Day two of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett are set to begin at 9am ET on October 13, 2020 …
VICIOUSLY ATTACKED ME NOW.
>> I AM DISGUSTED BY THIS GIRL
AND HOW SHE ACTUALLY THINKS SHE
CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS.
>> SHE NEEDS TO JUST CAST THAT
PART OF HER RELIGION ASIDE FOR
THE GREATER GOOD.
AND SUPPORT PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY
ARE AND HOW THEY IDENTIFY.
INSTEAD OF BEING A BIGOT.
>> Reporter: PASTOR LANCE BACON
WHO TEACHES AT REGENT BECAME A
MENTOR TO ERRANT AND ADMIRES
HOW SHE HAS RESPONDED AND THE
QUESTIONS SHE HAS ASKED.
>> I WAS SO VERY BLESSED BY THE
FACT THAT SHE DIDN'T ASK HOW
MIGHT I FIND LEGAL
REPRESENTATION AND WHAT CAN I
DO ABOUT THE INCOME, PROTECTING
MY RIGHTS, INSTEAD SHE SAID HOW
DO I MAKE SURE I RESPOND AS A
CHRISTIAN AND THAT I USE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO LET GOD DEVELOP
ME AND TO SHOW CHRISTIAN LOVE?
>> Reporter: DESPITE DEMANDS
ERRAN WILL NOT APOLOGIZE SO
THE ANIMATION COMMUNITY THAT
USED TO COMMISSION HER WORK HAS
NOW BLACKLISTED IT.
>> AS FAR AS MY BUSINESS I
BELIEVE IT IS DESTROYED.
>> Reporter: BUT ERRANT IS NOT
GIVING UP ON HER EDUCATION.
>> THE LORD TOLD ME TO GO TO
REGENT SO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE
TO GO TO REGENT UNTIL THE LORD
CLOSES THAT DOOR.
>> Reporter: AND SHE BELIEVES
THAT THE LORD WILL USE THE HATE
CAMPAIGN FOR HIS PURPOSE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE
OUTSIDE BUT I'VE LOST BUT I
REALLY THINK THIS HAS BEEN A
VICTORY FOR THE LORD AND IF
THIS COULD HAVE HELPED ONE
PERSON TO FIND CHRIST THEN IT'S
WORTH IT TO ME TO LOSE MY WHOLE
BUSINESS.
AND I REALLY MEAN THAT.
>> Reporter: HEATHER SELLS, CBN
NEWS.
AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHOW
SUPPORT FOR THIS TALENTED YOUNG
ANIMATOR BY FOLLOWING HER ON
SOCIAL MEDIA SIMPLY GO TO CBN
NEWS.COM AND YOU CAN FIND LINKS
TO HER NEWEST VENTURE CALLED
CHAPTER 2 CREATIONS.
>>> STILL AHEAD THE NUMBER OF
AMERICAN ADULTS WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED DEPRESSION HAS
TRIPLED SINCE BEFORE COVID-19.
WE WILL HEAR FROM ONE PASTOR
ABOUT HOW HE OVERCAME
DEPRESSION AND SUICIDAL
THOUGHTS.
THAT STORY IS COMING UP RIGHT
AFTER THIS.
>>> A MAJOR STUDY IN THE
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION SHOWS THE NUMBER OF
ADULTS EXPERIENCING DEPRESSION
IN THE UNITED STATES HAS
TRIPLED SINCE COVID-19 BEGAN.
THAT MEANS AN ESTIMATED ONE IN
FOUR ADULTS NOW REPORT
EXPERIENCING SYMPTOMS OF
DEPRESSION.
OREGON PASTOR BEN CARSON SPOKE
WITH LORIE JOHNSON ABOUT HOW HE
HAS OVERCOME DEPRESSION AND
SUICIDAL THOUGHTS.
>> FOR YEARS I DIDN'T TELL
PEOPLE PUBLICLY THAT I WAS
DEPRESSED, IT IS ONLY
AFTERWARDS SINCE I BELIEVE I
FOUND THE CURE THAT NOW I AM
SHARING MY STORY BECAUSE I
DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO SAY POOR
BEEN, HE STRUGGLING WITH
DEPRESSION.
I STARTED SHARING ABOUT IT
AFTER GOD HEALED MY HEART.
SO BASICALLY IN FLIRTING WITH
DARKNESS I LAY DOWN 11 WEAPONS
TO FIGHT THE DARK LORD OF
DEPRESSION AND I CAN SHARE A
FEW THAT HAVE HELPED.
ONE OF THEM IS PRAYER WALKS.
I WOULD LITERALLY GO ON
WALKS WITH GOD AND TALK TO HIM
ABOUT MY HOPES, MY FEARS IN MY
DREAMS.
THE BIBLE HAS CAST YOUR CARES
ON THE LORD FOR HE CARES FOR
YOU AND WITH PRAYER,
SUPPLICATION AND THANKSGIVING
WHEN YOU LET YOUR REQUEST BE
MADE OUT TO GOD HE WILL GIVE
YOU A PEACE THAT PASSES
UNDERSTANDING TO GUARD YOUR
HEARTS AND MINDS.
HERE'S WHAT'S INTERESTING.
THROUGH NEURO- PLASTICITY WE
CAN CHANGE THE MAKEUP OF OUR
BRAIN AND
THROUGH PRAYER HERE'S WHAT I
MEAN.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH HAS SHOWN
THAT WHEN YOU TALK TO GOD ABOUT
YOUR HOPES, FEARS AND DREAMS IT
HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON YOUR
BRAIN AS THERAPY.
ALSO ANOTHER WEAPON I SHARED IS
ENDORPHINS, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
HAS SHOWN THAT WHEN YOU GO ON A
40 MINUTE JOG IT HAS THE SAME
EFFECT ON YOUR BRAIN AS AN
ANTIDEPRESSANT.
WHEN YOU RELEASE ENDORPHINS
THROUGH EXERCISE YOU ACTUALLY
ACTIVATE OPIOID RECEPTORS IN
YOUR BRAIN WHICH ARE AKIN TO
MORPHINE AND THEY ARE NATURAL
PAINKILLERS IN YOUR BODY.
ANOTHER WHEN I SHARE IS TO LET
GOD LOVE ON YOU BECAUSE WE LIVE
IN A CONSUMERISTÃCAPITALISTIC
FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM, A LOT
OF PEOPLE THINK I HAVE TO EARN
MY KEEP BUT WHEN IT COMES TO
THE KINGDOM OF GOD THERE IS
NOTHING YOU HAVE TO EARN IT AND
NOTHING YOU HAVE TO DESERVE.
YOU JUST HAVE TO LET GOD LOVE
THE HEAVENS RIGHT INTO YOU AND
THE DESPAIR CLEAN OUT OF YOU.
ANOTHER ONE I SHARE IS THE GOD
WHO SEES, I BELIEVE A LOT OF
PEOPLE CUT THEMSELVES PARTLY
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE SEEN.
DOES ANYONE SEE WHAT I'M GOING
THROUGH?
BUT GODIS THE GOD WHO SEES AND
GUESS WHAT?
HE IS A MASTER THERAPIST.
THE BIBLE SAYS HE'S A WONDERFUL
COUNSELOR, JUST LOOK AT JESUS.
YOU REMEMBER WHEN PETER DENIED
JESUS THREE TIMES NEXT TO A
CHARCOAL FIRE, A FEW CHAPTERS
LATER JESUS BUILT A CHARCOAL
FIRE AND ASKED PETER TO TELL
JESUS THREE TIMES THAT HE LOVES
HIM.
WHY?
BECAUSE IT IS THE MODERN
TECHNIQUE OF PSYCHODRAMA THAT
JESUS WAS USING CENTURIES
BEFORE IT WAS INVENTED BY
WALKING PETER THROUGH HIS
TOPOGRAPHICAL TRIGGERS, THE
NUMBER THREE AND THE CHARCOAL
FIRE AND RETRAINING HIS BRAIN,
REFRAMING HIS PAIN AND THESE
ARE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT IN THE
BOOK OUR OUR LORD INDEED IS A
MASTER THERAPIST.
>> I'VE TALKED TO SO MANY
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND
THEY ALSO BRING UP THE
ENDORPHIN RUSH.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO
WORK OUT SORT OF HARD AND GET
YOUR HEART RATE UP, LIKE A @GEN
DOESN'T GET THE ENDORPHINS
GOING RIGHT?
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DO
EXERCISE WISE?
>> I'M PRETTY EXTREME AND
EVERYTHING I, I BELIEVE
ANYTHING WORTH DOING IS WORTH
OVERDOING SO ONE OF THE THINGS
I LITERALLY DO FOR EXERCISE IS
MY NAVY SEALS FRIEND WHO WAS ON
NAVY SEAL TEAM ONE IN TEAM
SEVEN, HE TAKES ME THROUGH SEAL
TRAINING.
SO THAT IS VERY INTENSE AND I
REALIZE THAT SEAL TRAINING IS
NOT GOING TO BE FOR EVERYBODY
BUT ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE
SPECTRUM WHETHER IT IS LIFTING
WEIGHTS OR BODYWEIGHT
EXERCISES, SHOOTING HOOPS OR
EVEN LET'S SAY SOMEBODY
WATCHING THIS IS UP THERE IN
YEARS AND THINKING I CAN'T DO
WHAT I USED TO DO PHYSICALLY,
THEY SAY GOING ON A BRISK WALK
FOR 30 MINUTES A DAY THREE
TIMES A WEEK ENLARGES THE
HIPPOCAMPUS OF YOUR BRAIN WHICH
ACTUALLY WILL KILL YOUR BRAIN IN
DISEASES LIKE ALZHEIMER'S AND
WILL STRENGTHEN THE SEED OF
MEMORY IN YOUR CRANIAL PACKAGE.
THEY SAY TRY TO WALK LIKE YOU
ARE LATE TO A FLIGHT SO JUST
LIKE A GOOD BRISK WALK AND IN
FACT DUKE UNIVERSITY SHOWS THAT
IF YOU GO ON A BRISK WALK FOR
30 MINUTES A DAY SIX DAYS A
WEEK YOU ARE ACTUALLY GAINING
NO ABDOMINAL FAT OVER AN EIGHT
WEEK.
SO IT IS A BLESSING TO YOUR
BODY AS WELL AS YOUR MIND.
>> AND IT HELPS YOU SLEEP
BETTER WHICH HELPS CURB
DEPRESSION.
>> HUNDRED PERCENT.
>> YOU CAN SEE LAURIE'S ENTIRE
INTERVIEW THIS EVENING ON
HEALTHY LIVING AND OF COURSE
THAT BEGINS AT 930 EASTERN P.M.
AND YOU CAN FIND IT ON THE CBN
NEWS CHANNEL.
>>> COMING UP THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE CAME TO PRAISE THE LORD
AS THE LET US WORSHIP TO HER
TRAVELED THIS WEEKEND, WE WILL
HAVE THAT STORY WHEN YOU COME
BACK PLEASE STAY WITH US.
>>> THOUSANDS CONTINUE TO COME
OUT FOR WORSHIP AS PRAISE LEADER
SEAN VOIGT CONTINUES HIS LET US
WORSHIP TOUR TRAVELING AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
HE VISITED TWO MAJOR CITIES IN
SOUTHERN STATES OVER THE
WEEKEND, FIRST ATLANTA ON
SATURDAY WHERE DESPITE A LAST-
MINUTE VENUE CHANGE, A TORNADO
WARNING AND RAIN SOME 4000
PEOPLE STILL CAME OUT AS THE
EVENT WAS HELD IN AN EMPTY
WAREHOUSE.
THEN IN NASHVILLE SUNDAY AN
ESTIMATED 9 TO 10,000 PEOPLE
GATHERED AT A PUBLIC SQUARE IN
DOWNTOWN NASHVILLE AS VOIGT AND
HIS BAND PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE
METRO COURTHOUSE.
>>> TIME FOR YOUR TUESDAY
TREATABLE AND I PRAY THIS
MESSAGE WILL INSPIRE YOU AND
YOU WILL POST, TAG, TWEET AND
SHARE WITH THOSE IN YOUR
CIRCLE.
IF YOU HAVE A PULSE YOU HAVE A
PURPOSE, GOD IS NOT DONE WITH
YOU, THERE IS STILL WORK TO DO.
IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO CHASE
YOUR DREAMS OR BEGIN SOMETHING
NEW.
LOOK UP, LOOK AROUND, LOOK
AHEAD AND LIVE.
THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE.
THAT DOES IT FOR THIS EDITION
OF CBN NEWSWATCH, YOU CAN FIND
MORE OF OUR PROGRAMS ON THE CBN
NEWS CHANNEL AT ANY TIME AND
YOU CAN FIND THEM ONLINE AT CBN
NEWS.COM.
WE'D LOVE FOR YOU TO TAKE THE
TIME TO LET US KNOW WHAT YOU
THOUGHT ABOUT THE STORIES YOU
SAW TODAY AND YOU CAN DO THAT
BY EMAILING NEWSWATCH.
THE ADDRESSES ON YOUR SCREEN.
AND OF COURSE YOU CAN ALWAYS
REACH OUT AND TOUCH US ON
FACEBOOK, TWITTER AS WELL AS
INSTAGRAM.
WE HOPE YOU WILL JOIN US AGAIN
RIGHT HERE NEXT TIME.
– [Narrator] Since the
dawn of our nation,
nearly 50 million
Americans have offered
to lay down their lives,
to protect our freedom to vote.
A sacrifice Jesus Christ
himself demonstrated
and calls, "The Greatest
Love one can show another."
Yet in the past six
presidential elections,
barely more than 1/2 of all
eligible voters have voted.
Please join in honoring
our heroes' greatest love
and ultimate sacrifice
by voting this November 3rd.
>>> AN INCREASE IN ONLINE CHILD
PREDATORS.
>> THEY'RE JUST LIKE
COCKROACHES ALL OVER THE ONLINE
WORLD LOOKING FOR KIDS TO
TARGETMENT
>> HOW TO KEEP YOUR CHILDREN
SAFE IN YOUR OWN HOME DURING
THE COVID PANDEMIC.
>> PLUS THE MIRACLE OF LIFE.
AND DOCTORS CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.
>> THIS IS REALLY WEIRD.
>> SEE WHAT KEPT THIS BABY'S
HEART BEATING STRONG ON TODAY'S
700 CLUB INTERACTIVE.
>> WELCOME TO THE SHOW.
THE CORONAVIRUS CONTINUES TO
HAVE AN IMPACT ON AMERICAN
LIVES IN MORE WAYS THAN WE
COULD HAVE IMAGINED.
IT'S A DRIVING FACTOR BEHIND A
93% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
CHILDREN SEXUALLY SOLICITED
ONLINE.
>> SINCE THE COUNTRY'S VIRTUAL
LOCKDOWN, KIDS ARE SPENDING
MUCH MORE TIME ONLINE.
AND PARENTS NEED TO BE ON THE
LOOKOUT FOR PREDATORS.
ONLINE CHILD SEX PREDATORS HAVE
BEEN MORE ACTIVE THAN EVER
DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
PRETENDING TO BE KIDS
THEMSELVES, THEY ASK FOR NUDE
PICTURES AND ARRANGE TO MEET
FOR SEX OR TRY TO FORCE THEM @I
43 MEN IN FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
WERE ARRESTED.
THE SUSPECTS THOUGHT THEY WERE
TRAPPING 12 AND 13-YEAR-OLDS
@W
WITH UNDERCOVER COPS POSING AS
KIDS.
>> THE ACCESS TO OUR KIDS IS
THERE THROUGH OUR ONLINE
GADGETS.
AND A CHILD PREDATOR,
RESTRICTIONS AWAY FROM THE
SCHOOL.
ONLINE THOSE DON'T APPLY.
THEY ARE LOOKING FOR KIDS.
THEY ARE LIKE COCKROACHES ALL
OVER THE ONLINE WORLD LOOKING
FOR KIDS TO TARGET.
>> AS THE HEAD OF A LEADING
CRIME PREVENTION ORGANIZATION,
PARENTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE
EXTENT OF THIS SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION AND WARN THEIR
CHILDREN TO BE ON THEIR GUARD.
>> I'LL ALWAYS SAY THAT A
PREDATGREATEST WISH IS
THAT THE FAMILY STAYS NAIVE.
IT GIVES THEM AN OPENING INTO
THE HOUSE.
>> PREDATORS USE PHONES,
TABLETS, AND COMPUTERS TO REACH
KIDS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
AND WE'RE JUST TALKING
ABOUT FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, AND
TWITTER.
KIDS ARE DRAWN TO TIKTOK ALMOST
WEEKLY.
PARENTS CAN KEEP H
WEBSITES LIKE CRIMESTOPPERS AND
OTHERS.
>> THEY ARE REALLY DETAILED IN
WALKING ANHOW TO THEIR
CAN THROH OLE QUESTIONNAIRE WHA
KIND OF COMPUTERS YOU USE, WHAT
TYPE OF FIREWALL DO YOU HAVE.
DO YOU USE CHROME OR GOOGLE.
WHAT SEARCH ENGINES DO YOU USE.
AND CREATE A OMIZPLATFORM OR DI
PROTECT YOUR KIDS AND IT WILL
RATE THE APPS AND SHARE WHAT'S
WRONG WITH THEM.
>> AND PARENTS NEED TO LOOK AT
EACH APP ON THEIR KIDS' PHONES
AND CHECK THEM OUT ON THE APP
STORE.
APPLE APPS CARRY AGE RATINGS
WHICH IDENTIFY SEXUAL CONTENT
AND NUDITY.
CHILDREN MUST NEVER REVEAL
THEIR LOCATION, AND SHOULD
DOUBLE CHECK APPS LIKE SNAPCHAT
WHICH TRACK AUTOMATICALLY.
>> WE ENCOURAGE KIDS TO ENABLE
GPS TRACKING DEVICES FROM THE
APPS.
YOU CAN BE SHARING THAT
INFORMATION WITHOUT EVEN
KNOWING.
JUST BY HAVING A PHONE IN YOUR
POCKET.
>> KIDS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEY
SHOULD NEVER MEET IN PERSON
SOMEONE THEY'RE GOTTEN TO MEET
ONLINE.
THEY SHOULD TELL THEIR PARENTS
AND PERHAPS THE POLICE IF
SOMEONE THEY MET ONLINE IS
PRESSURING THEM TO GET TOGETHER
FACE TO FACE.
LORI JOHNSON, CBN NEWS.
>> CERTAINLY A DISTURBING
REPORT.
AND IT'S DISTURBING WHAT IS
COMING OUT AS WE'RE ALL IN
ISOLATION AND SPENDING A LOT
MORE TIME ONLINE.
TERRY, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
ANSWER IS?
>> I THINK AND THIS IS VERY
SIMPLISTIC SOUNDING, BUT YOU
HAVE TO TALK TO YOUR KIDS AHEAD
OF TIME.
TALK WITH THEM ABOUT THE ISSUES
AND THE FACT THAT THIS COULD
HAPPEN.
AND YOU NEED TO BE PART OF THE
PROCESS.
YOU CAN'T TALK WITH YOU KIDS
TOO MUCH ABOUT ANYTHING TODAY
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE CONCERN THAT
YOU WOULD BE INSTILLING FEAR IN
YOUR CHILD.
>> A HEALTHY FEAR IS A GOOD
THING.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES
YOU A POTENTIAL VICTIM IS
IGNORANT BLISS.
>> NAIVE, A BABE IN THE WOODS.
>> IT'S SAD THAT IT'S OUT
THERE.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT WHEN
I GREW UP WE COULD TAKE OFF ON
SATURDAY ON OUR BIKES OUT IN
THE COUNTRY, GO FISHING FOR
DAY.
BUILD RAFTS.
>> STILL HITCH A RIDE?
NOT ANY MORE.
>> NOT ANY MORE.
AND IT'S UP TO US TO KEEP OUR
KIDS WELL INFORMED I THINK.
>> AND UP TO US TO PAY
ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING
ONLINE.
THAT'S HOW THESE RELATIONSHIPS
START OVER TIME AND THE LURE IS
SEQUENTIAL TO GET TO A MEETING
AND SO YOU NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT
THEIR TEXTING, WHAT APPS THEY
HAVE.
WHAT'S ON THOSE APPS.
>> IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY
DIFFICULT AS THE CHILDREN KNOW
MORE THAN YOU DO.
>> THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW TO
HIDE IT.
>> EXACTLY.
>> WELL, COMING UP.
LIKE A RED FERRARI, THAT'S HOW
THIS FAST TRACK ENTREPRENEUR
WAS DESCRIBED UNTIL CIRRHOSIS
OF THE LIVER SHUT HIM DOWN.
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN HE THOUGHT
HE WAS ABOUT TO MEET HIS MAKER?
AND HOW DID IT TRANSFORM HIS
ENTIRE FAMILY?
YOU'RE ABOUT TO FIND OUT RIGHT
AFTER THIS.
>> DOWNLOAD THE CBN NEWS APP
TODAY.
>> ARE YOU READY TO BECOME A
PATIENT AT A DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TREATMENT FACILITY?
WONDERING IF YOU NEED DETOX OR
AN INPATIENT PROGRAM?
YOUR TREATMENT STAY COULD BE
COVERED BY MOST PRIVATE
INSURANCES.
CALL NOW.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE A
FRESH START.
TAKE THE FIRST STEP AND CALL.
CALL US TODAY.
>>> MEDINA COULD BUY WHATEVER
HE WANTED AND WHAT HE WANTED
WAS LUXURY CARS AND LOTS OF
THEM.
ULTIMATELY, THE SPENDING CAUGHT
UP AND HE COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH
THE BILL.
AND THEN LEWIS WAS BLIND SIDED
BY SOMETHING HE NEVER SAW
COMING.
WHAT WAS IT?
AND HOW DID THE WORST THING
THAT EVER HAPPENED TO HIM
BECOME THE BEST THING.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> I WAS INTERVIEWING FOR A
PROJECT.
AND THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS
SAID A RED FERRARI.
YOU CAN WRITE YOUR OWN TICKET.
>> HE WAS A SELF-TAUGHT I.T.
CONTRACTOR.
HE MADE 6 FIGURES AND HE BOUGHT
EVERYTHING HE AND HIS WIFE AND
CHILDREN WANTED.
>> I COULD GO ANYWHERE.
I BEGAN TO BUY CARS BMWs, EVERY
MODEL YOU CAN IMAGINE I BOUGHT.
AND MY WIFE HAD A MERCEDES AND
AN INFINITY.
AND I GOT CAUGHT UP IN MY JOB.
AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE SLOWLY
DRIFTING AWAY FROM THE CHURCH.
>> SPENDING GOT MORE OUT OF
HAND WHEN THE COUPLE ON THE
ADVICE OF A BANK REPRESENTATIVE
SWITCHED FROM USING CASH TO
CREDIT CARDS.
>> AND THE GENTLEMAN, YOU NEED
TO HAVE A CREDIT CARD AND THEN
WE MAXED THAT CREDIT CARD OUT
AND GOT ANOTHER ONE.
>> THEY COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH
THE MONTHLY BILLS.
AND I WAS THINKING HE MAKES
SUCH GOOD MONEY.
WHY DO WE NEVER END UP WITH
ANYTHING?
>>> WE WEREN'T GOOD STEWARDS OF
OUR MONEY.
IT'S LIKE A SEWER PIPE.
IT STARTS TO LEAK AND
EVENTUALLY IT'S GOING TO BUST
AND SEEP INTO EVERYTHING.
EVEN MY HEALTH.
>> LEWIS WAS DIAGNOSED WITH
LIVER CIRRHOSIS.
IT SHOCKED HIM SINCE HE WORKED
OUT AND DIDN'T DRINK ALCOHOL.
ALL OF HIS ORGANS WOULD LIKELY
SHUT DOWN.
THE COUPLE ENDED UP WITH
$84,000 OF DEBT.
IT WAS A WAKEUP CALL FOR LEWIS
AND YVETTE.
>> I'M ABOUT TO FACE A HOLY GOD
AND THERE WAS SHAME.
I FELT LAKE I HADN'T LIVED UP
TO WHO I SHOULD HAVE BEEN AS A
BELIEVERMENT
>> I HAD MY MOMENTS WHERE I WAS
LIKE GOD, I WANT MY HUSBAND.
I WANT TO GROW OLD WITH HIM.
LEWIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
PROVIDER.
AND GOD GAVE ME A PEACE.
HE REMINDED ME, LEWIS ISN'T
YOUR PROVIDER.
I'M YOUR PROVIDER.
>> DURING THIS CRISIS, THE
COUPLE STOPPED PUTTING THEIR
CONFIDENCE IN PAYCHECKS AND
POSSESSIONS AND CHOSE TO RETURN
TO CHURCH AND TO GOD AND TO
TITHING.
>> I SURRENDERED MY PRIDE AND
MY MONEY.
IT'S NOT MY MONEY.
WE BEGAN TO STUDY HIS WORD AND
STAND ON HIS PROMISES.
AND TITHING, WE JUST DID THAT
OUT OF OBEDIENCE.
>> THE FOCUS WAS NOT ON HOW WE
WERE GOING TO MAKE THE MONEY.
IT WAS JUST DEPENDING ON GOD.
>> WE BEGAN TO SEE GOD'S HAND
MOVE.
>> LEWIS UNDERWENT 35 SURGERIES
IN 15 MONTHS.
THE MEDINAS CONTINUED GIVING
THROUGHOUT THAT TIME.
AND LEWIS EVENTUALLY RECOVERED
FROM HIS SICKNESS.
ALLOWING HIM TO BOY LIVE WITH
YVETTE.
WITHIN A YEAR AND A HALF, THEY
PAID OFF THE $84,000 DEBT.
>> I COULD PUT ON THE SHEET
PAID IN FULL FOR ALL OF OUR
ACCOUNTS.
WE CUT UP THE CREDIT CARDS.
>> THE HOSPITAL FORGAVE A BIG
PORTION OF THE MEDICAL BILLS,
AND LEWIS STARTED A FAMILY
OWNED I.T.
BUSINESS WITH HIS SON THAT'S
BEEN DOING WELL EVERYONE DURING
THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC.
>> IT FEELS SO LIBERATING.
WE HAVE OUR PRIORITIES
STRAIGHT.
NUMBER 1 IS GOD.
>> NOW THEY PREFER TO GIVE TO
OTHERS THROUGH MINISTRIES LIKE
CBN.
>> WE LOVE DONATING TO ORPHANS
AND WIDOWS AND YOU LOOK AT
PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY.
THERE'S SO MUCH LOVE.
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.
IT'S WHAT CAN I DO FOR SOMEBODY
ELSE.
>> LIFE DOES NOT CONSIST OF THE
ABUNDANCE OF THE THINGS YOU
POSSESS.
AND THAT PEACE I THOUGHT I
COULD GET WITH ANOTHER 740 OR
MERCEDES, YOU CAN'T BUY IT.
IT'S FROM GOD.
>>> PEACE CAN ONLY COME FROM
HIM.
THE WORLD WANTS TO LIE TO YOU
AND TELL YOU IF YOU HAVE THESE
THINGS AND YOU GO BUY THESE
THINGS THEN SHOW THAT'S GOING
TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER OR BE
BETTER.
IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION.
IT'S WHEN WE HONOR HIM FIRST.
WHEN WE SERVE HIM.
WHEN WE SERVE HIM WITH
GLADNESS, WONDERFUL THINGS
START TO HAPPEN IN YOUR LIFE.
YOU GET THE PEACE THAT PASSES
ALL UNDERSTANDING.
YOU GET TO GO THROUGH EVERY
DIFFICULTY KNOWING HE'S WITH
YOU.
HIS RIGHTEOUS RIGHT-HAND IS
GOING TO UPHOLD YOU.
HE IS GOING TO SEE YOU THROUGH
ANY DIFFICULTY.
FOR LEWIS, IT TOOK A HUGE
WAKEUP CALL TO BREAK THE CYCLE
OF SPENDING, TO BREAK ALL OF
THAT.
BUT THEN WHEN HE FINALLY GOT
IT, YOU COULD SEE IT ON HIS
FACE.
RIGHTEOUS, PEACE, AND JOY.
THE PEACE THAT COMES FROM
KNOWING YOU'RE LIVING GOD'S
WAY.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF MONEY?
TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE.
WHEN YOU GET THAT STRAIGHT.
WHEN ALL THE MONEY IS GOD'S,
EVERYTHING IS HIM.
MY LIFE IS HIS.
HOW DOES HE WANT ME TO HELP
PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
HOW DOES HE WANT ME TO LET
PEOPLE KNOW THEY CAN KNOW HIM
KNOWING THE SAME WAY I KNOW
HIM.
HOW CAN WE PROVIDE FOR OTHERS?
WHEN YOU GET THAT STRAIGHT.
EVERYTHING FALLS INTO PLACE.
AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS GET
ADDED UNTO YOU.
INCREDIBLE BLESSINGS GOD HAS
FOR EACH OF HIS CHILDREN.
IF YOU WANT TO START AN
ADVENTURE IN GIVING.
GIVE US A CALL AT (800)700-
7000.
SAY I WANT TO START.
I WANT TO START WITH A PLEDGE.
HOW MUCH IS IT TO JOIN THE 700
CLUB.
$20 A MONTH.
THAT'S 65 CENTS A DAY.
SOME OF YOU CAN JOIN AT GOLD.
THAT'S $40 A MONTH.
AND WHATEVER LEVEL, START IT
NOW.
(800)700-7000.
>>> STILL AHEAD, THEY WENT FROM
PLANNING OUT THE NURSERY TO
PREPPING FOR A FUNERAL.
ULTRASOUNDS REVEALED THE UNBORN
BABY WAS GOING TO DIE.
STAY TUNED FOR A STUNNING
ANSWER TO PRAYER AND FIND OUT
WHY THE GREATEST MIRACLE WASN'T
THE ONE THAT HAPPENED IN THE
WOMB.
>>> THESE ARE TIMES OF WARFARE.
YOU GO INTO THE STRONG TOWER
WHEN YOU'RE UNDER ATTACK.
>> CBN PRESENTS THE NAME OF
GOD, THE LATEST TEACHING BY
GORDON ROBERTSON.
>> GOD HAS GIVEN YOU THE RIGHT
TO CARRY HIS NAME.
>> PEACE, HEALING, AND
PROVISION CAN BE FOUND IN THE
LORD'S NAME.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME
TREMENDOUS REAL LIFE STORIES OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND
WHAT TRUSTING IN THE NAME OF
GOD CAN DO.
>> ONE
>>BREATHER ON YOUR RETURN TO
THE COMMITTEE. BECAUSE WHAT I
WANT TO DO IS GO THROUGH WITH
THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE WATCHING THIS NOW.
CONVERSATION THAT YOU AND I
HAD.
WHEN WE SPOKE ON THE TELEPHONE.
KIND ENOUGH TO HEAR OUT A
PRESENTATION. NOW THAT
I MADE
I INTEND TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS
IN THAT AREA.
BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO
ASK QUESTIONS IF I HAVEN'T
PLAYED THE PREDICATE
PARTICULARLY FOR VIEWERS
WHO ARE JING THIS SO.
JUST THE REASON THAT I WANT TO
DO THIS IS BECAUSE PEOPLE
WHO ARE WATCHING THIS.
NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
SMALL HEARING ROOM.
AND THE LITTLE TV BOX
THAT YOU'RE
LOOKING AT. THE LITTLE SCREEN.
THE ARE LOOKING AT.
OUR LITTLE BIT LIKE FRAME OF A
OF A PUPPET THEATER.
AND IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT WHAT'S
GOING ON.
IN THE PUPPET THEATER.
YOU'RE NOT
GONNA UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE
STORY YOU'RE NOT GONNA
UNDERSTAND.
THE REAL DYNAMIC AND WHAT IS
GOING ON HERE.
AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY NOT GOING
UNDERSTAND FORCES OUTSIDE OF
THIS ROOM WHO ARE
PULLING STRINGS. AND
PUSHING STICKS. AND CAUSING.
THE PUBLIC THEATER TO REACT.
SO FIRST LET
ME SAY WHY DO I THINK OUTSIDE
FORCES ARE
HERE PULLING STRINGS WILL PART
OF IT IS BEHAVIOR.
WE COLLEAGUES HERE WHO
SUPPORTED
YOU THIS NOMINEE. BEFORE THERE
WAS A NOMINEE.
WE HAVE THE POLITICAL RAMMED
JOB
OF THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
COMPLAINED OF DRIVING THIS
PROCESS
THROUGH AT BREAKNECK SPEED IN
THE MIDDLE OF A
PANDEMIC WHILE THE SENATE IS
CLOSED FOR SAFETY REASONS.
AND WHILE WE'RE DOING NOTHING.
EPIDEMIC AROUND US.
HE WE HAVE SOME VERY AWKWARD
ONE 80'S FROM COLLEAGUES.
MISTER CHAIRMAN YOU SAID YOU'RE
IN THIS.
SAID BACK WHEN IT WAS GARLAND.
GORSUCH.
THAT OF COURSE OF COURSE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A
SAY IN THE
COURT'S DIRECTION OF COURSE OF
COURSE SAID MITCH MCCONNELL.
THAT'S LONG GONE.
SENATOR GRASSLEY SAID THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE
DENIED A VOICE.
THAT'S LONG GONE.
SENATOR CRUZ SAID YOU DON'T DO
THIS IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
THAT'S LONG GONE.
AND OUR CHAIRMAN MADE HIS
FAMOUS TOLD THAT A PROMISE IF
AN
OPENING COMES IN THE LAST YEAR
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM WE'LL
WAIT TILL
THE NEXT ELECTION.
THERE IS A
LOT OF
HARD TO EXPLAIN HYPOCRISY IN
RUSH. TAKING PLACE
RIGHT NOW AND MY POLITICS IS
THAT WHEN
YOU FIND THE PA CRUSIE IN THE
DAYLIGHT.
LOOK FOR POWER IN THE SHADOWS.
PEOPLE MAY SAY WHAT DOES ALL
THIS MATTER THIS
POLITICAL PARLOR GAME. IT'S NO
BIG DEAL. WELL
THERE'S SOME PRETTY HIGH STAKES
HERE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT. HERE ON THE
OTHER SIDE. AND I'LL TELL YOU 3
OF THEM RIGHT HERE.
ROE VERSUS WADE.
AND THE OBAMA CARE CASES.
HERE'S THE GOP PLATFORM, THE
REPUBLICAN
PLATFORM THE PLATFORM OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THIS
AISLE SAY THAT A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT WILL APPOINT JUDGES
WHO WILL REVERSE.
AND THE OBAMACARE CASE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER
WITH AN INTEREST IN.
SOME AUTONOMY OVER THEIR BODY.
UNDER ROE
VERSUS WADE. THE ABILITY TO
HAVE A MARRIAGE.
FRIENDS MARY HAVE A NICE
DAUGHTER.
ORSON MARY.
SOMEONE OF THEIR SAME THEY
HAVEN'T YOU GOT A STAKE
AND IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS WHO DEPEND ON.
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT YOU'VE
GOT TO STICK.
THE PLATFORM OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, LET'S START BY TALKING
ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. HERE'S THE PRESIDENT
TALKING ABOUT THIS LITIGATION.
THE WERE GEARING UP THIS
NOMINEE
FOR 4 NOVEMBER 10TH.
IN THIS LITIGATION, HE SAID
WE WANT TO TERMINATE HEALTH
CARE UNDER OBAMACARE THAT IS
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT.
SO WHEN WE REACT
TO THAT DON'T ACT AS IF WE'RE
MAKING THIS
STUFF UP. THIS IS WHAT
PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAID.
THIS IS WHAT YOUR PARTY
PLATFORM SAYS REVERSE THE
OBAMA CARE CASES.
SENATOR AFTER SENATOR INCLUDING
MANY IN THIS COMMITTEE FILED.
BRIEFS.
SAYING THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT
BY COURTS. WHY IS IT SURPRISING
FOR US TO BE CONCERNED
THAT YOU WANT THIS NOMINEE TO
DO WHAT YOU WANT.
NOMINEES TO DO.
STOP ON NFI THE THE STABILITY
OF KUZ LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO
WITH MONEY.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING
COMPARISON.
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES
UNTIL IT FINAL THE N F I B VS
TO BILLIONS CASE.
HAD ITS BIGGEST DONATION EVER
OF $21,000.
IN THE YEAR THAT IT WENT TO
WORK ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT.
WEALTHY DONORS GAVE 10 MILLION
DOLLARS.
SOMEBODY DESERVES A THANK YOU.
SO LET'S GO TO ROE V WADE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT
REVERSING ROE V WADE WILL
HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE
HE'S
PUTTING PRO LIFE JUSTICES ON
THE COURT. WHY WOULD WE NOT
TAKE HIM AT
HIS WORD.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM
SAYS IT WILL REVERSE ROW.
WHY WOULD WE NOT COMMENT ON
THAT AND TAKE YOU AT
YOUR WORD. SENATORS HERE
INCLUDING SENATOR HAWLEY HAVE
SAID I WILL VOTE ONLY
FOR NOMINEES WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE
THAT ROE V WADE WAS WRONGLY
DECIDED.
AND THEIR PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR
THIS NOMINEE.
DO THE MATH THAT'S A REALLY
SIMPLE EQUATION TO RUN.
REPUBLICAN BRIEF. IN JUNE
MEDICAL SAID ROE SHOULD
BE OVERRULED.
SO DON'T ACT SURPRISED WHEN WE
ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE UP TO HERE.
OUT IN THE AD
WORLD THAT YOU HAVE SPARED
YOURSELF WISELY.
JUDGE BARRETT. THIS SUSAN B
ANTHONY FOUNDATION IS RUNNING
ADVERTISEMENTS RIGHT NOW SAYING
THAT YOU ARE SET.
YOU ARE SET TO GIVE OUR
PRO-LIFE COUNTRY IN THE COURT
THAT IT DESERVED.
THERE'S THE AD WITH THE VOICE
OVER SHE'S SET.
OBAMACARE CASES AND OBERGEFELL
MARRIAGE.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
MARRIAGE. THE BIG GROUP THAT
OPPOSES.
SAME MARRIAGE. SAYS IN
THIS PROCEEDING ALL OUR ISSUES
ARE AT STAKE.
REPUBLICAN PLATFORM SAYS IT
WANTS TO REVERSE.
AND THE REPUBLICAN BRIEF FILED
IN THE CASE SAID.
SAME RELATIONSHIPS
DON'T FALL. WITHIN ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL.
WHEN WE SAY THE STAKES ARE HIGH
ON THIS IS BECAUSE YOU'VE SAID
THE STAKES ARE HIGH
ON THIS. YOU HAVE SAID THAT'S
WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO. SO HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING
ABOUT DOING IT WHAT IT IS.
WE START WITH THIS ONE.
IN ALL CASES, THERE'S BIG
ANONYMOUS MONEY
BEHIND VARIOUS LANES
OF ACTIVITY. ONE LANE OF
ACTIVITIES THROUGH THE CONDUIT
OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY.
IT'S MANAGED BY GUY WAS MANAGED
BY GUIDING
LEONARD LEO AND IT'S TAKEN OVER
THE SELECTION.
OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT TO BE THE
CASE BECAUSE TRUMP HAS
SAID SO OVER AND OVER AGAIN HIS
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
SAID SO.
SO WE HAVE AN ANONYMOUSLY
FUNDED GROUP CONTROLLING
JUDICIAL SELECTION. RUN BY THIS
GUY LEONARD LEO.
THEN IN
ANOTHER LANE. WE HAVE AGAIN
ANONYMOUS FUNDERS
RUNNING THROUGH SOMETHING
CALLED THE JUDICIAL CRISIS
NETWORK.
WHICH IS RUN BY
CARRIE SEVERINO AND IT'S DOING
PR AND
CAMPAIGN ADS. THE 4 REPUBLICAN.
JUDICIAL NOMINEES.
17 MANY
SINGLE 17 MILLION DOLLAR
DONATION IN THE GARLAND
GORSUCH CONTEST. IT GOT ANOTHER
SINGLE 17 MILLION DOLLAR
DONATION TO SUPPORT KAVANAUGH
SOMEBODY
PERHAPS THE SAME PERSON SPENT
35 MILLION DOLLARS TO INFLUENCE
THE MAKE-UP OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT. TELL ME
THAT'S GOOD.
YOU HAVE A WHOLE ARRAY OF
LEGAL GROUPS ALSO FUNDED BY
DARK MONEY WHICH HAVE A
DIFFERENT ROLE. THEY BRING
CASES TO THE COURT.
THEY DON'T WIND THEIR WAY TO
THE COURT YOUR HONOR THEY GET
SHOVED TO THE COURT BY THESE
LEGAL GROUPS MANY OF WHICH
ASKED TO
LOSE BELOW. SO THEY CAN GET
QUICKLY TO THE COURT TO GET
THEIR BUSINESS DONE THERE.
AND THEN THEY TURN UP IN.
CHORUS, AN ORCHESTRATED CHORUS
OF ANY CASE.
I HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A LOOK
AT THIS.
AND I WAS IN A CASE ACTUALLY AS
A
DEMOCRAT MYSELF. THE CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BOARD
CASE.
AND IN THAT CASE
THERE WERE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 09:10:11AM, AUGUST.
RACE.
AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM
WAS A GROUP FUNDED BY SOMETHING
CALLED DONORS TRUST.
DONORS TRUST IS
A GIGANTIC IDENTITY SCRUBBING
DEVICE FOR THE
RIGHT WING. SO
THAT IT SAYS DONORS TRUST IS
THE DONOR WITHOUT WHOEVER, THE
REAL DONOR IS
IT DOESN'T HAVE A BUSINESS
DOESN'T HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN.
IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING IT'S
JUST AND IDENTITY SCRUBBER.
AND THIS GROUP HERE THE
BRADLEY FOUNDATION FUNDED 8 OUT
OF THE
11 BREAKS. THAT SEEMS WEIRD TO
ME WHEN
YOU HAVE DEMOCRATS BRIEFS
COMING IN LITTLE FLOTILLAS THAT
ARE FUNDED BY THE SAME
GROUPS BUT NOMINALLY SEPARATE
IN THE COURT. SO ACTUALLY
ATTACH THIS.
TO MY BRIEF AS AN APPENDIX.
CENTER FOR MIGRANT CENTER FOR
MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY SAW IT AND
THEY DID BETTER WORK.
THEY WENT ON TO SAY.
WHICH FOUNDATIONS FUNDED THE
BRIEF WRITERS
IN THAT CFPB CASE. HERE'S THE
BRADLEY FOUNDATION FOR 5.6
MILLION.
TO THOSE GROUPS. HERE'S
DONORS TRUST 23 MILLION.
TO THOSE BRIEF WRITING GROUPS.
THE GRAND TOTAL ACROSS ALL THE
DONOR GROUPS WITH 68 MILLION
DOLLARS.
TO THE GROUP'S OR FILING AN
AMICUS BRIEFS PRETENDING THAT
THEY WERE DIFFERENT GROUPS.
AND IT'S NOT JUST IN
THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
BOARD CASE. YOU MIGHT SAY WELL
THAT WAS JUST A
ONE OFF. HERE'S JANICE, THE
ANTI
LABOR KATIE THAT ALONG TRAILS
THROUGH THE COURT THREW
FRIEDRICHS AND THROUGH KNOX AND
THROUGH OTHER DECISIONS.
AND.
SOURCE WATCHING PROPUBLICA DID
SOME WORK
ABOUT THIS. HERE'S DONORS TRUST
AND DONORS
CAPITAL FUND. AND HERE'S THE
BRADLEY FOUNDATION
AND THEY TOTALED GIVING
45 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
1011 1213 14,
15 GROUPS THAT FILED AN AMICUS
BRIEFS PRETENDING TO BE
DIFFERENT GROUPS
AND BOTH THE LAWYER GROUPS IN
THE CASE.
FUNDED BY DONORS TRUST FUNDED
BY BRADLEY FOUNDATION
IN JANICE, THIS IS HAPPENING
OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, AND IT GOES BEYOND
JUST THE.
IT GOES BEYOND JUST THE END OF
HIS PRESENTATIONS THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY.
THAT IS ACTING AS
THE CONDUIT AND THE DONALD
TRUMP HAS SAID IS DOING HIS
JUDICIAL SELECTION. THEY'RE
GETTING MONEY FROM THE SAME
FOUNDATIONS FROM
DONORS TRUST. 16.7 MILLION
DOLLARS. THE
BRADLEY FOUNDATION, 1.3
7 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE SAME
GROUP OF FOUNDATIONS TOTAL.
33 MILLION DOLLARS. SO YOU CAN
START TO LOOK.
AT THESE.
AND YOU CAN START TO TIE THEM
TOGETHER.
ALL THE SAME FUNDERS OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. BRINGING
THE CASES AND PROVIDING
THIS ORCHESTRATED. ORCHESTRATED
CHORUS OF ANY CASE.
THE SAME GROUP ALSO FUNDS THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY OVER HERE.
THE WASHINGTON POST WROTE A BIG
ABOUT
THIS AND THAT MADE LEONARD LEO
A LITTLE HOT LITTLE BIT LIKE A
BURNED AGENT. SO HE HAD TO
JUMP OUT. AND HE WENT OFF TO GO
INTO AN ANONYMOUSLY FUNDED
VOTER SUPPRESSION WORK.
