The hearing will come back to order. Senator klobuchar. Klobuchar thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Hello, judge. I want to start out again by reminding our friends at home, people at home, that this isnt normal, we shouldnt be here right now. We are in the middle of a pandemic and people are sick. We are in the middle of an election and people are voting. And here we are, stuck in a nomination hearing. I know what my constituents care about, what they have been calling and writing me about. And that is they are afraid of losing their health care in the middle of the pandemic. Peoples lives depend on the Affordable Care act like steve, a senior from minnesota who has a heart condition and relies on his prescription medication. Emily from minneapolis, her mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. Janet from rochester whose brother has a mental illness. Or christie, a mom from bloomington whose daughter had a tumor. That is what is on the line. Health care is on the line and judge, that is
Company and the Public Service, and brought to you today by your television provider. Day three ofrom judge Amy Coney Barretts confirmation hearing. This includes lessons from senator klobuchar, codes, and on thought. Among others. Thank you. The hearing will come back to order. Senator klobuchar. Sen. Klobuchar thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Hello, judge. Judge barrett hi senator. Sen. Klobuchar hello. I want to start out again by reminding our friends at home, people at home, that this isnt normal. We shouldnt be here right now. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and people are sick. We are in the middle of an election, and people are voting. And yet here we are, stuck in a nomination hearing. I know what my constituents care about, what they have been calling and writing me about. And that is they are afraid of losing their health care in the middle of the pandemic. Peoples lives depend on the Affordable Care act like steve, a senior from minnesota who has a heart condition and
Not a fair impartial body we want the Supreme Court to be. You told Ranking Member feinstein yesterday, if there were policy differences were policy consequences, those are for the body for the court is a question of adhering to the law and leaving the policy decisions up to you. That would be us in congress. A distinction i described yesterday as artificial can be seen in a case from earlier this year. You considered the Trump Administrations dramatic change through the public definition. Incomefor low and low immigrants and residents. There were numerous, unexplained and serious flaws. You issued a 40 page dissent calling the rule reasonable. You would have allowed the Trump Administration to limit low ome immigrants who might you call this reasonable despite the harm you knew it would inflict. Has approximate 3. 1 380ion people including 8000 noncitizens and 341,000 children with an immigrant parent. It estimates over 140,000 as a result of the public charge rule. About one Million
Yesterdays panel rolled that the health care individual mandate is unconstitutional. The here is the oral argument in its entirety. You may proceed. Thank your honor and may it please the court, i will be sharing my time with mr. Letter from the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when ju
From the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when judge engelhardt when you say your standing, the interbeen the intervening states, are you conceding the standing of the plaintiff states . Mr. Siegel no, your honor. Judge engelhardt so you are here in new orleans, telling us that the sta