understated guys really in the entire senate got a little bit upset about the characterization of that, but then beyond that, again, i think were seeing a very clear lines develop here. Democrats are going to turn this hearing into a proxy vote, about healthcare, try to link the appointment of this justice to the repeal of obama care. And the republican side, again, especially after the break, you saw return to what could either be described as a prebuttal or strong man argument of republicans defending judge Coney Barrett against attacks that werent coming, the idea she was being attacked because shes a woman or because of her faith, which is not actually anything we heard from democrats. So i think that story line could develop over the next couple of days, and could be interesting to see if republicans sort of keep laying out this trap of saying, come on, go ahead and do this, were expecting it. And democrats arent interested. They want to focus on healthcare and roe and other key issues that the Supreme Court could decide with judge Amy Coney Barrett on the bench. Seems pretty clear, yes, healthcare and the virus protocols feel like the lead on the democratic side of things. That hes f thats for sure. Shannon pettypiece on the beat for us. Shannon, we saw after the last break we noted clearly the president is sensitive to these healthcare hits. And thats been coming. What more can you tell us . Reporter right, and he has been live tweeting a bit of this hearing, and with when the topic turned to healthcare, started live tweeting his own response talking about all the great healthcare that he has plans that he has coming, which we have not seen of in four years, there hasnt been any Healthcare Plans since that first year back proposed by the white house. But the president keeps insisting he has a Healthcare Plan because you can see democrats clearly trying to turn as garrett was saying this hearing into a proxy for obamacare, trying to make healthcare one of the top issues in this election as many voters say it is, and trying to attach themselves to this. But at the end of the line, chuck, as we talked about earlier, this has gotten the conversation away from talking about the president s own health and coronavirus. Which are the two areas where he does the worst on with voters. So as long as the focus is somewhere other than him and coronavirus, it is viewed by his advisers at least as a good day for the president. Very good. Let me bring the focus back to judge barrett here a minute. Let me play the line, essentially, of the where she used the phrase value judgments if you will. Lets get that sentence in context and ask the panel about it on the other side. Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches, elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try. Okay. Ari melber, what did you hear there and why do i think the phrase value no ari melber. Ill start with Claire Mccaskill, the word value judgments. I have a feeling im going to hear it, were all going to hear it a lot when she maybe chooses not to Say Something or not to respond to a question, she might say, thats a value judgment. Is that what this is foreshadowing . Woi i wont give you my opinion on x. I dont even know what that means. I know this is dangerous thing to do, but i want to pick a fight with you, chuck, about your opening. You said something about the scrutiny from the democrats abou