GUESS WHO JUMPED IN TO
TAKE OVER THE SELECTION PROCESS
IN
THIS CASE. FOR JUDGE BARRETT.
CARRIE SEVERINO MADE
THE HOP. SO ONCE AGAIN. TIES
RIGHT IN TOGETHER.
CENTER FOR MEDIA DEMOCRACY THAT
WILL BUT
MORE RESEARCH. HERE'S THE
BRADLEY FOUNDATION MEMO THAT
THEY'VE PUBLISHED.
THE BRADLEY FOUNDATION IS
GRANT APPLICATION ASKING FOR
MONEY FOR THIS WORK IS TRADED
HIM
A KISS PROCESS.
AND WHAT ARE THEY SAYING THE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IT IS
IMPORTANT
TO ORCHESTRATE THEIR WORD
NOT MINE IMPORTANT TO
ORCHESTRATE HIGH CALIBER HIM A
KISS.
EFFORTS BEFORE THE COURT.
THEY ALSO NOTE THAT BRADLEY HAS
DONE PREVIOUS
PHILANTHROPIC INVESTMENTS IN
THE ACTUAL UNDERLYING
LEGAL ACTIONS. SO BRADLEY IS
FUNDING.
WHAT THEY CALL PHILANTHROPIC
LEE
INVESTING IN THE UNDERLYING
LEGAL ACTION AND THEN GIVING
MONEY
TO GROUPS TO SHOW UP IN THE
ORCHESTRATED CHORUS.
THAT CAN'T BE GOOD.
BECAUSE THEY ALSO THING.
AN INDIVIDUAL AT THE BRADLEY
FOUNDATION.
AND IT ASKS OUR FRIEND LEONARD
LEO USED TO RUN THE SELECTION
PROCESS.
IS THERE A 5 OH ONE C 3
NONPROFIT WHICH BRADLEY COULD
DIRECT
ANY SUPPORT OF THE 2 SUPREME
MAKE
US PROJECTS OTHER THAN DONORS
TRUST. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY
WANTED TO
AVOID THE
RELIABLE IDENTITY SCRUBBER
DONORS TRUST BUT FOR SOME
REASON THEY DID. SO LEONARD LEO
WRITES BACK ON FEDERALIST
SOCIETY ADDRESS DON'T TELL ME
THAT ISN'T FEDERAL ASIDE
THE BUSINESS. ON FEDERAL
SOCIETY.
ON HIS ADDRESS HE WRITES BACK
YES,
SEND IT TO THE JUDICIAL
EDUCATION PROJECT WHICH
COULD TAKE AND ALLOCATE THE
MONEY AND GUESS
WHO WORKS FOR THE JUDICIAL
EDUCATION PROJECT. CARRIE
SEVERINO.
WHO ALSO HELPED ELECT.
RUNNING THE TRUMP.
FEDERALIST SOCIETY SELECTION
PROCESS.
IN THE WASHINGTON POST
ARTICLE THEY POINT OUT THAT THE
JUDICIAL
CRISIS NETWORK'S
OFFICE. HE'S ON THE SAME
HALLWAY IN THE SAME BUILDING AT
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY AND WITH
WHEN THEY SENT THEIR REPORTER
TO TALK TO SOMEBODY AT THE
USUAL
CRISIS NETWORK, SOMEBODY FROM
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY CAME
DOWN TO LET THEM UP.
MORE AND MORE LOOKS LIKE
IT'S NOT 3
SCHEMES. BUT IT'S ONE SCHEME.
WITH THE SAME FUNDERS.
SELECTING JUDGES. FUNDING
CAMPAIGNS FOR
THE JUDGES AND THEN SHOWING UP
IN COURT IN THESE ORCHESTRATED
CHEMICALS FLOTILLAS TO TELL THE
JUDGES WHAT TO DO.
ON THE JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK
YOU'VE GOT THE LEONARD LEO
CONNECTION,
OBVIOUSLY SHE HOPPED IN TO TAKE
OVER FOR HIM WITH THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY.
YOU'VE GOT THE CAMPAIGNS THAT
I'VE TALKED ABOUT.
TAKE 17 MILLION DOLLAR
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT'S A BIG
CHECK TO WRITE 17 MILLION
DOLLARS.
TO CAMPAIGN FOR SUPREME COURT
NOMINEES. NO IDEA WHO THAT IS
OR WHAT THEY GOT FOR IT.
YOU'VE GOT BRIEFED THAT SHE
WROTE.
THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS FILED
BRIEFS IN THAT NFI
THE CASE SIGNED BY MS.
SEVERINO.
THE WOMAN WHO HELPED SHOES.
THIS NOMINEE. AS WRITTEN BRIEFS
FOR REPUBLICAN SENATORS
ATTACKING THE A
C A DON'T SAFETY AGENCY DAYS,
NOT AN
ISSUE HERE AND BY THE WAY THE
JUDICIAL CRISIS
NETWORK FUNDS. THE REPUBLICAN
ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN FUNDS
RIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN
ATTORNEY GENERALS ASSOCIATION
AND IT FUNDS INDIVIDUAL
REPUBLICAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GUESS WHO
THE PLAINTIFFS ARE
IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
CASE, REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
TRUMP
JOINED THEM BECAUSE HE DIDN'T
WANT TO DEFEND SO
HE'S IN WITH THE REPUBLICAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT HERE'S
THE JUDICIAL
CRISIS NETWORK, CAMPAIGNING FOR
SUPREME COURT NOMINEES WRITING
BRIEFS.
4 SENATORS AGAINST THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT SUPPORTING THE
REPUBLICANS WERE
BRINGING THIS CASE.
LEADING THE SELECTION PROCESS
FOR THIS
NOMINEE. HERE'S THE PAGE OFF
THE BRIDGE.
AND ON THROUGH THE LESS SENATOR
COLLINS SENATOR CORNYN
AND SEN. COBURN SENATOR.
MARCO RUBIO.
ASSORTMENT OF
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO CARRIE
SEVERINO ROAD BEFORE
AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST.
THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. SO THIS TO ME.
I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS AROUND ANY
COURT THAT I'VE
EVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH.
THERE'S THIS MUCH
DARK MONEY AND THIS MUCH
INFLUENCE BEING USED.
HERE'S HOW THE WASHINGTON POST
SUMMED
IT UP THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE
ACTIVISTS BEHIND THE
SCENES CAMPAIGN TO REMAKE THE
NATION'S COURTS.
AND IT'S A 250 MILLION DOLLAR
DARK MONEY OPERATION.
250 MILLION DOLLARS IS A LOT OF
MONEY TO SPEND IF YOU'RE NOT
GETTING ANYTHING FOR IT.
SO THAT RAISES THE QUESTION.
WHAT ARE THEY GETTING FOR IT.
WELL.
I SHOWED THE SLIDE EARLIER ON
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
AND I KNOW BERG FELL AND ON ROE
VERSUS WADE.
THAT'S WHERE THEY LOST.
BUT WITH ANOTHER JUDGE THAT
COULD CHANGE.
THAT'S WHERE THE
CONTEST IS THAT'S WHERE THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM TELLS
US
TO LOOK AND HOW THEY WANT
JUDGES TO RULE TO
REVERSE ROE TO REVERSE THE
OBAMA
CARE CASES AND TO REVERSE
OBERGEFELL AND TAKE AWAY
MARRIAGE THAT
IS THERE STATED OBJECTIVE
AND PLAN WHY NOT TAKE THEM AT
THEIR WORD. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER
PIECE OF IT.
NOT WHAT'S AHEAD OF US. BUT
WHAT'S BEHIND US.
WHAT'S BEHIND US
IS NOW 80 CASES, MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
UNDER CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS. THAT HAVE
THESE CHARACTERISTICS ONE.
THERE WERE DECIDED
5 TO 4 BY A BARE MAJORITY.
THE 5 TO 4 MAJORITY WAS
PARTISAN. IN THE SENSE THAT NOT
ONE DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEE JOIN
THE 5 I REFER TO THAT GROUP IS
THE ROBERTS 5 IT CHANGES A
LITTLE BIT
AS WITH JUSTICE SCALIA'S DEATH
FOR INSTANCE. BUT THERE'S BEEN
A STEADY ROBERTS 5 THAT HAS
DELIVERED.
NOW 80 OF
THESE DECISIONS AND THE LAST
CHARACTERISTIC OF THEM IS THAT
THERE IS AN IDENTIFIABLE
REPUBLICAN DONOR INTEREST IN
THOSE CASES.
AND IN EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT
DONOR INTEREST.
ONE. IT WAS AN
80 TO 0 5 TO 4 PARTISAN.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK
AT WHERE THOSE CASES WENT
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ABOUT
BIG PUBLIC ISSUES LIKE GETTING
RID OF THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT UNDOING ROE VERSUS
WADE AND UNDOING.
SAME MARRIAGE. THERE ARE ABOUT
POWER. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE
80 DECISIONS THEY FALL INTO
4 CATEGORIES OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, ONE.
UNLIMITED AND DARK MONEY IN
POLITICS.
CITIZENS UNITED IS THE
FAMOUS ONE. BUT IT'S CONTINUED
SENSE WITH MCCUTCHEN AND WE'VE
GOT ONE COMING UP NOW.
ALWAYS THE 5 4. UNLIMITED MONEY
IN POLITICS,
NEVER PROTECTING AGAINST DARK
MONEY IN POLITICS. DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THEY SAID IT WAS
GOING TO BE TRANSPARENT.
WHEN YOU ALLOW UNLIMITED DARK
MONEY IN POLITICS, A VERY
SMALL GROUP. THE ONES WHO HAVE
UNLIMITED MONEY TO SPEND AND A
MOTIVE TO SPEND IT POLITICS.
THEY WIN EVERYBODY ELSE LOSES
AND IF
YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHO MIGHT BE
BEHIND THIS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WITH
UNLIMITED MONEY
TO SPEND. AND A MOTIVE TO DO
IT. WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES.
NOT THE CIVIL JURY DOWN.
WHITTLE IT DOWN TO A NUB THE
CIVIL JURY WAS IN
THE CONSTITUTION IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS
IN OUR DARYN DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE.
BUT IT'S ANNOYING TO BIG
CORPORATE POWERS BECAUSE YOU
CAN SWAGGER YOUR WAY IS A BIG
CORPORATE POWER
THROUGH CONGRESS. YOU CAN GO
AND TELL THE PRESIDENT
YOU PUT MONEY INTO TO ELECT
WHAT TO DO HE'LL PUT YOUR
STOOGES THAT THE EPA, IT'S
ALL GREAT.
>>UNTIL YOU GET TO THE CIVIL
JURY.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN
OBLIGATION. AS YOU NOTE,
JUDGE BARRETT IN A PLUG A SHUNT
UNDER THE LAW TO
BE FAIR TO BOTH PARTIES
RESPECTIVE THEIR SIZE. YOU
CAN'T BRIBE THEM YOU'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO IT'S A CRIME TO
TAMPER WITH
THE JURY. IT'S STANDARD
PRACTICE TO TAMPER WITH
CONGRESS.
AND THEY MAKE DECISIONS BASED
ON
THE LAW. IF YOU'RE USED TO
BEING
THE BOSS AND SWAGGERING YOUR
WAY AROUND THE POLITICAL SIDE
YOU DON'T WANT TO
BE ANSWERABLE BEFORE A JURY.
AND SO ONE AFTER ANOTHER THESE
85 TO 4 DECISIONS HAVE KNOCKED
DOWN
WHITTLED AWAY AT THE CIVIL
JURY, A GREAT AMERICAN
INSTITUTION.
FIRST WAS UNLIMITED DARK MONEY.
SECOND WAS DEMEAN AND DIMINISH
THE CIVIL JURY, 3RD IS.
REGULATORY AGENCIES A LOT OF
THIS MONEY, I'M CONVINCED AS
POLLUTER MONEY.
THE KOCH INDUSTRIES IS A
POLLUTER.
THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AS
A POLLUTER WHO ELSE WOULD BE
PUTTING BUCKETS OF MONEY
INTO THIS AND WANTED TO HIDE
WHO THEY ARE BEHIND DONORS
TRUST OR OTHER.
AND WHAT IT IF YOU'RE BIG
POLLUTER WHAT
YOU WANT. YOU WANT WEAK
REGULATORY AGENCIES YOU WANT
ONES THAT YOU CAN
BOX UP
AND RUN OVER TO CONGRESS AND
GET YOUR FRIENDS TO FIX THINGS
FOR YOU IN CONGRESS OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN
THESE DECISIONS ARE TARGETED AT
REGULATORY AGENCIES TO WEAKEN
THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND WE CAN
THEIR STRENGTH AND IF YOU'RE A
BIG POLLUTER
A WEAK REGULATORY AGENCY IS
YOUR IDEA OF A GOOD DAY.
AND THE LAST THING IS IN
POLITICS.
THE COURT MADE THE DECISION A
FACTUAL DECISION.
NOT SOMETHING APPELLATE COURTS
ARE ORDINARILY SUPPOSED TO MAKE
AS I UNDERSTAND IT JUDGE
BARRETT.
THE FACTUAL DECISION THAT
NOBODY NEEDED TO WORRY
ABOUT MINORITY VOTERS
IN PRECLEARANCE STATES BEING
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR THE
LEGISLATORS WILL TRY TO KNOCK
BACK THEIR ABILITY TO VOTE.
MADE THAT FINDING IN
SHELBY COUNTY AGAINST
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION FROM
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, HUGELY
PAST ON NO FACTUAL RECORD.
THEY JUST
DECIDE IT. THAT WAS A PROBLEM
THAT WAS OVER. ON
NO RECORD WITH
NO BASIS BECAUSE IT GOT THEM TO
THE RESULT.
STATE AFTER STATE AFTER STATE
PAST VOTER
SUPPRESSION LAWS. ONE SO BADLY
TARGETING AFRICAN AMERICANS
THAT TO COURT SAID IT WAS
SURGICALLY.
SURGICALLY TAILORED TO GET
AFTER MINORITY VOTERS.
AND GERRYMANDERING THE OTHER
GREAT CONTROL.
BOTH GERRYMANDERING WHEN YOU GO
INTO
A STATE LIKE THE RED MAP
PROJECT DID IN OHIO
AND PENNSYLVANIA. AND
YOU PACK, DEMOCRATS SO TIGHTLY
INTO A
FEW DISTRICTS, NOT ALL OF THE
OTHERS BECOME REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY DISTRICTS AND IN THOSE
STATES YOU SEND A DELEGATION
TO CONGRESS THAT HAS A HUGE
MAJORITY OF
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS LIKE 13 TO 5
AS I RECALL.
WHERE
THE 5. THE PARTY OF THE 5
ACTUALLY WON THE POPULAR VOTE.
YOU'VE SENT A DELEGATION TO
CONGRESS THAT IS OUT
OF STEP WITH THE POPULAR VOTE
OF THAT STATE
AND COURT AFTER COURT FIGURED
OUT HOW TO SOLVE THAT. AND THIS
REPORT
SAID NOPE
5 TO 4 AGAIN. NO WE'RE NOT
GOING TO TAKE AN INTEREST IN
THAT QUESTION.
IN ALL THESE AREAS WHERE IT'S
ABOUT POLITICAL POWER FOR BIG
SPECIAL INTERESTS AND PEOPLE
WANT TO
FUND CAMPAIGNS AND PEOPLE WANT
TO GET THEIR WAY THROUGH
POLITICS WITHOUT ACTUALLY
SHOWING UP. DO WE GET BEHIND
DONORS TRUST AND
OTHER GROUPS DOING IT THROUGH
THESE SCHEMES.
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
YOU SEE THE
SAME THING. THE DECISIONS.
JUDGE BARRETT.
80 DECISIONS AND
80 TO 0 SWEEP. I DON'T I DON'T
THINK YOU TRIED CASES BUT SOME
CASES.
THE ISSUE IS BIAS AND
DISCRIMINATION AND IF YOU'RE
MAKING A
BIAS CASE. AS A TRIAL LAWYER,
LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS HELD
THE TRAILER. IF YOU WANTED TO
MAKE A BIAS CASE.
DICK DURBIN SALAD GOOD TRIAL
LAWYER.
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A BIAS
CASE AND THEY COULD SHOW AN 80
TO 0 PATTERN.
THAT'S ADMISSIBLE AND B I'D
LOVE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO
THE JURY
I'D BE REALLY HARD PRESSED TO
BE THE LAWYER SAYING NO 80 TO 0
JUST A BUNCH OF FLUKES ALL
5, 4, ALL PARTISAN ALL THIS
WAY.
SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT.
AND DARK MONEY HAS
A LOT TO DO WITH IT
SPECIAL INTEREST HAVE A LOT TO
DO WITH IT DONORS TRUST AND
RIVERS HIDING BEHIND
DONORS TRUST HAS A LOT TO DO
WITH IT AND THE BRADLEY
FOUNDATION ORCHESTRATING ITS
AND
THE KEY OVER AT THE COURT.
JUDGE BARRETT FOR LISTENING TO
ME NOW A
SECOND TIME. I THINK THIS
GIVES YOU A FOR YOU AND I TO
TEE UP AN INTERESTING
CONVERSATION TOMORROW AND I
THINK MY COLLEAGUES FOR HEARING
ME OUT. THANK YOUS AND WHITE
>>SANTA CRUZ.
MISTER CHAIRMAN CAN I PUT 3
LETTERS IN THEIR NAMES WITHOUT
OBJECTION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MISTER CHAIRMAN.
JUDGE BARRETT WELCOME.
CONGRATULATIONS ON BEING
NOMINATED.
CONGRATULATIONS ON ENDURING.
THE CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS.
AND I THINK IT IS A
PARTICULARLY GOOD THING WE'VE
MADE IT THROUGH.
WHEN I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL THE
TOP OF THE OF THE QUESTIONING.
SOME OF
THE SMARTEST AND FRANKLY MOST
EFFECTIVE QUESTIONERS.
ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AND I
THINK IT SPEAKS VOLUMES.
THAT COLLECTIVELY THEY
HAVE HAD VERY FEW QUESTIONS FOR
YOU MOST EFFECTIVE. YOU CAN BET
AND.
VIRTUALLY NONE.
CALLING INTO QUESTION WHEN
WE'RE OUT TO YOUR CREDENTIALS
SWITCH ARE IMPECCABLE DIDN'T
MAKE THE CUT. YOUR RECORD.
WHAT I THINK IS HAS BEEN AN
EXTRAORDINARY LIFE
YOU'VE LED. SO
THAT SHOULD BE THE SOURCE OF
OF.
GREAT SATISFACTION IN TERMS OF
THE SCHOLARLY RECORD JUDICIAL
RECORD THAT YOU'VE SPENT A
LIFETIME BUILDING.
I WANT TO START BY ASKING YOU
A QUESTION. WHY IS THE
FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHAT WHY IS
THAT IMPORTANT.
>>WELL I
THINK IT'S BROADLY YOU THAT THE
PROTECTED AND RATIFY ERS
PROTECTED THE FREE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION BECAUSE
YOU KNOW FOR REASONS THAT WE
ALL KNOW FROM
HISTORY OF PERSECUTED RELIGIOUS
MINORITIES FLEEING TO THE
UNITED STATES.
ENSHRINING THAT
YOU KNOW WHAT IT WAS ONE OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS BECAUSE IT WAS
CONSIDERED SO FUNDAMENTAL.
>>AND WHY WHAT DOES THAT
MATTER TO AMERICANS WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE IN
ANYBODY'S LIFE.
>>I THINK ALL OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS EACH AND EVERY ONE
OF THEM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO
AMERICANS BECAUSE WE VALUE THE
CONSTITUTION.
INCLUDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
>>HOW ABOUT THE FREE SPEECH
PROTECTIONS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WHY WHY ARE THOSE
IMPORTANT.
>>SO THAT MINORITY VIEWPOINTS
CAN
BE SQUASHED SO THAT IT'S NOT
JUST THE MAJORITY THAT CAN
SPEAK MOST POPULAR
VIEW SPEED. YOU KNOW I
YOU DON'T REALLY NEED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
IS
SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY WANTS
TO HEAR YOU NEED IT WHEN PEOPLE
ARE TRYING TO SILENCE YOU.
>>AND HOW ABOUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT WHY IS THE RIGHT TO
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IMPORTANT.
>>YOU KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT HOW
HER EARLIER
THIS MORNING AND YOU KNOW WHAT
HELLER TELLS US IS THAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR FOR
SELF-DEFENSE.
>>I THINK ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS
AND I AGREE WITH YOU THE ENTIRE
BILL
OF RIGHTS IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO AMERICANS.
I ALSO THINK WHAT IS REALLY
STRIKING ABOUT
THIS HEARING TODAY AND ALSO
YESTERDAY.
IS THAT SENATE DEMOCRATS.
ARE NOT DEFENDING.
WHAT I THINK IS REALLY A A
RADICAL AGENDA.
THAT THEY HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE TOPICS THEY'RE DISCUSSING
TODAY HAVE LITTLE BEARING TO
THE RIGHTS THAT ARE REALLY.
AND IN JEOPARDY. IF THE SUPREME
COURT.
AND SO LET'S TAKE A FEW MINUTES
TO TO TO GO THROUGH THEM.
FIRST OF ALL WE'VE HAD SOME
DISCUSSION ROE VERSUS WADE.
DECLINED TO GIVE AN OPINION ON
A MATTER THAT MIGHT BE PENDING
BEFORE
THE COURT THAT IS OF COURSE THE
SAME ANSWER THAT EVERY SINGLE
SITTING
JUSTICES GIVEN WHEN HE OR SHE
WAS SITTING IN THE SAME SURE
YOU ARE.
IT IS MANDATED BY THE JUDICIAL
CANONS
OF ETHICS, WHETHER ONE IS A
NOMINEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT THAT HAS BEEN THE
ANSWER THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO
THIS COMMITTEE. FOR DECADES.
I DO THINK IT IS
INTERESTING THAT HER DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES NUMBER ONE DON'T
DISCUSS.
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
IF THERE CAME A DAY IN WHICH
ROE VERSUS WADE WERE OVERRULED.
WHICH IS NAMELY THAT IT WOULD
NOT SUDDENLY BECOME THE CASE
THAT ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL.
BUT RATHER IT WOULD REVERT.
TO THE STATUS OF THE LAWS.
IT'S BEEN 4.
NEARLY 200 YEARS OF OUR
NATION'S HISTORY. WHICH IS THAT
THE QUESTION.
OF THE PREMISE ABILITY
OF ABORTION IS A QUESTION FOR
ELECTED LEGISLATURES AT THE
STATE LEVELS.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISPUTE THAT
THERE ARE A GREAT MANY
JURISDICTIONS INCLUDING
JURISDICTIONS LIKE CALIFORNIA
NEW YORK, WHO EVEN IF ROE
VERSUS WADE, WE'RE NO LONGER
THE LAW OF THE LAND.
THEY'RE ELECTED LEGISLATURES
WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY
CONTINUE.
UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO ABORTION
WITH VIRTUALLY NO LIMITATIONS.
WHAT I FIND
INTERESTING THOUGH IS THAT OUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES DO NOT
DISCUSS.
WHAT IS REALLY REALLY THE
RADICAL POSITION.
THE MOST LIBERAL JUSTICES ON
THE SUPREME COURT.
WHICH IS THAT NO RESTRICTIONS
WHATSOEVER ARE PERMISSIBLE.
WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION.
YESTERDAY ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC
SENATORS MADE REFERENCE TO THE
CASE GONZALES VERSUS CARHART.
I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THAT
CASE.
I REPRESENTED TEXAS IN A NUMBER
OF OTHER STATES
A KEY IN THAT CASE THAT CASE
CONCERNED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE FEDERAL BAN ON
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION.
THAT WAS LEGISLATION PASSED
CONGRESS WAS SIGNED INTO LAW
THAT MADE THE REALLY GRUESOME
PRACTICE OF PARTIAL-BIRTH
ABORTION ILLEGAL.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
OF AMERICANS BELIEVE PARTIAL
BIRTH ABORTION SHOULD BE
PROHIBITED EVEN THOSE WHO
IDENTIFY AS PRO-CHOICE
A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF
AMERICANS DON'T WANT TO SEE
THAT GRUESOME PRACTICE ALLOWED.
SUPREME COURT BY A VOTE OF
5 TO 4 IN CARHART VERSUS
GONZALES UPHELD A FEDERAL BAN
ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION.
THAT MEANS THERE WERE 4
JUSTICES.
READY TO STRIKE IT DOWN READY
TO CONCLUDE.
THAT YOU CAN'T
BAN PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION THAT
YOU CAN'T THEN LATE TERM
ABORTION AND BY THE WAY OTHER
RESTRICTIONS. THAT ARE IN
QUESTION INCLUDE
PARENTAL CONSENT LAWS, PARENTAL
NOTIFICATION LAWS.
NONE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THE JUSTICES THEY WANT TO
SEE ON THE COURT WOULD
STRIKE DOWN EVERY SINGLE
REASONABLE RESTRICTION.
ON UNLIMITED ABORTION ON DEMAND
THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS SUPPORT.
HOW ABOUT FREE SPEECH.
WE'VE HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT
FREE SPEECH THE SENATOR FROM
RHODE ISLAND JUST A CAVE.
A LONG PRESENTATION. COMPLETE
WITH LOTS OF CHARTS.
COUPLE OF THINGS ON FREE
SPEECH.
FIRST
OF ALL OUR DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY ADDRESS
THE
ISSUE OF SO-CALLED DARK MONEY
AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE
CONTRIBUTIONS.
DEEPLY DEEPLY HYPOCRITICAL.
AND DON'T ADDRESS THE ACTUAL
FACTS THAT EXISTS.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS.
OF THE TOP 20 ORGANIZATIONS
SPENDING MONEY FOR POLITICAL
SPEECH OF THE YEAR 2016.
14 OF THEM GAVE VIRTUALLY ALL
OF THEIR MONEY TO DEMOCRATS.
AND ANOTHER 3 SPLIT THEIR
MONEY EVEN SO ONLY 3 OF THE TOP
20 GAVE MONEY TO REPUBLICANS
WHAT DID THAT MEAN IN PRACTICE.
THAT MEANT THE TOP
20 SUPER PAC DONORS CONTRIBUTED
422 MILLION DOLLARS TO
DEMOCRATS AND A 189 MILLION TO
REPUBLICANS.
THOSE WHO GIVE THESE
IMPASSIONED SPEECHES AGAINST
DARK MONEY
DON'T MENTION THAT THEIR SIDE
IS FUNDED BY DARK MONEY.
WITH A MASSIVE DIFFERENTIAL
THE SENATOR FOR ISLAND TALKED
ABOUT BIG CORPORATE POWERS.
WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE FORTUNE
500 IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION OVERWHELMINGLY FAVOR
GO BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATS.
WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING
THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM WALL
STREET IN THIS ELECTION
OVERWHELMINGLY FAVOR JOE BIDEN
THE DEMOCRAT.
AN AWFUL LOT OF RHETORIC ABOUT
POWER.
BUT IT GETS EVEN MORE
INTERESTING WHEN YOU LOOK AT.
SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS.
WE JUST HEARD.
AN ATTACK ON THE FEDERALIST
SOCIETY, A GROUP THAT I'VE BEEN
A MEMBER
OF FOR OVER 25 YEARS I JOINED
HAS LOST IT AND IT'S A GROUP
THAT BRINGS CONSERVATIVES
LIBERTARIANS CONSTITUTIONAL US
TOGETHER TO HAVE ROBUST
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION ABOUT THE LAW.
WHAT'S INTERESTING.
IS NOWHERE
IN THE SENATE OR RHODE ISLAND'S
REMARKS WAS
ANY REFERENCE TO A COMPANY
CALLED ARABELLA ADVISORS.
WHICH IS A FOR PROFIT ENTITY
THAT MANAGES
NONPROFITS INCLUDING
THE 16 30 FUND IN THE NEW
VENTURE FUND NO ONE ON EARTH OF
THOSE THOSE
SOUND LIKE AWFULLY DARK AND CAN
BE CONFUSING NAMES. WELL.
COURT OF THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL THIS SUNDAY.
IN THE YEAR 2017 2018 THOSE
ENTITIES REPORTED 987.5 MILLION
DOLLARS IN REVENUE.
THAT'S NEARLY A BILLION
DOLLARS.
WE HEARD A LOT OF THUNDERING
INDIGNATION.
WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AS
250 MILLION
DOLLARS IN EXPENDITURES IN THIS
CASE YOU'VE GOT A BILLION
DOLLARS.
THE SENATOR RHODE ISLAND SAID
THAT THAT
MUCH MONEY MUCH OF WHICH IS
DARK MONEY THAT WE DON'T KNOW
WHO CONTRIBUTED IT. HE ASKED
WHAT ARE THEY GETTING FOR IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE
GETTING FOR IT AS A GROUP
CALLED DEMAND JUSTICE. THE
PROJECT. OF
THOSE ENTITIES.
SPENT 5 MILLION DOLLARS
OPPOSING JUSTICE BRETT
KAVANAUGH HAS JUST LAUNCHED.
A SEVEN-FIGURE AD BUY.
OPPOSING YORK ON THE
CONFIRMATION.
SO ALL OF THE GREAT UMBRAGE
ABOUT.
THE CORPORATE INTEREST OR
SPENDING DARK MONEY.
IS WILDLY IN CONFLICT.
WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE
CORPORATE INTERESTS THAT ARE
SPENDING DARK MONEY OR FUNDING
THE DEMOCRATS.
BY A FACTOR OF 3 TO ONE OR
GREATER.
THE FACT THAT DOESN'T EVER SEEM
TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED.
WHAT WAS CITIZENS UNITED ABOUT.
YES, INTERESTING MOST PEOPLE AT
HOME THAT THEY'VE HEARD ABOUT
CITIZENS, UNITED THEY KNOW IT
MAKES DEMOCRATS VERY VERY
UPSET. BUT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY
WITH THE CASE ABOUT.
CITIZENS
UNITED CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT
IT WAS LEGAL.
TO MAKE A MOVIE.
CRITICIZING A POLITICIAN.
SPECIFICALLY CITIZENS UNITED IS
A SMALL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
BASED HERE IN
D C.
THAT MADE A MOVIE THAT WAS
CRITICAL OF HILLARY CLINTON.
AND THE OBAMA JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION
THAT IT COULD FINE IT COULD
PUNISH
CITIZENS UNITED FOR DARING TO
MAKE A MOVIE CRITICAL OF THE
POLITICIAN.
THE CASE WENT ALL THE WAY TO
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AT THE
ORAL ARGUMENT.
THERE WAS A MOMENT THAT WAS
TRULY CHILLING.
JUSTICE SAM ALITO ASKED THE
OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
IS IT YOUR POSITION AND YOUR
THEORY OF THE CASE.
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
BAN BOOKS.
AND THE OBAMA JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT RESPONDED. YES.
YES, IT IS OUR POSITION
THAT IF THE BOOKS CRITICIZE A
POLITICAL CANDIDATE, A
POLITICIAN, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN BAN BOOKS.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED THAT
TERRIFYING VIEW OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
CITIZENS UNITED WAS DECIDED 5
TO 4.
BY A NARROW
5 TO 4 MAJORITY. THE SUPREME
COURT CONCLUDED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PUNISH
YOU.
FOR MAKING A MOVIE CRITICAL OF
A POLITICIAN.
AND LIKEWISE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT COULDN'T BANNED
BOOKS.
4 JUSTICES DESCENT.
4 JUSTICES WERE WILLING TO SAY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN BAN
BOOKS AND PURRS CAN BAN MOVIES
AND PRESUMABLY. GOOD BAN BOOKS
AS WELL.
WHEN HILLARY CLINTON WAS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT SHE
EXPLICITLY PROMISED EVERY SHE
NOMINATED TO THE COURT.
WOULD PLEDGE TO OVERTURN
CITIZENS UNITED BY THE WAY
HILLARY CLINTON SAID SHE
WOULD DEMAND OF HER NOMINEE
SOMETHING YOU HAVE RIGHTLY
SAID THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION
HAS NOT DEMANDED A VIEW WHICH
IS A COMMITMENT ON ANY CASE AS
TO HOW YOU WILL RULE.
DEMOCRATS HAVE SHOWN NO
COMPUNCTION AND EXPECTING THEIR
NOMINEES TO MAKE A PROMISE HERE
IS HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE.
ON A PENDING CASE JUDICIAL
JUDICIAL ETHICS BE DAMNED.
HOW ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
WE'VE HEARD SOME REFERENCE.
TO THE HELLER DECISION.
SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
YESTERDAY.
TALK
ABOUT REASONABLE GUN CONTROL
AND GUN SAFETY PROVISIONS.
WELL THAT OF COURSE WAS NOT
WHAT WAS
AT STAKE. IN THE HELLER
DECISION
NUMBER ONE MAJORITY DECISION IN
HELLER JUSTICE SCALIA'S
OPINION.
ACKNOWLEDGES.
REASONABLE PROVISIONS THINGS
LIKE PROHIBITIONS ON FELONS IN
POSSESSION.
YOUR OPINION IN THE CAN OR
DECISION LIKEWISE ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT RESTRICTIONS PREVENTING
DANGEROUS CRIMINALS FROM
RECEIVING FIREARMS ARE ENTIRELY
CONSISTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER
THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
BUT THE ISSUE TELLER WAS MUCH
MORE FUNDAMENTAL.
IT WAS WHETHER THE
SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS AT ALL.
THE VOTING HELLER WAS
5 TO 4 BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4 THE
MAJORITY STRUCK DOWN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S
TOTAL PROHIBITIONS ON OWNING AN
OPERATIVE FIREARM AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THE ARGUMENT OF THE
4 DISSENTERS WAS NOT WHAT OUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TALK
ABOUT HERE,
IT WASN'T SOME REASONABLE GUN
CONTROL PROVISIONS ARE OKAY
THAT WAS NOT THE ARGUMENT OF
THE DISSENTERS.
THAT QUESTION WE CAN ACTUALLY
HAVE A REASONABLE
DEBATE ON REASONABLE MINDS CAN
DIFFER ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATE
LINE SHOULD
BE WATER, REASONABLE LAWS
THERE, BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT
WAS AT ISSUE A TELLER.
THE POSITION OF THE
4 DISSENTERS WAS THE SECOND
AMENDMENT PROTECTS NO
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS WHATSOEVER.
BUT MERELY A QUOTE COLLECTIVE
RIGHT OF THE MILITIA.
WHICH IS
FANCY LAWYER TALK FOR A
NONEXISTENT RIGHT.
4 JUSTICES.
WOULD HAVE RULED THAT WAY ONE
VOTE AWAY.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE COURT
CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS NO
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT ON THE
FIRST AMENDMENT
WOULD MEAN YOU AND I AND EVERY
AMERICAN WATCHING THIS.
WOULD LOSE YOUR SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHT IT
WOULD MEAN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THE STATE GOVERNMENT
THE CITY. COULD BAN GUNS
ENTIRELY COULD MAKE IT A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR ANY ONE OF
US TO OWN A FIREARM.
AND NO
INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN WOULD HAVE
ANY JUDICIALLY COD NICE DOUBLE
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THAT.
THAT IS A RADICAL READING.
OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS
EFFECTIVELY
A RACING. THE SECOND AMENDMENT
FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND HILLARY CLINTON LIKEWISE
PROMISED IN 2016 THAT EVERY
JUSTICE SHE NOMINATED.
WOULD COMMIT TO VOTING TO
OVERTURN HELLER THEY WERE BIG A
LITMUS TEST.
AND JOE BIDEN ALTHOUGH HE
REFUSES TO ANSWER JUST ABOUT
ANYTHING.
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE'S GOING
TO PACK THE COURT HE DID TELL
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE VOTERS
DON'T DESERVE TO KNOW.
WEATHER IS GOING TO PACK THE
COURT.
TRULY A STATEMENT.
OF DISRESPECT AND CONTEMPT FOR
THE VOTERS.
UNUSUAL.
IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS.
FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT BEING
ERASED FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
NONE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES ADMIT THAT THAT IS
THEIR AGENDA AND YET THOSE ARE
THE JUSTICES. THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES ARE
PROMISING THEY
WILL APPOINT. JUSTICES WHO
WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO
CRITICIZE
POLITICIANS JUSTICES WHO WILL
ALLOW CENSORSHIP JUSTICES WHO
WILL ALLOW MOVIES AND BOOKS
TO BE BANNED JUSTICES
WHO RACE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND HOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS AN ISSUE
NEAR AND DEAR.
TO A GREAT MANY OF US.
THE RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN TO
LIVE. ACCORDING TO YOUR FACE
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE,
WHATEVER THAT FACE MAYBE MAYBE.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS
FUNDAMENTALLY
ABOUT DIVERSITY. IT'S ABOUT
RESPECTING
DIVERSITY THAT WHATEVER YOUR
FAITH TRADITION MIGHT BE.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO
TRAMPLE ON.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CASES OVER
AND OVER AGAIN HAD BEEN DECIDED
5 FOR THE CASE OF AN ORGAN
BURSA SPERRY CASE I LITIGATED.
DEALT WITH THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
MONUMENT THAT
STANDS ON THE STATE CAPITOL
GROUNDS HAS BEEN THERE SINCE
1961 IN TEXAS.
AN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF AN
ATHEIST A HOMELESS MAN FILED A
LAWSUIT
SEEKING TO TEAR DOWN THE 10
COMMANDMENTS THE CASE WENT ALL
THE WAY TO THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT. IT WAS DECIDED 5 TO 4.
4 JUSTICES WERE WILLING
TO SAY IN EFFECT SEND IN THE
BULLDOZERS AND TEAR DOWN
THAT MONUMENT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
GAZE ON THE IMAGE OF THE 10
COMMANDMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS.
ANOTHER CASE THE MOJAVE DESERT
VETERANS MEMORIAL.
THIS IS A
MEMORIAL ERECTED TO THE MEN AND
WOMEN WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN
WORLD WAR ONE.
TULLOW KNOW WHAT WHITE
LATIN CROSS SIMPLE AND BEAR IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT I'VE
BEEN THERE ON SUNRISE ROCK
WHERE IT STANDS.
THE ACLU FILED A LAWSUIT SAYING
YOU CANNOT GAZE ON THE IMAGE
OF A CROSS.
ON PUBLIC LAND IN THE ACLU, ONE
IN THE
DISTRICT COURT. THEY WON IN THE
9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
THE
FEDERAL COURT ORDER THAT
VETERANS MEMORIAL BE COVERED UP
WITH A BURLAP SACK WITH A CHAIN
ON THE BOTTOM. AND THEN A
PLYWOOD BOX.
WHEN THE CASE WENT TO THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT.
I REPRESENTED 3 MILLION
VETERANS, PRO BONO FOR FREE.
DEFENDING THAT VETERANS
MEMORIAL.
WE WON 5, 4,
AND THERE WERE 4 JUSTICES
PREPARE TO SAY TEAR DOWN THE
VETERANS MEMORIAL.
AND UNDER
THE REASONING THAT THEY PUT
FORTH.
THEY WERE NOT FAR AWAY FROM
SAYING BRING OUT THE CHISELS.
AND REMOVE THE CROSSES AND
STARS OF DAVID
ON THE TOMBSTONES OF THE MEN
AND WOMEN THAT
GAVE THEIR LIVES IN ARLINGTON
CEMETERY DEFENDING THIS NATION.
THAT IS A RADICAL THE U AND
WE'RE ONE VOTE AWAY.
TO THE TEXT OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
WHEN WE ARGUE THE 10
COMMANDMENTS CASE OF THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT.
THERE WAS MORE THAN A LITTLE
BIT OF IRONY.
AND THAT THE YOU KNOW HOW MANY
TIMES.
OF THE
10 COMMANDMENTS APPEARS IN THE
COURTROOM.
OF THE SUPREME COURT. THE
ANSWER TO THAT. IS 43.
THERE ARE 2 IMAGES OF THE
10 COMMANDMENTS CARD ON THE
WOODEN DOORS AS YOU WALK OUT OF
THE COURTROOM YOU WILL SOON BE
SITTING LOOKING AT THEM.
THERE ARE
40 IMAGES OF THE 10
COMMANDMENTS
ON THE BRONZE GATES ON THIS
BOTH SIDES OF THE COURTROOM.
AND THEN JUDGE BARRETT WHEN
YOU'RE SITTING. AT THE BENCH
ABOVE YOUR LEFT SHOULDER WILL
BE A FREEZE YOU KNOW WELL.
A FREEZE CARVED INTO THE WALL
OF GREAT LAW GIVERS ONE OF WHOM
IS MOSES.
HE IS STANDING THERE HOLDING
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS. THE TEXT
OF WHICH IS LEGIBLE IN HEBREW.
AS HE LOOKS DOWN UPON THE
JUSTICES AND 4 JUSTICES WILL
SEE WE'RE WILLING TO SAY
IN EFFECT BRING OUT THE SAND
BLASTERS.
BECAUSE WE MUST REMOVE GOD FROM
THE PUBLIC SQUARE.
THAT IS A PROFOUND THREAT
TO OUR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND I
WOULD NOTE THAT IT DOESN'T JUST
EXTEND TO PUBLIC
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
IT ALSO EXTENDS.
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR.
OUR CATHOLIC CONVENT
OF NUNS. THE TAKE OATHS OF
POVERTY.
WHO DEVOTE THEIR LIVES TO
CARING FOR
THE SICK. CARING FOR THE NEEDY
CARING FOR THE ELDERLY.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
LITIGATE LITIGATED AGAINST THE
LITTLE SISTERS OF
THE POOR SEEKING TO FIND THEM.
IN ORDER TO FORCE THEM
TO PAY FOR ABORTION-INDUCING
DRUGS AMONG OTHERS.
TRULY A STUNNING SITUATION WHEN
YOU HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LITIGATING AGAINST NUNS.
SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE HOBBY
LOBBY CASE
ANOTHER CASE. ROUTINELY
DENOUNCED.
BY SENATE DEMOCRATS THE HOBBY
LOBBY CASE CONCLUDED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
COULD NOT PERMISSIBLE LEE.
FORCE A CHRISTIAN
BUSINESS TO VIOLATE THEIR FAITH
THAT REFLECTED THE RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY TRADITIONS OF OUR
COUNTRY THAT YOU CAN LIVE,
ACCORDING TO YOUR FAITH WITHOUT
THE GOVERNMENT TRAMPLING ON.
YOU KNOW WHAT THIS BODY DID I'M
SORRY TO SAY.
SENATE DEMOCRATS INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION TO GOT THE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION
ACT, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
RESTORATION ACT WHEN IT PASSED
THIS BODY PASSED WITH
OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN
MAJORITY.
SENATE DEMOCRATS
INCLUDING CHUCK SCHUMER AND JOE
BIDEN AND TED KENNEDY ALL VOTED
FOR THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
RESTORATION ACT.
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT BILL
CLINTON SIGNED THE RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT.
AND YET IN THE WAKE OF THE
HOBBY LOBBY DECISION THIS BODY
VOTED ON LEGISLATION TO JUST
GOT THE PROTECTIONS FOR
RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY AND I'M SORRY TO
SAY EVERY SINGLE SENATE
DEMOCRAT VOTED TO DO SO NOT A
SINGLE ONE.
WOULD DEFEND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
JOE BIDEN HAS ALREADY PLEDGED
IF HE'S ELECTED HE PLANS
TO INITIATE AGAIN. THE ATTACK
ON THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE
POOR.
NOW IT'S INTERESTING FOLKS
IN THEM PRESS LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT POPE FRANCIS.
AND ON SOME ISSUES. POPE
FRANCIS
HAS BEEN VOCAL WHEN IT COMES TO
THE ENVIRONMENT.
WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES
CONCERNING IMMIGRATION. THE
POPE HAS BEEN VOCAL ON ISSUES
THAT OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
LIKE AGREE WITH.
PRESS IS HAPPY TO AMPLIFY THOSE
VIEWS.
SOMEHOW MISSING FROM THAT
AMPLIFICATION IS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THAT WHEN
THE POPE.
CAME TO THE UNITED STATES AND
WASHINGTON HE WENT AND VISITED
THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR.
HERE IN DC HE WENT TO THEIR
HOME NEAR HERE IN DC IN THE
VATICAN EXPLAINED HE
DID SO BECAUSE HE WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THEIR COSTS.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULDN'T BE PERSECUTING NUNS.
FOR LIVING, ACCORDING TO THEIR
FACE.
THAT'S WHAT'S AT STAKE IN THESE
NOMINATIONS.
AND YOU WON'T HEAR ANY OF THAT
FROM THE SENATE DEMOCRATS ON
THIS COMMITTEE.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE BASIS SO
ANGRY.
AT YOUR NOMINATION JUDGE
BARRETT BECAUSE THEY DON'T
BELIEVE YOU ARE GOING TO JOIN
THE RADICAL EFFORTS.
TO A RACE.
THOSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FROM
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
I BELIEVE THAT ISSUE PRESERVING
THE CONSTITUTION PRESERVING THE
BILL OF RIGHTS ARE
FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES. I
BELIEVE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
ISSUE FACING THE
COUNTRY IN THE NOVEMBER
ELECTIONS.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO VALUE THOSE
RIGHTS.
WE SHOULD TAKE SOLACE IN THE
FACT THAT NOT A SINGLE
DEMOCRAT.
IS WILLING EVEN TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
THE RADICAL SWEEP OF THEIR
AGENDA MUCH LESS DEFENDANT.
THEY KNOW IT'S
WILDLY UNPOPULAR AND LOOK RIGHT
AT THE HEART OF THIS.
IS A DECISION MANY DEMOCRATS
HAVE MADE TO ABANDON DEMOCRACY.
YOU SEE MOST POLICIES POLICIES
LIKE OBAMACARE POLICIES LIKE
HEALTH CARE.
MOST POLICIES AND OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM ARE MEANT
TO THIS BE DECIDED
BY DEMOCRATICALLY
ELECTED LEGISLATURES WHY SO
THEY CAN BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
PEOPLE. SO IF THE VOTER VOTERS
DISAGREE. THEY CAN THROW THE
BUMS OUT.
BUT TO MANY DEMOCRS HAVE
DECIDED TODAY THE DEMOCRACIES
TOO COMPLICATED, IT'S TOO HARD
ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOUR FELLOW
AMERICANS OF THE MERITS OF YOUR
POSITION IT'S
MUCH EASIER JUST TO GIVE IT TO
THE COURTS.
FIND
5 LAWYERS IN BLACK ROBES AND
LET THEM DECREE THE POLICY
OUTCOME YOU WANT.
WHICH MAKES
YOU'RE RADICAL BASE, HAPPY
PRESUMABLY MAKES.
THE MILLIONS IF NOT
BILLIONS IN DARK MONEY BEING
SPENT FOR DEMOCRATS HAPPY.
WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO
JUSTIFY IT TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
JUDGE BARRETT, I'M NOT GOING TO
ASK YOU TO RESPOND TO ANY OF
THAT.
BUT I DO WANT TO SHIFT 2
DIFFERENT TOPIC.
WHICH IS A BIT MORE ABOUT YOU.
PERSONALLY YOUR BACKGROUND.
JUDGE BURKETT DO SPEAKING
FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
>>ONCE UPON A TIME
I CAN SPEAK FRENCH BUT I HAVE
FALLEN WOEFULLY OUT OF PRACTICE
SO PLEASE DON'T ASK ME DO THAT
RIGHT
>>YOU CAN BE ASSURED OF THAT
BECAUSE I
HAD 2 YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL
FRENCH AN AND I SUSPECT YOURS
REMAINS MUCH BETTER THAN MINE.
MUSIC PLAYING INSTRUMENTS.
THE PIANO DAY.
HOW WE PLAY
THE PIANO.
>>WELL, I PLAYED THE PIANO
GROWING UP FOR
10 YEARS. AND NOW MOST OF MY
PIANO PLAYING CONSISTS OF
PLAYING MY CHILDREN SONGS FOR
THEM AND SUPERVISING THEIR OWN
PIANO PRACTICE, I
LOOK FORWARD. ONE DAY WHEN I
HAVE MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO TO
SOME OF MY OWN MUSIC.
>>NOW THAT THE KIDS TO PIANO
LESSONS AS WELL.
>>THE KIDS DO PIANO LESSONS
SOME OF THE OLDER
ONES WHO ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL
HAVE GOTTEN SO BUSY WITH SPORTS
AND THOSE THINGS THAT THEY'VE
STOPPED, BUT THE YOUNGER
CHILDREN DO.
>>OUR GIRLS ARE 9.12 AND
WE HAVE THEY BOTH TO PIANO
LESSONS AND I WILL SAY AT LEAST
IN OUR HOUSEHOLD, IT LESS
THAN VOLUNTARY.
>>HAHA I.
>>YOU KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS
HEIDI AND I FOUND
PARTICULARLY THE LAST 6 MONTHS
DURING COVID WHICH HAS BEEN AN
EXTRAORDINARY CRISIS IS JUST
WITH 2 KIDS
AT HOME. THAT DOING DISTANCE
LEARNING WHEN SCHOOLS WERE SHUT
DOWN WAS REALLY HARD FOR US
WITH 2 CHILDREN.
FOR YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND YOU'VE
GOT 7 KIDS HOW HOW
HOW DID JOE
MANAGED THROUGH THE LOCKDOWNS
AND DISTANCE LEARNING WHAT
WAS THAT LIKE IN THEIR
HOUSEHOLD.
>>WELL IT'S A CHALLENGING TIME
AS IT WAS FOR
EVERY AMERICAN. OUR OLDEST
DAUGHTER EMMA WHO IS IN COLLEGE
MOVE TOME AT THAT POINT SAYS
THAT NOTRE DAME IS CLOSED.
SO I'M OBVIOUSLY COULD MANAGE
HER OWN A LEARNING AND OUR HIGH
SCHOOL. CHILDREN TESTED VIVIAN
COULD TOO.
BUT JETS AND I JUST TRIED TO
TAKE A DIVIDE AND CONQUER
APPROACH FOR THE YOUNGER FOR.
AND YEAH, IT WAS QUITE
CHALLENGING ASSURE HIM.
>>ONE PART OF
YOUR STORY THAT I FIND
PARTICULARLY REMARKABLE
THAT I ADMIRE.
>>IS THE DECISION YOU MADE TO
ADOPT
2 CHILDREN. YOU AND YOUR
HUSBAND HAD 5 BIOLOGICAL
CHILDREN YOU ADOPTED 2 MORE.
THE ADOPTED CHILDREN FROM
HAITI.
HAITI IS A COUNTRY THAT HAS
SOME OF THE MOST CRUSHING
POVERTY IN THE WORLD, MY
BROTHER IN LAW IS A MISSIONARY
IN HAITI AND THEN ACTUALLY
HIDING THE GIRLS JUST GOT BACK
FROM HAITI. A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
JUST CURIOUS IF YOU WOULD
SHARE.
WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND WITH
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHAT LED YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND
TO MAKE THE DECISION TO
ADOPT IT'S IT'S I THINK ONE OF
THE MOST LOVING AND
COMPASSIONATE DECISIONS ANY
FAMILY CAN MAKE.
>>WHEN JESSE AND I WERE
ENGAGED. WE MET ANOTHER COUPLE
WHO HAD
AND ADOPTED IN THIS INSTANCE,
IT WAS A COUPLE THAT ADOPTED A
CHILD WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS AND THEN WE ALSO
MET ANOTHER
COUPLE THAT ADOPTED A FEW
CHILDREN INTERNATIONALLY
AND WE DECIDED AT THAT POINT
WHILE WE WERE ENGAGED THAT AT
SOME POINT IN
THE FUTURE. WE WANT TO DO THAT
I GUESS WE HAD IMAGINED
INITIALLY THAT
WE WOULD HAVE WHATEVER
BIOLOGICAL KIDS
THAT WE HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE
AND THEN ADOPT AT THE END BUT
AFTER WE HAD OUR FIRST
DAUGHTER EMMA WE THOUGHT
WHY WAIT SO I WAS
EXPECTING WHEN WE WENT IN
GOT BINION SO SHE AND TEST
FUNCTION WE CALL THEM ARE
FRATERNAL TWINS THEY'RE IN THE
SAME GRADE. AND IT REALLY HAS
ENRICHED OUR
YOU KNOW ONCE WE
HAD ADOPTED THEY'VE BEEN AT
THAT POINT THAT WE MADE THE
DECISION THAT WE DEFINITELY
WANTED TO ADOPT AGAIN. AND SO
SEVERAL
YEARS LATER JOHN PETER ENTERED
OUR FAMILY.
>>YOUR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN
WONDERFULLY
WELL BEHAVED. I THINK YOU'RE
AMAZING ROLE MODEL FOR
LITTLE GIRLS, WHAT ADVICE WOULD
YOU GIVE A LITTLE GIRLS.
>>WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT DESIGN
AND MY
BROTHER NOW HAS LEFT IT'S JUST
THINKING OF
WHAT MY DAD TOLD ME BEFORE THE
SPELLING BEE ABOUT ANYTHING
BOYS CAN DO GIRLS CAN DO
BETTER.
AND MY SONS ARE SITTING BEHIND
ALSO SAY, BUT BOYS ARE GREAT
TOO.
THANK YOU SIR CULTURE.
>>THANK YOU VERY
MUCH MISTER WELCOME AGAIN
JUDGE.
SINCE I HAVE
THE DRAW TO ALWAYS FOLLOW
SENATOR CRUZ I DID WANT TO MAKE
ONE
THING CLEAR. AFTER LISTENING TO
THAT FOR A HALF
HOUR THAT JOE BIDEN IS CATHOLIC
AND HE IS A MAN OF FAITH.
AND THEN I WANT TO TURN TO
SOMETHING ELSE AND THAT IS
WE NEED TO RESET HERE IN MY
MIND FOR THE PEOPLE AT HOME A
BIT OF A
REALITY CHECK. THAT THIS ISN'T
NORMAL
RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT PEOPLE ARE
DEALING WITH THAT 7.7 MILLION
PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN
THIS VIRUS. THE
214,000 AMERICANS HAVE DIED.
AND FOR PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME
AND WONDERING WHAT WE'RE ALL
DOING
IN THIS ROOM RIGHT NOW AND
MAYBE YOUR HOME BECAUSE YOU
LOST YOUR
JOB OR YOU GOT
YOUR KIDS CRAWLING ALL OVER
YOUR COUCH
RIGHT NOW MAY BE TRYING TO
TEACH YOUR FIRST GRADER MUTE
BUTTON TO GO
TO SCHOOL. OR MAYBE YOU'VE GOT
A SMALL BUSINESS.
THAT YOU HAD TO CLOSE DOWN OR
THAT'S STRUGGLING.
WE SHOULD BE DOING SOMETHING
ELSE
RIGHT NOW. WE SHOULD BE DOING
THAT. WE
SHOULD BE PASSING CORONAVIRUS
RELIEF
LIKE THE HOUSE JUST IN IT WHICH
WAS A SIGNIFICANT BILL THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN A
BIG HELP AND I THINK PEOPLE
HAVE TO KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW.
AND WHETHER YOU'RE DEMOCRAT
INDEPENDENT OR REPUBLICAN AND
THAT'S WHY I STARTED OUT
YESTERDAY BY TELLING PEOPLE
THAT THEY NEED TO VOTE.
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING ON THE
OTHER SIDE
HAVE BEEN KIND OF PORTRAYING
THE
THAT THE AND JUDGES
BEFORE US AND AS BEING SOME
KIND OF IVORY
TOWER EXERCISE. I THINK ONE OF
MY FRIENDS CALLED
RELATED THAT YOU'D BE DEALING
WITH THE DORMANT COMMERCE
CLAUSE WILL ENSURE THAT MIGHT
BE TRUE. BUT WE
ALSO NOW THAT THIS IS THE
HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND
THAT THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT HAVE A REAL IMPACT,
I'M PEOPLE AND I APPRECIATE A
JUDGE THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU
DIDN'T WANT TO BE
A QUEEN. I ACTUALLY WOULDN'T
MIND BEING THE QUEEN
TRUTH BE KNOWN, I WOULDN'T MIND
DOING IT IN KIND OF A
BENEVOLENT QUEEN IN MAKING
DECISIONS SO WE CAN GET THINGS
DONE.
BUT YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE
YOUR VIEWS
INFLUENCE YOU AND THE LIKE, BUT
THE TRUTH IS THE SUPREME
COURT RULINGS. THE NEW RULE
PEOPLE'S LIFE. THEY DECIDED
PEOPLE CAN
GET MARRIED. THEY DECIDE WHAT
SCHOOLS THEY CAN GO TO THEY
DECIDE IF THEY COULD
EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO
CONTRACEPTION ALL OF THESE
THINGS MATTER SO I WANT TO MAKE
THAT CLEAR
AND THE 3RD RESET HERE THAT
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE IS THAT
THIS HEARING IS NOT NORMAL.
IT IS A SHAM. IT IS
A RUSH TO PUT IN A JUSTICE.
THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD A
VACANCY SO CLOSE TO
AN ELECTION WAS WHEN ABRAHAM
LINCOLN
AS PRESIDENT. AND HE MADE THE
WISE DECISION TO WAIT UNTIL
AFTER
THE ELECTION. THE LAST TIME WE
LOST TO JUSTICE.
SO CLOSE TO
AN ELECTION. THAT'S WHAT HE
DID.
TODAY WE ARE 21 DAYS FROM THE
ELECTION.
PEOPLE ARE VOTING MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY CAST THEIR
BALLOTS AND
I GO TO THE WORDS OF
SENATOR MCCONNELL. LAST TIME WE
HAVE A SITUATION IN ELECTION
YEAR.
HE SAID THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
SHOULD HAVE A
VOICE IN THE SELECTION OF THEIR
NEXT SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE. THEREFORE THIS
VACANCY SHOULD NOT BE FILLED
UNTIL WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT.
THAT SET THE
PRECEDENT TENT THAT SO MANY OF
YOU HAVE EMBRACE.
AT LEAST HE DID A FEW YEARS AGO
AND THAT IS THAT IN AN ELECTION
YEAR.
THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THE
PRESIDENT.
AND THEN THE PRESIDENT
NOMINATES THE JUSTICE.
SO WHY IS THIS HAPPENING.
WELL THAT'S A
GOOD QUESTION.
OUR PRESIDENT HE IS THE ONE
THAT DECIDED TO PLOP A SUPREME
COURT NOMINATION IN THE MIDDLE
OF AN ELECTION.
WHEN PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE IS ON
THE LINE WITH THE CASE BEFORE
THE COURT ON NOVEMBER 10TH.
SO LET'S SEE WHAT
HE SAID ABOUT THE SUPREME
COURT. WELL, ONE OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S
CAMPAIGN PROMISES IN
2015 WAS THAT HIS
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. WE'LL DO
THE RIGHT THING.
>>ON OBAMA CARE. YOU CAN SEE IT
RIGHT HERE. AND IN FACT
JUDGE JUST ONE DAY AFTER YOU
WERE NOMINATED, THIS IS LIKE A
FEW WEEKS AGO.
HE SAID ALSO
ON TWITTER THAT IT WOULD BE A
BIG WIN.
IF THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES
DOWN THE HEALTH LAW.
JUDGE MY FIRST QUESTION YOU
THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE
PRESIDENT AT
HIS WORD. WHEN HE SAYS
HIS NOMINEE WILL DO THE RIGHT
THING IN OVERTURNING THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR.
>>I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO WHAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID ON
TWITTER.
HE HASN'T SAID ANY OF THAT
TO ME AND WHAT I CAN TELL
AS I TOLD HER COLLEAGUES
EARLIER TODAY IS THAT NO ONE
HAS ELICITED FROM
ME ANY COMMITMENT ANY CASE OR
EVEN BROUGHT UP A COMMITMENT IN
THE CASE. I'M A 100% COMMITTED
TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE FROM
POLITICAL PRESSURE. SO WHATEVER
PEOPLE'S
YOU KNOW PARTY PLATFORMS MAY BE
YOUR CAMPAIGN PROMISES MAY BE
THE REASON WHY JUDGES HAVE LIFE
TENURE IS TO INSULATE THEM FROM
THOSE PRESSURES. SO I TAKE MY
OATH SERIOUSLY TO FOLLOW THE
LAW.
NOT BE
COMMITTED KNOW WHAT I THINK YOU
MEANT TO DECIDE A
CASE ANY PARTICULAR AND I THINK
THIS LIFETIME NEAR THIS IDEA
THAT YOU HAVE JUST FOR EVERYONE
OUT THERE A JOB FOR LIFE.
>>MAKE THIS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT
FOR US
TO CONSIDER WHERE YOU MIGHT
BE I KNOW USE HAVE NOT SAID WHO
YOU WOULD READ RULE ON THIS
CASE. THAT'S
COMING UP RIGHT AFTER
THE ELECTION. WHERE THE
PRESIDENT SAID IT WOULD BE A
BIG WIN IF THE SUPREME COURT
STRIKES DOWN THE LAW BUT YOU
HAVE DIRECTLY
CRITICIZE JUSTICE. ROBERTS
IN AND ARTICLE IN MY OWN STATE
AND ONE THE MINNESOTA
LAW SCHOOL JOURNALS.
IT WAS IN 2017. IT WAS THE SAME
YEAR YOU BECAME
A JUDGE AND WHEN ROBERTS WRITES
THE
OPINION TOO COOL BE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. YOU SAID HE
QUOTE PUSHED THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT BEYOND ITS
PLAUSIBLE MEANING TO SAVE THE
STATUTE IS THAT CORRECT.
>>SENATOR KLOBUCHAR I JUST WANT
TO CLARIFY IS THIS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY
PUBLICATION THAT YOU AND
I DISCUSSED, YEAH AND THAT IT
IS, BUT IT'S STILL A MINUTE NOW
OVERSEE MINUTES.
YES, OKAY, JUST WANT TO BE SURE
YEAH AHEAD AND HAVE THE
CINNAMON AND JUST AGAIN DID YOU
ASK THAT QUESTION DID YOU SAY
THAT HE PUSHED THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT BEYOND ITS PLAUSIBLE
MEANING TO SAY THE STATUTE.
ONE THING I WANT TO CLARIFY YOU
SAID THAT I
CRITICIZE US, YOU KNOW CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS.
I DON'T ATTACK PEOPLE JUST
IDEAS SO IT'S JUST DESIGNED
TO IT TO MAKE A
COMMENT ABOUT HIS REASONING IN
THAT CASE WHICH I
AS I SAID BEFORE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE WAY THE MAJORITY
OPINION CHARACTERIZE IT
AS THE LESS PLAUSIBLE READING
OF
THE STATUTE. OK SO YOU DIDN'T
AGREE
WITH HIS REASONING IN THE CASE
THAT UPHELD THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT.
>>WHAT
I SAID, AND WAS THIS KING
VERSUS BURWELL OR AN F I B
VERSUS CIVILIANS THAT WAS AND
I'D BE VERSUS ITALY US GET TO
KING VERSUS BURWELL IN THE
SECOND.
WHAT I SAID WITH RESPECT TO AN
F I B VERSUS A BIAS IS THAT
THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE
MAJORITY ADOPTED
CAN STERLING THE MANDATE TO BE
ATTACKS RATHER THAN A PENALTY
WAS NOT THE MOST NATURAL
READING OF THE STATUTE. HE WAS
STILL THE
READING THAT.
>>JUSTICE ROBERTS GOT TO NOW
YOU ALSO CRITICIZED AS YOU
POINTED OUT BY BRINGING UP KING
V BURWELL ANOTHER CASE WHERE
THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE
HEALTH LAW THIS WITHIN A
2015. NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO
INTERVIEW
AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESULT
OF PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO.
KEEP. THEIR SUBSIDIES UNDER THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. WAS AND IT WOULD HELP
MILLIONS
OF AMERICANS. YET YOU PRAISE
THE DISSENT BY JUSTICE SCALIA
SAYING THE DESCENT
HAD QUOTE THE BETTER OF THE
LEGAL ARGUMENT IS THAT CORRECT.
I DID SAY THAT YES OKAY
SO THEN WOULD YOU RULE HAVE
RULED THE SAME WAY AND VOTED
WITH JUSTICE SCALIA.
>>WELL SENATOR
ONE
OF PLUS SIZE OF THE UPSIDES OF
BEING AN ACADEMIC IS THAT YOU
CAN SPEAK
FOR YOURSELF THAT PROFESSOR
PROFESSES
AND CAN OPINE BUT IT'S VERY
DIFFERENT THAN THE JUDICIAL
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
SO IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME
TO SAY HOW I WOULD HAVE DECIDED
THAT CASE IF I HAD TO GO
THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF
JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING THAT I
WAS DESCRIBING THIS MORNING.
HAVING BEEN A JUDGE FOR 3 YEARS
I
CAN SAY I APPRECIATE GREATLY
THE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN ACADEMIC WRITING OR
ACADEMIC SPEAKING AND JUDICIAL
SUCH
THAT THE JUDGE MIGHT LOOK AT AN
ACADEMIC CAN SAY EASY FOR YOU
TO SAY BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ON A
MULTI MEMBER COURT
YOU'RE NOT CONSTRAINED BY
STARRY
YOU DON'T HAVE REAL PARTIES IN
FRONT OF YOU CONSULTING WITH
LITIGANTS CONSULTING WITH
THEIR CLIENTS. IT'S JUST A
DIFFERENT PROCESS, I'M JUST I
VIEW THAT'S ONE SO INTERESTING
LEIGH BECAUSE
YOU WERE.
>>COMMENTING ON THE PUBLIC
POLICY RESULT WHICH YOU AND
MY COLLEAGUES, THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE
OF SAID THIS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT
PUB PUBLIC POLICY AND YOU SAID
OK THAT'S OK
BUT THEN YOU ARE REALLY CLEAR
ON YOUR LEGAL OUTCOME IN
TERMS OF
YOUR VIEW OF WHOSE SIDE YOU'RE
ON YOU'RE ON SCULLY ASIDE AND
OF COURSE THAT WAS
A SIDE AND TO NOT UPHOLD THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. WHICH
WOULD HAVE
KICKED MILLIONS
OF PEOPLE OFF THEIR HEALTH CARE
IN EFFECT THEY WOULD HAVE
LOST THEIR SUBSIDIES AND I JUST
SEE THIS IS INTERESTING BECAUSE
OF THIS
KIND OF THE ECONOMY THEY'RE
TRYING TO
MAKE BETWEEN POLICY IN LEGAL IN
MY VIEW
IS THAT LEGAL DECISIONS AFFECT
POLICY, I MEAN, I'M
LOOKING AT PEOPLE IN MY THAT
WILL DEAL WITH THIS IF THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT
IS STRUCK DOWN A WISER FROM
SAINT PAUL WHO WAS BORN WITH
CEREBRAL PALSY BECAUSE OF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
HE IS NOW 16 AND IS A PROBLEM
BOY SCOUT CASEY WHOSE BROTHER
LIVES IN ALEXANDRIA, HIS
CHRONIC
KIDNEY FAILURE, AND HE NEEDS A
TRANSPLANT WITHOUT THE A
C A THAT BE BACK.
OUR BURNETT FROM THE SUBURBS
THAT SAME CAR WHOSE DAUGHTER
HAS
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, DEPENDS ON
BENEFITS UNDER THE A
C A WELL, LEON OF
FRIENDLY WHO HAS A 21 YEAR-OLD
SON
WITH AUTISM AND NEEDS HER
CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO STAY ON
HER INSURANCE UNTIL
SHE'S 26. MELANIE A SENIOR FROM
DULUTH IS BEING TREATED FOR
OVARIAN CANCER NEEDS ACCESS TO
THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. SO MY POINT IS
THAT THESE ARE REAL WORLD
SITUATIONS
AND SO I GET THAT YOU'RE NOT
SAYING HOW YOU'D
RULE ON THESE CASES SO WHAT
DOES THAT LEAVE US WITH HERE TO
TRY TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT KIND OF JUDGE
YOU WOULD BE AND
I WAS THINKING LAST NIGHT OF
WHEN I WAS
GROWING UP, WE WOULD GO UP TO
NORTHERN MINNESOTA
AND WE I DIDN'T HAVE A CABIN,
BUT WE HAD FRIENDS
THAT DID
AND WE WOULD GO ON THESE WALKS
IN THE WITH MY MOM AND SHE
LOVED TO SHOW
ALL THE TRACKS ON THAT PATH
WHETHER
THEY WERE
I DEER TRACKS AND SHE GAVE US
FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WERE OUT
OR MAYBE EVEN
UP THERE. AND WE WOULD FOLLOW
THESE TRACKS DOWN
THAT PATH. AND YOU ALWAYS THINK
THEY'RE GOING TO BE A DEER
AROUND THE CORNER THAT WE'RE
GOING TO SEE AND VERY RARELY
WAS
THERE ONE, BUT WE WOULD FOLLOW
BE TRUE.
AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT
YOUR RECORD. I JUST KEEP
FOLLOWING THE TRACKS. THAT'S
WHAT I'VE GOT
TO DO. AND SO WHEN I FOLLOW THE
TRACKS. THIS IS WHAT
I SEE
YOU CONSIDER JUSTICE SCALIA,
ONE OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE
JUDGES IN THE HISTORY OF THE
SUPREME COURT. AS YOUR MENTOR.
YOU CRITICIZE THE DECISION
WRITTEN BY
JUSTICE ROBERT UPHOLDING THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT IS
TO ME. ONE BIG TRACK EVEN IF
YOU DIDN'T
CONSIDER YOURSELF CRITICIZING
HIM PERSONALLY
YOU CRITICIZED.
THE REASONING. YOU THEN SAID IN
ANOTHER CASE ABOUT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT
YOU WOULD THAT YOU LIKE THE
LEGAL REASONING
THAT HE HAD THE BETTER LEGAL
ARGUMENT THAT JUSTICE SCALIA
HAD THE BETTER
LEGAL ARGUMENT. YOU HAVE SIGNED
YOUR NAME TO A
PUBLIC STATEMENT FEATURED IN AN
AD A
PAID AD THAT
CALLED FOR AN END TO WHAT IT
CALLED THE AD CALLED THE
BARBARIC LEGACY OF ROE
V WADE, WHICH RAN ON
THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1973
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
YOU DISAGREED WITH LONGSTANDING
PRECEDENT ON GUN SAFETY WHICH
SAID THAT FALLON SHOULD BE ABLE
TO GET GOT SOMETHING THAT WAS
PRETTY IMPORTANT
TO ME.
I WHEN I HAD MY OLD JOB IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT SENATOR DURBIN ASK
YOU ABOUT YOU SUGGESTED THAT
YOU AGREE WITH
THE DISSENT IN THE MARRIAGE
EQUALITY FOR
CASE OBERGEFELL THAT IT WASN'T
THE ROLE OF THE COURT TO DECIDE
THAT
SAME COUPLES HAD
THE RIGHT TO BE MARRIED.
I THINK THIS WAS IN A LECTURE
YOU
GAVE WHERE YOU THE DISSENTS
VIEW IS THAT IT IT WASN'T FOR
THE COURT TO DECIDE THEY COME
PEOPLE COULD LOBBY IN
STATE LEGISLATURES. AND ALL
THIS TAKES
ME TO ONE POINT AS I FOLLOW
THOSE TRACKS DOWN THAT PATH.
AND IT TAKES ME TO THIS POINT
WHERE I BELIEVE AND I THINK THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT
YOU WOULD BE THE POLAR OPPOSITE
OF
JUSTICE GINSBURG. SHE AND
JUSTICE SCALIA WERE
FRIENDS. YES. BUT SHE NEVER
EMBRACED HIS LEGAL PHILOSOPHY.
SO THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS ME AND
I WANT TO TURN TO
AN AREA. THAT'S WHERE I THINK
JUSTICE
GINSBURG WHO'S SEE WE'RE
CONSIDERING YOU FOR WAS TRULY
A HERO AND THAT WAS THE AREA.
AND THAT WAS THE AREA.
ELECTIONS.
I THINK THAT WHAT DID THE
PRESIDENT
SAY HERE.
HE SAID SEPTEMBER
23RD 2020. I THINK THIS.
HE MEANS ELECTION,
WE'LL END UP IN THE SUPREME
COURT.
AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
THAT WE HAVE 9 JUSTICES.
I DON'T
MUCH CLEAR WE CAN BE AND AS I
SAID YESTERDAY. I DO NOT FOR A
MINUTE CONCEDE THAT THIS
ELECTION IS GOING TO END UP IN
THE SUPREME COURT
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE VOTING IN
DROVES AS WE SPEAK,
BUT THAT IS WHAT IS ON THE MIND
OF THE MAN WHO NOMINATED YOU
FOR
THIS JOB, THEN
HE SAID AND SEPTEMBER 29TH OF
2020.
>>I THINK I'M COUNTING ON THEM.
HE MET THE COURT.
>>TO LOOK AT THE BALLOTS.
DEFINITELY.
>>I KNOW YOU SAID EARLIER IN
OUR QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR
LEAHY THAT YOU ARE NOT
GOING TO COMMIT TO WHETHER OR
NOT YOU'RE GOING TO RICH YOU
IS YOURSELF FOR ANY ANY KIND OF
AN ELECTION CASE.
BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
AS THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID
THESE THINGS AND AS HE HAS
NOMINATED YOU THAT PEOPLE ARE
VOTING
RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE VOTING AS I
SAID IN DROVES.
YOU KNOW HOW
MANY STATES PEOPLE ARE VOTING
RIGHT NOW JUDGE I THINK ONE OF
MY
COLLEAGUES SENATE. I
MORE THAN 40 STATES PEOPLE ARE
VOTING RIGHT NOW AS
WE SPEAK. I THINK SOMETHING
LIKE
9 MILLION VOTES HAVE BEEN CAST.
DO YOU THINK IT IS FAITHFUL TO
OUR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES TO
FILL A SUPREME
COURT VACANCY THIS CLOSE TO
AN ELECTION. WHEN PEOPLE ARE
STILL VOTING.
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR I THINK THAT
IS A QUESTION FOR THE POLITICAL
BRANCHES.
>>THAT'S THAT'S YOUR RIGHT TO
ANSWERING THAT WAY.
BEYOND THIS
IMMEDIATE ELECTION.
I WANT TO TURN TO THE SUPREME
COURT'S CRITICAL ROLE.
>>WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHT TO
VOTE THIS AREA WHERE
JUSTICE GINSBURG WITH SUCH A
CHAMPION.
SENATOR DURBIN WENT OVER YOUR
DESCENT AT LENGTH
IN CANTOR THE WHERE YOU DO IS
A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIC
AND YOU WROTE
THAT HISTORICALLY. FALLON
SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM
EXERCISING
CERTAIN RIGHTS LIKE THE RIGHT
TO VOTE. AND TO SERVE ON
JURIES.
SO MY QUESTION IS THIS ACTUALLY
THIS NEXT LINE
REYES SAID
THESE RIGHTS BELONGED ONLY TO
VIRTUOUS CITIZENS.
>>SENATOR I WOULD NEED TO LOOK
AT THE ARTICLE TO CLARIFY BUT
AS I'M SITTING HERE. I DON'T
THINK I SAID FELONS SHOULD LOSE
VOTING RIGHTS I THINK WHAT I
WAS
TALKING ABOUT IS THAT COULD
RETAIN THE AMENDMENT YET THAT.
>>BUT IT WAS AN ARTICLE JUST TO
BE CLEAR RIGHT THIS IS YOUR
DISSENT ON MY SIDE I
DID YEAH I THINK IT'S
YOUR DISSENT IN CANCER. YES,
YOU READ IT SAYS FOUND TO BE
DISQUALIFIED
FROM EXERCISING CERTAIN RIGHTS
LIKE THE RIGHTS TO VOTE AND TO
RENDER ITS
BUT APART FROM THAT CLAUSE YOU
SAID
THESE RIGHTS BELONG
ONLY TO VIRTUOUS CITIZENS THAT
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THAT MEANS SO THE ARGUMENT IN
THE THOSE WHO
ARE CHALLENGING HOWLER AND
THOSE WHO ARE ARGUING ON THE
SIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
CANTOR CASE IS THAT THE 7TH THE
SECOND AMENDMENT IS A CIVIC
RIGHT.
AND THAT IS HOW THE SUPREME
COURT ITSELF.
FRAMED
THE DEBATE AS A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN
CIVIC RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS WITH
VOTING BEING A CIVIC RIGHT
AND IN LITERATURE IN HISTORICAL
LITERATURE THAT
WAS WHICH WAS AT PLAY IN THAT
CASE ABOUT HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE
THE
WORD VIRTUOUS BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE
CONSTITUTION SENATOR AND I KNOW
WHAT THAT MEANS
BECAUSE WE'RE WE HAVE WE'RE
LIVING AT A TIME WHERE A LOT OF
PEOPLE ARE HAVING THEIR
VOTING RIGHTS.
>>TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM SO
WHAT'S VIRTUOUS.
>>OKAY WHAT SENATOR I WANT TO
BE CLEAR THAT THAT IS
NOT IN THE OPINION DESIGNED TO
DENIGRATE THE RIGHT TO VOTE
WHICH
IS FUNDAMENTAL THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN CIVIC AND INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS IS ONE THAT'S PRESENCE
IN THE COURT'S DECISIONS AND IT
HAS TO DO WITH IT JUST PREVENTS
A VIEW OF WHAT RIGHTS ACT.
AND THE VIRTUOUS CITIZENRY
IDEA IS A HISTORICAL INJURES
CREDENTIAL AND IT CERTAINLY
DOES NOT MEAN THAT
I THINK THAT ANYBODY GETS A
MEASURE OF VIRTUE AND WHETHER
THEY'RE GOOD
OR NOT AND WHETHER THEY'RE
ALLOWED TO VOTE THAT'S NOT WHAT
I SAID OK
NOW LET ME ASK YOU THIS IN A
DIFFERENT WAY LET'S GO TO THE
REAL WORLD
HERE CENT.
>>IN JUSTICE GINSBURG'S DISSENT
IN SHELBY
WHERE 5 FOR COURT STRUCK DOWN A
KEY PROVISION OF THE
VOTING RIGHTS AS SHE DESCRIBED
THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN OUR
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM AND I ASSUME
YOU AGREE WITH THIS BECAUSE YOU
JUST SAID THAT NOT THAT'S NOT
GOOD TO HAVE DISSENT.
YOU AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT THAT
IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
BECAUSE
HE JUST.
>>AS I JUST SAID YEAH THE PORT
DISTRICT REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY
SAID OK SO SHE ALSO WROTE IN
HER
DISSENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION
USES THE WORDS RIGHT TO VOTE IN
5 SEPARATE PLACES, THE 1415 19
24TH AND
26TH AMENDMENT. EACH OF THESE
AMENDMENTS, THIS IS STILL HER
TALKING
NOT BE EACH OF THESE AMENDMENTS
CONTAINS THE SAME
BROAD EMPOWERMENT OF CONGRESS
TO ENACT APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE THE
PROTECTED RIGHT. THE
IMPLICATION
IS UNMISTAKABLE UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
CONGRESS HOLDS THE
LEAD RAIN IN MAKING THE RIGHT
TO VOTE EQUALLY REAL FOR ALL
US CITIZENS. DO YOU AGREE WITH
JUSTICE
GINSBURG'S CONCLUSION
THAT THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY
EMPOWERS CONGRESS TO PROTECT
THE RIGHT
TO VOTE.
>>WELL SENATOR THAT WOULD BE
LISTENING AND OPINION FOR ME ON
WHETHER
THE DESCENT OR THE MAJORITY WAS
RIGHT IN SHELBY COUNTY. I CAN'T
EXPRESS A VIEW
ON THAT AS I'VE SAID BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
JUDICIAL LAW.
>>OK SO HERE'S MY PROP SO YOU
GO OUT OF YOUR WAY IN THE CASE
DICK DURBIN
WAS DISCUSSING TO MAKE THIS
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOTING
RIGHTS AND
GUN RIGHTS, BUT NOW
YOU WON'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT
YOU AGREE WITH GINSBURG AND SO
MY
VIEW IS JUST BASED AGAIN
FOLLOWING
THOSE TRACKS ON THIS CASE.
THAT YOU ARE MOST LIKELY WITH
THE MAJORITY BUT I KNOW YOU'RE
NOT
GOING TO ANSWER THIS BUT WHAT I
DO WANT YOU TO KNOW IS THIS AND
THIS IS WHERE IT GETS
INTERESTING BECAUSE WHAT
JUSTICE GINSBURG PREDICTED IN
THAT DISSENT. ACCORDING TO THE
BRENNAN CENTER OVER
20 STATES. SINCE THAT CASE CAME
OUT.
THAT WITHDREW THAT TOOK AWAY
PART OF
THE PROTECTIONS FROM THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT OVER 20 STATES HAVE
NOW MADE
MORE RESTRICTIVE VOTING LAWS
THAN THEY DID BEFORE
THAT CASE DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST
TO YOU THAT JUSTICE GINSBURG
HAD THE BETTER OF
THE ARGUMENT. WHEN
SHE WROTE THAT THROWING OUT
PRECLEARANCE WHEN IT HAS WORKED
AND IS CONTINUING TO WORK TO
STOP DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES IS
LIKE THROWING AWAY YOUR
UMBRELLA IN A RAINSTORM BECAUSE
YOU ARE NOT GETTING WET.
DO YOU THINK.
AND I MEAN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING
LIKE BASICALLY THIS RAINSTORM
THAT SHE SAID
WOULD COME HAS COME WITH ALL
THESE STATES, INCLUDING A
NUMBER
OF THEM THAT MY COLLEAGUES OVER
THERE REPRESENT.
ENACTED STRICTER LAWS.
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR I WANT TO
CLARIFY SAID, I WAS ANSWERING
SENATOR DURBIN'S QUESTIONS.
>>ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
BUT REFUSING TO ANSWER YEARS
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY
THAT
I HAD WRITTEN CANTOR VERSUS BAR
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS TALKING
ABOUT IT BUT SINCE I DIDN'T
WRITE SHELBY I CAN'T REALLY
TALK ABOUT IT SO ANYTHING THAT
I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT OR TALKED
ABOUT
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
BUT AGAIN.
>>IT JUST SEEMS TO ME WE'RE OUT
HERE AND THAT CASE
AND THIS IS A CASE THAT IS SO
REAL FOR SO MANY PEOPLE RIGHT
NOW.
AND THAT WHILE YOU CAN
SAY IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
THE ISSUE IS THAT THIS CASE AND
THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT OR SO KEY IN LET ME
LET ME JUST
SAY WALK. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF OUR
DEMOCRACY HERE FOR CENTURIES
AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED
TO PROTECT THE RIGHT
TO VOTE.
AND SO WHAT MATTERS IS NOT
JUST WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT ITS
BEING FUNDAMENTAL IT'S WHAT YOU
DO STATES LIKE SOUTH CAROLINA
TEXAS, NORTH CAROLINA,
LOUISIANA,
TENNESSEE HAVE POLICIES THAT
MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE
TO VOTE. AND IT'S A REAL WORLD
TEAM BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
IN FACT BACK IN MAY WHEN VOTERS
IN WISCONSIN WE'RE STANDING IN
LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
PANDEMIC IN
HOMEMADE MASK IN GARBAGE BAGS
IN THE MIDDLE OF A RAINSTORM
JUST EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT
TO VOTE 70 OF THEM GOT COVID
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T
KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT BACK THEN
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAD TOLD
US WHAT
HE KNEW AND WE DIDN'T KNOW
ENOUGH TO PROTECT
THOSE VOTERS. SO IT ENDS UP AT
THE SUPREME COURT WHAT A
JUSTICE GINSBURG DO.
WHEN THE REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED
MAJORITY ON THE
COURT RULED THAT VOTERS IN
WISCONSIN COULD NOT HAVE MORE
TIME TO GET
THEIR BALLOTS IN DURING THE
PANDEMIC SHE CALLED THEM OUT IN
HER DISSENT.
IN HER BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
AND SHE SAID THE
MAJORITY OPINION BOGGLED THE
MIND.
SO WHAT BOGGLES MY MIND.
WELL
2 WEEKS AGO THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT REINSTATED THE SOUTH
CAROLINA REPORT REQUIREMENT
THAT MAIL IN BALLOTS MUST HAVE
WITNESS SIGNATURES IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC YOU GOT
TO GO AND GET
A WITNESS
IN TEXAS, REPUBLICANS HAVE
ARGUED THAT THE PANDEMIC WASN'T
A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO LET
PEOPLE UNDER AGE, 65 VOTE BY
MAIL DESPITE
THE FACT
THAT OVER 42,000 AMERICANS
UNDER 65 HAVE DIED FROM COVID
AND
THE GOVERNOR. RIGHT NOW IS
FORCING THAT STATE TO HAVE
ONLY ONE BALLOT BOX PER COUNTY
INCLUDING IN
HARRIS COUNTY, WHERE THERE ARE
4.7 MILLION PEOPLE AND
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT PART OF
JUDGE TOOK CARE OF IT A FEW
DAYS AGO,
HE DID. BUT THEN YESTERDAY 3
TRUMP
APPOINTED JUDGES CAME IN AND
REVERSE THAT. SO WE'RE BACK TO
ONE
BALLOT BOX FOR PEOPLE TO DROP
THEIR
BALLOT OFF IN A COUNTY OF
4.7 MILLION PEOPLE IN TENNESSEE
REPUBLICAN THAT TRIED
TO PREVENT BALLOT DROP BOXES.
I KNOW WE HAVE THE SECRETARY
OF STATE HAS ONE OF OUR
WITNESSES AT A RULES COMMITTEE
HEARING
AND THEY HAVE ARGUED IN COURT
THE COVID-19 IS NOT A VALID
EXCUSE TO VOTE BY MAIL.
IN NORTH CAROLINA, THE SUPREME
COURT
STRUCK DOWN A CORE COMPONENT OF
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WHAT
HAPPENED WELL STATES LIKE
NORTH CAROLINA PASS LAWS THAT
WERE SO AGREE JUST TO MAKE
IT HARDER. THE VOTE THAT THE
4TH CIRCUIT STRUCK DOWN THEIR
LINE NOTED THAT IT TARGETED
AFRICAN AMERICANS WITH ALMOST
SURGICAL
PRECISION SO THAT IS WHAT THE
STATE SAW AND THAT IS WHY NOT
HAVING JUSTICE GINSBURG ON THE
COURT RIGHT NOW.
IS SO FRIGHTENING TO SO MANY
AMERICANS
OUT THERE AND THAT IS WHY WE'RE
ASKING YOU THESE QUESTIONS
ABOUT VOTING. SO LET ME
USE TURN TO ANOTHER ELECTION
QUESTION GERRYMANDERING IN
2015. JUSTICE GINSBURG
WROTE ORANGE ALREADY OPINION IN
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE.
BUR IT AND THE
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION,
HOPING THAT IT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE PEOPLE
OF ARIZONA TO AMEND THE STATE
CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH
AN INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION BECAUSE OF
THIS CASE AND JUSTICE
GINSBURG'S OPINION. MANY ARGUE
NOW THAT ARIZONA HAS FAIRER
ELECTORAL MAPS. THE DECISION
WAS 5, 4,
HERE'S YOUR EXAMPLE
AND NOW JUSTICE GINSBURG AND
JUSTICE KENNEDY ARE NO LONGER
ON THE COURT.
MY QUESTION IS ISTHMUS STATE
LEGISLATURE'S ABIDE
BY THEIR OWN STATES
CONSTITUTION WHEN EXERCISING
THEIR AUTHORITY UNDER THE
ELECTIONS COST.
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR THAT
WOULD BE ELICITING AN OPINION
FOR ME ABOUT WHETHER
I AGREED OR DISAGREED WITH THE
RESULT IN THAT CASE.
OKAY IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL FOR
VOTERS TO AMEND THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.
>>TO ESTABLISH SPECIFIC
PROCESSES FOR ELECTIONS.
BUT THE VOTERS IN
ARIZONA DID TO STOP DURING MAN
DURING.
>>AGAIN YOU'RE ASKING
ME FOR A VIEW ON THAT
PARTICULAR CASE AND JUSTICE
GINSBURG HERSELF GAVE THE MOST
FAMOUS ARTICULATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE THAT CONSTRAINS ME
FROM DOING SO WHICH IS
NO HINTS FORECASTER PREVIOUS I
CAN EXPRESS A VIEW ON PRECEDENT
ON HOW I WOULD DECIDE
ANY QUESTION
THAT WAS PROVOKED BY THE
APPLICATION OF THAT
PRECEDENT TO A LATER CASE OKAY
LAST WEEK A CONTRACTOR FROM
OUTSIDE
OF MY STATE OF MINNESOTA
STARTED RECRUITING
POLL WATCHERS.
>>WITH SPECIAL FORCES
EXPERIENCE.
TO PROTECT POLLING LOCATIONS IN
MY STICK. THIS WAS CLEAR
VOTER INTIMIDATION SIMILAR
EFFORTS ARE GOING ON AROUND
THE COUNTRY HAS SOLICITED
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FALSE
CLAIMS OF MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD,
SOMETHING THAT BY THE WAY MANY
REPUBLICAN LEADERS, INCLUDING
MICHAEL STEELE THE FORMER HEAD
OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY, INCLUDING
TOM RIDGE, INCLUDING GOVERNOR K
SICK, INCLUDING SITTING SENATOR
ROMNEY
HAVE MADE VERY CLEAR IS NOT
TRUE.
SO AS A RESULT OF HIS CLAIMS
PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET.
POLL WATCHERS SPECIAL FORCES
PEOPLE TO GO
TO THE POLLS JUDGE KAREN UNDER
FEDERAL LAW IS IT ILLEGAL TO
INTIMIDATE VOTERS AT THE POLLS.
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR
I CAN'T.
>>CHARACTERIZE THE FACTS IN A
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION AND I
CAN'T APPLY THE LAW TO A
HYPOTHETICAL SENT A FAX.
I CAN ONLY DECIDE CASES AS THEY
COME TO ME LITIGATED BY PARTIES
ON A FULL RECORD
AFTER FULLY ENGAGING PRESIDENT
TALKING TO COLLEAGUES WRITING
AN OPINION AND SO I CAN'T
ANSWER
QUESTIONS, OKAY WELL, MAYBE
I'LL MAKE IT EASIER 18 USC
5, 9, 4, OUTLAWS.
>>ANYONE WHO INTIMIDATES
THREATENS COURSES OR ATTEMPTS
TO INTIMIDATE THREATEN
ARE CURSED. ANY OTHER PERSON
FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH
THE RIGHT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON
TO VOTE.
THIS IS A LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON
THE BOOKS
FOR DECADES. DO YOU THINK A
REASONABLE PERSON WOULD
FEEL INTIMIDATED BY THE
PRESIDENT PRESENCE OF ARMED
CIVILIAN GROUPS AT THE POLLS.
>>SENATOR KLOBUCHAR
YOU KNOW THAT IS ELICITING I'M
NOT
SURE WHETHER IT'S ILLUSTRATING
A LEGAL OPINION FROM ME BECAUSE
THE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD
AS YOU KNOW IS ONE COMMON IN
THE LAW
OR JUST AN OPINION AS A
CITIZEN, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING
REALLY THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR
ME TO COMMENT ON
OKAY.
>>HERE'S ONE THAT I THINK
SELECTION OF THE ELECTION
ELECTORAL
COLLEGE ELECTORS I YOU KNOW
THAT EACH STATE
HAS LAWS THAT DICTATE HOW
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECTORS ARE
SELECTED.
JUDGE BIRD IN 1932 THE SUPREME
COURT AND SMILEY BE HOME A CASE
INVOLVING
MY STATE
RULED THAT THE MINNESOTA STATE
LEGISLATURE COULD NOT CHANGE
ELECTION RULES UNILATERALLY.
YOU AGREE THAT THE UNANIMOUS
OPINION IN SMILEY THE HOME
WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED
BY ANY OTHER SUPREME. A COURT
CASE IS SETTLED LAW.
>>LET'S SAY 2 THINGS ABOUT THAT
FIRST OF ALL I
WAS NOT AWARE THAT CASE THEY'VE
TAUGHT ME SOMETHING BUT
SECONDLY
I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE
PRESIDENT GIVE SUMS UP OR
THUMBS DOWN AND JUST AS
CAJUNS WORDS.
>>OK WHEN WE END THERE WITH
PRESIDENT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD
WAY TO END
SO YOU WROTE IN YOUR
2013 TEXAS LAW REVIEW
THAT YOU TEND TO AGREE WITH THE
VIEW THAT WHEN THE JUSTICES
BEST UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CONSTITUTION. CONFLICTS
WITH SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT OR
CASE LAW. IT IS QUOTE
MORE LEGITIMATE FOR HER TO
FOLLOW HER PREFERRED VIEW
RATHER THAN APPLYING THE
PRECEDENT AND I WANT TO RUN
THROUGH A FEW EXAMPLES SO BROWN
V BOARD OF EDUCATION
AS WE KNOW THAT HOLDS THAT THE
14TH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS STATES
FROM SEGREGATING SCHOOLS ON THE
BASIS OF RACE. SO.
YEAH IT CAN'T BE OVERRULED.
>>THAT IS PRECEDENT.
AND AS I THINK I SAID IN THAT
SAME ARTICLE IT'S SUPER
PRESIDENT PEOPLE CONSIDERED TO
BE
ON THAT
VERY SMALL LIST OF THINGS THAT
ARE SO WIDELY ESTABLISHED AN
AGREED UPON
BY EVERYONE MOST BRITS
OVERRULING SIMPLY DON'T
EXIST. OKAY.
>>WELL YOU ALSO SEPARATELY
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN PLANNED
PARENTHOOD
V CASEY. THE SUPREME COURT'S
CONTROLLING OPINION TALKED
ABOUT IN THE RELIANCE INTERESTS
ON ROE
V WADE, WHICH IT
TREATED IN THAT CASE IS SUPER
PRECEDENT IS ROW A SUPER
PRECEDENT.
>>HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE SUPER
PRESIDENT.
I THINK I I ACTUALLY I
MIGHT ADD. BUT SOME DAY I'D BE
SITTING IN THAT CHAIR, I'M NOT
I'M UP
HERE. SO I'M ASKED ME A LOOK AT
ALL THESE SUPER PRESIDENT
DIFFERENTLY OK, THE WAY THAT
IT'S USED IN THE SCHOLARSHIP
AND THE WAY THAT I WAS USING IT
IN THE ARTICLE THAT YOU'RE
READING FROM
WAS TO DEFINE CASES THAT ARE SO
WELL SETTLED THAT NO POLITICAL
ACTORS AND NO
PEOPLE SERIOUSLY PUSH FOR THEIR
OVERRULING AN ANSWERING A LOT
OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT WELL WHICH I THINK
INDICATES THAT ROWE DOESN'T
FALL IN THAT CATEGORY
AND SCHOLARS ACROSS THE
SPECTRUM
SAY THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ROE
SHOULD BE OVERRULED
BUT DESCRIPTIVE LEE IT DOES
MEAN
IT'S OKAY TO NOT CASE THAT
EVERYONE HAS ACCEPTED
DOESN'T CONFERENCE OVER
WILLINGHAM CASE. SO HERE'S WHAT
HERE'S WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME
YOU SAID
THAT BROWN IS AND I KNOW MY
TIME IS RUNNING OUT IS A SUPER
PRECEDENT THAT SOMETHING.
>>THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT
EVEN SET BUT YOU HAVE
SAID THAT SO IF YOU SAY THAT
WHY WON'T
YOU SAY THAT ABOUT ROE V
WADE CASE THAT THE COURTS
CONTROLLING OPINION AND THAT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD THE
CASEY CASE HAS DESCRIBED AS A
SUPER PRECEDENT THAT'S WHAT I'M
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
>>WELL SENATOR I CAN JUST GIVE
YOU THE SAME
ANSWER THAT I JUST SAID I'M
USING THE TERM AND THAT ARTICLE
THAT IS FROM THE
SCHOLARLY LITERATURE. IT'S
ACTUALLY ONE THAT WAS DEVELOPED
BY SCHOLARS
WHO ARE YOU KNOW
CERTAINLY NOT CONSERVATIVE
SCHOLARS WHO TAKE A MORE
PROGRESSIVE APPROACH TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAIN YOU
KNOW
AS AS RICHARD FALLON FROM
HARVARD SAID ROWE IS
NOT A SUPER PRECEDENT BECAUSE
CAUSE FOR ITS OVER WILLING HAVE
NEVER CEASED, BUT THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT ROW SHOULD BE
OVERRULED
IT JUST MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T
FALL ON THE
SMALL HANDFUL OF CASES LIKE
MARBURY VERSUS MADISON IN BROWN
VERSUS THE BOARD THAT NO ONE
QUESTIONS ANYMORE IS UNITED
STATES THROUGH VIRGINIA
MILITARY IS THAT SUPER
PRESIDENT.
SENATOR CLUB A SHARPIE CONTINUE
TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT
SUPER-PRECEDENTS THAT AREN'T ON
THE LIST OF THE SUPER
PRESIDENTS THAT I DISCUSSED IN
THE ARTICLE THAT ARE WELL
ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL OUT LITERATURE
EVERY TIME YOU ASK THE
QUESTION. I'LL HAVE TO SAY THAT
I CAN'T
GREAT IT,
OKAY.
>>WELL I'M IN LEFT WITH LOOKING
AT THE TRACKS OF YOUR RECORD
AND WHERE IT LEADS THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND I THINK IT
LEADS US TO A PLACE IT'S GOING
TO HAVE SEVERE REPERCUSSIONS
FOR THEM. THANK YOU, SIR CENTS.
JUDGE WELCOME BACK AND
I MEAN THIS IS GOOD NEWS, BUT
IT MIGHT NOT FEEL LIKE IT AFTER
ME
OR HAVE
11TH OF 22.
>>MISTER CHAIRMAN BEFORE I
BEGIN MY QUESTIONING.
I'D LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADMIT INTO THE
RECORD A LETTER FROM ALAN THE
HISTORIAN
AT PRINCETON WHO'S WRITTEN A
LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE IN
RESPONSE TO SOME SOME OF
SENATOR HARRIS'S CLAIMS
THE HISTORY OF A SUPREME COURT
VACANCIES GOING BACK TO THE
CIVIL WAR WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE SAID
THAT THE MEANING OF LAW DOESN'T
CHANGE WITH TIME.
YOU SO THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO
CAN YOU UNPACK
FOR US WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT
THE MEANING OF THE LAW DOESN'T
CHANGE
WITH TIME.
>>SURE BECAUSE THE LAW STAYS
THE SAME UNTIL IT IS LAWFULLY
CHANGED AND IF WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF THAT
HAS BEEN ACTED BY THE PEOPLE'S
REPRESENTATIVES OR ON THROUGH
THE
PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, A
CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION.
IT MUST GO THROUGH THE LAWFULLY
PRESCRIBED PROCESS
BEFORE IT'S CHANGED SO ARTICLE
5 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
CONSTITUTION
OR BY CAMERAS AND PRESENTMENT
IN
THE CONTEXT OF STATUTES AND
IT'S NOT UP TO JUDGES TO SHORT
CIRCUIT THAT PROCESS
BY UPDATING THE LAW THAT'S
THAT'S YOUR JOB.
>>LAWS CLEARLY ARE WRITTEN IN A
CONTEXT AND
THEN THE THINGS THE
CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH THOSE
LAWS
APPLIED WOULD CHANGE DOES THE
4TH AMENDMENT HAVE NOTHING TO
SAY ABOUT CELL PHONES
UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE WAS IT WAS
OBVIOUSLY NOT
WRITTEN IN A TIME WHEN THEY HAD
IMAGINED MOBILE TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVICES THAT ADDICTED
OUR KIDS. THERE'S THE 4TH
AMENDMENT OF NOTHING TO SAY
ABOUT
CELL PHONES.
>>NOW THE 4TH AMENDMENT SO.
THE CONSTITUTION. ONE REASON
WHY IT'S THE LONGEST LASTING
WRITTEN CONSTITUTION IN THE
WORLD
IS BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN AT A
LEVEL OF GENERALITY THAT
SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO PROTECT
RIGHTS THAT GENERAL ENOUGH TO
THE LASTING. SO THAT
YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE CONSTABLE BANGING AT
YOUR DOOR AND YOU KNOW
1791. AS A SEARCH
OR SEIZURE. NOW WE CAN APPLY
IT AS THE COURT DIDN'T
CARPENTER VERSUS UNITED STATES
TO CELL PHONES. SO THE 4TH
AMENDMENT IS A PRINCIPLE
IT PROTECTS AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, BUT IT DOESN'T
CATALOG THE INSTANCES IN WHICH
AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE COULD TAKE PLACE.
SO YOU TAKE
THAT PRINCIPLE AND THEN YOU
APPLY IT TO MODERN TECHNOLOGY
LIKE CELL PHONES ARE YOU KNOW
WHAT IF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
ENABLE
SOMEONE WITH SUPERMAN X-RAY
VISION TO SIMPLY SEE IN YOUR
HOUSE.
YOU KNOW IS THAT SO THERE'S NO
NEED TO KNOCK ON
THE DOOR AND GOING BUT I THINK
THAT COULD STILL BE ANALYZED
UNDER THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
>>SO I THINK THIS IS A USEFUL
PLACE TO EXPLAIN TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAIN
WHAT ORIGINALISM IS AND WHY
IT'S A MISTAKE TO
VIEW IT AS A REPUBLICAN
POSITION I THINK THAT
ORIGINALISM IS THAT PART OF THE
JURORS PRUDENTIAL DEBATE.
IT'S NOT A PART OF A POLICY
CONTINUUM BETWEEN REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING THAT IS USEFUL FOR
EVERYBODY WHO BELIEVES THAT 3
BRANCHES
OF GOVERNMENT HAVE 2 THAT ARE
POLITICAL AND ONE THAT IS NOT
SO MAYBE IT'S USEFUL TO JUST
KIND OF BACK UP AND SAY WHEN
YOU DEFINE YOURSELF AS AN
ORIGINAL LIST. WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN
AND THEN HOW'S IT GOING TO
RELATE TO THAT DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE
TIMELESS
APPLICATIONS THAT ARE CLEARLY
GOING TO CHANGE BY
CIRCUMSTANCE RIGHT.
>>ORIGINALISM MEANS THAT YOU
TREAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS
LOCKED BECAUSE IT COMMITS
THESE.
AND IN INTERPRETING
THAT LAW YOU INTERPRET IT IN
ACCORD WITH THE
MEANING THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE
UNDERSTOOD IT TO HAVE AT THE
TIME THAT IT WAS RATIFIED.
AND THE REASON THAT YOU
DO THAT IS BECAUSE
OTHERWISE LIKE I SAID THE LAST
IS THE SAME UNTIL IT'S
LAWFULLY CHANGED OTHERWISE
JUDGES WOULD BE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION BUSINESS OF UPDATING
THE LAW RATHER THAN ALLOWING
THE PEOPLE TO TAKE
CONTROL OF THAT.
IN THE CASE OF THE CONSTITUTION
AS I SAID WITH THE
4TH AMENDMENT. MANY OF ITS
PRINCIPALS ARE
MORE GENERAL UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES. YOU KNOW FREE
SPEECH THOSE ARE
THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE
IDENTIFIED OR FLESHED OUT OR
APPLIED
OVER TIME. SO THE FACT THAT
THERE
WASN'T YOU KNOW THE INTERNET OR
COMPUTERS
OR BLOGS IN 1791 DOESN'T MEAN
THAT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT'S FREE SPEECH
CLOTS COULDN'T APPLY TO THOSE
THINGS NOW.
IT ENSHRINES THE PRINCIPLE AND
WE UNDERSTAND
THE PRINCIPLE AS IT WAS AT THE
TIME, BUT THEN IT'S CAPABLE OF
BEING APPLIED TO NEW
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>>WHEN WHEN DEFINED HERSELF AS
AN ORIGINALIST WHAT ARE THE
OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT THAT
ARE ADJACENT
TO IT AND HOW DO YOU THINK
ABOUT THE DEBATES
AMONG THOSE WITH OTHER PEOPLE
THAT ARE NOW WITH YOU ON THAT
THE 7TH CIRCUIT
FOR INSTANCE,
SURE.
>>WELL SENATOR SASSE I THINK
ONE THING THAT'S WORTH POINTING
OUT
IS THAT IN THE ACADEMY ANY
EVENT WHERE I'VE SPENT A LARGE
PORTION OF
MY CAREER ORIGINALISM
IS NOT NECESSARILY A
CONSERVATIVE IDEA. THERE IS A
WHOLE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND SO
ORIGINALISTS ARE NOW A VERY
DIVERSE LOT.
AND THERE IS A SCHOOL OF
ORIGINALISM THAT'S MORE OF A
PROGRESSIVE ORIGINALISM AND
IT'S VERY COMMITTED
KEEPING THE CONSTITUTION'S
MEANING JUST INTERPRETING TEXTS
THE WAY ALL ORIGINALISTS DUE TO
SAY THAT IT WAS HAS THE MEANING
THAT
IT HAD AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS
RATIFIED.
BUT THEY TEND TO READ IT AT A
HIGHER LEVEL
OF GENERALITY SO ALL
ORIGINALISTS DON'T NECESSARILY
AGREE AND IN FACT THERE'S.
YOU CAN SEE
GROUP CALLED THE CONSTITUTION A
CONSTITUTION ACCOUNTABILITY
CENTER WHICH HAS ROUTINELY FILE
BRIEFS TO THE SUPREME COURT
THAT
CALLS ITSELF. YOU KNOW IT
WRITES PRIESTS IN SUPPORT OF
ORIGINALISM BUT TAKING IT FOR
A MORE PROGRESSIVE STANDPOINT
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S I THINK
PROBABLY
PEOPLE THINK.
IT'S WILLING TO CONSERVE THAT'S
WHERE IT MUST BUT ACTUALLY IT'S
MORE LIKELY EXCEPTED VIEW THAN
THAT. I
THINK THAT IF YOU THINK ABOUT
DIFFERENT
STRAINS OF APPROACHING
CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT.
ORIGINALISM
IS ONE.
JUDGES AND JUSTICES TAKE
ACCOUNT OF HISTORY AND THE
ORIGINAL MEANING IT'S JUST THAT
SOME WEIGHT IT
DIFFERENTLY WHEREAS
ORIGINALISTS WOULD GIVE IT
DISPOSITIVE WEIGHT WHEN
IT'S DISCERNIBLE OTHER
APPROACHES TO CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION MAY TAKE A MORE
PRAGMATIC HERE AND SAY IN SOME
INSTANCES WELL THAT MAY HAVE
BEEN
HISTORICAL MEANING BUT THAT'S
AN UNCOMFORTABLE FIT FOR
CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, SO WE
TWEAK IT A
LITTLE BIT TO.
ADJUSTED TO FIT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SITUATION
SOMETIMES IT'S
CALLED LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM
IF THE CONSTITUTION CAN EVOLVE
AND CHANGE OVER TIME. SOMETIMES
IT'S CALLED LIKE A
MORE PRAGMATIC
CONSTITUTIONALISM.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
WE ESTABLISHED
THIS FACT.
>>CLEARLY TOGETHER BECAUSE ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS
REALLY
UNHELPFUL FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHEN THEY SEE HEARINGS
LIKE THIS SOME OF THE LAST 20
YEARS IS THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION
THAT THOSE
OF US WHO HAVE ADVOCATED FOR
YOU OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST
3 YEARS MUST BE DOING IT
BECAUSE WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT
YOUR
POLICY VIEWS AND WE'VE SEEN THE
A BEAUTIFUL MIND CONSPIRACY
THEORY CHARTS
FOR INSTANCE THAT THIS IS ABOUT
SPECIFIC OUTCOMES THAT
PEOPLE WANT WHAT I WANT
IS TO HAVE A JUDGE WHO DOESN'T
WANT TO TAKE AWAY
THE JOB OF A LEGISLATOR THAT
ACCOUNT A LEGISLATURE THAT'S
ACCOUNTABLE TO
THE PEOPLE WHAT I WANT IS TO BE
SURE THAT THE
2 POLITICAL BRANCHES THAT ARE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE
BECAUSE THEY CAN HIRE AND
FIRE US ARE THE PLACES WHERE
POLICY DECISIONS
OR BAD. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
IS IN THE
LEGAL ACADEMY. THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO AGREE WITH YOU ON
ORIGINALISM AS A BROAD
PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL AND YET
WOULD COME OUT VERY
DIFFERENT PLACES ON THE
OUTCOMES OF PARTICULAR POLICY
DECISIONS THAT IS WHAT
I'M SAYING SO ON THE NOTRE DAME
LAW FACULTY. WHEN YOU WERE UP
FOR THE VACANCY ON THE 7TH
CIRCUIT
3 YEARS AGO THE NOTRE
DAME LAW FACULTY AS I
UNDERSTAND THE LETTER THAT WE
GOT FROM
THEM HERE HAD PEOPLE
UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND YOU
ACROSS THE FACULTY AND I WOULD
ASSUME THERE'S A PRETTY WIDE
VIEW OF POLICY
ON SITE ON THE LOT NOTRE DAME
LAW FACULTY THERE IS
AND SO PEOPLE CAN AFFIRM THAT
YOU KNOW WHAT THE JOB OF THE
JUDGES YOU HAVE THE
JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND
MODESTY AND HUMILITY ABOUT
THE CALLING AND THEY'RE
COMFORTABLE WITH YOU EVEN
THOUGH THEY
DON'T THINK THEY MIGHT AGREE
WITH EVERY POLICY VIEW THAT YOU
HAVE BEFORE YOU PUT ON YOUR
OWN.
>>I HOPE THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE
THINK OF ME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
I'VE ALWAYS STRIVEN TO DO AND
CERTAINLY IN MY TIME AS
A JUDGE. I MY JOB, MY BOSS IS
THE RULE OF LAW.
IMPOSING MY
POLICY PREFERENCES.
>>SO CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE
BLACK ROBE IS ABOUT WHAT THE
JUDGES IN OUR SYSTEM WEAR
ROBES.
>>JUDGES IN OUR SYSTEM WHERE
BLACK ROBES AND I STARTED
WEARING BLACK ROBES
ACTUALLY BECAUSE CHIEF JUSTICE
JOHN MARSHALL STARTED THE
PRACTICE IN
THE BEGINNING JUSTICES USE TO
WEAR COLORFUL
ROADS THAT IDENTIFIED THEM WITH
THE SCHOOLS THAT THEY
GRADUATED FROM JOHN MARSHALL
AND HIS INVESTORS SHARE DECIDE
TO WEAR DECIDED
TO WEAR A SIMPLE BLACK ROBE
PRETTY SOON THE OTHER JUSTICES
FOLLOWED SUIT. AND NOW ALL
JUDGES DO IT.
AND I THINK THE BLACK ROBES
SHOWS THAT JUSTICE IS BLIND WE
ALL JUST THE SAME. AND I
THINK IT SHOWS THAT ONCE WE PUT
IT ON.
STANDING UNITED SYMBOLICALLY
SPEAKING IN THE NAME OF
THE LAW AND SPEAKING OF OUR
SPEAKING FOR OURSELVES AS
INDIVIDUALS.
>>THANK YOU IN YOUR QUESTIONING
FROM
CHAIRMAN GRAHAM THIS MORNING
TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
PROCESS OF
JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING AND
YOU STARTED WITH 4 STEPS AND
THEN ADDED A 5TH AND THEN I
THINK
BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT BEING A
REACTIVE BRANCH IS
REALLY REACTIVE. CAN YOU
EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS THAT
THE JUDICIARY THE ARTICLE 3
BRANCHES REACTIVE.
SO ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS
THAT COURTS CAN HEAR CASES OR
CONTROVERSIES. SO A JUDGE CAN'T
LOCK IN WENDY AND
SAY AYE.
>>I FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW VISITING
THE QUESTION OF HEALTH CARE AND
TELLING PEOPLE WHAT
I THINK WE CAN'T EVEN THINK
ABOUT THE LAW OR
HOW IT WOULD APPLY UNTIL
LITIGANTS BRING A REAL LIFE
CASE
BUT REAL LIFE PARTIES IN A REAL
LIVE DISPUTE BEFORE US.
AND THE MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE
TO DISCUSS TO DO THE
SIDE THAT THE DISPUTE IS WHAT
COMES
FROM YOU. IT'S THE STATUTES
THAT YOU PASS WE
DON'T GET TO COME UP WITH THE
POLICIES AND SEE OUR WISHES
BECOME PART OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE. SO WE REACT TO THE
LITIGANTS TO BRING CASES BEFORE
US AND WE APPLY THE LAWS THAT
YOU MAKE.
>>AND ONE OF THE STEPS INSIDE
THOSE ARTICLE 3 COURTS BEFORE
IT WOULD EVER GET TO A
SITUATION WHERE THE
SUPREME COURT. HERE'S CASES
WHAT WHAT WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT
THE SUPREME COURT.
>>SO THE SUPREME COURT
OBVIOUSLY SITS ATOP
THE FEDERAL.
>>HIERARCHY OF THE JUDICIARY
AND THE SUPREME COURT. SO MIKE
RIGHT NOW, THE
7TH CIRCUIT. EVERY TIME SOMEONE
LOSES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS
WHICH ARE THE TRIAL COURTS.
THEY CAN APPEAL. AND WE TAKE
EVERY SINGLE APPEAL THAT COM.
THE SUPREME COURT WORKS THE
SUPREME COURT TAKES CASES WHEN
IT NEEDS TO MOST
FREQUENTLY THE REASON IT TAKES
THEM IS TO RESOLVE THE DIVISION
AMONG THE COURTS OF APPEAL OR
THE STATE
SUPREME COURTS. THE SUPREME
COURT GETS ABOUT
8,000 PETITIONS A YEAR AND THEY
HEAR ABOUT 80 CASES A YEAR.
SO IT'S DISCRETIONARY.
WHAT CASES TO TAKE.
>>SO IT'S REACTIVE IT'S A
REACTIVE BRANCH
AND IT'S AFTER A PROCESS WHERE
THERE'S A STATUTE, IT'S BEEN
CHALLENGE THEIR ACTIVE CASES
AND IT WORKS ITS WAY UP TO THE
COURT. BUT WHEN THE JUSTICES
DECLINED TO TAKE
A CASE. WHAT ARE THEY SAYING
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING YOU DON'T
MATTER AND YOU DON'T HAVE A
RIGHT
TO APPEAL. WHAT ARE THEY WHAT
ARE THEY SAYING TO THE
LITIGANTS IN A CASE WHEN THEY
DECLINED TO
GRANT CERT.
>>THEY'RE NOT EXPRESSING ANY
VIEW ON THE
MERITS THEY'RE SIMPLY SAYING
THIS ISN'T A CASE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO PUT ON OUR DOCKET FOR
SEARCH RIGHT BECAUSE THE COURT
HAS OBVIOUSLY
LIMITED TIME AND LIMITED
RESOURCES AND SO IT SELECTS
THE CASES WHERE IT'S RESOLVING
DIVISION FOR EXAMPLE IN THE
COURTS ARE SOME OTHER QUESTION
ON WHICH OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE IN WHICH THE SUPREME
COURT NEEDS TO STEP IN.
>>THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF DISCUSSION OR IN SOME OF THE
QUESTIONING EARLY THIS MORNING
IMPLICITLY
ABOUT STANDING CAN YOU JUST
EXPLAIN WHAT STANDING IS SO
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND IT.
YES.
>>SO THIS DOVETAILS WITH YOUR
QUESTION ABOUT THE JUDICIARY
BEING A
REACTIVE GRANTS. SO AS I
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE
COURTS. THE FEDERAL COURTS, THE
POWER ONLY
TO DECIDE ACTUAL LIVE CASES
AND CONTROVERSIES. SO NOT ONLY
CAN WE WAKE UP ONE
MORNING AND VOLUNTEER OUR
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION
PROHIBITS US FROM
GIVING WHAT ARE CALLED ADVISORY
OPINIONS WE CAN'T JUST DISPENSE
ADVICE OR GIVE MY VIEWS ON
THE LOT WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY
NOT ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS BEING ASKED TODAY.
LITIGATE.
GET US TO GIVE AN ADVISORY
OPINION OR LISTEN TO VIEW
UNLESS
THE LITIGANT ACTUALLY HAS A
REAL CASE. SO YOU SENATOR
SASSE COULDN'T WALK INTO COURT
AND FILE A LAWSUIT AND JUST
ASKED ME
TO GIVE MY ADVICE AND ONCE
WHETHER SOME PARTICULAR STATUTE
WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. I CAN ONLY
DECIDE THAT QUESTION IF THERE'S
AN ACTUAL DISPUTE ABOUT IT.
>>YOU MENTIONED LIVING
CONSTITUTIONAL A LITTLE
BIT I THINK CHIEF JUSTICE
WARREN HAD A MUCH BROADER VIEW
OF STANDING THAN SOME OF THE
FOLKS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED YOUR
THINKING IN WRITING
CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH A
LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF
THE COURT'S VIEW OF STANDING
OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES.
>>SO YOU THINKING ABOUT.
BROADLY WHEN A PLAINTIFF HAS
SUFFERED AN THAT'S A CONCRETE
RIGHT.
SO SENATOR SASSE IF IF YOU CAME
INTO COURT AND YOU WERE
OBJECTING.
A PARTICULAR STATUTE. YOU
DIDN'T LIKE A
PARTICULAR STATUTE. YOU WOULD
HAVE TO ACTUALLY SUFFER
WHAT'S CALLED CONCRETE INJURY.
SO THE SUPREME COURT A FEW
TERMS OF GOING. OKAY SCOTT
SPOKE, YOU KNOW,
SAID THAT THE PLAINTIFF
LAX A CONCRETE INJURY IF THE
HIGH. ISN'T.
LET'S SEE TO USE WORDS THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND UNDERSTAND
HOW PUBL LIKE IT CAN'T JUST BE
A PROCEDURE INJURY OR SOMETHING
THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE REAL
CONSEQUENCES ARE REAL EFFECT ON
THE LITIGANT.
THE DISPUTE ABOUT STANDING, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A DIFFICULT THING IN
DECIDING QUESTIONS
OF STANDING AND THIS POKING
LOOKING IN LAY THIS OUT IS
DECIDING WHEN AN INJURY
IS CONCRETE AND COURTS CAN
HEAR IT ORMAN THAT INJURY IS
MORE ABSTRACT
AND DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN
ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE
COURT.
>>YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING
COMMENTS
YESTERDAY THAT IT IS NOT THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURTS TO
RIGHT EVERY WRONG
IN SOCIETY. LOOK I WANT TO ASK
YOU
A QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT FIRST
CAN YOU JUST REMIND US WHAT
YOUR VIEW IS THERE. WHAT DID
YOU SAID THAT.
>>I THINK PROBABLY WHAT I WAS
GETTING AT THERE THAT I
HAVE TO SAY SENATOR SASSE SO
MUCH HAS HAPPENED SINCE TAKING
UP THE COMPANY'S STATEMENT
YESTERDAY.
BECAUSE THEY ARE
REACTIVE CAN'T REACH OUT TO
RIGHT WRONGS THAT DON'T COME TO
THEM IN THE CASE AND IN THE
SITUATION OF A CASE OR
CONTROVERSY. AND THEN EVEN IF
THEY COME TO COURTS
IN THE IN THE SITUATION OF THE
CASE OR
CONTROVERSY THAT A COURT CAN
LEGITIMATELY DECIDE.
WE'RE NOT TO JUST RESOLVE IT
LIKE SOLOMON IN THE WAY THAT WE
THINK
IS WISEST SO WE ARE ONLY
FREE TO ADDRESS WRONGS AND
DECIDE CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LAW.
SO THE POLICYMAKING IS YOURS TO
DO.
IT IS ONLY IF YOU HAVE AN
ACTIVE POLICIES THAT ENABLE US
TO RIGHT AROUND THAT WE CAN DO
SO.
>>YOU
STILL SAID THOUGH THAT YOU VIEW
IT AS SOME OF
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ON THE 7TH
CIRCUIT TO WRITE EVERY OPINION
EVERY JUDGMENT FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF THE LOSING PARTY
EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU TAKE THAT
PERSPECTIVE OF WANTING THE
LOSING PARTY TO UNDERSTAND THE
LAW THE ARGUMENT.
>>I JUST WRITE THE OPINION IS I
WOULD WRITE THE OPINION.
AFTER I WRITE THE OPINION I
READ IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
THE
LOSING PARTY BECAUSE I WANT TO
MAKE SURE.
SAID EARLIER IT'S A
CHECK ON ME TO MAKE SURE THAT
IF I TRY TO PUT
MY EMOTIONS ARE MY PREFERENCE
IS ON THE
OTHER SIDE THAT I CAN SEE THAT
IT'S BEEN A BALANCE TO STRICTLY
DRIVEN BY
LEGAL ANALYSIS. I ALSO WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE
IN IT IS VERY RESPECTFUL TO THE
PARTY WHO WILL ULTIMATELY BE
DISAPPOINTED.
THAT THAT IS THAT RESPONSE
OF TO.
>>YEAH BECAUSE I WHY I WANT TO
ASK THIS IS BECAUSE I'M
I'M IN MY 50 YEAR HERE A LITTLE
OVER 5 YEARS AND I'M ON MY 4TH
YEAR ON THIS COMMITTEE
PRETTY MUCH YOU'RE THE
3RD SUPREME COURT NOMINEE TO
COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
DURING THAT TIME
AND WE'VE DOZENS OF THE PUBLIC
COURT NOMINEES AND I'VE BEEN
AMAZED HOW MANY
TIMES THE ARGUMENT IS AMERICAN
PEOPLE BE REALLY
REALLY SCARED. THE PERSON
SITTING BEFORE US.
OBVIOUSLY THE HATES PEOPLE
AND WANTS THEM WANT SICK PEOPLE
TO DIE AND NOT HAVE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE THAT THAT SORT OF AN
ARGUMENT THAT'S ROUTINE AROUND
HERE. IT'S BEEN FOCUS
GROUPED OBVIOUSLY AS A GOOD WAY
TO NOMINEES TO
THE COURT AND HOPEFULLY DRIVE
OUTCOMES IN ELECTIONS. I GUESS
I DON'T
UNDERSTAND IT I THINK IT'S
TERRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
CIVIC HEALTH
AND YET I THINK ABOUT IT FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF.
WELL-MEANING NEBRASKA DEMOCRATS
TO
HEAR THAT AND THEY KNOW I HAVE
A DIFFERENT POLICY THAN THEY
MIGHT
ON GETTING THE PORTABILITY AND
HEALTH CARE SO PEOPLE CAN
KEEP THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE
ACROSS JOB IN GEOGRAPHIC CHANGE
BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT'S
DRIVING ON INSURANCE IN AMERICA
OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES.
IT'S NOT PRIMARILY.
HEALTH STATUS. IT'S NOT
PRIMARILY A PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS ARE
SUCH ECONOMICS. THE NUMBER ONE
DRIVER OF AN INSURANCE IN
AMERICAN
PUBLIC LIFE IS THAT WE CHANGE
JOBS A LOT
MORE FREQUENTLY THAN WE USED TO
LIVE A DIFFERENT
POLICY SOLUTION OF HOW WE WOULD
GET TO PORTABILITY AND HEALTH
CARE THAT A LOT OF MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES BUT THOSE
ARE POLICY DISPUTES ABOUT A
MODERN ECONOMY WHERE PEOPLE
MOVE AROUND A LOT. BOTH
GEOGRAPHICALLY AND IN TERMS
OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED. AND
HEALTH
INSURANCE RELATIONSHIPS.
THOSE CONTRACTS ARE NOT REALLY
THE THINGS THAT A NOMINEE
COMING BEFORE THE COURT IS
SUPPOSED TO OPINE ON
BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA
WHAT YOUR VIEWS ARE ON HEALTH
CARE, BUT I
KNOW THAT IT'S NOT REALLY THE
JOB OF THE JUDGE TO REFLECT ON
THOSE THINGS AND SO
I WANT TO BE SURE THAT FOLKS
WHO HEAR THIS HEARING AND AT
THE END OF THE PROCESS.
THEY CAN HAVE TRUST THAT YOU'RE
NOT A PERSON
WHO REALLY WISHES SECRETLY.
YOU COULD BE THE QUEEN OF ALL
HEALTH CARE AND DECIDE ALL
THESE ISSUES AND SO WHEN YOU
WRITE YOUR OPINION IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT ONE OF THE
REALLY HUMBLE THINGS YOU'RE
DOING AS
YOU'RE SAYING IN EVERY CASE
THAT'S COME BEFORE ME ON THE
7TH CIRCUIT. I WANT TO WRITE
THIS
OPINION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
THE LOSING PARTY TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT WAS THE
QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT TODAY
AND HOW DID THE COURT RULE ON
THAT SPECIFIC
NARROW THING BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY I THINK YOU WOULD
BELIEVE GIVEN A YEAR. THE
JURORS
POTENTIAL TRADITION
AND GIVEN YOUR VIEW OF JUDICIAL
MODESTY AND HUMILITY IN YOUR
SCALIA MENTORSHIP MY GUESS IS
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU RULE
IN CASES WHERE YOU GO HOME AT
NIGHT AND YOU TAKE OFF YOUR
ROBE
AND YOU THINK THE OUTCOME IS
NOT THE OUTCOME YOU WISH HAD
BEEN THE CASE BUT IT WASN'T
YOUR JOB TO ULTIMATELY
DECIDE ALL POLICY IN AMERICAN
LIFE IT WAS TO DECIDE THE
SPECIFIC QUESTION
BEFORE YOU AND IT SEEMS TO ME
THE HUMBLE EMPATHETIC WAY THAT
YOU WRITE THOSE OPINIONS IS
REALLY IMPORTANT. IT'S ALSO IT
SHOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF
PUBLIC TRUST IN
AMERICAN PEOPLE MIGHT LISTEN TO
A LOT OF THE DEMAGOGUERY THAT
IMPLIES
THAT REALLY YOU'RE JUST
SECRETLY A POLICY ACTOR
IT SHOULD BE PRETTY COMFORTING
TO THEM THAT EXCEPT FOR ROB LEE
JUSTICE BRIAR YOU'VE WRITTEN
MORE THEN
I THINK THEN ANYBODY WHO IS
CURRENTLY ON
THE COURT. SO PEOPLE CAN
ACTUALLY KNOW YOU'RE JUST JUST
PRUDENTIAL VIEWS AND HOW YOU'RE
GOING TO APPROACH CASES WHEN
YOU GET ON
THE COURT BECAUSE YOU'VE
WRITTEN A TIME THERE'S A REASON
WHY THE NOTRE DAME FACULTY
REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLICY
POSITIONS
WROTE A LETTER TO THIS
COMMITTEE UNIVERSALLY
RECOMMENDED YOU THERE'S A
REASON WHY YEAR AFTER YEAR ON
THE NOTRE DAME
LAW FACULTY, YOUR PROFESSOR OF
THE YEAR BECAUSE STUDENTS
REGARDLESS OF THEIR
POLICY VIEWS BUT YOU'RE REALLY
GOOD AT EXPLAINING WHAT THE
JOB OF A JUDGE IS WHAT THE
PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 3 IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM IS AND AS SOMEBODY WHO
WORRIES A LOT ABOUT
INSTITUTIONAL TRUST. AND A LOT
OF THE ATTACKS THAT WE SEE ON
THE COURT. A LOT OF THE ATTEMPS
WE SEE IN THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT
POTENTIALLY
COURT PACKING.
IF WE WOULD GO TO 11 OR 13 OR
15 OR YOU KNOW A VENEZUELAN
STOP
47 PERSON COURT OVER THE NEXT
COUPLE OF
ELECTION CYCLES THAT
UNDERMINING THAT THE LEGITIMATE
THING OF
THE COURTS SHOULD HAVE AS IT'S
IN THE DOUGH
THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN
THAT TIME ABOUT WHAT YOU
THINK THE JOB OF THE JUDGES AND
PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND
IT AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT
SOME OF WHAT THIS HEARING WOULD
TRY TO UNPACK.
I'M NEARLY OUT OF TIME AND I
THINK THE CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO
GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY MY SLOTS
I WANT TO ASK ONE FINAL THING.
TELL US ABOUT
THE SCALIA GINSBURG FRIENDSHIP
AND THE IMPACT IT MADE ON YOU.
>>JUSTICE SCALIA
FAMOUSLY WHEN
THE VACANCY CAME UP, I THINK IT
WAS JUSTICE WHITE'S SEATS THAT
JUSTICE GINSBURG FILLED, BUT
WHEN THE
VACANCY CAME OPEN DURING THE
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION JUSTICE
SCALIA
RECOMMENDED HER. EVEN THOUGH
THEY'VE BEEN TOGETHER ON THE DC
CIRCUIT THAT'S WHERE THEY GOT
TO KNOW EACH OTHER
AND HE KNEW THAT SHE HAD A
DIFFERENT JERSEY
POTENTIAL APPROACH. AND YOU
KNOW A LOT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE
WEEK
SINCE JUSTICE GINSBURG DIED
ABOUT THAT FRIENDSHIP BECAUSE I
THINK IT
SPEAKS SO LOUD TO BOTH OF
THEIR CHARACTERS THAT DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THEY HAD SUCH
GREAT AND
THEY COULD FIGHT WITH THE PEN.
>>THEY WHEN THEY.
>>WE'RE SOCIALIZING WHEN THEY
WERE OUTSIDE OF THE OPINION
WRITING WORLD. THEY HAVE
INSPECTIONS RESPECT AND
AFFECTION FOR ONE ANOTHER AND
THAT'S HOW I TRY TO LIVE MY
LIFE WITH YOU KNOW
I HAVE FRIENDS WHO DISAGREE
WITH ME VEHEMENTLY ABOUT ALL
KINDS OF THINGS.
IS DEHUMANIZING IF WE REDUCE
PEOPLE
TO THE POLITICAL OR POLICY
DIFFERENCES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE
WITH ONE ANOTHER.
THANK YOU AND CONGRATS ON BEING
PASSED ON.
>>WELL FOR THE RECORD I REALLY
ENJOYED LISTENING D CENTER SAYS
I THINK YOU MAKE A LOT OF SENSE
IN A
HE EXPLAINED THE SYSTEM VERY
WELL YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A
LAWYER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
LAW IS ALL ABOUT I THINK YOU
GET IT VERY MUCH SO SENATOR
COONS.
THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>>THANK YOU JUDGE BARRETT TO TO
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WELCOME.
I GUESS I'M ON THE DOWNSIDE IF
YOU'RE HALFWAY
IF I MIGHT JUST
ADD MY OPENING MISTER THEM
SUBMIT TO LETTERS FOR THE
RECORD IF I MIGHT
ONE FROM. YOU ON BEHALF OF THE
2 MILLION MEMBERS OF THE
SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL.
UNION AND ONE ON BEHALF OF
A NATIONAL.
CONSTELLATION OF DISABILITY
RIGHTS GROUPS WITHOUT
ADDRESSING. CONCERNS.
SO JUDGE BARRETT IF I MIGHT.
THE CALENDAR BEHIND ME
MAKES CLEAR SOMETHING ABOUT THE
CONTEXT THAT WE'RE IN.
FOLKS WATCHING THIS
AT HOME. DESPITE THE WONDERFUL
THE NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE MADE TO MAKE
THIS ACCESSIBLE MAY HAVE
DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING
EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HERE AND WHY
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
AND WHY
WE KEEP BRINGING UP THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SO
LET ME TRY AND WALK THAT
THROUGH THESE AREN'T NORMAL
TIMES AS YOU
WELL KNOW.
MOST OF US ARE WEARING MASKS
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE SENATE WHO HAVE BEEN
INFECTED BY COVID AS OUR
PRESIDENT HAS. AND THAT'S
RESULTED IN THE SENATE BEING
CLOSED
THIS WEEKEND ARE NOT BEING ABLE
TO PROCEED. WE'RE IN
THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC AND WE
ARE JUST 3 WEEKS FROM AN
ELECTION.
A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN
WHICH OF FOLKS ARE
VOTING MORE THAN 40 STATES
MILLIONS OF VOTES HAVE ALREADY
BEEN CAST. AND JUST A WEEK
AFTER THAT ELECTION THE SUPREME
COURT'S GOING TO HEAR
A CASE. THAT COULD TAKE AWAY
HEALTH CARE PROTECTIONS FOR
MORE
THAN HALF OF ALL AMERICANS SO
THIS IS NOT AN ABSTRACT
ACADEMIC ARGUMENT, IT'S ONE
THAT WILL HAVE REAL
LIFE CONSEQUENCES
DESTROYING THE ESSENTIAL
PROTECTIONS OF THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT
WHICH WAS ENACTED JUST MORE
THAN A DECADE AGO.
I WOULD HAVE A REAL IMPACT ON A
MAJORITY OF
ALL AMERICANS. IT PREVENTS
INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM
MORE THAN
100 MILLION AMERICANS WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS LIKE
DIABETES OR HEART DISEASE.
IT DRAMATICALLY EXPANDED
MEDICAID AND IT PROVIDES
COVERAGE
FOR KIDS ON
THEIR PARENTS INSURANCE UP TO
THE AGE OF 26. I SHOULD SAY
YOUNG ADULTS AND PERHAPS MOST
IMPORTANTLY SENSE A LOT OF
WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
IS THE LEGACY OF JUSTICE
GINSBURG AND HER LIFELONG
COMMITMENT TO
GENDER EQUITY. IT ALSO PREVENTS
INSURANCE COMPANIES, THE
AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT DOES FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST WOMEN JUST FOR BEING
WITH IT MAY BE HARD TO IMAGINE
NOW BUT MORE THAN A DECADE AGO
BEFORE THE A
C A PREGNANCY WAS TREATED AS A
PREEXISTING CONDITION AND WOMEN
WERE ROUTINELY CHARGED MORE
THAN MEN. I'M JUST BECAUSE
INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD.
SO PRESIDENT TRUMP.
HE SAID OVER AND
OVER AGAIN THAT HE IS
DETERMINED TO REPEAL THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT HE
IS DETERMINED TO OVERTHROW IT
AND THERE'S 2 THINGS
ALL OF US ARE WAITING FOR ONE
IS DETAIL HEALTH PLAN THE OTHER
IS
HIS TAXES AND I DON'T EXPECT
EITHER ONE OF THEM IN THE NEXT
3 WEEKS. THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO
DO
IT HERE IN CONGRESS IN FACT I
THINK BY ONE COUNT OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE VOTED 70.
TIMES TO OVERTURN THE A C A
AND MANY IN THIS CHAMBER, MANY
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
MEMBERS LIKE SENATORS OF
CORNING AND LEE
AND OTHERS
HAVE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT ASKING FOR
THE LAW TO BE
STRUCK DOWN. SO NOW ON THE EVE
OF THE ELECTION
I BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
MAKING A LAST GASP ATTEMPT TO
GET THE SUPREME COURT TO DO
IT FOR
HE CAN'T DO IT THROUGH THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AGAIN DO
ADMINISTRATIVELY HE'S GOING TO
TRY AND DO IT WITH ONE MORE
CHALLENGE AND AS YOU. WELL KNOW
JUDGE IT WAS UPHELD
8 YEARS AGO IN A 5 TO 4
DECISION THE CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS WROTE A
CRITICAL DECISIVE PIECE OF THE
MAJORITY OPINION BY JUSTICE
SCALIA FOR WHOM YOUR CLERK,
YOUR MENTOR, WHOSE BROAD
PHILOSOPHY, YOU
EMBRACE DISSENTED HE THOUGHT IT
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOTED
TO STRIKE DOWN THE
ENTIRE TEA OF
THE LAW. YOU WROTE AN ARTICLE
IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY IN
2017. IN WHICH YOU WERE QUITE
CRITICAL OF CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS DECISION. SO I WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT
THAT ARTICLE I'M NOT AS A
MATTER OF DEBATING ABSTRACT
ACADEMIC PRINCIPLES
BECAUSE I I BELIEVE THE OUTCOME
IN THIS CASE A WEEK AFTER THE
ELECTION MAY HANG IN
THE BALANCE. HE WROTE IN THAT
ARTICLE AND I QUOTE IN AN F I B
VERSUS CIVILIANS, THE CASE THAT
UPHELD THE A
C AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE. CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS PUSHED THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT BEYOND ITS
PLAUSIBLE MEANING TO SAVE THE
STATUTE.
I THINK THOSE ARE FIGHTING
WORDS IS AN ORIGINALIST
AND TEXTUALIST YOU WERE
REFERRING TO CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS RULING THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IN THE A C
IS CONSTITUTIONAL
UNDER CONGRESS'S
TAXING POWERS. A RULING
ESSENTIAL TO UPHOLDING THE LAW
AND PROTECTING THE HEALTH CARE
OF A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SO
JUST IF
YOU COULD DO YOU THINK THE
CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING
UPHOLDING THE A WAS IMPLAUSIBLE
AND UNSOUND.
>>SENATOR
WHAT I SAID
IN THAT THIS ARTICLE WHICH WAS
A BOOK REVIEW OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S BOOK WAS THAT THE
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.
I SAID EARLIER AS CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS ON OPINION SAID
WAS THE LAST
NATURAL READING OF THE MANDATE
CAN STREAMING AS ATTACKS RATHER
THAN A PENALTY.
THAT THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION.
IT SEEMS AS YOU SAID STRETCHED
BEYOND ITS PLAUSIBLE MEANING
BUT AND IF I BE VERSUS
OF ALIAS TURNED ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION THAT WAS THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION WAS THE
THRESHOLD QUESTION AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS NOT
SOMETHING THAT I EVER KIND ON.
THE CASE IT'S COMING DOWN THE
PIKE IN A FEW WEEKS, CALIFORNIA
VERSUS TEXAS.
I I WOULDN'T SAY THEY'RE
FIGHTING WORDS FROM THE ARTICLE
THAT YOU
READ BIG AT RED FOR
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA VERSUS TEXAS
CASE IN VICE AND AND THAT'S A
VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE THIS ISSUE
OF SEVERABILITY AND FOR THOSE
TO BE FIGHTING WORDS I THINK IT
WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT MY.
YOU KNOW CRITIQUE
OF THE REASONING REFLECTS A
HOSTILITY TO THE ACT THAT WOULD
CAUSE ME
TO APPROACH A CASE INVOLVING A
WITH HOSTILITY AND LOOKING FOR
A WAY TO TAKE IT DOWN.
TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF THEIR
COVERAGE UNDER SIA BECAUSE I
DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT I CAN
PROMISE YOU THAT THAT
IS NOT MY VIEW IT'S NOT MY
APPROACH TO THE LAW NO
HOSTILITY TO ANY
OTHER LAW AND I WILL FAITHFULLY
APPLY
THE LAW AND NOTHING THAT I'VE
SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE A
C A IN
CRANDON MY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES
ACTUALLY BEARS ON THE
SEVERABILITY QUESTION SO IT'S
NOT INDICATIVE OF HOW I MIGHT
APPROACH THAT QUESTION LET ME
GO BACK TO WHAT I PERHAPS TO
JOKINGLY REFERRED TO HIS
FIGHTING WORDS, YOU'RE BOTH
TEXTUALIST ARE BOTH FROM
THE SAME.
>>GENERAL SCHOOL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL METHODOLOGY
CORRECT EVEN JUSTICE SCALIA AND
ME AND CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.
>>NOT ACTUALLY SURE THAT CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS EVER
IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A
TECH SHIRTS.
>>SO TO THAT POINT.
THE IN THIS ARTICLE 3 YEARS
AGO YOU YOU CHASTISE CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS FOR NOT BEING A
TEXTUALIST
YOU SAID HE HAS NOT PROVEN
HIMSELF TO BE
A TEXTUALIST AND HAS BEEN
WILLING TO DEPART FROM
THIS TENTATIVELY CLEAR TEXT AND
SO YOU SAID IN THIS ARTICLE AND
I'M
QUOTING YOU. IT IS A LEGITIMATE
FOR
THE COURT TO DISTORT EITHER THE
CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE TO
ACHIEVE WHAT IT DEEMS
A PREFERABLE
RESULT. SO THIS WAS THE SORT OF
OUTCOMES ORIENTED JUDICIAL
CRAFTING
THAT HAS OFTEN BEEN SHARPLY
CRITICIZED BY YOUR MENTOR.
JUSTICE SCALIA WHEN
CRITICIZING THE SERVE LIVING
CONSTITUTION LISTS AND AS I
READ
YOU ARE SAYING TO CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS, YOUR NOTE EXTRA LIST.
YOU
HAVE OVERREACHED YOU HAVE
DELIVERED AN
IMPLAUSIBLE CONCLUSION. AND
FRANKLY
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR UPHOLDING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE THAT SEEMS
TO ME AGAIN AS A TEXTUALIST
HERE A
PLAIN READING OF YOUR OWN
RIGHT.
>>WELL SENATOR COMES I WANT
TO MAKE THEY VERY CLEAR I THINK
MAYBE THIS IS CAME UP WITH
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR THAT I WAS
NOT ATTACKING OR YOU KNOW
CHASTISING
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SET OFF
FOR WHOM I HAVE THE GREATEST
RESPECT.
I THINK THIS PASSAGE THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS
BOOK RADIO AND
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY.
IT WAS MAYBE A COUPLE
PARAGRAPHS, MAYBE EVEN ONE
PARAGRAPH AT THE END BECAUSE IT
WAS A COMMENT
ON MONDAY BY NETS BOOK IN AND A
LOT OF HIS BOOK DOWN WITH THE N
F I B VERSUS A BIAS AS AS
AN EXAMPLE SO I WAS RESPONDING
TO THAT.
THE SENTENCE
THAT YOU READ ME ABOUT IT'S
ILLEGITIMATE FOR A COURT
TO TWIST LAYING LANGUAGE IN
PURSUIT OF A
POLICY CALL THAT IS WHAT I
THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS TIME
SENATOR SASSE MEAN I I DON'T
THINK IT IS THE JOB
OF COURTS TO PURSUE POLICY
GOALS THAT THE TAX THAT YOU ACT
DOESN'T SUPPORT.
>>SO TO BE CLEAR YOU'RE YOU'RE
SPECIFICALLY ACCUSING THE CHIEF
JUSTICE
OR YOUR CHASTISING MIGHT BE THE
BETTER WORD. THE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF DISTORTING
THE STATUTE.
>>AND OF UPHOLDING. IT WHEN IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN
STRUCK DOWN.
>>NO I'M NOT I
WAS NOT I SAID IT WAS NOT
CHASTISING ALL I WAS DOING
WAS EXPRESSING SOME I MEAN AND
AS I'VE SAID SEVERAL
TIMES IT'S HAVE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE HIMSELF CHARACTERIZE IT
IS NOT THE MOST NATURAL
REASON READING OF THAT LANGUAGE
NOT LIKE WHAT IF I'M NOT YOUR
HONOR I
DON'T THINK.
>>THE CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD AGREE
WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
HE DIDN'T DESCRIBE HIS
OWN OPINION IS NOT PLAUSIBLE.
HE SAID
LAST NATURAL AND I THOUGHT IT
WAS IMPLAUSIBLE BUT NOT ON
SOUND.
SENATOR COONS I CERTAINLY WOULD
NOT AND
DID NOT CRITICIZE CHASTISE THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OR IMPUGN
HIS INTEGRITY.
>>IT IS TRUE THAT CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS AND JUSTICE
SCALIA TOOK DIFFERENT
APPROACHES TO THE TAX IN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CASE WHICH
IS SOMETHING THAT'S WIDELY
ACKNOWLEDGED.
>>I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT I THINK YOU'RE
WRITING HERE IN 2017 AND
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY.
YES, THE MAJORITY OF IT IS A
BOOK REVIEW. ABOUT A BOOK THAT
CENTRALLY TALKS ABOUT ENOUGH I
BE VERSUS
CIVILIANS AND
METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS BUT
NEAR THE END YOU ARE I THINK
UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR
IN SAYING
I DISAGREE WITH THE CHIEF
JUSTICE'S RULING UPHOLDING THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. AND I DEEM IT ON
PLAUSIBLE AND UNSOUND.
>>SENATOR AS AN ACADEMIC I DID
EXPRESS A CRITIQUE.
YOU KNOW YOU'VE PUT IT THE
LANGUAGE OF PULLED OUT THOSE
FEW SENTENCES AT THE END.
I'M A
LITTLE UNCERTAIN. WHAT IT
BECAUSE AS
I'VE SAID I HAVE NO
HOSTILITY TO THE AC A IF A CASE
CAME UP
BEFORE ME PRESENTING A
DIFFERENT QUESTION OF SAID I
WOULD APPROACH IT WITH NO BIAS
OR HOSTILITY. I ALSO
HAVE SAID EARLIER POINTS IN
THIS HEARING.
THE EXERCISE OF BEING A
COMMENTATOR ACADEMIC IS MUCH
DIFFERENT THAN THE ENTERPRISE
OF JUDGING.
I DIDN'T HAVE TO SIT AND CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS EAT OR JUSTICE
SCALIA'S SEAT WHEN AN F I B
VERSUS A BILL YES
WAS DECIDED THAT THEY WILL IF
WE FOLLOW THE TIMELINE LAID OUT
BY MY COLLEAGUES YOU
WILL SIT.
>>IN FORMER JUSTICE GINSBURG'S
SEAT
AND YOU WILL SEE IT AS A MEMBER
OF THE COURT DECIDING A CASE
THAT IS
VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS
ONE IN WHICH THE CENTRAL ISSUE
BEFORE
THE COURT BELIEVE IT OR NOT
SOMEHOW WILL BE
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
MANDATE. THAT'S IN
SOME WAYS BEEN
THE LINCHPIN OF ITS BEING
UPHELD PREVIOUSLY IN AN F I B
VERSUS
CIVILIAN US. THAT WAS THE SORT
OF KEY POINT WAS THAT AT THE
END OF
THE DAY
THERE WERE 5 JUSTICES WHO FOR
DIFFERENT REASONS CONCLUDED
THAT THEY COULD UPHOLD IT IN
THE CASE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HAS A
LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER. YOU WROTE IN THIS
IS THE
NEXT SENTENCE. THE CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS
IF HE HAD TREATED THE PAYMENT
TO UNDER
THE MANDATE AS THE STATUE DID
AS
A PENALTY. HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO
IN VALIDATE IT. SO.
YEAH, I THINK
YOU'RE UNMISTAKABLY CRITICIZING
THIS DECISION TO UPHOLD THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. IN A CASE THAT WILL
BE
BEFORE YOU AS A NEWLY SEATED
MEMBER OF THE
SUPREME COURT. IF THE MAJORITY
CONTINUES
WITH THIS RACE TOWARDS YOUR
CONFIRMATION. IT IS THE NERVE
CENTER OF THE CASE IS IT
THE ENTIRE FUTURE OF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
I THINK HINGES ON THIS QUESTION
OF WHETHER
OR NOT YOU CHERI VIEW WITH THE
4 WHO WERE IN THE MINORITY AT
THE TIME.
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
CANNOT BE UPHELD UNDER ANY
PLAUSIBLE READING
OF THE STATUTE. LET ME MOVE ON
IF
I MIGHT JUDGE SPARED YOU'RE
YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY PERSON
WHO'S CRITICIZED. CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS FOR HIS DECISION TO
UPHOLD THE A
C A
PRESIDENT TRUMP CRITICIZED HIM
FOR IT SHARPLY
AND REPEATEDLY SOON AFTER THE
NFI THE DECISION FIRST CAME OUT
IN
2012. HE TWEETED. THAT
JUSTICE ROBERTS TURNED ON HIS
PRINCIPLES WITH
IRRATIONAL REASONING IN ORDER
TO GET
LOVING PRESS. AND THEN LATER
CONGRATULATIONS
TO JOHN ROBERTS FOR MAKING
AMERICANS HATE THE SUPREME
COURT BECAUSE OF HIS BS.
A FEW YEARS LATER WHILE RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT. THEN CANDIDATE,
TRUMP SAID ON TWITTER AND I
BELIEVE
MY COLLEAGUE BUT PUT THIS UP
EARLIER
IF I WIN THE PRESIDENCY.
MY JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS WILL
DO THE RIGHT THING.
UNLIKE BUSH'S APPOINTEE JOHN
ROBERTS ON OBAMACARE AND AS
RECENTLY AS JUST
2 MONTHS AGO. VICE PRESIDENT
PENCE DESCRIBED CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS AS AND
I'M QUOTING A DISAPPOINTMENT TO
CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE OF THE
OBAMA CARE DECISION.
IN UPHOLDING THE A THE CHIEF
JUSTICE WAS
THE ONE JUSTICE APPOINTED BY A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WHO WENT
AGAINST THE
POLITICAL WISHES OF THE PARTY
THAT APPOINTED HIM.
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO SINGLE
HIM OUT FOR CRITICISM IN THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY
ARTICLE.
>>WELL SENATOR COONS I WAS
WRITING ABOUT THE
MAJORITY OPINION AND CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS THE AUTHOR
OF
THE OPINION. SO I
WAS SIMPLY DISCUSSING WHAT THE
FIVE-JUSTICE MAJORITY ADOPTED
AS
ITS REASONING AND I'D LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT IT
WAS NOT ATTACKING
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS OR
IMPUGNING HIS CHARACTER
ANYTHING OF THAT SORT
IT WAS AN ACADEMIC CRITIQUE.
I I WANT
TO EMPHASIZE YOU KNOW JUST
GIVEN THESE LESS LINE OF
QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE
ASKING THAT
YOU KNOW I AM STANDING BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE TODAY SAYING THAT
I HAVE THE INTEGRITY.
CONSISTENTLY WITH MY OATH AND
APPLY
THE LAW AS THE LAW.
TO APPROACH THE AC AND EVERY
OTHER STATUTE
WITHOUT BIAS I HAVE NOT MADE
ANY COMMITMENTS ARE DEALS ARE
ANYTHING LIKE THAT
I'M I'M NOT HERE ON A MISSION
TO DESTROY THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT, I'M JUST HERE TO
APPLY
THE LAW I'M HERE TO THE RULE
OF LAW.
>>AND I LOOK I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WATCHING I
UNDERSTAND THAT I BELIEVE YOUR
VIEWS ARE SINCERE
AND EARNEST LEE HEALTH AND I'M
NOT TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT
THERE
WAS SOME SECRET DEAL BETWEEN
YOU AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN
YOU TOLD ME THAT WE SPOKE A
WEEK AGO, I'VE HAD NO
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THESE CASES
WITH
THE PRESIDENT OR HIS LEGAL
TEAM. I
BELIEVE YOU I THINK YOU ARE A
WHO EARNESTLY
MEANS THAT AND AND I DO THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU KEEP
REPEATING THAT. BUT WE CANNOT
IGNORE THE LARGER CONTEXT THAT
SITS OUTSIDE. YOUR YOUR
NOMINATION AND
THIS RUSH PROCESS.
I'M SURE YOU HAVE NO ILL WILL
TOWARDS THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO HIM
AS AN INDIVIDUAL. WE'VE TALKED
REPEATEDLY ABOUT THE
FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN JUSTICE
SCALIA AND JUSTICE GINSBURG.
YOU KNOW I WAS LONG INSPIRED BY
THEIR FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN
SENATORS BIDEN AND SENATOR
MCCAIN AND THEY FOUGHT HAMMER
AND TONGS TO THIN OUT DISAGREED
WITH EACH OTHER ON FOREIGN
POLICY DAY IN AND
DAY OUT BUT THEN COULD STILL
ALSO SPEND TIME TOGETHER WITH
EACH OTHER'S
FAMILIES AND RESPECT EACH OTHER
AFTERWARDS AND TO
THE POINT MY COLLEAGUE FROM
NEBRASKA HAS MADE
ABOUT CIVICS FORCES POLITICS,
IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR US TO TRY AND SUSTAIN THESE
INSTITUTIONS THAT HOLD US
TOGETHER.
>>AND YOU AND SENATOR FLAKE I
THINK ARE ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE
OF THAT.
>>AS YOU WELL KNOW WE CAME TO
NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL JUST OVER
A YEAR AGO TO
TALK ABOUT WORKING TOGETHER
EVEN ACROSS
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
BUT THE BROADER CONTEXT THAT
SENATOR WENT THROUGH
IN DETAIL, IT WAS AS YOU
ARE EXPRESSING OPINIONS IN AN
ACADEMIC JOURNAL. THERE IS
LITERALLY AN ARMY OF LOBBYISTS
AND LAWYERS
AND PEOPLE. DONORS AND
ACTIVISTS
WHO
OUR FUNNELING NEW JUDGES INTO
OUR COURTS AND I
HAVE SENT YEAR FOR 4 YEARS AND
WATCHED A WHOLE
CHRIS SESSION OF
WHERE WITHOUT GOING ON ABOUT
THIS TOO
MUCH YOU KNOW A DOZEN HAVE BEEN
DEEMED UNQUALIFIED TO SERVE
THIS IS NOT A COMMENT
ON YOU. BUT
THE SPEED AND THE PROCESS AND
THE DISRESPECT FOR SOME OF THE
CRITICAL TRADITIONS OF
THIS BODY, TERMS OF THE BLUE
SLIP IN WHO GETS NOMINATED
AND WHY HAS MADE IT HARDER AND
HARDER TO SEE THE INDEPENDENCE
OF
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND
IN THIS PIECE THAT YOU WROTE IN
2017. YOU MADE I
THINK YOU'RE POSITION WITH
REGARDS TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN
HIS OPINION.
CLEAR LET ME IF I COULD PUT UP
ANOTHER POSTER THAT.
MAY MAKE THIS A SHARPER IN A
WAY THAT IS THE POLITICAL
BRANCHES, NOT THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THE SUPREME COURT'S GOING TO
HEAR ARGUMENTS AS I'VE SAID IN
THIS CASE.
AFTER THE ELECTION. AND
MOST AMERICANS. I'M
PROBABLY SURPRISED TO EVEN HEAR
ABOUT IT WHEN I WHEN I TALKED
TO A CONSTITUENT KERRY. WHO HAS
A
PREEXISTING CONDITION. SHE WAS
SURPRISED THIS WAS EVEN IN
FRONT OF THE COURT SHE SAID I
THOUGHT THAT
WAS SETTLED. I'M KERRY OWNS A
SMALL BUSINESS SHE HAS A
DAUGHTER SHE'S
RAISING AND BEFORE THE A SHE
HAD TO SPEND
$800 A MONTH FOR INSURANCE THAT
SHE DESCRIBED
AS JUMP AND LEFT ARE AFRAID OF
EVEN GOING TO THE DOCTOR'S
OFFICE OR NEEDING
DRUGS AND BECAUSE OF THE A
SHE'S BEEN ABLE TO
GET BETTER QUALITY INSURANCE
THAT SHE
CAN AFFORD. AND SHE'S GOT BOTH
TYPE 2 DIABETES AND HIGH
BLOOD PRESSURE BUT THE A
GUARANTEES SHE CAN'T BE
DENIED INSURANCE ARE MADE TO
PAY HIGHER PREMIUMS EITHER
BECAUSE OF
HER GENDER OR BECAUSE OF THESE
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.
SHE'S EXPRESSED TO ME
ASTONISHMENT.
MANY OF US ARE
ENGAGED AND INTERESTED IN THIS
BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION WE CARE ABOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE WAYS
IN WHICH IT IMPACTS A MAJORITY
OF
ALL AMERICANS FRANKLY ALL
AMERICANS. HELP ME EXPLAIN
TO HER. HOW IS IT THAT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SETTLED
8 YEARS AGO IS BACK IN FRONT OF
THE SUPREME COURT.
>>WELL SENATOR I SPENT SOME
TIME WITH SENATOR SASSE
TALKING ABOUT HOW A CASE WINDS
ITS
WAY UP AND IT'S BECAUSE LET
AGAINST CHOSE TO CHALLENGE
THE LAW AGAIN AND YOU KNOW IT
WENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN
THE 5TH CIRCUIT AND NOW THE
SUPREME COURT HAS
GRANTED SEARCHER EYE ON IT IN
IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION BUT
AS TO THE
BROADER QUESTION WHICH I THINK
IS A POLITICAL ONE WHICH IS WHY
ARE PEOPLE FIGHTING AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT HAVE TO ASK THE
I DON'T YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER FINDING AFFORDABLE
CARE ABOUT.
>>BUT 2 THINGS ON YES, THERE
ARE NO ADVISORY OPINIONS AS YOU
SAID IN YOUR EXCHANGE THE
SENATOR SASSE AND YOU HAVE TO
HAVE STANDING THE
COURTS REACTED. BUT AS SENATOR
WHITE HOUSE LAID
OUT THERE'S A WHOLE NETWORK OF
GROUPS THAT FUND AND DEVELOP
AND PRESENT TEST CASE IS OVER
AND OVER AND OVER
AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL
BE BEFORE THE COURT JUST A WEEK
AFTER
THE ELECTION. THAT IS
REALLY NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM
AN F I B VERSUS CIVILIANS, I
MEAN THEY ARE
CENTRALLY ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
MANDATE
WHETHER IT'S IN A LEGITIMATE
EXERCISE, THE
TAXING POWER. YOU DON'T GET TO
THE QUESTION
OF SEVERABILITY IF YOU HAVEN'T
ALREADY DETERMINED THE QUESTION
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.
BUT.
>>I THINK THAT THE QUESTION OF
SEVERABILITY EVEN IF NOW ZEROED
OUT THE
MANDATE PROVISION IS
A PENALTY. IT DOESN'T AFFECT
THE AX AT
ALL IF THAT POSITION IF THAT
PROVISION CAN BE SEVERED OUT
AND THE WHOLE REST OF THE ACT
WOULD STAND
AND SO I ACTUALLY THINK THAT
SEVERABILITY IS SORT OF THAT.
I THINK SEVERABILITY IS
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
ISSUES IN THE CASE I DON'T
THINK THE QUESTION OF
CHARACTERIZING IT ATTACKED AS
ATTACKS FORCES A PENALTY.
YOU KNOW, AND IF I BE VERSUS A
BILIOUS
ALSO IS SERVING A DIFFERENT
PROVISION, IT WAS ONE THAT
WASN'T 0 DOUBT THAT ACTUALLY
MONEY ATTACHED TO IT. BUT IF I
COULD.
THIS IS.
>>THE FILING OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT
AS YOU
WELL KNOW
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS
SUPPOSED TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL
LAWS OF ANY REASONABLE DEFENSE
CAN
BE MADE. AND THE TRUMP JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT HAS SIDED WITH THOSE
ADVOCATES WHO ARE TRYING
ONCE AGAIN TO STRIKE THE LAW
DOWN NOW IN THE COURTS WHEN
THEY COULDN'T
ACCOMPLISH THAT.
HERE IN FACT I I'D ARGUE THAT
THEY'RE DENYING THE WILL OF THE
VOTERS
THAT CLEARLY IN 2018 IN
DECIDING THE CONTROL OF THE
HOUSE AND
HEALTH CARE WANT THIS
TO STAY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS
ARGUING THAT THIS NOW
TOOTHLESS MANDATE WHICH IMPOSES
NO POWER NO PAIN
ON ANYONE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND THEY'RE ARGUING THE ENTIRE
ACT MUST BE
STRUCK DOWN AS A RESULT.
I FRANKLY THINK THE DOJ IS
EMBARRASSED BY
THIS BRIEFLY RARELY EVEN TALK
ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S IN BLACK AND
WHITE IN THE QUOTES OVER
MY SHOULDER THAT THE MANDATE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
MUST GO AND SO THE PARTS OF THE
LAW
THAT PREVENT INSURANCE
COMPANIES FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
ALL OF IT MUST FALL AS A
RESULT.
IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE
WATCHING.
DESERVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
IS SOMEHOW BACK UP IN FRONT OF
THE COURT.
THE PASTA THE ADMINISTRATION
IS TAKING THE WAYS IN WHICH IT
REALLY DOES FOLLOW SOME OF THE
CONTOURS OF ENOUGH I BE
VERSUS SEBELIUS AND THE WAYS IN
WHICH. BLUNTLY.
WELL, I KNOW YOU WON'T TALK
ABOUT THIS PENDING CASE WHAT
YOU SAID IN THAT 2017 ARTICLE
WHAT YOU WROTE IS
HIGHLY RELEVANT. I'M JUST AS A
PRELIMINARY POINT. THE VOTE
TO UPHOLD THE A C AND F I B
VERSUS CIVILIANS WAS
5 TO 4 CORRECT. YES,
AND JUSTICE GINSBURG WAS IN THE
MAJORITY JUSTICE SCALIA IN THE
MINORITY.
YES, SO IF YOU WERE
TO REPLACE. JUSTICE GINSBURG
WITH SOMEONE WHO FOLLOWED
PRECISELY JUSTICE SCALIA'S
ANALYSIS.
ON THE LINCHPIN QUESTION
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. ONE COULD
EXPECT IT WOULD BE OVERTURNED.
>>NO SENATOR COMES BECAUSE
IF THERE WERE A DIRECT
CHALLENGE TO AN F I B VERSUS
CIVILIANS THERE WOULD BE
PRESIDENT
ON POINT AND A LOT OF STARRY
DECISIS IS A WHOLE BODY OF
DOCTRINE THAT FINES JUDGES
ITSELF. SO. NO I DON'T THINK
ONE COULD ASSUME THAT IN A
SEPARATE POINT
IN TIME
THAT EVEN JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD
NECESSARILY DECIDE THE CASE THE
SAME WAY ONCE THERE IS
PRECEDENT ON THE
>>I AGREE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
DISCUSSING THAT IN SOME MORE
DETAIL TOMORROW I HAVE JUST I
THINK 6 MINUTES
YOUR VIEWS OF PRECEDENT JUSTICE
SCALIA'S VIEWS OF PRECEDENT IN
THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY
MAY DIVERGE I THINK ARE
IMPORTANT AND IMPORTANT FOR US
TO SPEND SOME TIME.
LET ME JUST RECAP THIS POINT.
FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP. FOR REPUBLICAN
POLITICIANS. THE ARGUMENT
ABOUT TAX AND ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT THE MANDATE IS A TAX IS THE
GATEWAY TO KNOCKING DOWN THE
ENTIRE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
AND THAT'S
ALSO THE LINE OF ATTACK BEING
TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT'S NOT
PLAUSIBLE TO INTERPRET THE
MANDATE IS
A TAX.
YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A TAX
WHEN IT WAS RAISING BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN REVENUE.
YOU CERTAINLY I THINK ARE
UNLIKELY TO BELIEVE IT'S A TAX
MONEY RAISES
NO REVENUE AND THE THING THAT
MIGHT DISTINGUISH IT
FROM ENOUGH I BE VERSUS OF
ILYAS IS RELIANCE INTERESTS AND
PRESIDENT.
AND WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME WILL
GO THROUGH
THAT BUT I JUST WANTED TO
CONNECT SOME DOTS.
THE TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY VOWED
TO GET RID
OF THE A HAS CAMPAIGNED ON IT
HAS CRITICIZED THE
CHIEF JUSTICE. HIS SAID HIS
NOMINEES WOULD DO THE RIGHT
THING.
HIS ADMINISTRATION IS COURT IS
IN COURT RIGHT NOW ARGUING A
CASE TO BE HEARD IN JUST
4 WEEKS THAT IT SHOULD BE
INVALIDATED AND
A PERSON YOU'VE CRITICIZED
CHIEF ROBERTS, A PERSON WHOSE
OPINION
WHOSE DECISION YOU HAVE
CRITICIZED JUSTICE ROBERTS.
MEANS IN MANY WAYS. THAT
YOU'VE SIGNALED.
I THINK YOU WERE ADDED TO THE
SUPREME COURT SHORT LIST.
AFTER YOU WROTE THAT ARTICLE.
AND TODAY MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES WHO THEMSELVES HAVE
PROMISED TO REPEAL THE A C A.
ARE RUSHING THROUGH
YOUR NOMINATION, SO YOU CAN BE
SEATED IN TIME TO HEAR THIS
CASE IT IT
CONCERNS ME GREATLY THAT'S THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WRITTEN. LET ME
ASK ONE
LAST LINE OF QUESTIONING IF I
MIGHT IN THE 5 MINUTES I HAVE
LEFT.
THERE'S ANOTHER SUBJECT ON
WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS BEEN I THINK UNFORTUNATELY
VERY
VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT HE HOPES
FOR FROM A SUPREME
COURT NOMINEE. JUST DAYS AFTER
JUSTICE GINSBURG PAST THE
PRESIDENT
WAS ASKED. WHY THERE WAS SUCH A
RUSH TO FILL HER SEAT BEFORE
THE ELECTION. AND HE RESPONDED
AND I QUOTE WE NEED 9 JUSTICES
YOU
NEED THAT
WITH THE MILLIONS OF BALLOTS
THAT DAY HE MET THE DEMOCRATS
ARE SENDING IT'S A SCAM IT'S
A HOAX YOU'RE GOING TO NEED 9
JUSTICE.
THE NEXT DAY HE TOLD REPORTERS
AGAIN HE DOUBLED DOWN. I
THINK THIS ANY MEANS THE
ELECTION FROM
THE CONTEXT. WE'LL END UP IN
THE SUPREME COURT. IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT. WE MUST HAVE 9
JUST.
OUR PRESIDENT HAS ALSO BEEN
ASKED WHETHER HE'LL COMMIT TO A
PEACEFUL TRANSITION, IF HE
LOSES THE ELECTION HAS BEEN
ASKED DIRECTLY
AND REPEATEDLY, AND INSTEAD OF
RESPONDING IN THE WAY WE EXPECT
OF ANY LEADER OF THE
FREE WORLD WITH A CLEAR AND
SIMPLE YES. HE'S TRIED TO SOW
CONFUSION AND DISTRUST IN THE
POTENTIAL RESULTS.
SO YOUR HONOR.
I'M
CONCERNED THAT WHAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WANTS HERE COULDN'T
BE CLEAR THAT HE'S TRYING TO
RUSH THIS NOMINATION AHEAD SO
YOU
MIGHT CAST. A DECISION A VOTE
IN
HIS FAVOR IN THE EVENT OF A
DISPUTED ELECTION. AND HE'S
DOING HIS LEVEL BEST TO CAST
DOUBT ON THE LEGITIMACY OF
AN ELECTION IN WHICH LITERALLY
MILLIONS OF VOTES HAVE ALREADY
BEEN CAST. MOST OF THEM BY NEW.
I WAS VERY ENCOURAGED AGAIN TO
HEAR FROM
YOU SPECIFICALLY YOU HAVE NOT
HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH HIM
ABOUT
THIS TOPIC AND THAT'S NOT WHAT
I'M SUGGESTING. IN REPEATED
PROMPTLY
28 USC FOR 55 YOU'RE QUITE
FAMILIAR WITH THE RECUSAL
STATUTE IN ITS CONSIDERATIONS.
BUT I THINK THE GRAB HIM IN THE
COURT THAT THE COURT ISSUE
IN RECUSAL IS THAT
ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE SHE RECUSE
THEMSELVES FROM A CASE IN WHICH
THEIR IMPARTIALITY MIGHT
REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED.
GIVEN WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
SENT. GIVEN
THE RUSHED CONTEXT OF
THIS CONFIRMATION WILL YOU
COMMIT TO
RECUSING HERSELF FROM ANY CASE
ARISING FROM A DISPUTE IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS 3
WEEKS FROM.
>>SENATOR CAN THANK YOU FOR
GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CLARIFY THIS
BECAUSE I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR
FOR THE RECORD AND TO ALL
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE MAY
THINK OR EXPECT.
COMMITTED TO ANYONE
OR SO MUCH A SIGNAL, I'VE NEVER
EVEN WRITTEN UP IN A
COUPLE OF OPINIONS IN THE 7TH
CIRCUIT THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND
THE EDGES OF ELECTION LAW.
I HAVEN'T EVEN WRITTEN ANYTHING
THAT I WOULD THINK ANYBODY
COULD READ POLICE SAY ON THIS
IS HOW SHE MIGHT RESOLVE AN
ELECTION DISPUTE. AND I WOULD
CONSIDER IT BUT SEE I CERTAINLY
HOPE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN
MY INTEGRITY AND TO THINK THAT
I WOULD ALLOW MYSELF TO BE USED
AS
A POP TO DECIDE THIS ELECTION
FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SO THAT WOULD BE ON THE
QUESTION OF ACTUAL BIAS AND YOU
ASKED ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF
BIAS SCRIPT. AND YOU'RE RIGHT
THAT THE
STATUTE DOES REQUIRE A JUSTICE
OR JUDGE TO RECUSE WHEN THERE'S
AN APPEARANCE
OF BIAS AND WHAT I WILL COMMIT
TO EVERY MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE TO REST OF THE
SENATE AND TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THAT I WILL
CONSIDER ALL FACTORS THAT ARE
RELEVANT TO
THAT QUESTION
TO RELEVANT TO THAT QUESTION
THAT REQUIRES RECUSAL AND
THERE'S AN
APPEARANCE OF BIAS AND THERE IS
CASE LAW UNDER THE STATUTE AND
AS I
REFERENCED EARLIER IN
DESCRIBING
THE RECUSAL PROCESS AT THE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE GINSBURG
SAID THAT IS ALWAYS DONE WITH
CONSULTATION OF THE OTHER
JUSTICES AND SO I PROMISE
YOU THAT IF I WERE CONFIRMED
AND IF AN ELECTION DISPUTE
ARISES YOU KNOW BOTH OF WHICH
ARE S.
VERY SERIOUSLY UNDERTAKE THAT
PROCESS AND I WOULD CONSIDER
EVERY RELEVANT FACTOR.
I CAN'T
COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW FOR THE
REASONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT
BEFORE, BUT
I DO WISH AREA OF MY INTEGRITY
AND I DO A STORY THAT I WOULD
TAKE THAT QUESTION VERY
SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU HERE ON.
>>JUST ON THE QUESTION OF THE
CHIEF JUSTICE FORMER CHIEF
JUSTICE REHNQUIST BECAUSE
THIS QUESTION CAME UP IN 2004
WROTE A LETTER ACTUALLY
TO MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE
THAT THERE'S NO FORMAL
PROCEDURE FOR
COURT REVIEW OF A DECISION BY
JUSTICE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES,
IT'S JUST SOME THINK JUSTICE
GINSBURG DID SAY THAT THERE WAS
A PRACTICE
OF CONSULTATION. I DO THINK AT
THE END OF THE DAY
WHAT MATTERS IS REMOVING
ANY POTENTIAL. CONFLICT HERE.
ENSURING THAT THERE IS
CONFIDENCE.
IN OUR ELECTION IN THE SUPREME
COURT ENDED
ITS ROLE
IS CRITICAL. I HAVE REACHED OUT
TO A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES TO
IMPLORE THEM TO STEP BACK FROM
THE TIMING OF
THIS CONFIRMATION TO CONSIDER
THE POSSIBLE.
CONFLUENCE OF 3 DIFFERENT
FACTORS HERE AN ELECTION AND
THEY SEE A
CASE AND RUSH TIMING IN THE
MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC AND I
WOULD JUST URGE THEM ONE MORE
TIME TO THINK SERIOUSLY
ABOUT STEPPING BACK FROM
THIS TIMING OF THIS
CONFIRMATION THAT'S NOT MEANT
TO
TO YOU OR SUGGESTED IN SOME WAY
YOU'VE ENGAGED IN SOME
INAPPROPRIATE CONVERSATION.
THAT'S JUST THE CONFLUENCE OF
THESE EVENTS AT THIS TIME IN
THIS PLACE. THIS ELECTION WILL
HAVE ENORMOUS
CONSEQUENCES. I AM TROUBLED BY
WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
I'M MORE CONCERNED THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS TRIED OVER AND
OVER AND
OVER TO GET RID OF THE A C AND
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
CONSISTENTLY
SAID NO AND THAT THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR A MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS WHO RELY ON THE AC IN
THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC.
WOULD
BE SIGNIFICANT. AND THAT THE
PRESIDENT
HAS REFUSED TO EMBRACE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE'S WISHES
AND DELIVER. I'M SOME
COMPELLING
ALTERNATIVE PLAN. AND INSTEAD
HAS TAKEN THE BATTLE BACK TO
THE SUPREME COURT WHERE IT WILL
BE HEARD
IN JUST A MONTH I THINK TO
REACH OUT AND TO
STRIKE THIS CRITICAL STATUE
DOWN NOW WOULD BE THE
WORST EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM
WHICH MY COLLEAGUES SAY THEY
DON'T WANT AND WHICH I HOPE
WILL
NOT HAPPEN. BUT I AM GRAVELY
CONCERNED BY WHAT I SEE YOUR
HONOR I BELIEVE YOUR VIEWS
ARE SINCERE.
BUT I ALSO THINK HE GENUINELY
THINK THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S MY
READING. AND YOU ARE ENTITLED
TO
THAT VIEW. BUT THIS BODY IN THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WE SHOULDN'T
KID OURSELVES.
BLUNTLY IF IF OUR PRESIDENT AND
THE MAJORITY ARE ABLE TO SWING
THE COURT OUT
OF BALANCE
BY REPLACING JUSTICE GINSBURG
BY SOMEONE WHOSE VIEWS MAY BE
SIGNIFICANTLY TO
THE RIGHT. THE HEALTH OF A
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS MAY WELL
BE
IN POWER. THANK YOU.
THANKS SENATOR
>>JUDGE AT THIS OK WE'LL DO
SENATOR HALLWAYS 30 MINUTES AND
TAKE
A BREAK SURE OKAY WITH YOU.
SO US HERE IN
HOLLY YOU DRONE THAT WILL
ATTRACT TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK
AND THAT JUST
ONE OBSERVATION REALLY LOT OF
GOOD QUESTIONS. GOOD
INTERCHANGE NOT ONE
TIME IS THE SENATOR IN THE
JUDGE TALKED OVER EACH OTHER.
I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE WAY
THAT IT SHOULD BE. SENATOR
HOLLINGS.
>>MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU
WOULD LIKE TO
BEGIN BY ASKING CONSENT TO
ENTER 2 LETTERS INTO THE RECORD
SUPPORTING THE JUDGE'S
NOMINATION, THE FIRST IN THE
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
AND THE SECOND FROM A GROUP OF
STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
INCLUDING THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL MY HOME STATE OF
MISSOURI WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. JUDGE IT'S GOOD TO
SEE
YOU AGAIN. I'VE BEEN SO
IMPRESSED
YOUR
ANSWERS TODAY. IT'S REALLY
QUITE
EXTRAORDINARY LOOK FOR TO VISIT
WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT HERE CAN
WE JUST START ON THE TOPIC OF
INDEPENDENCE PICKING UP WHERE
SENATOR COMES JUST AS
QUESTIONING YOU.
I'VE HEARD MY DEMOCRAT
COLLEAGUES
OVER AND OVER AGAIN SUGGESTS
THAT BECAUSE I GUESS YOU
CLERKED FOR JUSTICE SCALIA THAT
YOU AUTOMATICALLY FOLD HOWEVER
HE DID THEY
ATTRIBUTE HIS OPINIONS TO YOU
HIS DECISIONS TO USE THIS
METHOD
TO YOU.
JUSTICE SCALIA. TELL YOU WHAT
TO DO IN
YOUR CAREER YOU'VE BEEN IN THE
HABIT YOUR LIFE OF OF DOING
EXACTLY WHAT JUSTICE
SCALIA TOLD YOU TO DO AND YOUR
PROFESSIONAL CAREER.
>>WELL SENATOR HOLLY AS I SAID
EARLIER IF YOU CONFIRM ME ARE
GETTING JUSTICE BARRETT, NOT
JUSTICE SCALIA. YOU KNOW I
SHARE HIS METHOD
OF HIM INTERPRETING THE TEXT
BUT YOU KNOW I DIDN'T AGREE
WITH THEM IN EVERY CASE EVEN
WHEN I WAS CLERKING I MEAN THEN
HE COULD TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND
EVEN IF I DISAGREE I HAD TO GO
HIS WAY. BUT THE FACT THAT WE
SHARE THE SAME
APPROACH DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE
WOULD ALWAYS REACH THE SAME
RESULT AND YOU MAKE UP YOUR
OWN MIND DON'T YOU I DO MAKE UP
MY OWN AND
YOU HAVE YOUR OWN VIEWS I THINK
IT'S FAIR TO SAY IS
SAID ACTOR INDEED I DO AND
YOU'RE A VERY ACCOMPLISHED
JURIST IN YOUR OWN RIGHT IS
THAT FAIR TO SAY.
>>WELL IT FEELS A LITTLE
IMMODEST TO APPLY. WELL, I'LL
SAY
THIS YEAR VERY ACCOMPLISHED SO
I THINK THIS THIS ONE-WAY
ATTRIBUTIONS THAT EVERYTHING
THAT YOU MUST JUST BE A
WHATEVER JUSTICE SCALIA DID YOU
WOULD AUTOMATICALLY DO I HAVE
TO
SAY FRANKLY I THINK IS A LITTLE
BIT DEMEANING LET ME ASK YOU
ABOUT SOME OTHER ATTACKS THAT
YOU'VE ENDURED TODAY. NOW I
NOTICE YESTERDAY. WE WERE
ASSURED THE EU WOULD NOT BE
ATTACKED ON THE BASIS OF
YOUR FACE. I NOTICE THAT DIDN'T
LAST 24 HOURS.
BUT I'M NOT SURPRISED BECAUSE
FOR 3 AND A
HALF YEARS. WE HAVE HEARD
CONSISTENT ATTACKS FROM THE
DEMOCRAT SIDE MONTH ON
NOMINEES ON THE BASIS OF THEIR
FAITH INCLUDING OF COURSE YOU
JUST HEARD WE TALKED ABOUT
YESTERDAY TODAY THE SECOND
DEMOCRAT SENATORS SPEAK.
CRITICIZE YOU FOR
SPEAKING TO A CHRISTIAN LEGAL
GROUP
THAT HAS A PROGRAM A SUMMER
PROGRAM FOR CHRISTIAN LAW
STUDENTS WERE YOU GAVE
I THINK A LECTURE ONCE
OR TWICE. ON CONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.
SO LET ME JUST ASK YOU
ABOUT THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT
YOUR FACE THIS
HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED YOU
ACCEPT THEIR INVITATION TO
SPEAK TO A GROUP OF CHRISTIAN
LAW STUDENTS ON THE TOPIC OF OF
YOUR SPECIALTY.
TELL US WHY YOU ACCEPTED THE
INVITATION.
>>AT SEVERAL OTHER COLLEAGUES
WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE
BLACKSTONE PROGRAM. LECTURING
AND
I
HEARD GREAT THINGS ABOUT IT
FROM THEM WE HAD A CONTINGENT
OF STUDENTS FROM NOTRE DAME
REGULARLY ATTEND THIS PROGRAM.
THEY WERE AMONG OUR MOST
ENGAGED IN SMARTEST STUDENTS
AND I WENT AND
DID IT THE FIRST TIME I DID IT
I
REALLY ENJOYED IT. THE STUDENTS
WERE VERY VERY ENGAGED. SO I
DID IT I DON'T KNOW MATT DONE
IT FOR
5 TIMES EACH SUMMER I WOULD GO
AND JUST GIVE A LECTURE ON
ORIGINALISM THAT WAS ONE HOUR
OF THE YOU KNOW BLACKS AND AS A
SUMMER
LONG PROGRAM. SO I WENT AND
GAVE MY ONE HOUR LECTURE AT THE
BEGINNING OF IT.
I REALLY THOUGHT IT WAS IT WAS
A FUN TO TALK ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION TO
ENGAGE GROUP OF STUDENTS IS FUN
FOR SOMEONE IS A LAW PROFESSOR
ARE YOU
AWARE OF.
>>ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS THAT SAY THAT IT
A DISQUALIFICATION
FOR OFFICE FOR A BELIEVER
RELIGIOUS FACE TO TO GO AND
LECTURE TO LAW STUDENTS OF THE
SIMILAR FAITH IN HER AREA OF
EXPERTISE.
>>YOU SAY I WANT TO BE CAREFUL
THAT I'M HEARING INTO ANSWERING
HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTIONS BUT
I CERTAINLY DIDN'T THINK THERE
WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY
GOING TO SPEAK TO A GROUP OF
CHRISTIAN LAW STUDENTS ABOUT MY
EXPERTISE.
>>LET ME ASK YOU SENATOR LEAHY
ALSO RAISED.
I PLEDGE A STATEMENT THAT
YOU SIGNED REGARDING
ABORTION YOU TOLD US YOU TOLD
THE COMMITTEE IN RESPONSE TO
HIS QUESTION. YOUR HUSBAND BOTH
SIDE, I'M LOOKING AT
THE ADVERTISEMENT QUESTION
RIGHT HERE THE PORTION THAT YOU
SIGN YOU SAID THAT
YOU CITED ON YOUR WAY OUT OF
CHURCH FIRE. REMEMBER
CORRECTLY.
>>I
THAT WAS ALMOST 15 YEARS AGO AT
THE BACK OF CHURCH THERE WAS A
TABLE
SET UP 4 PEOPLE ON THEIR WAY
OUT IS MAP ASKED TO
SIGN STATEMENTS.
YOU KNOW VALIDATING THEIR
COMMITMENT TO THE POSITION OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON LIFE
ISSUES.
I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE AD AT
THE TIME AND IN CONTEXT LOOKING
AT IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THAT WAS
AN AD BY THE SAINT JOSEPH
COUNTY RIGHT TO LIFE GROUP.
THE STATEMENTS THAT I SIGNS YOU
KNOW IT WAS.
AFFIRMING
PROTECTION OF LIFE FROM
CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH.
>>AND YOU JUST YOU YOU JUST
MADE REFERENCE THE SITE AGAIN
THAT IT WAS IT WAS IN CHURCH
CAN YOU JUST WHY WOULD IT HAVE
BEEN IN THE BACK OF THE CHURCH
ME
WHY WOULD.
>>WOOD SENATORS WHY WOULD THIS
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO SIGN OR
NOT
AS YOU SOW CHOSEN IN THE BACK
OF CHURCH.
>>WELL BECAUSE THAT IS THE
POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH, YOU KNOW
ON ABORTION.
SO I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD
EMPHASIZE HERE IS A SIZE 2
OTHERS ASK ME
THE QUESTION.
>>BUT I DO SEE AS
TO STATE.
>>MY PERSONAL AND MORAL
RELIGIOUS VIEWS AND MY TASK OF
APPLYING WAS
A JUDGE.
>>IS IT SAFE TO SAY FOLLOWING
THAT DISTINCTION YOU DISMAYED,
THOUGH THAT THE THAT THE
SIGNATURE THAT YOU LET YOUR
HUSBAND ALSO REFLECTS YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR
CHEAT CHURCH'S TEACHING AND
YOUR OWN PERSONAL VIEWS MEAN
THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS THAT YOU
SAW SO.
>>WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY
ABOUT THAT THAT IS I SIGNED
THAT ALMOST
15 YEARS AGO IN MY PERSONAL
CAPACITY WHEN I WAS STILL A
PRIVATE CITIZEN AND NOW I'M A
PUBLIC OFFICIAL
AND SO WHILE I WAS FREE TO
EXPRESS MY PRIVATE USE AT
THAT TIME I DON'T FEEL LIKE
IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME ANYMORE
BECAUSE OF THE CANNONS
OF CONDUCT TO EXPRESS AN
AFFIRMATIVE YOU AT THIS POINT
IN TIME. BUT WHAT THAT
STATEMENT PLAINLY SAYS
IS THAT
I SIGNED THAT STATEMENT THAT IS
WHAT I WAS DOING AT THAT
POINT AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND
I'M NOT AWARE OF OF ANY LAW OR
PROVISION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.
>>THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE A MEMBER
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN IT
HERE TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH OR
YOU HAVE.
>>RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS IN LINE
WITH THOSE OF YOUR CHURCH
TEACHING THAT YEAR THEREFORE
BARRED FROM OFFICE ARE YOU
AWARE OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
VISION
THAT EFFECT.
>>I THINK THAT THE RELIGIOUS
TEST CLAUSE WOULD MAKE IT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>>WELL LET ME JUST ASK YOU
ABOUT THE TEST TO BRING IT UP
ARTICLE
6 SAYS NO RELIGIOUS TEST
SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS THEY
CALL A QUALIFICATION TO ANY
OFFICE OR
PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED
STATES CAN YOU
JUST GIVE US YOUR SENSE AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT SCHOLAR
AND
JUDGE NOW OF THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF
OF ARTICLE 6 WERE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME.
>>SO THE RELIGIOUS TEST CLAUSE
PROHIBITS.
PROHIBITS THAT
THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY FROM
DISQUALIFYING PEOPLE FROM
OFFICE BECAUSE OF THEIR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
>>AND IT
GUARANTEES DOES IT NOT THE
FREEDOM OF RELIGION MEAN IT
IS A OF ARTICLE WATER AMENDMENT
ONE THE FIRST AMENDMENT WILL GO
ON TO TALK EXPLICITLY I WANT TO
ASK ABOUT THAT SECOND ABOUT
RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY BUT ARTICLE 6 IS
SIGNIFICANT IN THAT IT SETS
OUT THAT ONE CANNOT BE NO
AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE KEPT
OUT
OF OFFICE BASED ON HIS OR HER
BELIEF YOU DON'T HAVE
TO GO AND GET SOMEONE'S
APPROVAL CERTAINLY NOT SOMEBODY
IN GOVERNMENT THEIR
APPROVAL OVER WHAT YOU BELIEVE,
DOES IT MEET THIS TEST OR
NOT TO DO THEY LIKE IT OR NOT
YOU DON'T HAVE
TO GET ANY SIGN OFF AFFECT ANY
KIND OF SIGN OFFICER
EXPLICITLY RULE OUT BY THE
CONSTITUTION IS THAT A FAIR
CHARACTERIZATION.
>>THE
SPAS MAKES PLAIN THAT
NOMINATION OR BELIEF CAN'T BE A
REASON TO
DISQUALIFY SOMEONE.
>>AND THAT IS WHY I CONTINUE TO
SAY IT IS IT IS VITAL THAT
WE UNDERLINE
IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THIS
THIS TEST WAS AND THAT
WE INSIST THAT IT BE APPLIED IN
THE CONTEXT OF YOUR
CONFIRMATION JUDGE
EVERY NOMINEE FOR EVERY HIGH
OFFICE WHO
COMES BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
THERE ARE NO RELIGIOUS TEST FOR
OFFICE IN THE ATTEMPT TO
SMUGGLE THEM IN EVEN IN THE
MIDST OF THIS THE COMMITTEE'S
HEARINGS
TO DATE.
HAS MUST BE RESISTED ON THE
BASIS OF THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ABOUT THE
FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION. THAT'S OF COURSE,
HOW THE
FIRST AMENDMENT BEGINS CONGRESS
SHALL MAKE NO
LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT
OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE
FREE EXERCISE,
THEREOF.
TO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THIS
SAYS ABOUT THE PLACE
OF RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE
IN AMERICAN LIFE AND ITS
SIGNIFICANCE WHY IS IT WHY IS
IT PROTECTED LIKE THIS IN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT YOU DRAW FROM
THAT.
>>I MEAN I THINK ITS PRESENCE
IN THE END THE BILL OF RIGHTS
YOU KNOW LIKE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS
SHOWS THAT IT
WAS ONE THAT THE PEOPLE FOR
GENERATIONS, BEGINNING IN 1791
CONSIDERED CENTRAL TO BEING A
FREE PEOPLE.
>>AND THERE'S NO INDICATION
FROM THE CONSTITUTION THAT
RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS ARE
SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS IN MANY
WAYS THEY ARE.
>>WELL THE FREE EXERCISE
CERTAINLY SUGGESTS TO
THE CONTRARY.
>>AND IN THE FREE EXERCISE
CLAUSE AND FOR
SOME IT SUGGESTS THAT THAT THE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION WORSHIP,
RELIGIOUS BELIEF
GETS SPECIAL PROTECTION UNITS
SINGLE OUT HERE FOR FOR
PROTECTION ALONG WITH
IMMEDIATELY
AFTER SPEECH PRESS WRITER
PEOPLE PEACEFULLY TO ASSEMBLE
THAT RELIGION IS GIVEN A
SPECIAL PLACE WHICH THE UNITED
STATES
SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
LET ME JUST ASK YOU
ABOUT ATTEMPTS TO DISFAVOR
RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS ON THE
BASIS OF FACE IS IT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING A GOVERNMENT AT
ANY LEVEL. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
STATE GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITY,
WHATEVER CAN
THEY TREAT
RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS DIFFERENTLY
CAN THEY SINGLED HIM OUT
FOR DISFAVOR VERSUS A NON
RELIGIOUS GROUP IS THAT
PERMISSIBLE IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.
>>WELL SENATOR HIGH THAT'S A
COMPLICATED QUESTION BECAUSE
YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
DOCTRINE SURROUNDING THAT.
BRIGHT LINE RULES AND SO THAT
QUESTION WOULD COME UP
AND THEN CASE WITH FACTS AND
YOU KNOW IT
WOULD REQUIRE THE WHOLE
JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS. SO
IT'S NOT HYPOTHETICAL THAT I
CAN ANSWER.
>>LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE
COURT'S DECISION
UNANIMOUS DECISION JOSE TABLE
CASE WHICH TOUCHES SOME OF
THESE QUESTIONS IN WHICH THE
COURT THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT
CHURCH'S ANY HOUSE OF WORSHIP
TO HIRE AND FIRE THEIR
MINISTERS FOR THOSE WHO PERFORM
RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS, RELIGIOUS
SERVICES AND THAT
UNANIMOUS DECISION THE COURT
SAYS THAT THAT HOUSES OF
WORSHIP OR ARE DIFFERENT THAT
THEY ARE UNIQUE THAT THEY ARE
THAT THEY
ARE GIVEN SPECIAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT
THEREFORE THEY MUST
BE ACCORDED
SPECIAL STATUS THEY THEY HAVE
TO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR
INSTANCE TO HIRE AND
FIRE MINISTERS. THOSE ARE GOING
TO FORM
RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS. THE STATE
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT INTERFERE
WITH THAT DO YOU THINK DO
YOU AGREE. WITH THE THE
TEACHING OF THAT CASE AND
WE DO DO YOU THINK THAT THAT
CASE REMAINS GOOD LAW AND IS A
SIGNIFICANT DECISION.
>>WELL SENATOR I THINK THE WAY
TO
THAT ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS
AGAIN AS I'VE SAID I CAN'T
GREAT PRECEDENT BUT I CAN TALK
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT FROM MY
COURT.
SO I WAS ON A PANEL THAT
DECIDED A CASE
CALLED PRESCOTT WHICH APPLIED
HIS TO BOARD TO THE SITUATION
OF A
JEWISH SCHOOL WHICH HAD FIRED A
TEACHER AND
THE TEACHER SUED AND THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER FOLLOWING
HIS ON A
TUB OR
THAT SCHOOL WAS ENTITLED TO
TREAT HER AS
MINISTER UNDER THE MINISTERIAL
EXEMPTION RECOGNIZED IN HIS
HONOR TO BORE.
MY FOR THE PANEL THAT I
WAS ON SAID THAT SHE WAS A
MINISTER
AND WE YOU KNOW TOOK THE
FACTORS IN HIS HONOR TO BORE
AND SAID NOTHING WAS A BRIGHT
LINE TEST YOU LOOK
AT THE CLUSTER BECAUSE WAS ON
THE BOARD WAS DESIGNED
TO GIVE RELIGIOUS THE FREEDOM
TO.
HIRE AND FIRE THEIR MINISTERS,
YOU KNOW IN THIS CASE. ONE OF
THE JEWISH FAITH.
AS CONSISTENT WITH US.
THEIR PRACTICE OF THEIR FAITH.
VIEW OF OURS
INQUEST THAT WAS EMBRACED BY
THE SUPREME COURT LAST TERM IN
OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE.
>>I THINK IT'S IT'S VITAL IN
THIS IN THIS TIME IN THE SEASON
JUDGE WHAT WE'RE SEEING
MANY CHALLENGES TO
RELIGIOUS INDEPENDENTS. MANY
CHALLENGES TO THE ABILITY
OF CHURCHES TO CONDUCT WORSHIP
ON EQUAL TERMS WITH
SECULAR ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE
SUPREME COURT'S UNANIMOUS
DECISIONS IN
THIS AREA HAS AN ATTORNEY A WAR
AND OTHERS TRINITY LUTHERAN
CASE WAS NOT UNANIMOUS.
BUT AS A RECENT VERY IMPORTANT
CASE
AS WELL. I WANT TO SAY FOR
MYSELF THAT I THINK THAT
THE LINES AT THE SUPREME COURT
HAS DRAWN REGARDING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT REGARDING THE STATUS
OF HOUSES OF WORSHIP.
REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS THAT NOW
MORE THAN EVER
IT IS VITAL THAT THOSE BE
RESPECTED AND THAT THE
CONSTITUTION BE
FULLY ENFORCED AND THAT THE LAW
THE LINE OF
CASES THAT IS NOW MULTI YEARS
OLD THE SUPREME COURT HAS SET
OUT
BE FOLLOWED
I I CERTAINLY HOPE
THAT YOU WILL RESPECT APPLY
THAT PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD IT
ON THE REASON TO THINK WON'T
LET THE SHIFT GEARS AND ASK
ABOUT
ANOTHER ATTACK. HAS
BEEN MADE ON YOU TODAY HAVING
TO THE CANTOR CASE.
THE CANDOR CASE WE'VE HEARD
SENATOR DURBIN ASKED ABOUT SOME
LINKED TO SENATOR KLOBUCHAR
ASKED ABOUT IT AS WELL.
THE CANTOR CASE FIRST OF ALL IS
IS A CASE ABOUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS IS THAT RIGHT THAT
IS RIGHT. AND IT'S ABOUT
WHETHER OR
NOT SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN
CHARGED WITH AND CONVICTED OF
OR PLEADED GUILTY TO
A FELONY COULD KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT UP FAIR SUMMARY.
IT IS I'VE HEARD REPEATEDLY
FROM A DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
THAT YOU WRITE IN
YOUR DISSENT DISSENT IN THIS
CASE YOU WRITE IN
YOUR DESCENT THAT THE RIGHT TO
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT BUT THE RIGHT
TO VOTE IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT.
BUT MAYBE I'M READING A
DIFFERENT OPINION THAT'S NOT
WHAT YOU SAY IN THE OPINION BUT
I SEE PAGE 50 OF YOUR OPINION
OR OF THE OF THE JOINT OPINION,
YOUR DESCENT.
YOU REFER TO CIVIC RIGHTS
VOTING RIGHTS, A
CIVIC RIGHTS AND USE A CIVIC
RIGHT TO DEFINE THEM CIVIC
RIGHTS OR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
A MOMENT LATER YOU SAY
FOR EXAMPLE, THE RIGHT TO VOTE
IS HELD
BY INDIVIDUALS. SO LET'S JUST
SET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT HERE. IN THIS CASE YOU
SAY THAT THE RIGHT TO
VOTE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT IS
THAT CORRECT. THAT
IS CORRECT AND THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN A CIVIC RIGHT AND THE
SECOND AMENDMENT
HAS TO DO WITH THE PURPOSES OF
THAT RIGHT PERSONAL THAT'S NOT
A DISTINCTION YOU INVENTED IS
THAT CORRECT THAT IS CORRECT
YOU ARE REPLYING
TO A BOTH A CHAIN OF CASES AND
ALSO SCHOLARSHIP ON THIS ISSUE
IS THAT CORRECT.
>>THAT IS CORRECT AND ALSO
THE ARGUMENTS THE LITIGANTS
MADE AND YOU CAN'T CANTOR
CASE ITSELF.
>>AND THIS DOESN'T SOME CIVIC
RIGHT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THE
RIGHT TO
VOTE WHAT ITS CIVIC PURPOSES OR
OTHER WORDS IT GIVES US A STAKE
IN OUR DEMOCRACY IS THAT FAIR
TO SAY YES, BUT YOU NEVER AT
ANY POINT SAY THAT THE RIGHT TO
VOTE IS SOMEHOW SECONDARY OR
LESS THAN
LESS FUNDAMENTAL THAN ANY OTHER
RIGHT IS THAT FAIR TO
SAY YES, IT IS FAIR TO SAY I
NEVER SAID IN FACT YOUR
WHOLE POINT IN THIS CASE WHICH
IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CASE
HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH VOTING
RIGHTS IS NOT A VOTING RIGHTS
CASE IS THAT THE CAMPUS HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH VOTING
RIGHTS YOUR WHOLE POINT IN THIS
CASE. A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
CASES THAT
YOU THINK
THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES ON THE 7TH
CIRCUIT
ACTUALLY CONSTRICTED
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO NARROWLY
THAT IS THE SUPREME COURT.
THE UNITED STATES HAS SAID IN
HELLER BUT THE RIGHT TO KEEP
AND
BEAR ARMS IS A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT THAT'S THE
HELLER DECISION YOU THINK IN
THIS CASE THAT THAT YOUR
COLLEAGUES
ACTUALLY WERE CONSTRAINING THAT
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT A LITTLE TOO
NARROWLY WE'RE SETTING SOME
PEOPLE OUT OF IT IS THAT FAIR
TO SAY.
>>WE DID DISAGREE ABOUT THE
SCOPE OF THE RIGHT.
>>SO JUST TO
MAKE THE RECORD PERFECTLY CLEAR
HERE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID
THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT SAID OVER AND
OVER THAT THAT VOTING THE RIGHT
TO VOTE IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
>>AND I THINK YOU YOU HAVE A
FIRM THAT IT RECOGNIZED TODAY
YOU'VE SAID THAT THE
SUPREME COURT THE PRESIDENT
MIGHT READ ABOUT
THAT. YES AND THE SUPREME COURT
HAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT THEY
HERE TO THE ONE PERSON ONE VOTE
STANDARD, THE SORT OF BASELINE
THE TOUCHSTONE THE
KEYSTONE TO TO THAT ENTIRE
DOCTRINE OF DO I
HAVE THAT CORRECT INDEED THAT
IS
CORRECT AND NOTHING IN YOUR
OPINION CHALLENGES THAT WERE
CHANGES THAT WERE CALLS INTO
QUESTION CRITIQUES NOTHING
RIGHT NOW
TO OKAY, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE
CLEAR ON
THAT NOW. SENATOR DURBIN
SAID IN IS PART OF THIS LINE OF
QUESTIONING ON THIS. HE
SUGGESTED
I DON'T KNOW PERHAPS THAT THIS
YEAR YOUR OPINION IN THIS HOW
WHICH IS NOTHING TO DO WITH
VOTING RIGHTS.
MAKES YOU FRIENDLY TO WHAT HE
CHARACTERIZES ATTEMPTS TO DENY
PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON
RACIAL GROUNDS.
HE WENT ON TO SAY
WE ALL COME TO EVERYBODY EVERY
JUDGE ALL OF US WHO COME TO
THE LAW. EVERY JUDGE IT COMES
TO EVENTS
COMES TO THE BENCH CASES WITH
THEIR OWN
INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE AND FEW
POINTS, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT
THAT FOR JUST A SECOND
IF WE COULD WHEN IT COMES TO
THE TO THE FRAUGHT BUT VITAL
ISSUE OF RACE AND YOUR OWN
EXPERIENCE
WITH THAT. YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND
ARE THE PARENTS OF A
MULTIRACIAL FAMILY.
CAN YOU GIVE US SOME SENSE JUST
IN YOUR PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE WITH THAT HAS BEEN
LIKE FOR YOU WHAT WHAT THAT
MEANS TO YOU WHAT YOU ARE
WHAT EXPERIENCE YOU BRING TO
THE BENCH BECAUSE OF
YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A PARENT IN
THIS UNIQUE CONTEXT.
>>I THINK I COULD SAY HOW IT IS
SHAPED ME AS HER SON.
YES CERTAINLY YOU KNOW,
WHENEVER
YOU HAVE A LIFE EXPERIENCE THAT
MAKES YOU ACUTELY WHERE IN
YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER
PEOPLE YOU IT
GIVES YOU EMPATHY FOR THEM, I
MEAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF OUR
HAVING A SON WITH A DISABILITY.
BUT I I
WANT TO MAKE VERY CLEAR SENATOR
HOLLY THAT WOW MY LIFE
EXPERIENCES. I THINK YOU KNOW
I HOPE HAVE GIVEN ME WITH THEM
AND COMPASSION. THEY DON'T
DICTATE HOW I DECIDE CASES.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW AS WE
DISCUSSED BEFORE AND IT'S
DISCUSSED A COUPLE
OF TIMES.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DECIDE
CASES IN WAYS WE DON'T LIKE THE
RESULT.
SO WHY HOPE THAT MY FAMILY HAS
MADE ME A BETTER PERSON AND MY
CHILDREN DEFINITELY HAVE GIVEN
ME A NEW PERSPECTIVE
ON LIFE. I
STILL IN IT AND APPLYING THE
LAW DECIDING CASES, YOU KNOW
DON'T LET THOSE EXPERIENCES
DICTATE THE OUTCOME.
>>YOU'LL FOLLOW THE LAW WHERE
EVER THE LAW LEADS. YES
WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD WAY TO
BRING US BACK FULL CIRCLE
TO WHERE WE STARTED ABOUT YOUR
OWN INDEPENDENCE YOU'VE
CULTIVATED I THINK IT'S FAIR TO
SAY OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR
VERY DISTINGUISHED CAREER.
YOU'VE CULTIVATED A REPUTATION
FOR ORIGINAL THINKING
FOR INDEPENDENCE.
I WOULD FOR COURAGE AND
FOR TOUGHNESS.
YOU'VE NEVER I SEE NO EVIDENCE
IN YOUR RECORD THAT YOU
EVER COMPROMISED COWTOWN ORBIT
YOUR POSITION TO THE WHIMS OF
OTHER PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY
PEOPLE IN POWER BASED ON WHAT
THEY WANTED YOU TO DO ARE
EXPECTED TO
DO OR TOLD YOU TO DO IS THAT
FAIR TO SAY IT MAY HAVE IN MIND
THIS SOMETHING IN YOUR RECORD.
>>NOW I THINK THAT IS FAIR TO
SAY.
>>I ADMIRE THE WAY WHICH YOU
ANSWER THESE
QUESTIONS JUDGE YOUR
FORTHRIGHTNESS ON THESE ISSUES
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING
WITH YOU MORE TOMORROW AND WITH
THAT MISTER CHAIRMAN BACK
ON TIME.
>>THANKS SENATOR WILL IN
20 MINUTES. AND WE WILL GO TO
ABOUT 6.30 AND
TAKE A 30 MINUTE TO HAVE SOME.
DINNER AND COME BACK AND FINISH
OUT ROUND
ONE DAY. SO 20 MINUTE BREAK.
>>YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING
SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE
CBN
– [Reporter] Mr. and Mrs.
Chen married in their mid 20's
and immediately signed
up to volunteer together
at an orphanage.
So by the time Mrs.
Chen got pregnant,
the couple had cared
for a lot of babies
and felt prepared to be parents.
What they weren't prepared for
was their baby's
cleft lip and palate.
(baby cries)
– [Mrs. Chen's
Translator] I cried
when I finally saw her face.
I knew that babies with
cleft lips are marked
and the people point
at them all the time.
I couldn't imagine my own baby
being treated like
that all her life.
– [Reporter] Sayon's
cleft lip was severe
and kept her from eating a
developing like she should.
– [Mrs. Chen's Translator]
She was so small.
At four months old, she
was only 7.7 pounds.
I tried to feed her,
but she always choked
and her face turned
red and purple.
And then she couldn't sleep
because she was so
hungry and uncomfortable.
Every time she cried,
it was like my heart
was being cut into a 100 pieces.
– [Mr. Chen's
Translator] I was worried
my daughter would choke to death
and what if her malnutrition
led to retardation?
Our doctor thought
there was no way
to help her in the long run.
He said it would be
better just giving her up.
– [Reporter] The poor newlyweds
didn't have enough
money for surgery.
But they did have faith.
– [Mrs. Chen's Translator] I
prayed to the Lord every day.
I believe He had the
perfect plan for my baby
and I entrusted my baby to Him.
– [Reporter] Not
long after praying,
Mrs. Chen got a call
with some very good news.
Operation Blessing would
help pay for Sayon's surgery.
It was a three-hour procedure
that completely transformed
her face, and her life.
– [Mr. Chen's Translator] It
was like all of my burdens
were immediately taken away.
I was released from all worries
about my daughter's future.
I could not even recognize
that this was my baby.
It's incredible.
She's so pretty.
– [Mrs. Chen's Translator] We
volunteered at the orphanage,
and helped the others.
Then when we needed
help, God stretched out
His merciful had to us,
arranging the best hosptial
and the best doctor for my baby
so that she could have
this successful surgery
and a much better life.
– [Reporter] Abilya and
Alba are identical twins.
Because they're nearly blind,
they must feel their way
along this fence in
order to walk to school.
– [Abilya's Translator]
We see what is near.
– [Alba's Translator] We
don't see anything farther.
– [Abilya's Translator]
We have many headaches.
– [Reporter] Their juvenile
cataracts started developing
soon after they were born.
To navigate around their house,
their dad taught them to
count the steps between rooms.
– [Abilya's Translator]
We count 10 steps
from the kitchen to the bedroom.
– [Reporter] And
attending school
is becoming more and
more of a challenge.
– [Abilya's Translator]
We often feel sad.
Some days, we feel like
quitting school and stay home.
– [Reporter] When
the girls' parents
couldn't afford surgery,
they turned to an old
folk tradition for help.
– [Mother's Translator]
We thought we could take
the curse away from the girls,
rubbing a fish on their eyes.
– [Reporter] So
Operation Blessing
arranged to take the girls
to a hospital in the city.
There, a simple surgery
changed everything.
(joyful music)
– [Abilya's Translator]
Before, I could not see
hardly anything.
Now, I can see everything.
– [Alba's Translator]
I can see the coconuts
on the top of our tree.
I can see my house and all
the animals passing by.
– [Reporter] The girls have
now returned to school,
filled with hope.
(children cheer)
– [Abilya's Translator]
Thanks to Operation Blessing
for operating my eyes.
Thanks to God and a
big applause to them.
– Doctors and nurses
here in Tanzania
are getting ready to operate
on a little girl named Glory.
Today, she's getting an
orthopedic procedure done
on both of her legs.
Children, adults, and
babies all over the world
desperately need medical care.
If you'd like to help
Operation Blessing
provide life-changing
surgeries like this one,
call the number on your screen.
– [Narrator] That number
is 1-888-700-7000.
You have it in your power
to change a life forever
through these crucial and
oftentimes lifesaving surgeries.
All around the world,
there are poor families
who simply cannot afford the
necessary medical treatment
to save their loved one's life.
Will you help them?
Just call the number on
your screen, 1-888-700-7000.
Your gift of $100,
50, 25 or any amount
goes directly to fund
Operation Blessing's
life-changing surgeries.
(baby cries)
The need is urgent
and worldwide.
Each day the number of people
waiting for medical help
continues to grow.
That's why yo can move up
to a monthly donation level
and become an Operation
Blessing Life-Changer
by giving just $19 a month.
And when you give, you'll
receive The Transforming Word,
an audio CD and DVD
featuring spoken verses
of health and healing
to lift your spirit.
With your help, Operation
Blessing can continue
to provide more and more
surgeries each year.
But at this moment, there
are still a tremendous number
of people waiting for your help.
Will you help change a life?
Call 1-888-700-7000
– [Correspondent] Amar,
a young Muslim woman,
suffered from severe burns
when her home in Syria
was hit by a missile.
– [Amar's Translator] My
mother was making french fries
when the missile hit our house.
The hot oil from the frying
pan poured all over me.
At that moment, I said
to myself, this is it.
I'm going to die.
– [Correspondent] The
rest of Amar's family
survived the blast unscathed,
but she had no
access to a hospital
capable of treating her
extensive third degree burns.
She received basic care
at a field hospital
and then she and her family
fled Syria for Jordan,
crossing the desert by foot.
– [Amar's Translator}
I Was in so much pain.
My wounds were not treated well
and I had no
medicine for relief.
In Jordan, a doctor
volunteered to help me.
He performed 22 surgeries,
but he had to leave Jordan
and I was left
without treatment.
– [Correspondent] Then
Amar found a medical clinic
supported by Operation Blessing.
– [Amar's Translator]
The clinic helped me
find a doctor who performed
the last four surgeries.
And now I'm doing
laser treatments.
Thank God I'm better now.
– [Correspondent] Sahail
manages the clinic.
– [Sahail's Translator] When
we first opened the clinic,
we could only see 10 to
15 patients each day.
Now, sometimes we see more
than 150 patients in one day.
– [Amar's Translator] I
just wanted to give up.
But people here gave me hope.
You stood by me and
helped me get through
the hardest time of my life.
– [Correspondent] Through the
love and care she received
from so many
Christians, Amar prayed
and gave her life to Christ.
– [Sahail's Translator] She
suffered a lot physically.
Here whole body was burned, but
God is working on her heart.
– [Amar's Translator]
They even offered me a job
and now I'm working
at the clinic
and helping other refugees.
Thank you for all
the help you gave me
and so many other refugees.
– [Reporter] Theodora was
born wh a congenital hernia
called an onthala cell
where her liver grew
outside an opening
in the abdominal wall.
– [Mother's Translator]
Doctor said, Theodora will die
within a short time
without major surgery.
Our relatives told us to
prepare for her to die.
– [Reporter] By age four,
Theodora had beaten the odds
and survived, but her condition
made her life difficult.
She could not run and
play like other kids
for fear a fall would
injure the exposed liver.
– [Mother's Translator]
She knows she has
this large lump on her belly.
She called the lump the ball.
She used to say, I have
a ball on my stomach.
– [Reporter] Meanwhile,
surgery was still
out of the question because
they could not afford it.
– [Father's Translator] I
work as a motor taxi driver.
I earn only two or
three dollars a day.
– [Reporter] When
Operation Blessing learned
of Theodora's condition,
we made it possible
for her to receive surgery
to repair the opening
in the abdominal wall.
The operation was successful.
Theodora is now a healthy child
who loves to run and play.
– [Mother's Translator]
For everything you've done
to help us, God bless you.
– [Narrator] Will you
help change a life?
Call the number on your
screen, 1-888-700-7000.
You have it in your power
to change a life forever
through these crucial
and oftentimes
life-saving surgeries.
All around the world,
there are poor families
who simply cannot afford the
necessary medical treatment
to save their loved one's life.
Will you help them?
Just call the number on
your screen, 1-888-700-7000.
Your gift of $100, 50, 25,
or any amount goes directly
to fund Operation Blessing's
life-changing surgeries.
(baby cries)
The need is urgent
and worldwide.
Each day the number of people
waiting for medical help
continues to grow.
That's why you can move up
to a monthly donation level
and become an Operation
Blessing Life-Changer
by giving just 19
dollars a month.
And when you give, you'll
receive The Transforming Word,
an audio CD and DVD
featuring spoken verses
of health and healing
to lift your spirit.
With your help, Operation
Blessing can continue
to provide more and more
surgeries each year.
But at this moment,
there are still
a tremendous number people
waiting for your help.
Call 1-888-700-7000.
(triumphant music)
– Here in Tanzania,
Glory's surgery
is happening right now.
Up until today, her bowed legs
made it difficult and
painful for her just to walk.
If you'd like to help
Operation Blessing
provide life-changing
surgeries like this one,
call the number on your screen.
Take a look at our next story.
I'll be back soon.
We'll see how
Glory's recovering.
– [Narrator] Yanyan's dream
came true when she heard
that she was finally going
to have a little sister.
– [Yanyan's Translator] I
wanted her life to be beautiful
and free like a butterfly,
so I saved all my pocket money
and bought her a
butterfly dress.
I hoped it would
bring her good luck.
– [Narrator] But Lily was born
with a cleft lip and palate.
– [Yanyan's Translator]
I remember when
my mother started
giving her a bath,
I was afraid that the water
would go into her mouth
and she'd choke.
I didn't even want to hold her.
I was scared of hurting her.
– [Father's Translator]
She couldn't eat bread
or drink milk powder,
so she was very thin.
Once she caught such a bad cold
that we thought she might die.
– [Yanyan's Translator]
I was afraid
that a high fever
might burn her brain.
– [Narrator] The cleft lip
kept her from communicating.
– [Yanyan's Translator]
When she was hungry,
she pointed at the bowl
and then at her mouth.
I was concerned that she
wouldn't be able to talk
in the future.
– [Narrator] As she got
older, Lily started noticing
her lip herself.
– [Yanyan's Translator]
She pointed at her mouth
in front of the mirror,
like she wanted to know why
she wasn't like other people.
It made me so sad.
– [Mother's Translator]
We were anxious,
especially when I saw
her hiding her mouth
with her hand.
– [Father's Translator] She
wanted me to buy her a mask
so other people
wouldn't laugh at her.
I told her Daddy
will fix her lip.
– [Narrator] But he and his
wife couldn't do it alone.
So Yanyan started
working in the fields
from four in the morning
until 10 at night.
– [Yanyan's Translator]
Sometimes I would
see butterflies.
It helped me to go on.
I took it as a sign that
one day, my sister's mouth
would be cured and she
would be beautiful.
– [Narrator] But the
Jang's were never able
to raise enough money
for that to happen.
Mr. Jang started looking
everywhere for help.
And every organization
refused him
except for Operation Blessing.
We made sure Lily got
surgery, free of charge.
– [Father's Translator] Her
mouth is totally healed.
I'm so happy.
– [Mother's Translator]
She's healthy
and could eat with
no problems now.
– [Yanyan's Translator] I
want to thank the good people
at Operation Blessing
who did this.
She doesn't even have a scar.
She's very cheerful.
She speaks very clearly and is
as beautiful as a butterfly,
exactly what I always hoped for.
– [Warny's Translator] When
Daniel was a month old,
we noticed his
stomach was bloated.
So we took him to the hospital.
– [Correspondent] There,
doctors diagnosed Daniel
with Hirschsprung's, a
life-threatening disorder
where part of the
large intestine fails
to work properly.
Waste builds up, causing
the intestine to expand.
Surgery is the only treatment
and without it,
Daniel would die.
Warny is Daniel's
mother, a widow
raising her four children alone.
– [Warny's Translator] I
thought how could I get
all that money for surgery?
My monthly income
is less than $100.
– [Correspondent] So on a
recent visit to the hospital,
the doctor told Warny
about Operation Blessing.
– [Warny's Translator] I was
not ready to lose my son.
I was so thankful.
– [Correspondent] Then
Operation Blessing
set up free surgeries to
repair Daniel's intestines.
Those operations had to
be done in three stages
over a six-month period.
After the last
surgery, we went back
to see the little boy and found
him to be in perfect health.
– [Warny's Translator]
Thank you to everyone
who gave money to help my son.
My prayer is that you will
keep doing these good things
that help so many people.
– [Narrator] Will you
help change a life?
Call the number on your
screen 1-888-700-7000.
You have it in your power
to change a life forever
through these crucial
and oftentimes
life-saving surgeries.
All around the world,
there are poor families
who simply cannot afford the
necessary medical treatment
to save their loved one's life.
Will you help them?
Just call the number on
your screen, 1-888-700-7000.
Your gift of $100,
50, 25, or any amount
goes directly to fund
Operation Blessing's
life-changing surgeries.
(baby cries)
The need is urgent
and worldwide.
Each day the number of people
waiting for medical help
continues to grow.
That's why you can move up
to a monthly donation level
and become and Operation
Blessing Life-Changer
by giving just 19
dollars a month.
And when you give, you'll
receive The Transforming Word,
and audio CD and DVD
featuring spoken verses
of health and healing
to lift you spirit.
With your help, Operation
Blessing can continue
to provide more and more
surgeries each year.
But at this moment, there
are still a tremendous
number of people
waiting for your help.
Call 1-888-700-7000.
– Glory made it through
surgery just fine
and doctors say she's
recovering well.
Her casts are so straight.
They'll come off in
about six to eight weeks.
And soon after that,
she'll be outside running
and playing with the other kids.
Hers is just one of many stories
of a life being changed
by a simple surgery.
– [Narrator] 47-year-old
Natalia had no idea
that anything was wrong
until the pain started.
– [Natalia's Translator] I
hurt so much, so painful.
I couldn't sleep for two weeks.
– [Narrator] Then
an X-ray revealed
that a giant kidney
stone was growing inside.
But as a widow raising
three children,
there was no extra
money for surgery.
– [Natalia's Translator]
My oldest daughter said,
Mom, let's go to the hospital,
but I said we're not
going to the hospital.
We don't have the money.
– [Narrator] Even
six-year-old Natasha
knew there was something
seriously wrong with her mother.
She wondered if
her mom would die.
– [Natasha's Translator] I
prayed when my mom got sick.
I looked at her
picture and cried.
I want her to stay with me.
– [Natalia's Translator]
I begged God to help me
so my children wouldn't
become orphans.
– [Narrator] When Operation
Blessing met Natalia,
we took her to the hospital.
There the doctor confirmed
that the kidney stone
had destroyed her kidney.
– [Doctor's
Translator] The patient
was in critical condition.
Her body was poisoned
by the toxins
from the infected kidney.
There was a high
risk of septic shock,
which leads to death.
– [Narrator] So
Operation Blessing
paid for Natalia's emergency
surgery to save her life.
– [Natalia's Translator]
When I opened my eyes
after the surgery, I
understood that I would live.
The burden and pain went away.
– [Narrator] Natalia has
now completely recovered
and is back taking
care of her children.
– [Natalia's Translator]
My other kidney
is working normally.
I have no pain.
I'm even able to
go back to work.
– [Natasha's Translator]
I'm glad that Momma
is here with me.
(Natasha laughs)
– [Natalia's Translator]
I thank you very much
for saving my life.
– [Narrator] All
around the world,
there are poor families
who simply cannot afford
the necessary medical treatment
to save their loved one's life.
Will you help them?
Just all the number on your
screen, 1-888-700-7000.
Your gift of $100,
50, 25, or any amount
goes directly to fund
Operation Blessing's
life-changing surgeries.
(Baby cries)
The need is urgent
and worldwide.
Each day the number of people
waiting for medical help
continues to grow.
That's why you can move up
to a monthly donation level
and become an Operation
Blessing Life-Changer
by giving just $19 a month.
With your help, Operation
Blessing can continue
to provide more and more
surgeries each year.
But at this moment,
there are still
a tremendous number of people
waiting for your help.
Will you help change a life?
Call 1-888-700-7000.
– [Reporter] 10-year-old Seeyu
had been asking his parents
for a sister for years.
So no one was
happier than he was
when Mrs. Ma had Seeja.
– [Seeyu's Translator] I
kept saying baby sister,
your brother loves you.
– [Reporter] He couldn't
take his eyes off Seeja
and was quick to notice
when something was wrong.
– [Seeyu's Translator]
Her mouth and lips
looked like someone
dyed them purple.
Her face got real small
and her voice got tiny,
like a cat meowing.
(baby crying)
– [Reporter] Seeja had
a hole in her heart.
And both of her
arteries were misplaced.
– [Mrs. Ma's Translator]
I will never forget
how she stared at me,
like she was saying,
Mom, I'm so miserable.
So I said, God, I place
my child into Your hands
and ask You to
please do something.
– [Reporter] Even though
doctors said Seeja's body
was too small to operate on,
the Ma's were determined
to keep their baby alive.
– [Mr. Ma's Translator]
Seeja means more to me
than my own life.
– [Reporter] But Mr. Ma
only earns $100 a week.
So Seeyu offered to help.
– [Mrs. Ma's Translator]
My son took out
his New Year's money,
all he had and said,
Mommy, take this to
heal my baby sister.
– [Reporter] At six months,
Seeja was still the size
of a one-month-old.
That's when the Ma's heard
that Operation Blessing
wanted to help.
– [Mrs. Ma's Translator]
God had heard my prayers.
And was answering.
– [Reporter] Seeja's
heart stopped right
before the surgery.
But doctors saved her.
– [Mrs. Ma's Translator]
The doctor said,
it is a miracle the
child is survived.
– [Reporter] Some
worried Seeja's limbs
wouldn't work and she
wouldn't have brain function,
but we prayed with the
family while Seeja recovered,
and today she's a fully
functioning, happy baby girl.
>>SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE FROM
THE CBN NEWS CHANNEL.
>>AND THANK YOU TO YOUR FAMILY
AS WELL.
I WANT TO JUST BEGIN
BY SAYING PERHAPS
NOT SURPRISING THE 2 THAT I
REALLY DISAPPOINTED BY YOUR
RESPONSES TO A NUMBER OF MY
COLLEAGUES
MOST RECENTLY TO SENATOR COMES
ON THE ISSUE OF. WHETHER YOU
WOULD.
PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION
INVOLVING THE
UPCOMING ELECTION IF YOU ARE
CONFIRMED.
I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE
THAT IF YOU WERE TO PARTICIPATE
IN A DECISION INVOLVING
THAT ELECTION. IT WOULD DO
IN DURING EXPLOSIVE DAMAGE TO
THE COURT. I THINK YOU KNOW.
NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING YOU'VE
DONE.
IN FACT, I'M NOT.
RAISING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER
YOU'VE DONE ANY SORT OF DEAL OR
COMMITMENT.
DONALD TRUMP HAS DONE.
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.
BECAUSE THEY.
IN GALILEE.
PUT IT ISSUE YOUR INTEGRITY
THROUGH
THEIR STATEMENTS. THE PRESIDENT
HAS SAID.
HE'S PUTTING YOU ON THE COURT.
AS A 9TH JUSTICE. SO YOU
CAN DECIDE THE ELECTION.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
NOT DOM THEY'RE WATCHING AND
THEY'RE LISTENING.
AND IF YOU ARE SET ON.
THIS CASE IF IT GOES TO THIS
SUPREME COURT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WOULD LOSE FAITH AND TRUST IN
THE COURT ITSELF IT
IT WOULD BE A DAGGER AT THE
HEART OF THE COURT. AND OUR
DEMOCRACY.
IF THIS
ELECTION IS DECIDED BY THE
COURT RATHER THAN THE AMERICAN
VOTERS SO I WANT TO BEGIN BY
MAKING THAT POINT. AND THEN
GO TO. AGAIN THE REAL PEOPLE.
WHO ARE REALLY IN THIS ROOM
WITH US AND WHO WILL BE
AFFECTED
BY YOU AS A JUSTICE YESTERDAY
INTRODUCED YOU CAN KHAN
A CRIME YOU MAY RECALL HE'S
10 YEARS OLD. I WAS WITH HIM ON
HIS 10TH BIRTHDAY SEPTEMBER 27.
SO REMARKABLE.
WAS DIAGNOSED AS YOU MAY
REMEMBER WITH
TO SHANE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AT
AGE FOR HIS PARENTS.
WE'RE TOLD TO TAKE HIM HOME AND
GIVE HIM A GOOD LIFE.
BECAUSE HE WOULD SOON LOSE HIS
ABILITY TO WALK.
HIS MUSCLES WOULD GET SO WEAK
THAT
HE'D EVENTUALLY LOSE HIS
ABILITY TO SMILE.
WHAT LIES BEHIND THAT
SMILE IS I'M TOLD
PAIN PHYSICAL PAIN, THE
ANGUISH OF GOING THROUGH THE
NEEDLES UP RIDING IN THE
TREATMENTS.
BUT FOR HIS FAMILY, IT'S ALSO
THE
ANGUISH OF WONDERING WHETHER
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PAY FOR
TREATMENT THAT HAS KEPT HIM.
A LIVE AND WHETHER HE WILL.
BE WITH THEM FOR
ALL OF LIFE'S MILESTONES.
THEY ASKED ME
TO SHARE WITH YOU SAYING
TO YOU JUDGE BARRETT.
AND THEY WROTE
ALSO FOR MILLIONS OF OTHER
AMERICANS 135.
MILLION AMERICANS MANY OF THEM
CHILDREN JUST LIKE HONOR,
BUT ALSO CHRISTINE MILLER FROM
BLOOMFIELD
CONNECTICUT SHE WAS DIAGNOSED
WITH A THYROID
CONDITION. HER CONDITION WAS
ONLY DISCOVERED BECAUSE OF THE
A C A.
WHICH GAVE HER
AFFORDABLE COVERAGE FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN A
LONG TIME USING CONNECTICUT'S
EXCHANGE. HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE.
AND THEY WROTE FOR PEOPLE
LIKE JULIA LANDS AND ALL IN
CHESHIRE CONNECTICUT.
FROM HEADACHES
FOR YEARS AND SHE PUT OFF GOING
TO A DOCTOR BECAUSE
SHE LACKED TYPICAL UNCOMMON FOR
PEOPLE.
WHEN JULIA FINALLY SAW A
DOCTOR WITHOUT STILL WITHOUT
INSURANCE.
SHE LEARNED SHE HAD A BRAIN
TUMOR AND SHE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR
COVERAGE.
UNDER CONNECTICUT'S MEDICAID
EXPANSION PROGRAM.
WHICH WAS CREATED BY THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
IT WAS A CON SON.
I RAISED THESE STORIES IN
PART BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, I'M
SURE.
FOR PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS IS IN
FACT ON THE LINE.
THIS CASE THAT WILL COME TO THE
SUPREME COURT.
ONLY A WEEK AFTER THE ELECTION.
I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR
BECAUSE YOU
STATED TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE.
SO FAR AS I KNOW THE CASE NEXT
WEEK DOESN'T PRESENT THAT ISSUE
IT'S NOT A CHALLENGE TO
PREEXISTING PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS COVERAGE OR TO THE
EXTREME
LIFETIME MAXIMUM RELIEF.
AND TECHNICALLY TO RIGHT.
BUT.
TRIAL COURT
HAS UPHELD. AND THERE'S NO
SEVERABILITY.
THAT
IS WHAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION
IS ASKING THE COURT TO DO
THAT'S WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS WANT
DONE.
I
GATHER THAT'S SENATOR COONS
TOUCH ON THE BRIEF WITH THE
LITIGATING POSITION AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
>>I WANT TO MOVE ON.
>>TO.
INVOLVES.
SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT.
SENATOR HAWLEY WAS MENTIONING
AND I FEEL I NEED TO RAISE
THEM BECAUSE SENATOR HOLLY
ASKED ABOUT THEM SO DID SENATOR
LEAHY.
AND I WANT TO
JUST CLARIFY WHAT THEY MEAN.
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
DETEST AND OPPOSE ANY RELIGIOUS
TEST.
AND NOT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
I'M GOING TO BE ASKING SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR LEGAL
POSITIONS SO IN
CASE, I'M UNCLEAR IN ANY MY
QUESTIONS I WANT.
THANK YOU
YOU SIGNED ON TO THIS.
2006 OPEN LETTER.
SPONSORED BY AN ORGANIZATION
THEN
KNOWN AS THE SAINT JOSEPH
COUNTY RIGHT
TO LIFE. WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN
THE SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE IS THAT
THE
LETTER THAT SENATOR HOLLY WAS
MENTIONING.
>>I BELIEVE HE THE STATEMENT
THAT'S ON
THE LEFT. I THINK SENATOR HOLLY
READ
THE LANGUAGE. I CAN'T REMEMBER
VERBATIM BUT IT WAS
SOMETHING LIKE YOU KNOW WE
SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FROM
FERTILIZATION TO NATURAL
DEATHS, YES.
>>LETTER AN AD
REFERRED TO ROE V WADE LEGACY
IS QUOTE ON QUOTE BARBARIC
CORRECT.
>>I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S
PART OF
THE STATEMENT I THINK THAT'S
PART OF THE AD THAT APPEARED ON
THE PAGE NEXT TO IT. THEY
APPEARED SIDE BY SIDE CORRECT.
I BELIEVE THAT IT RAN THAT WAY
IN THE NEWSPAPER I'M NOT SURE
THAT I EVER SIDE IN THE
NEWSPAPER BUT.
YES THAT THAT I UNDERSTAND
THAT'S HOW IT APPEARED SO THEY
WERE SIDE BUT THAT'S BASED YES
BASED ON SINCE AND.
>>THIS SAINT JOSEPHS COUNTY
RIGHT
TO LIFE SPONSORED. THE LETTER
THAT YOU SIGN.
I THINK THE
SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY RIGHT TO
LIFE ORGANIZATION WAS THE
ONE WHO PRESENTED THE STATEMENT
THAT I SIGNED THE BACK
OF CHURCH. I WANT TO GIVE YOU
AN OPPORTUNITY
TO CLARIFY. YOU DIDN'T DISCLOSE
THAT LETTER WHEN YOU WERE
NOMINATED TO THE 7TH CIRCUIT IN
2017 YOU.
>>I DID NOT SENATOR BILL IN THE
FALL AND I'M ACTUALLY VERY GLAD
THAT YOU
BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION
OF THAT
LETTER I SIGNED IT ON THIS
STATEMENT I SIGNED IT ALMOST 15
YEARS AGO QUICKLY ON MY WAY OUT
OF CHURCH.
AND YOU KNOW THAT'S
QUESTIONNAIRE ASKS ME FOR 30
YEARS WORTH
OF MATERIAL. AND I PRODUCE MORE
THAN
1800 PAGES AND SO I DIDN'T
RECALL IT. AFTER IT CAME TO MY
ATTENTION I DID GO BACK AND
LOOK AT THE QUESTIONNAIRE I
ACTUALLY DON'T
THINK THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT
IS RESPONSIVE TO
QUESTION 12, WHICH IS I THINK
THE
CLOSEST THAT IT WOULD CALM, I
DON'T THINK IT'S RESPONSIVE.
BUT IN ANY EVENT IT IS PART OF
THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW RECORD AND
I'M VERY HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT,
BUT IT'S PART OF THE PUBLIC
RECORD NOW AND IT'S A LETTER.
>>THE QUESTIONNAIRE ASKED FOR
LETTERS.
DISCLOSED IT NOW HAVE YOU
PROVIDED OFFICIALLY.
>>SO SENATOR AS I
SAID I'VE SUPPLEMENTED MY WITH
OTHER MATERIAL THAT CAME TO
LIGHT THAT I DO THINK WAS
RESPONSIVE. THAT ONE NOW
WOULD BE HAPPY
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT
TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
WITH MORE SPECIFIC DETAIL.
BUT I DID NOT
UNDERSTAND THAT TO
BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTION 12, I
THINK IT IS WELL IN FACT WE
KNOW
ABOUT IT.
>>ONLY BECAUSE THE GUARDIAN
MADE IT PUBLIC.
I BELIEVE LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT
ANOTHER LETTER
2013 LETTER YOU SIGNED ON TO
THIS LETTER REGARDING ROE V
WADE.
I WAS SPONSORED BY THE
UNIVERSITY FACULTY FOR LIFE AT
NOTRE DAME. YOU REMEMBER THAT
ORGANIZATION CORRECT I DO.
AND THE
LETTER DESCRIBED ROE V WADE
HAS.
IT'S BEHIND ME INFAMOUS.
IT STATED THAT
THE SIGNATORIES QUOTE RENEW OR
CALL FOR THE UNBORN
TO BE PROTECTED IN LAW.
CORRECT.
>>YES, I BELIEVE THAT FULL
STATEMENT SAYS TESTING MY
EYESIGHT HERE OUR
FULL SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSITY'S
COMMITMENT TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTRE DAME IS
A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY AND
EMBRACES THE TEACHINGS OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ABORTION.
AND SO AS A FACULTY MEMBER AND
MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY FOR LIFE I SIGNED
THAT STATEMENT.
>>BUT YOU DIDN'T DISCLOSE THAT
LETTER.
>>AGAIN SENATOR I PRODUCE
1800 PAGES MATERIAL AND ALL 6
PRIOR NOMINEES HAVE HAD TO
SUPPLEMENT BECAUSE THEY'VE
OVERLOOKED THINGS 30 YEARS
WORTH OF MATERIAL HAS A LOT TO
TRY TO FIND AND REMEMBER.
>>YOU DISCLOSE THAT IN FACT
JUST ABOUT 3 DAYS AGO.
I BELIEVE BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN
IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION
I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION
OF IT AND IT SURFACED IN THE
PRESS AND SO IT CAME TO
MY ATTENTION AND THEN I
SUPPLEMENTED AND I DID THINK IT
WAS RESPONSIVE BECAUSE IT WAS
A STATEMENT
OF AN ORGANIZATION OF WHICH I
WAS PART AND I BELONG TO THE
UNIVERSITY FACULTY FOR LIFE AT
THE TIME. IF THIS PROCESS MAY
BE HAD BEEN A
LITTLE LAST
RUSHED YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD MORE
TIME TO GO BACK AND RECALL SOME
OF THESE DOCUMENTS SENATOR AS I
SAID ALL 6 PRIOR NOMINEES ARE
THE MOST RECENT 6 HAVE HAD TO
SUPPLEMENT 2.
SO I DON'T THINK IT REALLY HAD
ANYTHING TO DO WITH TIME I
THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VOLUME OF MATERIAL AND WHEN YOU
AND I SPOKE.
WHEN YOU APPEARED BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH
YOUR
2017 NOMINATION. I DIDN'T HAVE
THE BENEFIT OF ANY OF THESE
DOCUMENTS ALTHOUGH I ASK
YOU ABOUT RIGHT OF
PRIVACY IN THE VALIDITY OF ROPE
YOU WAIT A MINUTE OR.
I SAID IN MY SJQ
WHEN I WAS NOMINATED TO THE 7TH
CIRCUIT AND I SAID
AGAIN NOW I PRODUCE ALL THE
MATERIAL THAT I COULD FIND AND
I
CONDUCTED SEARCHES TO TRY TO
FIND THINGS THAT I FORGOT THAT
I DIDN'T FIND THAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT.
>>SOMEONE HAD TO MANUALLY GO TO
NOTRE DAME AND LOOK THROUGH
BACK ARCHIVES. I
I DIDN'T REMEMBER IT AND THEY
COULDN'T FIND IT I ASSURE YOU I
WAS NOT TRYING TO HIDE IT FROM
YOU SO.
>>JUDGE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
INTERRUPTING YOU OUT. NOW
PRESSED FOR
CHECKED RESPECTFULLY I
WANT TO SHARON OTHER HEALTH
CARE STORY WITH THIS ABOUT.
SAMANTHA ONE NIGHT IN JANUARY
2017. SAMANTHA ONE OUT WITH A
FEW FRIENDS
AND CO-WORKERS SHE WOKE UP THE
NEXT
MORNING IN A CO-WORKER'S HOME
CONFUSED SCARED COVERED IN
BLOOD.
AFTER SHE WAS RAPED SAMANTHA
WAS IN HER WORDS.
SHE COULDN'T CHANGE CLOTHES CAN
SHOWERS
COULDN'T DRINK. OR THINK
SHE WANTED. THIS EVENT TO BE A
RACE
FROM HER MEMORY
SAMANTHA'S ATTACKER. ALSO BEGAN
STALKING HER AND SHE WAS
STRUGGLING WITH DEPRESSION AND
PTSD.
IN MARCH SAMANTHA TOOK A
PREGNANCY TEST
AND ANOTHER AND ANOTHER.
THEY KEPT COMING BACK WITH THE
SAME RESULT.
AFTER THE HORRIBLE VIOLENCE.
SHE FACED.
SHE SIMPLY COULDN'T PROCESS.
SHE WAS NOW PREGNANT.
WHEN SAMANTHA'S SHARED HER
STORY WITH ME.
I KNEW IF I COULDN'T AND
THIS PREGNANCY. IT WOULD END.
MAYBE.
SO
SHE DECIDED TO GET AN ABORTION.
THE LANDMARK ROE V WADE
DECISION GAVE HER.
IT GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT
TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.
WHETHER AND WHEN TO HAVE A
CHILD.
RHODEN COMPEL SAMANTHA.
TO GET AN ABORTION THAT DIDN'T
TELL HER WHAT SHE HAD TO DO,
BUT IT GAVE HER.
THE QUESTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU
CONCERNS.
YOUR LEGAL POSITION.
DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROTECT.
SAMANTHA IS RIGHT TO HAVE AND
ABORTION.
>>ROE
VERSUS WADE CLEARLY HELD THAT
THE
CONSTITUTION PROTECTED A
WOMAN'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE A
PREGNANCY.
CASEY UP HOW THAT CENTRAL
HOLDING
AND SPELLED OUT IN GREATER
DETAIL THE TEST THAT THE COURT
USES TO CONSIDER THE LEGALITY
OF
ABORTION REGULATIONS.
>>NOW I'M ASKING YOU THIS
QUESTION BECAUSE.
THAT SPONSORED THE FIRST
LETTER.
SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY RIGHT TO
LIFE AS IT WAS THEN KNOWN.
QUOTE ABORTION IS NEVER THE
RIGHT ANSWER. EVEN IN CASES
OF ASSAULT WHERE WHERE THE
PREGNANT WOMAN'S LIFE IS IN
DANGER.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THE LETTERS
THAT YOU SIGNED.
SEEM TO
BE A STATEMENT OF LEGAL
POSITION BUT YOU'RE SAYING
THAT.
THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO AN ABORTION.
>>SENATOR THIS STATEMENT THAT I
SIGNED FROM THE SAINT JOSEPH
COUNTY RIGHT
TO LIFE. DIDN'T SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT RAPE OR INCEST
OR ANY OF THOSE
THINGS IT'S SIMPLY VALIDATED
THE TEACHING OF MY CHURCH
ON THE SACREDNESS OF LIFE FROM
CONCEPTION TO
NATURAL DEATH.
>>WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS IN
THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS THAT
RIGHT.
>>WE MADE WHEN I WAS TALKING
ABOUT ROE AND CASEY A MOMENT
AGO.
>>BREAUX WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED
YOU'RE AGREEING THAT.
>>WHAT I SAID WAS THAT ROW
HELD THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO
TERMINATE A PREGNANCY THAT
CASEY REAFFIRMED THAT HOLDING
IN INDY.
>>MANY CASES AFTER CASEY HAVE.
FROM THAT BUILDING AGAIN A
WOMAN'S HEALTH FOR EXAMPLE.
WE MIGHT BE TALKING PAST EACH
OTHER BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS
THAT I SIGNED RESTATEMENTS OF
MY PERSONAL BELIEFS
AND NOT.
>>NOT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF,
YOUR HONOR, YOUR LEGAL
POSITION.
PRETTY WILLING TO SAY THAT ROE
WAS
CORRECTLY DECIDED BECAUSE
THAT'S REALLY THE ESSENCE OF
THE QUESTION HERE.
>>WELL SENATOR AS I SAID
YOU KNOW TO OTHERS OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES IN RESPONSE
TO QUESTIONING THAT IT'S
INCONSISTENT WITH US. THE
DUTIES OF A
SITTING JUDGE. THERE HAS BEEN
THE
PRACTICE OF EVERY NOMINEE THAT
SAT IN THE SEAT BEFORE ME TO
TAKE POSITIONS ON CASES THAT
THE COURT HAS DECIDED IN THE
PAST. WELL
I THINK.
>>SAMANTHA AND A LOT OF RAPE
SURVIVORS WOULD BE.
DEEPLY FEARFUL ABOUT.
THAT ANSWER BECAUSE IT PROVIDES
NO
REASSURANCE THAT YOU
BELIEVE THAT BREAUX WAS
CORRECTLY DECIDED LET ME.
TALK ABOUT TRACY I WANT TO.
TELL YOU ABOUT HER BECAUSE
SHE AGAIN CAME TO ME TOLD ME
SHE WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH STAGE 4. A TRIO
SAYS.
AND THAT IT CAUSED AN ONGOING
INABILITY TO HAVE A HEALTHY
PREGNANCY.
AND SHE SAYS SHE WAS ONE OF THE
QUOTE LUCKY ONES SHE HAD ACCESS
TO CARE AND WAS ABLE TO
RECEIVE TREATMENT TO ASSIST IN
GETTING AND STAYING. PREGNANT.
AND I HAVE ENCOUNTERED MAYBE
YOU HAVE MANY MEMBERS OF
THE MILITARY THAT RUNS.
WHO HAVE SOUGHT SIMILAR KINDS
OF TREATMENT, SOME OF THEM
BECAUSE THEY SUFFERED.
TRACY WAS SCARED WHEN SHE
SAW THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY RIGHT
TO LIFE.
RECENTLY STATED AND
I QUOTE WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE
OF CRIMINALIZING THE DISCARDING
OF
FROZEN EMBRYOS OR SELECTIVE
REDUCTION THROUGH
THE IVF PROCESS. SO TRACY.
WANTED ME TO ASK YOU IN FACT
SHE ASKED ME TO POSE
THIS QUESTION IS IT YOUR
LEGAL POSITION THAT MAKING IVF
A CRIME.
WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL.
>>THE STATEMENT THAT I SIGNED
AS
WE DISCUSS YOU KNOW A FIRM TO
THE BELIEF
OF MY CHURCH WITH RESPECT TO
MATTERS OF LIFE.
>>I'M I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT WHAT
YOU SIGN, I'M ASKING ABOUT YOUR
PRESIDENT. LEGAL BECAUSE
IT UP WHAT IS IS MAKING IVF
A CRIME SENATOR MUIR.
SORRY GOES I WAS TRYING
TO ANSWER. YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE
QUOTING POSITIONS FROM THE
SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY RIGHT TO
LIFE. I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THAT
ORGANIZATION
AND SO I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
STATEMENTS
THAT THEY MAKE THE STATEMENT
THAT I SIGNED SAID WHAT YOU AND
I HAVE DISCUSSED AND IT SAID
NOTHING FURTHER THAN THAT.
>>AND AS FOR YOU KNOW WHAT
POLICY POSITIONS, SOMEONE
MIGHT TAKE YOU KNOW AS THAT
SAID TO
YOUR COLLEAGUES. I JUST IT'S
NOT
UP TO ME TO BE IN THE BUSINESS
OF EXPRESSING
VIEWS AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK
ABOUT VIEWS THAT I EXPRESSED
WHEN I WAS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN.
BUT NOW I'M A JUDGE AND SO I
CANNOT PUBLICLY EXPRESS VIEWS.
>>JUST TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT.
THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY RIGHT TO
LIFE OR THEIR POSITIONS.
AND I
UNDERSTAND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT
DISAGREE OR AGREE
WITH THEM. BUT YOUR
LEGAL POSITION IVF.
NOT GOING TO ASK AGAIN JUST
THIS LAST TIME.
WELL IT WOULD
BE CONSTITUTIONAL. I THINK
THERE'S A CLEAR ANSWER.
>>REPEATEDLY SAID AS HAS EVERY
OTHER NOMINEE WHO SAT IN THIS
SEAT THAT WE
CAN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS IN
THE ABSTRACT THAT WOULD HAVE TO
BE DECIDED IN THE COURSE OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS WITH THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE
TO
DO THAT AND THEN LITIGANTS
WOULD HAVE TO COME
TO COURT. THEY WOULD HAVE
TO BE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS IN
CONSULTATION WITH
COLLEAGUES IN OPINION, WRITING
AND CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF THE
CUFF REACTION TO THAT WHICH
IS CIRCUMVENT THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.
>>AGAIN ON THIS POINT I THINK
TRACY
WOULD FINE THAT RESPONSE.
BECAUSE SHE AND.
THOUSANDS MAYBE MILLIONS OF.
WOMEN POTENTIAL PARENTS.
WOULD BE HORRIFIED TO THINK
THAT
IVF TREATMENT COULD A CRIMINAL
AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT
ANSWERING THE QUESTION. BUT I
SHE WOULD BE
DEEPLY FEARFUL. DO YOU THINK
THAT WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL TO
MAKE IT A CRIME FOR DOCTORS OR
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.
THAT CARE OR ABORTION CARE.
>>THE
SENATOR AGAIN THAT'S A
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION AND SO AS
I SAID DID GIVE OFF
THE CUFF RESPONSES ABOUT
ABSTRACT
ISSUES AND I SHOULD CLARIFY TO
SAY IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF
THEY'RE HARD QUESTIONS ARE EASY
QUESTIONS. IT'S JUST
ANY QUESTIONS THAT CALL FOR AN
ABSTRACT LEGAL OPINION
OR NOT AND IS THAT IT WILL
CREATE FOR ME TO GIVE EITHER AS
A
SITTING JUDGE OR AS A NOMINEE.
QUESTIONS IN MY JUDICIAL ROLE
CAN BE ANSWERED ONLY THROUGH
THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.
>>JUST TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
THERE
MILLIONS OF WOMEN LIKE SAMANTHA
AND TRACY
AND THE DIFFERENCE I MENTION
WHO ARE TERRIFIED TO THINK THAT
THEIR DOCTORS AND HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS.
POTENTIALLY IN JAIL AT RISK
OF PROSECUTION. DOCTORS WHO
ARE EXERCISING. CURRENTLY
PROTECTED RIGHT THAT SAMANTHA.
SAYS SAVED HER LIFE
AND I BELIEVE OUR HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS ARE HEROES
PARTICULARLY DURING THE
PANDEMIC BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU
1 ONE MORE QUESTION THAT THESE
DOCUMENTS.
IN THE 2013 LETTER.
AND THAT
YOU SIGNED. THERE'S THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT.
WE RENEW OUR CALL FOR THE
UNBORN TO BE PROTECTED IN LAW.
IN LA
AND WELCOMED IN LIFE. WHAT DOES
IT
MEAN FOR QUOTE THE UNBORN
TO BE PROTECTED IN LOCKSTEP
STATEMENT MEAN THERE IS
NO VALID CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION FOR
AN ABORTION AND THEREFORE ROE V
WADE SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
>>YOU KNOW I THINK THAT
STATEMENT IS AN AFFIRMATION
OF LIFE, YOU KNOW IT
POINTS OUT WE EXPRESS OUR LOVE
AND SUPPORT FOR THE MOTHERS WHO
BEAR THEM. AGAIN IT WAS A
STATEMENT VALIDATING THE
POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITY IT WHICH I WORKED IN
SUPPORT FOR LIFE IN 2. YOU KNOW
SUPPORT.
WOMEN IN CRISIS PREGNANCIES TO
SUPPORT BABIES, SO
IT'S IT'S REALLY NO MORE THAN
THE EXPRESSION OF A PRO LIFE
YOU.
>>I EXPECT WE'LL BE TALKING
MORE
ABOUT THIS ISSUE TOMORROW I
WANT TO MOVE NOW TO IT.
ANOTHER YOU AND SENATOR DURBIN.
OTHERS TALKED ABOUT.
YOUR DISSENT IN KENNER BE BAR.
YOUR APPROACH HERE.
IN EFFECT YOU SERVICE.
THE LEGISLATURE'S APPROPRIATE
ROLE IN MAKING POLICY
JUDGMENTS.
IN THE CASE OF KANTER.
WHICH BY THE WAY YOU PUT FIRST
ON THE LIST.
OF DECISIONS THAT YOU THOUGHT
WERE MOST IMPORTANT
THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN IS THAT
CORRECT.
>>I DON'T REMEMBER THE ORDER IN
WHICH A LIST OF THEM.
>>IT WAS FIRST.
>>I EXCEPT THAT.
>>I JUST DON'T REMEMBER THE
ORDER OK DID LISTED, I REMEMBER
LISTENING IN.
THAT DECISION SEEMS TO
YOU SIR THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE
IN DECIDING.
WHO SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO HAVE
FIREARMS AND WHO
SHOULD NOT
BECAUSE YOU DECIDED THE
LEGISLATURE WAS WRONG.
TO CLASSIFY FELONS
HAS NOT DESERVING OF FARMS YOU
DECIDED TO MATTER OF POLICY.
THEY WERE
NOT DANGEROUS. THEY SHOULD HAVE
THAT RIGHT
THAT'S UP POLICY OR LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT. AND I THINK
IT HAS HUGE RAMIFICATIONS.
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND I WANT
TO TELL YOU ABOUT ONE
OF THEM FROM.
SANDY HOOK CONNECTICUT.
WHO IS SHOWN HERE.
WITH HER BROTHER DANIEL.
DANIEL WAS KILLED AT
SANDY HOOK
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN NEWTOWN
CONNECTICUT ON DECEMBER 14TH.
2012 AND DANIEL WAS 7.
AFTER THEY LEARN.
LAST 20 BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN.
AND 6 GREAT
EDUCATORS DIED AS WELL IN THE
FIRE HOUSE THAT DAY. IT WAS
UNSPEAKABLE GRIEF.
AND 8 YEARS LATER,
NATALIE SAYS THAT BRIEF
REMAINS.
NATALIE LIKE NEWTOWN
IS RESILIENT AND STRONG AND HER
GRIEF AND TRAUMA.
HAVE SPURRED HOPE IN ACTION SHE
AND.
MANY YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS THE
COUNTRY ARE LEADING A MOVEMENT.
TO DEAL
WITH THE EPIDEMIC AND SCOURGE
OF GUN VIOLENCE IN THIS
COUNTRY.
WHAT HAPPENED AT SANDY HOOK WAS
NOT AN
ISOLATED INSTANCE. THERE HAVE
BEEN 236 OTHER
MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE LAST
DECADE IN THE LAST
10 YEARS. GUN VIOLENCE HAS
TAKEN MORE THAN
354,000
LIVES IN RURAL COMMUNITIES IN
URBAN COMMUNITIES. ALL AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
AND I'M SURE
IN INDIANA AND SOUTH BEND.
AS WELL.
YOUR OPINION IN CANTOR.
FARTHER THAN JUSTICE SCALIA IN
HELLER IN
FACT YOU CHARACTERIZE IT AS
KIND OF RADICAL.
IT IS IN EFFECT AN OUTLIER.
>>BUT I SAY IT WAS RADICAL IN
THE OPINION.
I THINK YOU SAID.
IT SOUNDS KIND OF RADICAL
TO SAY FELONS CAN HAVE
FIREARMS. THAT'S A DIRECT
QUOTE.
I DON'T REMEMBER THAT
PARTICULAR LANGUAGE.
I JUST DON'T RECALL IT. BUT I'M
NOT.
THAT THAT'S FINE SENATOR I I
DON'T
THINK YOU'RE MAKING IT UP TRUST
ME NOW I'LL CHECK IT AND
LOOKING AT.
>>BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE
REST OF YOUR QUESTION IT SOUNDS
KIND OF RADICAL BECAUSE IT IS.
>>NO COURTS OF APPEALS EXCEPT
MAYBE THE
7TH CIRCUIT HAS ADOPTED THIS
REASONING.
THE 3RD CIRCUIT. I THINK AS A
RULE THAT'S THE 3RD CIRCUIT,
ANY OTHERS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S I KNEW
THERE WAS ONE CIRCUIT THAT AND
I WASN'T SURE
WHICH ONE.
BUT LARRY MY POSITION WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE 3RD CIRCUIT
ON BOND DECISION THAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
>>CUTTING THROUGH ALL LEGAL
WAYS AND
WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF IT
GOING BACK AND FORTH.
WHAT THIS APPROACH DOES
POTENTIALLY.
IS MEAN THAT CONNECTICUT'S GUN
SAFETY PROVISION.
THE PEOPLE OF NEWTOWN.
KRISTIN AND MICHAEL SONG ON
BEHALF OF THERE SON ETHAN WHO
PARISH.
BECAUSE OF A GUN THAT
WAS AN SAFELY STORE A CHAMPION.
A MEASURE CALLED
ETHAN YS LA.
COMMON SENSE
MEASURES THAT MIGHT HAVE
PREVENTED THE DEATH OF.
SHANE OLIVER.
JANET RICE'S SON WHO
DIED ON 10/20/2012.
SHANE WAS KILLED WHEN HE WAS 20
YEARS OLD IN HARTFORD.
HE DIED FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE
IN HARTFORD HOSPITAL.
MEASURES LIKE THE.
CONNECTICUT NOW HAS.
THEY'VE SAVED LIVES.
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER
LAWS WHICH HELP MINIMIZE RISK.
MIGHT WELL BE STRUCK DOWN UNDER
THE REASONING OF YOUR TO SIT
YOUR DESCENT.
>>RESPECTFULLY SENATOR BY
DESCENT
WOULD NOT REACH EVEN
THOSE I DISSENT WAS ABOUT THE
NARROW QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A
FELON WHO
SO IT'S FRAUDULENT FOOT
COULD AUTOMATICALLY BE
DISQUALIFIED FROM HIS SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHT SIMPLY ON THAT
BASIS IT
SAID THAT GUNS CAN BE KEPT OUT
OF THE HANDS OF
THE DANGEROUS. AND IT DIDN'T
SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT OTHER GUN SAFETY
YOUR BACKGROUND
CHECK. THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES
THAT ARE BEING LITIGATED ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND WE'RE NOT AT
ISSUE IN CANCER.
>>BUT SUPPLANTING THE
LEGISLATORS JUDGMENT.
DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
BE PROTECTED
FROM THEMSELVES. IF THEY ARE
POTENTIAL SUICIDE SAYS.
DICK BENCOMO A VETERAN IN IRAQ.
FOUND WHEN HIS FRIEND WAS GOING
TO
TAKE HIS LIFE EMERGENCY RESPITE
ACHES AN ORDER WOULD HAVE
BEEN AVAILABLE. DECIDING WHAT
IS DANGEROUS. WHO
IS DANGEROUS. ONE WEAPONS
SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM
IF THE COURTS ARE GOING TO
SUPPLANT. THE JUDGMENTS
OF LEGISLATURES. IF.
I JUST PLAYED FROM THE BENCH.
THAT'S.
THE IMPORT OF YOUR REASONING
IN THAT DISSENT IT MAY NOT HAVE
TO HELP
PRECISELY WITH ANY OF THESE
PARTICULAR LAWS.
THROWS INTO. DOW IT RAISES THE
RISK TOO MANY OF THEM IN.
FOLKS WHO LIVE IN CONNECTICUT.
ARE TERRIFIED OF THAT PROSPECT
AT LEAST.
ANY THOUGHTS ON THE MATCH, A D.
>>SO I EXPRESS THE
DEEPEST SYMPATHY
FOR THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE THAT
LAST THERE AND ELSEWHERE, BUT
CANTOR YOU
KNOW I BUT YOU TAKE SOME
COMFORT FROM KANTAR BEING A
MUCH NARROW
DECISION DOESN'T HAVE ANY
EFFECT ON THOSE SORTS OF LAST.
THANK YOU SENATOR,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU JUDGE.
SIR TOTES THANK YOU. MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
>>THANK YOU JUDGE MISTER
CHAIRMAN FOR GET STARTED
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SUBMIT A
LETTER FROM A PRIMARY CARE
PHYSICIAN INDICATING THAT A
FULLY COMPLY WITH CDC
GUIDELINES MEAN THAT AIRED
LIKE 2000 OTHER NORTH
CAROLINIANS YESTERDAY AND I'M
GLAD THEY'RE HEALING
WITHOUT OBJECTION. I'D ALSO
LIKE TO PUT FORTH 3
IN SUPPORT. JUDGE BARRETT,
INCLUDING ONE FROM DEVON PATEL
A FORMER STUDENT
WHO SPEAKS VERY HIGHLY OF YOUR
ACADEMIC PROWESS, BUT ALSO YOUR
COMPASSION
THAT OBJECT. ALSO LIED TO COVER
SENATOR BLUMENTHAL JUST SAID I
THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK I
BELIEVE YOU
ALLUDED TO A JUDGE PAIR OF THE
QUESTION
OF THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE
ASKED FOR BOOKS ARTICLES
REPORTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
EDITORIAL PIECES OR OTHER
PUBLISH MATERIAL YOU HAVE
WRITTEN
OR EDITED. IS IT FAIR TO SAY
THAT IF YOU SIGNED A
PETITION YOU DID NOT WRITE OR
EDIT ANY OF THE PETITION YOU
SON.
>>RIGHT THERE
AT THAT.
>>IT'S NEEDS TO BE RESTATED I
THINK YOU ALLUDED
TO IT BUT OVER THE LAST 6
JUSTICE CONFIRMED BY THIS
COMMITTEE ALL OF THEM ARE
BROOKE PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION AND IN SOME CASES
AFTER THE ACTUAL HEARING.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR BEING
FORTHCOMING THAT YOU'VE
SUBMITTED 1800 PAGES
OF DOCUMENTS.
MISTER CHAIRMAN JUST GOING
ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT AS A
PART OF MY JOURNEY THROUGH.
MY TIME IN QUARANTINE I HAVE
ENROLLED AND. TO STUDY SO FAR
OF THE GIVING BLOOD ON.
FRIDAY TO ENROLL IN ANOTHER
PROGRAM AT UNC CHAPEL HILL AND
I'M
SCHEDULED TO DONATE
CONVALESCENT PLASMA BECAUSE
THIS IS
BEING AIRED I HOPE THAT ANYONE
WHO'S RECOVERED FROM COVID WILL
DO THEIR PART TO
TRY AND
HEAL THIS COUNTRY FROM THE L
CHALLENGES OF COVID HAS
PRESENTED US WITH I INTEND TO
DO MY PART. I ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO SAY. I LIKE TO CONSIDER THE
SENATE AND THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS. AND I BELIEVE
THAT THE ARCHITECT OF
THE CAPITOL AND ARE ATTENDING
PHYSICIANS HERE HAVE TAKING
GREAT MEASURES TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE CAN SAFELY COME
TO WORK AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE
ANYBODY WHO WORKS IN THE SENATE
TO COME TO WORK.
I WANT TO ALSO GO BACK TO
SOMETHING
SURF AND SUN SAID EARLIER AND
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER
THIS QUESTION.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN MENTIONED
EARLIER THAT WE'VE HAD A
SURGE AND. APPLICATIONS FOR
GUNS OR PURCHASES
OF GUNS.
IF A PART OF THAT IS WHERE WE
FIND OUR SOCIETY
RIGHT NOW WE'RE SEEING GREAT
CITIES BURNED
AND LOOTED. AND MY HIGHWAY
PATROL IN
NORTH CAROLINA.
75% FEWER APPLICATIONS TO GO
INTO THE
TROOPERS ACADEMY AND RECORD
HIGH REQUEST
FOR RETIREMENT,
WE SAY THAT A NEW YORK WE SAID
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. I THINK
PEOPLE ARE AFRAID BECAUSE
MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING PEOPLE ON
THIS COMMITTEE ARE UNWILLING
TO CONDEMN THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE
AND PUBLIC
SAFETY OUT THERE AND CONDEMN
VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHICH
IS RAMPANT. LAST DAY OF A
SHERIFF'S DEPUTY JUST ABOUT A
MONTH AGO. WHO WAS SHOT
PROTECTING
A FAMILY. SO
SENATOR FEINSTEIN I SUSPECT THE
GUN PURCHASES ARE UP, BUT I
SUSPECT THE ROOT CAUSE BEHIND A
LOT OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH
PEOPLE'S PERSONAL SAFETY.
TO
YOUR FAMILY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE
ALL YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS IN YOUR
STUDENTS WHO MERCIFULLY OR
YOUR YOUR YOUR CHILDREN HER
STUDENTS ARE ARE SIMPLY TAKING
A BREAK TO TREAT SOCIAL MEDIA
LIKE
ROAD KILL JUST DON'T LOOK AT IT
BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU'RE GOING
TO
REGRET IT.
I AM GOT ALSO HAS UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO PUT
SOME ARTICLES OR TWEETS FROM
PROMINENT PEOPLE THAT I THINK
KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE
GUERRILLA TACTICS ARE BEING
USED RIGHT NOW IN THE
COMMITTEE. THIS IS SOUND A
WHOLE LOT LIKE A
LOBBYING SESSION.
IT'S ALMOST AS IF YOU'RE BEING
INTERVIEWED TO BECOME A U.S.
SENATOR SO THAT YOU CAN
DECIDE POLICY ON ON THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT A NUMBER OF
OTHER THINGS THAT I'LL GET TO.
BUT BEHIND
THE CURTAINS
WE'RE SEEING PEOPLE SAY ALL
KINDS OF THINGS
ABOUT YOU. ONE RICARDO ONE
COLLEGE YOU A
WHITE COLONIZER WE'RE ACTUALLY
ADOPT INTO
HAITIAN CHILDREN. WE HAVE
ANOTHER ONE CALLING YOU A
HANDMADE AND A CLOWN AND A
CLOWN CAR AND I'M NOT GOING TO
I'M NOT THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED
FOR THE RECORD BUT THE
PROFANITY USED IN THERE.
ANOTHER ONE.
THAT SAYS THAT YEAH YOU'RE A
GOOD MOM
THAT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A JUDGE
WHAT CHUA SURPRISE YOU AS A
JUDGE HAS BEEN
EXTRAORDINARY PROFESSOR AN
EXTRAORDINARY STUDENT AN
EXTRAORDINARY JURIST AND I
THINK THAT THESE PEOPLE NEED TO
RECOGNIZE DOING THE BIDDING OF
THIS COMMITTEE BY ATTACKING YOU
OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE IS AS BAD
AS SOME BEING IN THIS CHAMBER.
NOW ALSO WANT TO
TALK ABOUT. THE DISCUSSION ON
ROE V WADE IN THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND I THINK
THE SAME 2 OR 3 MINUTES SAID
THAT SHE
WANTED TO TO PROTECT ROE
V WADE BUT OVERTURNED HELLER
THOSE SAME DEBATE IN CAN
GROW IT, BUT I'LL JUST LAY THAT
OUT
THERE THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO
BASICALLY LEGISLATE I DON'T
WANT YOU TO DO THAT.
BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ROE V
WADE, THE ONE
THING THAT'S COMING AT LEE
MISSED ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION IS
SOMETHING THAT I THINK MOST OF
THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE AT ODDS
WITH THE POSITION THAT EVERY
MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC
CONFERENCE SUPPORT. MY
GRANDDAUGHTER WENT
2 HEALTH CHECKUP TODAY, SHE
WEIGHED IN AT
10.1 POUNDS AND YOU
CAN SEE HIS PICTURE BUT I'M
TELLING YOU FROM THIS GRANDDAD
SHE'S GORGEOUS. BUT SHE WAS
BORN
3 WEEKS PREMATURE AND SHE ONLY
WEIGHED A LITTLE OVER 6 POUNDS
SHE WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE
HOSPITAL WITHIN 36 HOURS.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
BROAD
STROKES OF ROE V WADE THEY
DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
RADICAL POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW
THE RIGHT TO TAKE THAT CHILD
AWAY. I JUST TELL THEM 2 OR
3 WEEKS AGO. AND 8 WEEKS AGO
WHEN SHE
3
3 WEEKS PREMATURE.
I
I HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN
YOUR INTEGRITY. I HAVE COMPLETE
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING
TO GO AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE A
GREAT JUSTICE BUT I DO WANT TO
ASK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MAYBE
YOUR EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU WERE.
WORKING FOR ACTUALLY I WANT TO
START WHEN YOU WERE
AND SCHOOL DID YOU HAVE WHEN
YOU CAME IN YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A
BRILLIANT STUDENT YOU DID YOUR
HOMEWORK WE'VE HEARD PROFESSORS
TO TEST YOUR.
YOUR INTELLIGENCE AND YOUR
PERFORMANCE
IN SCHOOL. DID YOU ARE GOING TO
A CLASSROOM WHERE THE
PROFESSOR WAS ESPOUSING ONE
POSITION AND YOU'RE ESPOUSING
ANOTHER ONE
AND YOU ENDED UP COMING OUT
WITH A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
SURE.
DID YOU EVER CHANGE YOUR
PROFESSORS PERSPECTIVE, I'M NOT
SURE
ABOUT THAT. IT'S KIND OF
UNFAIR BALANCE. OKAY NOW FAST
FORWARD TO A NEW OR CLARK FOR
JUSTICE SCALIA.
I JUST SAW AN INTERVIEW LAST
WEEK WHEN I WAS IN QUARANTINE
OF JUSTICE BRIAR TALKING ABOUT
THESE MOUNDS
DOCUMENTS THAT
HAS CLARK'S WOULD ME QUICKLY GO
HE SAID IT'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY
QUICK
PROCESS TO WINNOW OUT THE ONES
WHERE THERE'S NO AND THERE'S NO
SPLIT CIRCUIT SO MAJOR
PRETTY QUICKLY. I UNDERSTAND
THAT
JUSTICE SCALIA.
AT LEAST IN SOME SESSIONS WOULD
HAVE A MIX
OF CLARK'S THEY WOULD BE ACROSS
THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM WAS
THAT THE CASE WHEN YOU WORK
WORKING FOR HIM. I WOULD SAY
THAT NIGHT.
>>FOR US THE ATTORNEY FOR
CLERKS AND WE WERE NOT
WE WERE NOT ALL OF THE SAME
MIND THERE WAS
A MIX.
>>WHEN YOU WHERE THERE ARE
CASES WHEN YOU WENT BEFORE
JUSTICE
SCALIA AND YOU YOU YOU THOUGHT
THAT MAYBE HE WAS LEANING ONE
WAY WHERE YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN
TO THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE CAR
CAN MODIFY THIS POLE POSITION
OR WAS IT LIKE THE PROFESSOR
DISCUSSION.
>>I THINK HE
DEFINITELY LISTEN TO ME WE
WOULD GO IN BEFORE AN ARGUMENT
AND HE
WAS PREPARING AND HE WOULD HAVE
PRESSED WITH QUESTIONS AND GO
BACK AND FORTH YOU WANTED TO
HEAR FROM ALL SIDES
AND SO NO HE DEFINITELY IT WAS
PART OF THE GIVE AND
TAKE THOUGH TO BE CLEAR HE WAS
THE ONE WITH THE COMMISSION AND
HE WAS THE ONE WHO MADE
THE DECISIONS.
>>THANK THE LAST THING I WANT
TO SAY BECAUSE ONLY ABOUT MORE
TIME THAN MOST OTHER MEMBERS.
MISTER
CHAIRMAN YOU OPEN UP THIS
MORNING TALKING ABOUT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. I DON'T
THINK THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE
U.S. SENATE THAT DOES WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERY SINGLE
PICTURE THAT WE'VE SEEN HERE.
THOSE FOLKS HAVE AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE AND THEY CAN BE
CARED FOR. BUT WHAT WE
HAVE HERE AND THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS SO FLAWED
THAT
THE MAJORITY THE DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATES
FOR FOR PRESIDENT ALL RAISE
THEIR HAND AND
SAID IT NEED TO BE REPLACED
WITH SOMETHING THEY CALL
MEDICARE FOR ALL WHICH COULD BE
MEDICARE FOR NOT.
WE KNOW THE BROKEN PROMISES OF
IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR YOU CAN
KEEP IT IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH
CARE YOU CAN
KEEP IT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT ARE THE THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY FORCED
OFF THEIR JOBS
HEALTH CARE BECAUSE EMPLOYERS
CHANGED OURS ANNOUNCED THAT
WORK IN ONE
FULL-TIME JOB YOU'VE GOT TO
WORK TO FULL-TIME JOBS BECAUSE
THE BUSINESSES CAN'T
AFFORD IT. WE'VE GOT A
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
HERE WE NEED TO PROTECT
EVERYONE DOWN. BUT WE ALSO NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
WHO HAVE HELP PLAN UNDER THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CAN
ACTUALLY
40 USE IT AND THE
CATASTROPHIC SITUATIONS, IT'S
LIFE CHANGING AND THANK GOD
THAT IT'S THERE
FOR THEM. BUT WHAT ABOUT SO
MANY OTHER PEOPLE THAT ONLY
HAVE IT WILL ONLY USE IT IF
THEY HAVE A CATASTROPHIC
SITUATION
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE
CO PAYS THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE
UNDERLYING COST. WE NEED
EFFECTS THAT WE SHOULD
UNEXPECTED JUSTICE FOR THE
SUPREME COURT
TO FACTSET THAT IS OUR JOB.
WE SHOULD ALL SHOW UP HERE FOR
WORK AND WE SHOULD GET
THAT DONE AND WE SHOULD ALSO
WORK ON ALL THE OTHER THINGS
THAT THIS COUNTRY IS SUFFERING
FROM AS A RESULT OF COVID THANK
YOU JUDGE BARRETT, I LOOK
FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
HER NOMINATION. THANK YOU
SENATOR TILLIS THANK CENTER
>>THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>>MISTER CHAIRMAN I WANT TO
REITERATE MY OBJECTIONS TO
HOLDING THIS NOMINATION
HEARINGS THAT ARE WORKING
TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR THE
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE
SUFFERING. DURING
THIS PANDEMIC 3 WEEKS AGO OUR
COUNTRY
TRAGIC MILESTONE WE LOST MORE
THAN 2 100,000 AMERICANS TO
COVID-19 THAT
IS MORE THEN THE ENTIRE
POPULATION OF THE BIG ISLAND.
MORE THAN THE POPULATION OF
TEMPE ARIZONA. CEDAR RAPIDS,
IOWA. WILMINGTON
NORTH CAROLINA. CHARLESTON
SOUTH CAROLINA. WACO TEXAS I
COULD
GO ON 200,000 AMERICAN LIVES.
LAST. THIS IS A PHOTO.
A MEMORIAL OUTSIDE THE
WHITE HOUSE WHERE PRESIDENT
TRUMP HELD
A RECKLESS SUPER SPREADER EVENT
2 WEEKS AGO TO ANNOUNCE THE
SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION. DEMARIO SHOWS 20
1000
EMPTY CHAIRS ONE SHARE
REPRESENTING
10 AMERICANS LIVES LOST THE
COVID 19.
AND ONE OF THOSE CHAIRS
REPRESENTS VERONICA THERE IS
GRANDFATHER.
WHO IS PICTURED.
IS PICTURED HERE
WITH VERONICA VERONICA WHO
IS FROM IOWA HAS EXPERIENCED
THE PAINFUL IMPACT OF THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO
ADDRESS
THE PANDEMIC HER FAMILY IS
COMPOSED OF
ESSENTIAL WORKERS WHO ARE
WORKING ON THE FRONT LINES OF
THIS PANDEMIC.
WHO WORKED AT A
FAST OF FOOD PROCESSING
FACILITY CAUGHT COVID-19
AT WORK AND WAS
EVENTUALLY HOSPITALIZED.
FOR 7 DAYS. THANKFULLY. HER
MOTHER RECOVERED, BUT THEN
HER GRANDPARENTS THAT COVID-19
AND WHERE THE MINUTE TO
THE HOSPITAL. AND ALTHOUGH HER
GRANDMOTHER RECOVERED, SADLY,
HER GRANDFATHER DIDN'T MAKE IT.
AFTER EXPERIENCING ALL OF
THIS TRAGEDY VERONICA SHARED
QUOTE.
IT IS EVEN MORE. SO INSULTING
TO SEE
US SENATE THAT IS MORE
CONCERNED WITH
RUSHING THROUGH A SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON
PROVIDING RELIEF TO ALL THE
HARD WORKING PEOPLE THAT GAVE
THEM
THERE CURRENT LEADERSHIP
POSITIONS.
MANY AMERICANS AGREE WITH
VERONICA.
THEY'RE SITTING AT THEIR
KITCHEN
TABLES WONDERING, HOW THEY'RE
GOING TO
BUY FOOD. HOW THEY'RE GOING TO
PAY RENT. MILLIONS
OF THEM OUT OF THE THEY DON'T
HAVE JOBS. THEY'RE GOING TO
FOOD
BANKS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THEIR LIVES. SO RATHER THAN
COMING UP WITH A BILL THAT
MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE URGENCY
OF THIS MOMENT.
REPUBLICANS ARE JUST COME
COMING UP WITH PEACE NEW YORK
BILLS
THAT'S BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
WITHIN
YEAR-OLD CAUCUS. YOU
CAN'T AGREE ON ONE BILL
THE THINK THAT'S THE CRITICAL
NEEDS OF THIS COUNTRY IN FACT
THERE ARE AT LEAST 20
REPUBLICANS TO BE HEARD WHO
HAVE SAID. WE'RE DONE WE'RE NOT
DOING ANY MORE TO HELP.
THE AMERICANS WHO ARE SUFFERING
WITH COVID.
SO HERE WE ARE REACHING FORWARD
WITH
THIS NOMINATION. WELL THE REST
OF THE COUNTRY IS WONDERING
WHAT THE HECK.
IS THE
SENATE DOING PARTICULARLY THE
SENATE REPUBLICANS.
SO I AGREE WITH ALL THE PEOPLE
IN OUR COUNTRY WHO ARE ASKING
WHAT THE HECK.
THIS IS HYPOCRITICAL.
THE SEARING SHOWS AMERICAN
PUBLIC EXACTLY.
WHAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
PRIORITIES ARE RAMMING THROUGH
ANOTHER IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN
JUSTICE TO THE
SUPREME COURT INSTEAD OF
HELPING THE PEOPLE IN
OUR COUNTRY SUFFERING DURING
THIS PANDEMIC.
MISTER CHAIRMAN I HAVE SOME
LETTERS
OF OPPOSITION TO JUDGE PARENTS
NOMINATION TO ENTER INTO
THE RECORD. THESE ARE LETTERS
FROM LAMBDA LEGAL.
THE JAPANESE AMERICAN
CITIZENS LEAGUE AND THE
NATIONAL ASIAN
PACIFIC AMERICAN WEEK WOMEN'S
FORUM WHICH WAS JOINED BY
55 REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE GROUPS. I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ENTER THESE LETTERS
INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
JUST BAIRD CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN
ROBERTS
HAS RECOGNIZED THAT AND I
QUOTE HIM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
IS NOT IMMUNE AND QUOTE FROM
THE WIDESPREAD PROBLEM OF
HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT AND HAS
TAKEN STEPS TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE WITHIN
THE JUDICIARY. AS PART OF MY
RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND INDEED
ALL THE COMMITTEES ON WHICH I
SET
TO ENSURE THE FITNESS OF
NOMINEES FOR LIFETIME
APPOINTMENT TO THE FEDERAL
BENCH OR TO ANY OF
THE OTHER POSITIONS OF FOR ANY
OF THE COMMITTEES IN WHICH THEY
APPEAR. I ASK
EACH NOMINEE. THESE 2 QUESTIONS
AND I WILL ASK SOME
OF YOU. SINCE YOU BECAME A
LEGAL ADULT HAVE
YOU EVER MADE
UNWANTED REQUEST FOR FAVORS OR
COMMITTED
ANY VERBAL OR PHYSICAL
HARASSMENT OR ASSAULT OF A
NATURE NOW
SENATOR HIRONO HAVE YOU EVER
FACED DISCIPLINE OR ENTERED
INTO SETTLEMENT RELATED TO THIS
KIND OF CONDUCT. NOW SENATOR.
DO YOU THINK IT
IS APPROPRIATE 4 JUSTICES TO
CONSIDER REAL WORLD IMPACTS IN
THEIR
DECISION MAKING AS JUSTICE
GINSBURG
NOTED IN A NUMBER OF HER
DISSENTS.
WELL SENATOR THE DOCTRINE OF
STARRY DECISIS IS A GOOD
EXAMPLE
OF THAT.
>>BECAUSE THE FACTOR, THE LIONS
INTERESTS TAKES INTO
THE REAL
WORLD IMPACTS THE WAY THAT
PEOPLE HAVE
ORDERED THEIR AFFAIRS AND
RELIED AND DECISIONS SO THEIR
CONTACTS, YES IN WHICH
CONSIDERING THE IMPACT IS
EXPRESSLY PART OF THE DOCK.
>>SO YOU WOULD
SAY THEN THAT YOU'VE BEEN
LISTENING TO ALL OF US HERE
YESTERDAY AS WELL
AS TODAY TALK ABOUT THE REAL
WORLD
THE STRIKING DOWN OF THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT AND WOULD THAT ALL OF
THOSE IMPACTS
BE FACTORS THAT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
SHOULD
YOU BE. JUSTICE.
>>SENATOR TO BE CLEAR.
SYMPATHY THE STORIES YOU KNOW
THAT YOU HAVE TOLD INCLUDING
THE STORY OF VERONICA'S
FAMILY ARE VERY MOVING.
IF I WERE A JUSTICE THE
COMMITMENT THAT I
WOULD MAKE TO YOU AND ALL
PEOPLE AFFECTED BY
THE LAWS IS THAT I WOULD FOLLOW
THE LIES YOU ENACTED IT AND
I HAVE NO AGENDA WOULD NOT BE
COMING IN WITH
ANY AGENDA. I WOULD DO EQUALLY
JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW
AND NOT TRY
TO THWART HEARD OR DISRUPT IN
ANY WAY THE POLICY CHOICES THAT
YOU AND
YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE ADOPTED SO
ARE YOU
SAYING THAT
THE IMPACT.
>>THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON
THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO RELY
UPON IT THAT THOSE JEN YOU
WOULD DEEM TO BE CALM POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS THAT.
WE SHOULD ADDRESS.
>>I THINK THAT YOU CHOOSE
THE LAW AND
YOU HAVE STRUCTURED THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. IT'S A
COMPLEX
LONG STATUTE. I THINK YOU SET
THE POLICY AND THEN I THINK
WHEN
A COURT HAS TO THE TRIP OF
THE STATUTE, DECIDE HOW IT
APPLIES IN A
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCE. THE COURT
LOOKS TO DISH TRADITIONAL LEGAL
MATERIALS LOOKS TO
THE BRIEFS. IT LISTENS TO THE
REAL WORLD IMPACT ON
THE LITIGANTS WHO ARE BEFORE
THE COURT ARGUING THE CASE
BECAUSE EVERY CASE AFFECTS
REAL LITIGANTS. EVERY CASE
AFFECTS REAL PEOPLE. I SAID IN
MY OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY
THAT YOU KNOW
WHEN YOU PASS STATUTES THERE
OFF THE NAMES OF THE
CO-SPONSORS OF
THE BILL. BUT CASES DECIDED BY
UPWARDS TYPICALLY NAMED AFTER
THE PARTIES.
EFFECT REAL PEOPLE.
>>JUDGE MARY SO ARE YOU SAYING
THAT ALL OF THE STORIES THAT WE
BROUGHT FORTH YESTERDAY AND THE
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
RELYING ON THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT CAN RELY UPON YOU THAT
THOSE IMPACTS WOULD BE
CONSIDERED
BY YOU THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER
THOSE
TO BE
LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT YOU WOULD
CONSIDER BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAY
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE
A DECISION THEY SAW THE LAW.
THE REAL LIFE STORIES THAT
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
YOU WOULD CONSIDER THOSE TO BE.
PART OF THE LAW.
>>SENATOR HER ON OUT.
EVERY
CASE THAT COMES BEFORE THE
COURT BECAUSE AS I
WAS SAYING EARLIER NO CASE
COMES BEFORE COURT UNLESS IT
INVOLVES REAL
LIVE PEOPLE. WE'VE HAD A REAL
LIVE DISPUTE AND IT IS
THE JOB OF A JUDGE DECIDING
EVERY CASE TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT. THE
REAL WORK, THE REAL WORLD
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTIES
BEFORE IT.
>>SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU
WOULD AGREE WITH THE JUSTICE
GINSBURG THAT THE COURT SHOULD
BE TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION. THE REAL LIFE
EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS THAT
THEY MAKE BECAUSE SHE WROTE A
NUMBER OF DIFF DISSENTS SAYING
THAT THE
MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE
REAL WORLD
IMPACTS OF THEIR DECISION SO
ARE YOU ALIGNING YOURSELF WITH
JUSTICE GINSBURG IN
TERMS OF WHAT YOU WOULD
CONSIDER REAL LIFE IMPACTS
AND THEY EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE
ON YOUR DECISION REGARDING THE
LAW.
>>WELL SENATOR I DON'T KNOW
WHAT
CONTACTS THIS THE PARTICULAR
CONTEXT IN WHICH JUSTICE
GINSBURG WAS DESCRIBING THAT.
I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO
ALIGN MYSELF WITH IS THE LAW.
AND
THEN I WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
ALL FACTORS, INCLUDING REAL
WORLD IMPACTS WHEN THE LAW
MAKES THEM OUT
OF IT AS IT CLEARLY DOES FOR
EXAMPLE IN THE DOCTOR AND
STARTED TO SIZES.
>>I'LL GET TO YOUR VIEWS OF
PRESIDENT IN
A MOMENT. I'LL GIVE YOU A REAL
LIFE EXAMPLE
JUSTICE GINSBURG.
IN THE BIRD OF THE GOODYEAR
TIRE RUBBER
COMPANY LILY LEDBETTER WORKED
AT A GOODYEAR PLANT FOR
19 YEARS AS AN AREA MANAGER A
POSITION HELD MOSTLY
BY MEN. THEN HE WAS PAID LESS
THEM ALL OF HER
MALE COUNTERPARTS WHEN SHE
EVENTUALLY REALIZED THIS START
IN EQUALITY. SHE SUE FOR PAY
DISCRIMINATION AND THE
JURY AGREE. BUT THE
SUPREME COURT KICK TO PLEASE
CLEAN OUT OF THE COURT FOR
BEING
TOO LATE. THE CONSERVATIVE
MAJORITY, INCLUDING
YOUR MENTOR. JUSTICE SCALIA
INTERPRETED TITLE SEVENS
180 DAY LIMIT.
TIME LIMIT TO MEAN THAT REALLY
HAD TO HAVE FATHERED PLAYING
WITHIN
180 DAYS WHEN HER SALARY WAS
DECIDED
INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING THE COMMON
SENSE APPROACH
A VIEWING HER PAYCHECKS AS AN
ONGOING PART OF
PAY DISCRIMINATION. JUSTICE
GINSBURG STRONGLY DISAGREED
WITH HER CONSERVATIVE
COLLEAGUES APPROACH TO
THE CASE IN HER DISSENT, SHE
POINTED OUT THE MANY CHALLENGES
WOMEN FACE IN DISCOVERING PAY
DISPARITIES INCLUDING HOW MANY
COMPANIES KEEP
SALARIES CONFIDENTIAL. IN A
STINGING REVIEW, SHE SAID
WELL THE COURT DOES NOT
COMPREHEND OR
IS INDIFFERENT TO THE INSIDIOUS
WAY IN WHICH WOMEN CAN BE
VICTIMS
OF PACE,
DISCRIMINATION AND QUOTE IN
ANOTHER CASE IN 2018.
AN EPIC SYSTEMS COURTNEY LEWIS
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN
ILLEGALLY UNDERPAID JOIN
TOGETHER
TO TO SEEK BACK PAY IN COURT.
TO BLOCK
THIS EFFORT, THEIR EMPLOYERS
FORCED THEM
TO SIGN AN ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT PROHIBITING
COLLECTIVE ACTIONS THAT ACTION
ACTUALLY HAVE TO
SIGN THESE RICH NATION
AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO EVEN
HAVE A JOB TO KEEP
THEIR JOB. THE SUPREME COURT'S
CONSERVATIVE
MAJORITY, INCLUDING JUSTICE
SCALIA SIDED WITH THE COMPANY.
THE INTERPRETED A GENERAL
FEDERAL ARBITRATION LAW TO
OVERRIDE
2 WORKER PROTECTIONS LAWS
INSTEAD
OF RECOGNIZING. THE WORKER
PROTECTION LAWS
FALL SENSIBLY WITHIN THE
EXCEPTIONS IN THE ARBITRATION
LAW MEANING THAT THE WORKER
PROTECTIONS LOSS SHOULD
PREVAIL.
AGAIN JUST THE SKINS
WERE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE
MAJORITY'S APPROACH TO THE CASE
IN HER DISSENT. SHE
POINTED OUT THAT BLOCKING JOINT
LOSSES WOULD DETER
MOST WORKERS FROM SEEKING
INDIVIDUALS UNPAID, INDIVIDUAL
MP WAGE CLAIMS
TO BECAUSE THE COST OF LAWSUITS
AND FEAR
OF RETALIATION. SHE WARNED THE
MAJORITY'S DECISION WOULD
RESULT IN HURTING VULNERABLE
LOW WAGE. WORKERS NOW THOSE ARE
THE KINDS OF REAL
LIFE IMPACTS THE REALITY OF
WOMEN
WHO ARE NOT PAY
THE SAME AS THEIR MALE
COUNTERPARTS
BECAUSE OF. SEX DISCRIMINATION
HAPPENING THAT SHE HAS NO WAY
OF FINDING
OUT ABOUT OR OF WORKERS WHO ARE
FORCED TO SIGN AN ARBITRATION
CLAUSE THAT
OVER EYES. WORKER PROTECTION.
OTHER WORKER PROTECTION LAWS,
THOSE ARE THE KIND OF REAL
WORLD IMPACTS SO DO YOU THINK
JUSTICE GINSBURG WAS WRONG
TO CONSIDER REAL WORLD IMPACTS.
IN HER DECISION-MAKING WAS
SENATOR, YOU KNOW
BOTH.
>>THE CASE AREA TALKING ABOUT
LILLY LEDBETTER BOTH
THAT CASE AN EPIC SYSTEMS ARE
PRESIDENTS OF
THE COURT. AND AS I'VE SAID A
NUMBER OF TIMES
DURING THE HEARING I CAN'T
REALLY COMMENT OR UPGRADE COMES
UP OR THUMBS DOWN AS JUSTICE
CAME UP WITH IT. HIGH UP
RESIDENTS,
THERE SAY HOW I WOULD HAVE
DECIDED THEM.
>>THEY ARE DISPARATE FEW
PRECEDENTS OF THE COURT THAT DO
NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
THE
REAL WORLD FACTORS AT
PLAY HERE. AND IN FACT IN THE
CASE OF EPIC SYSTEMS THE COURT
SIDED WITH
THE CORPORATION AS OPPOSED TO
THE WORKERS WHO ARE TRYING
TO REMEDY IRAN AND IN MANY
THE BETTER, SHE WAS SO TOTALLY
OUT IN THE COLD
SO AGAIN. THE COURT DID NOT SO
THEY SAW THIS PRESIDENT
ALL RIGHT. BUT IT WAS A
PRESIDENT THAT WAS NOT
BASED ON REAL LIFE
MUCH AS YOU SIT HERE ARE
TELLING ME THAT YOU HAD.
>>FOLLOW THE LAW. AFTER ALL
THE LAW.
>>FOR EXAMPLE, THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT
THAT LAW AND BODIES A POLICY
THAT SAYS WE WANT AS MANY
PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO
BE COVERED UNDER INSURANCE AND
IF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS
STRUCK DOWN.
THAT POLICY
THAT LAW BUT BE STRUCK
DOWN SO I KNOW THAT THERE WAS
SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME
DISTINCTION THAT
YOU MAKE ABOUT POLICY. VERSUS
THE LAW AND I FIND THAT
DISTINCTION TO BE.
FICTION BECAUSE EVERY LAW OR
MOST LAWS WE PASS THIS MOST TO
HAVE REAL WORLD IMPACT
OTHERWISE WHY SHOULD WE PASS A
LAW. SO THE FACT THAT
YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT
MEAN WE
FACE THAT. YOU DO CONSIDER
JUSTICE SCALIA TO BE
A MENTOR THAT YOUR
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THEM AND I
THINK WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
JUSTICE
SCALIA AND JUSTICE GINSBURG OR
WERE AT THE MUCH OPPOSITE ENDS
OF
THE SPECTRUM.
SO SINCE JUSTICE GINSBERG MADE
IT A POLICY HER APPROACH WEST
TO
LOOK AT THE REAL WORLD IMPACT
JUSTICE SCALIA'S WAS NOT
SO. I SAY
WHEN IT COMES TO THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT.
THE REAL WORLD POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION
BY THE CONSERVATIVE JUST JUDGES
WOULD MEAN THAT 23 MILLION
PEOPLE COULD LOSE THEIR
HEALTH CARE
THAT 133 MILLION AMERICANS WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS
COULD LOSE CRITICAL CRITICAL
PROTECTIONS FOR THEIR HEALTH
CARE AND
MORE THAN 7 MILLION AMERICANS
WHO HAVE TESTED POSITIVE FOR
COVID-19 WOULD PROBABLY BE
ADDED TO
THE GROUP. PEOPLE
WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS AND
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WOULD
ONCE AGAIN FACE LIFETIME LIMITS
ON COVERAGE, 4 ESSENTIAL
SERVICES THAT
HE POINTS A 7 MILLION WOMEN
WOULD LOSE COVERAGE FOR
CRITICAL MATERNITY CARE
SERVICES.
WE KNOW THAT BLACK NATIVE WOMEN
A 2 TO 3 TIMES MORE LIKELY
TO DIE THAN WHITE WOMEN
FROM PREGNANCY-RELATED CASES
THAT AMERICANS COULD
LOSE COVERAGE FOR ESSENTIAL
HEALTH BENEFITS LIKE
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND MENTAL
HEALTH CARE, THE YOUNG ADULTS
WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO STAY
ON THEIR PARENTS HEALTH
INSURANCE PLAN UNTIL AGE 26 AT
A TIME. WHEN OUR COUNTRY IS
DEALING WITH MASSIVE
JOB LOSSES. SO IN MY VIEW.
THERE YOU HAVE POSED AN ARTFUL
FISCHEL DISK
DISTINCTION
BETWEEN POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
THAT'S LEFT UP TO US AND
FOLLOWING THE LOVE BECAUSE.
YOUR CRITICISM. JUST AS
ROBERTS DECISION IN UPHOLDING
THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. IF IF THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT HE FOLLOWED.
HE WOULD HAVE STRUCK DOWN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THAT IS.
THAT IS YOUR VIEW HE FOLLOWED
YOU ARE CRITICISM
OF HIM AND SUSTAINING THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT YOU
DISTRICT
SO I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT YOUR
APPROACH IS
IN FACT NOT LIKE
THAT OF JUSTICE GINSBURG WHO
DID CHAIR. BUT WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN. LET ME JUST 7.
TELL YOU ONE STORY. A PERSON
WHO
WILL BE
IMPACTED IN THE REAL WORLD IS
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS
STRUCK DOWN AND I KNOW THERE'S
SO MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THE
PRESIDENT EXPECTS YOU DO STRIKE
DOWN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND YOU'VE
ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT YOU
MAY KNOW SUCH COMMITMENTS.
BUT CLEARLY THAT HIS WIFE.
THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS OCCURRING
AND OCCURRING SO THAT YOU CAN
BE SITTING ON
THAT COURT AND TIME TO HEAR THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BY THE
SUPREME COURT ON NOVEMBER 10TH.
ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE
IMPACTED IS ELIZABETH FROM
TEXAS SHE MOVED TO TEXAS FOR
A JOB AND THOUGHT THAT SHE
WOULD HAVE A STABLE INCOME AND
HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE.
AND ALL THAT CHANGED WHEN OR
HOURS DECREASED AND SHE LOST
HER HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE
SHE COULDN'T AFFORD HEALTH
INSURANCE. SHE COULDN'T GET
PROPER TREATMENT
FOR ASTHMA. SHE HAD TO RESORT
TO
USING FRIENDS EXPIRED INHALERS
AND OVER THE
COUNTER REMEDIES. THE AC
ALLOWED HER TO GET HEALTH
INSURANCE AGAIN. THEY SEE
ALSO PREDICTS PEOPLE WITH
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS
LIKE JORDAN WHO I TALKED ABOUT
YESTERDAY AND SHE HAS A VERY
RARE ILLNESS THAT WOOD.
REQUIRE
500,000 PER YEAR. JUST FOR
HER MEDICATION. AND WE'RE NOT
FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, SHE WOULDN'T TO BE ABLE TO
AFFORD IT, I MEAN WHO CAN
AFFORD 500,000 A YEAR TOO.
AND ALSO PEOPLE
LIKE KIMBERLY. I TALKED ABOUT
HER YESTERDAY. THEY SEE ENABLE
HER TO GET A MAMMOGRAM
WHICH SHE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO GAIN AND THAT MAMMOGRAM
REVEALED THAT SHE HAD.
BREAST CANCER AND SHE GOT
DOMESTIC
TO ME SO YOU KNOW THIS IS THIS.
THE REAL LIFE IMPACTS ON PEOPLE
LIKE ELIZABETH
KIMBERLY, WHERE YOU SAY YOU
WILL FOLLOW THE LAW IT REALLY
NEEDS ME
WONDERING THERE ALL OF THESE
REAL
LIFE IMPACTS.
ARE WHAT YOU WOULD CALL WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE LAW THAT
YOU WOULD DECIDE
SHOULD YOU BECOME FROM NOVEMBER
10TH YOU HEAR THE CASE YOU WILL
BE DECIDING. THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
AND BY THE WAY YOU NOTED THAT
THE ISSUE AND THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT WAS
OF WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU
SEVERABILITY SEVERABILITY
BUT THE OTHER ISSUE IN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS THE
ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE LAW BECAUSE THE
DISTRICT COURT. THE ISSUE IS
WHETHER DISTRICT COURT IN TEXAS
WAS CORRECT DEEMING THE ENTIRE
LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO IN FACT
WE ARE CHASING THE
ENTIRE LAW FALLING BY THE
WAYSIDE.
YOU CAN ALSO ASKED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
YOU WOULD OVERTURN ROE
V WADE. I MEAN CLEARLY
PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPECTS THAT
YOU WOULD
DO SO BECAUSE AS HE SAID
IF WE PUT ANOTHER 2 OR PERHAPS
3 JUSTICES ON
THE COURT THAT WILL HAPPEN
MEANING THE THE REVERSAL OF ROE
V WADE WILL HAPPEN
AUTOMATICALLY IN MY
OPINION BECAUSE I AM PUTTING
PRO-LIFE JUSTICES ON
THE COURT. AND THE NUMBER OF A
SUBMISSION A SENATOR AS FAR AS
SENATOR HOLLY IS CONCERNED WE
SAID I WILL ONLY VOTE FOR THOSE
SUPREME COURT NOMINEES
WHO HAVE EXPLICITLY
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ROE V WADE
WAS
WRONGLY DECIDED. AND THERE'S A
HOPE WHAT I HAVE FROM
HIM, BUT AFTER YOU WERE
NOMINATED SINGER HOLLY
ME CLEAR THAT YOU PASSES THAT
MISS TEST AND HE SAID I THINK
HER RECORD IS
AWFULLY CLEAR. I THINK THAT'S
ONE WHERE SHE NEEDS
MY STANDARD OF HAVING EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD AND BY THE WAY HE
HAD NOTED THAT HE EXPECTED
THIS EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD NOT YOUR POST NOMINATION
ASSURANCES TO HIM.
ALL YOUR PRIOR RECORD.
HE SAID. YOU MET THE STANDARD
SO.
WE WE USUALLY EXPECT JUSTICE
SYSTEM PULLING APPLY
LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT.
WAS THE PRESIDENT WRONG IN
CONCLUDING THAT YOU WOULD.
VOTE TO OVERTURN ROE V WADE.
>>ANY STATEMENTS NO HINTS
FORECASTER PREVIOUS AS JUSTICE
GINSBURG PUT IT
ABOUT ANY CASE OR ANY
PRESIDENT, BUT
I WILL REPEAT WHAT I'VE SAID
YOU KNOW THROUGHOUT THIS
HEARING.
I MADE NO PROMISES
TO ANYONE I HAVE NO AGENDA.
THERE ARE 598 VOLUMES OF THE
UNITED
STATES REPORTS THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT JUDGES BUILD ON JUSTICES
DON'T GO TO COURT TO START
HAVING A BOOK BURNING.
>>I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE
REITERATED THAT TIME AND AGAIN,
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT WE ARE LEFT
WITH ARE THE POSITIONS THAT YOU
HAVE ALREADY TAKEN.
SO THE 2006 NEWSPAPER AD
YOU SIGNED THAT
SAID YOU QUOTE OPPOSED ORIGINAL
ABORTION ON DEMAND
AND DEFEND THE RIGHT TO LIFE
FROM FERTILIZATION TO
NATURAL DEATH. IT'S NOT JUST
THE FACT THAT THIS NEWSPAPER AD
YOU JOIN.
CENT WHAT I JUST READ BUT IT
ALSO SAID IT IS TIME TO PUT AN
END TO THE BARBARIC LEGACY ROE
V WADE. AND IN 2013 SPEECH OR
WHERE YOU SAID THE
ROE DECISION QUOTE PERMITTED
ABORTION
ON DEMAND IN COURT AFTER YOU
SAID YOU HAVE OPPOSED ABORTION
ON DEMAND IN 2006.
SO WHAT UNDERSCORES MY CONCERN
ABOUT YOUR WILLINGNESS TO.
OVERTURN ROE V WADE, WHICH IS
REALLY THE EXPECTATION THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS AND WHICH
SENATOR HOLLY
FULLY EXPECTS YOU TO DO BECAUSE
YOU HAVE
MET IS LITMUS
TEST BUT YOU KNOW TO START THIS
ISIS WHICH
IS PRECEDENT AND YOU HAVE
ARGUES THAT THE JUSTICES DUTY
TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH YOU EXPLAIN MEANS THAT
SHE SHOULD THIS IS REGARDING
YOUR VIEW ON PRESIDENT.
SHE SHOULD PUT IN FORCE FOR
BEST UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CONSTITUTION
RATHER THAN A PRESIDENT XI
THINGS CLEARLY IN CONFLICT WITH
IT.
SO IN IN FACT USE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
ARE THE EASIEST TO OVERRULE
BECAUSE YOU BRING YOUR
OWN ASSESSMENT ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND AS
YOU SAID IS THE PRESIDENT IS
CLEARLY IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR
VIEW OF
THE CONSTITUTION. THEN THE
PRESIDENT FOSS BY
THE WAYSIDE SO.
YOU DID INDICATE THAT THERE ARE
FEW CASES THAT
IMMUNIZED
FROM OVERTURNING
THEY ARE THEY WOULDN'T BE
CHALLENGED IN THE FIRST PLACE I
E BRON THE BRUNT OF BOARD
OF EDUCATION, BUT ROAD ISN'T
ONE OF THOSE
CASES BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
THERE ARE ALL KINDS
OF CHALLENGES TO.
WELL BASICALLY BECAUSE THE
STATES ARE VERY BUSY PASSING
ALL THESE. THESE LAWS THAT
LIMIT A WOMAN'S
RIGHT TO AN ABORTION SO.
HE ALSO SAID IN
THAT SPEECH THAT EVEN IF ROE IS
NOT RETURNED.
WITHOUT OVERTURNING RO
YOU EXPLAINED. WELL, THE
QUESTION IS HOW MUCH FREEDOM.
THE COURT IS WILLING TO LET
STATES HAVE AND REGULATING
ABORTION.
THERE ARE 14 CASES
RIGHT NOW RELATING TO STATE
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS, MAKING
HIS WAY THROUGH THE CIRCUIT
COURT AND SOME OF THESE ARE
GOING
AND IN THE SUPREME COURT AND
THESE 14 CASES INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS.
6 CASES INVOLVE BANS ON
ABORTION STARTING AT JUST
ADDITIONAL AGES RANGING FROM 6
TO 24 WEEKS. 2 CASES INVOLVING
DEATHS ON
A PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROCEDURE
DILATION
AND EVACUATION THAT ACCOUNTS
FOR NEARLY
ALL SECOND-TRIMESTER ABORTIONS.
ONE
CASE INVOLVING A REQUIREMENT
THAT FETAL REMAINS BE BURIED
OR CREMATED. 4 CASES INVOLVE
LAWS IMPOSING
UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENTS ON
ABORTION PROVIDERS LIKE
TRANSFER AGREEMENTS WITH
LOCAL HOSPITALS. 4 CASES
INVOLVES SO-CALLED
REASON THAT'S 2 CASES RELATED
TO PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND
CONSENT THERE ARE REAL REASONS
WHY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
IS CONCERNED THAT YOU WILL
OVERTURN
ROE OR BASICALLY STRIPPED
THE OF ALL MEANING SO THAT IT
BECOMES AN OTB CAUSE.
YOU HAVE THESE CASES THAT AS
YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE NET THE
OPEN
QUESTION IS HOW FAR
THE SUPREME COURT WILL GO ALL
IN LETTING SLEEP STATES PUT
LIMITS ON ABORTION.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VIEWS AS
ARTICULATED.
NOMINATION WHICH CONVINCE
SENATOR HOLLY YOU MET US TEST.
THIS MORNING SENATOR FEINSTEIN
AS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE
SUPREME COURT'S
2015 DECISION IN A WORD OR FILM
THE JUST A CASE IN WHICH THE
COURT RECOGNIZED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. AND I WAS
DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU WOULDN'T
GIVE A DIRECT ANSWER WHETHER
YOUR GREED. BUT THE MAJORITY IN
THAT CASE OR IF
YOU INSTEAD AGREE WITH YOUR
MENTOR JUSTICE
SCALIA THAT NO SUCH RIGHT
EXISTS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
SO EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T GIVE
A DIRECT ANSWER I THINK YOUR
RESPONSE DID.
YOU USE
THE TERM
PREFERENCE TO DESCRIBE THOSE IN
THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY
AND LET ME MAKE CLEAR
PREFERENCE IS AN OFFENSIVE AND
OUTDATED TERM IT IS USED BY
ANTI LGBTQ ACTIVISTS
TO SUGGEST THE ORIENTATION IS
A CHOICE. IT IS NOT ORIENTATION
IS A
KEY PART OF A
PERSON'S IDENTITY THAT
ORIENTATION IS BOTH.
A NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HUMAN
SEXUALITY AND IMMUTABLE.
WAS A
KEY PART. THE MAJORITY'S
OPINION IN OBERGEFELL WHICH BY
THE WAY SCALIA DID NOT AGREE
WITH.
SO IF IT IS YOUR VIEW THE
SECURITY IN TAISHAN IS MERELY A
PREFERENCE.
THEN THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY SHOULD
BE
RIGHTLY CONCERNED
WITH THE EU WOULD UPHOLD THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY.
I DON'T THINK
THAT YOU USE THE TERM
PER PREFERENCE AS JUST STOP I
DON'T SEE WAS
AN ACCIDENT. AND ONE OF THE
LEGACIES OF
JUSTICE SCALIA AND HIS
PARTICULAR BRAND OF ORIGINALISM
IS
A RESISTANCE. SO RECOGNIZING
THOSE IN THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY AS HAVING EQUAL
RIGHTS UNDER
OUR CONSTITUTION. IN 1996
JUSTICE SCALIA WROTE A
DISSENTING
OPINION AND
ROMER V EVANS DEFENDING A
STATE'S ABILITY TO
OPENLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
LGBTQ COMMUNITY IN 2003 JUST
AS CLEAR WROTE A DISSENTING
OPINION IN LAWRENCE
V TEXAS DEFENDING A STATE'S
RIGHT TO CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE
SOMEONE FOR SAME ACTIVITY.
10 YEARS LATER IN US V WINDSOR
JUSTICE SCALIA
WROTE ANOTHER DISSENTING
OPINIONS THIS TIME DEFENDING
THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO DENY
FEDERAL RECOGNITION
OF SAME MARRIAGES, AND OF
COURSE 2 YEARS AFTER THAT IN A
ROAD
OR FILM JUSTICE SCALIA WROTE
YET
ANOTHER DESCENT AND THIS TIME
HE ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
SAME MARRIAGE. SO UNDER JUSTICE
SCALIA'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY,
WHAT
YOU HAVE. SO THIS IS
YOUR OWN STATES COULD OPENLY
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY, SAME COUPLES
COULD BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO
GET MARRIED AND THEY
COULD ACTUALLY BE THROWN IN
JAIL IF HE ENGAGED IN IN
A COURSE
THERE ARE AN ESTIMATED
11 MILLION ADULTS TO IDENTIFY
AS AUDI
B T Q LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY
SINCE A BURGER FELLOWS DECIDED
IN 2013, 2015.
APPROXIMATELY
293,000 SAME COUPLES HAVE GOT
MARRIED. AND MANY OF
THESE PEOPLE RIGHT
BE AFRAID THAT IF YOU'RE
CONFIRMED YOU WOULD JOIN WITH
OTHER CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF
THE COURT TO ROLL BACK
EVERYTHING
THE ALGAE B T Q COMMUNITY HAS
GAINED OVER THE PAST 2 DECADES
AND PUSH THEM
BACK INTO THE CLOSET.
NOW 2 SITTING JUSTICE IS
ALREADY
CALLING FOR A BURGER FELT TO BE
NARROW IF NOT OUTRIGHT
OVER TURN. JUST LAST WEEK
JUSTICES THOMAS AND ALITO
ISSUED A STATEMENT
CONCERNING CONCURRENT WITH THE
COURT'S DECISION TO DENY
CERTAIN DAVIS A CASE INVOLVING
A FORMER KENTUCKY COUNTY COURT
WHO REFUSE TO ISSUE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATES TO
SAME COUPLES. THE ACCUSED THE
COURT OF AND THIS IS JUST
THE SAYS ALITO
AND THOMAS THE ACCUSED THE
COURT
OF QUOTE READING A RIGHT TO
SAME MARRIAGE INTO THE 14TH
AMENDMENT
EVEN THOUGH THAT RIGHT IS FROM
NOWHERE IN THE TEXT
AND THESE 2 JUSTICES SIGNAL
THAT OVER A BURGER FOUND IS
A PROBLEM THAT ONLY THE COURT
AND 6. SO.
COUPLE WITH YOUR USE OF
THE TERM
PARENT PREFERENCE. COUPLED WITH
YOUR
ON PRECEDENCE
AND THAT THE JUSTICES OF VIEW
OR HER
OWN ANALYSIS. THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
SHOULD OVERTAKE OR OVERCOME.
IF IT'S IN CONFLICT.
SO THIS IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE
IN
THE LGBT 2 COMMUNITY ARE
SO CONCERNED THAT YOU WOULD IN
FACT JOINED
THE SIGNALING THAT THESE 2
JUSTICES
HAVE ALREADY PUT OUT THERE THAT
A
BURGER FELL WILL FALL BY THE
WAYSIDE. THANK YOU. MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU SENATOR ERNST.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
JUDGE BARRETT, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR
BEING HERE.
>>TODAY WITH YOUR BEAUTIFUL
ONCE AGAIN WE APPRECIATE THE
SUPPORT THAT YOU
ARE SHOWING TO JUDGE BARRETT BY
BEING
HERE TODAY AND JUDGE I JUST
WANT TO OFFER YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY AT
THIS POINT IS THERE
ANYTHING FROM EARLIER TODAY.
THEY YOU FEEL YOU NEED MORE
TIME TO
RESPOND TO. THANK YOU SENATOR
ERNST I WOULD LIKE TO JUST TAKE
A QUICK.
>>FOLLOW ON TO SOME OF SENATOR
WHO ARE HONEST COMMENTS.
YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID A NUMBER OF
TIME AND DURING THE HEARING
THAT
I CAN'T ENTER GRADE EXISTING
PRECEDENT AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT THE POINT OF
DOING THAT IS NOT TO SAY
WHETHER I AGREE
OR DISAGREE WITH IT IT'S NOT TO
IMPLICITLY SIGNAL THAT I DO
DISAGREE
WITH THAT. IT'S DESIGNED TO BE
NEUTRAL SO IN SAYING THAT I
COM AND WHETHER OBERGEFELL WAS
RIGHTLY DECIDED OR NOT. I WAS
CERTAINLY NOT
INDICATING DISAGREEMENT WITH IT
THE POINT OF NOT
ANSWERING WAS TO SIMPLY SAY
IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO
SAY RESPONSE.
AND THE SECOND POINT WAS TO SAY
THAT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T MEAN,
AND YOU KNOW WOULD
NEVER ME TO USE A TERM THAT
WOULD CAUSE ANY OFFENSE AND THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY.
SO IF
I DID A GREAT WE APOLOGIZE FOR
THAT IS SIMPLY MEANT TO BE
REFERRING TO OVER THE FILES
HOLDING THIS BUT RESPECT TO
SAME MARRIAGE.
>>THANK YOU FOR THAT I
APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION
AND IT GOES
BACK TO THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU
HAD WITH SENATOR SASSE ON THE
BLACK ROBES. WHEN YOU PUT THAT
ROBE ON ON YOU
OR NEUTRAL, CORRECT. YES, YES,
THANK YOU. SO I DID WANT TO GO
BACK BECAUSE.
CLARIFY THE SENATE
GOP DID BRING UP A RELIEF BILL
A NUMBER OF
WEEKS AGO AND IN THAT BILL
THERE
WAS A $300 BOOST IN WEEKLY
UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE BENEFITS. THERE WAS A
A
SECOND PASS AT PAYCHECK
PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES. THERE WAS
105 BILLION FOR K THROUGH 12
SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES. WITH NEW
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS
15 BILLION TO HELP
WORKING PARENTS, FIND
ACCESSIBLE CHILDCARE OPTIONS
THERE ARE SUPPORTS FOR FARMERS
AND RANCHERS IMPACTED BY
THE PANDEMIC THERE WAS
31 BILLION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
DISTRIBUTION OF VACCINES, DRUGS
AND OTHER
MEDICAL SUPPLIES. 16 BILLION
FOR TESTING
AND CONTRACT.
CONTACT TRACING. THERE WAS LOAN
FORGIVENESS FOR THE
POSTAL SERVICE LIABILITY
PROTECTIONS FOR SCHOOLS AND
HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS AND AN EXPANDED
CHARITABLE DEDUCTION
FOR CONTRIBUTIONS. MADE DURING
THIS PANDEMIC AND MANY
MANY OTHER THINGS AND IT WAS A
VERY VERY GOOD BILL IT WAS WHAT
WE COULD
AGREE UPON BUT I WOULD
NOTE THAT SENATE
DEMOCRATS DEAD BLOCK THOSE
PROVISIONS THAT WOULD HAVE GONE
TO HELP FAMILIES
LIKE VERONICA AND OTHERS IN
IOWA THAT
ARE SUFFERING FROM THE
PANDEMIC AND ARE OF COURSE OUR
GREATEST SYMPATHIES TO THOSE
THAT HAVE
BEEN IMPACTED ALL ACROSS THE
UNITED STATES. SO
MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>>I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO
THE RECORD THERE'S
3 LETTERS HERE.
>>FOR THE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
AND AN OP ED A LETTER OF
SUPPORT
40 CHRISTIAN
WOMEN SCHOLARS. THE SECOND IS A
LETTER FROM A GROUP OF
GOVERNORS ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, INCLUDING OUR OWN
IOWA'S GOVERNOR
KIM REYNOLDS. STRONGLY
SUPPORTING THE NOMINATION OF
JUDGE BARRETT. THE 3RD IS
A RECORD. LETTER FOR FROM TRACY
LOVE IT. WHO WAS
WITH JUDGE BARRETT WHILE THEY
BOTH SERVED ON THE SCOTUS CLERK
CLASS
OF 19 98 AND THEN
THERE'S ALSO AN EDITORIAL BY
DEREK MUELLER A
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF
LAW THAT APPEARED IN THE
GAZETTE OF CEDAR
RAPIDS, IOWA. THIS PROFESSOR
HAD JUDGE BARRETT HAS THIS
EVIDENCE PROFESSOR AT NOTRE
DAME
LAW SCHOOL AND HE DOES SAY SHE
TREATED ALL
LAW STUDENTS FROM ALL
BACKGROUNDS WITH DIGNITY
AND RESPECT IF I COULD HAVE
THOSE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
WITHOUT
A SECTION. THANK YOU. AND JUDGE
BARRETT.
I AM PRO LIFE. I AM
PRO LIFE AND I
SEE THAT JUDGED BY YOUR
FAITH AND AS HAS BEEN APTLY
POINTED OUT MANY TIMES OVER.
BY OUR COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE
AISLE THAT THAT YOU ARE PRO
LIFE BUT ONCE AGAIN CAN
WE REITERATE YOUR STANCE AS A
JUDGE.
SO AS
A JUDGE MY PERSONAL MORAL
BELIEFS WHICH I HAVE NOT.
I CAN THINK OF I I'M NOT
EXPRESSING THEM PUBLICLY
RIGHT NOW.
>>BECAUSE NOW THAT I'M A JUDGE
I CAN'T SIGN STATEMENTS LIKE
THAT ONE THAT I DID 15 YEARS
AGO.
BUT MY POLICY VIEWS MY MORAL
CONVICTIONS MY
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DO NOT
BEAR ON HOW I DECIDE CASES NOR
SHOULD
THEY WOULD BE YOU KNOW IT AND
IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH MY
JUDICIAL MOST.
>>AND I I KNOW THAT YOU
CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE
AN ORIGINALIST AS YOU DISCUSSED
WITH SENATOR SASSE AND IT SEEMS
THAT AND HEARING TO
THE ORIGINALS.
ORIGINALIST VIEW WOULD
NATURALLY LEAD A JUDGE TO CARRY
OUT HER
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF
IMPARTIALITY WHEN APPLYING
THE LAW AND AT HEARING
TO THIS PHILOSOPHY AS A JUDGE
TAKES
REAL COURAGE AND THE COURAGE
OF DISPLAYED THUS FAR AS A
FEDERAL JUDGE PROMPTED A
COALITION
OF GROUPS TO SEND ME A LETTER
SUPPORTING
YOUR NOMINATION. SUSAN B
ANTHONY
LIST LEAD THIS COALITION LETTER
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE RECORD
AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO
MAKE A NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE
COMMITTEE JUST.
>>VERY SQUEAMISH BECAUSE THEY
ARE A PRO LIFE. ORGANIZATION.
BUT WITH THIS
IN MIND. I WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO READ PART OF THIS
LETTER.
JUDGE BARRETT HAS PROVEN
HERSELF TO HANDLE
DISPUTES IMPARTIALLY
APPROACHING CASE AS AS
A TEXTUALIST AND THE ORIGINAL
LIST WHO LOVES
THE CONSTITUTION.
SHE HAS A JURIST WHO RIGHTLY
LEAVES POLITICS
TO POLITICIANS
AND LEGISLATING TO LEGISLATORS
AND I'LL QUOTE FURTHER.
QUITE APART FROM WHATEVER
POLICY VIEW SHE MAY HAVE ON
THE MATTER. JUDGE BARRETT
REASONS TO A PROPER RESULT IN
EACH CASE
BEFORE HER AS A FEDERAL
APPELLATE
JUDGE APPROPRIATELY FOLLOWING
CONTROLLING PRECEDENT IN
FEBRUARY 2019 SHE JOINED A
PANEL DECISION UPHOLDING A LAW
CREATING.
OFFER ZONE AROUND ABORTION
FACILITIES.
THIS BUFFER OR BUBBLE ZONE CASE
BEING REFERRED TO
AS PRICE VERSUS CITY
OF CHICAGO. JUDGE BARRETT COULD
YOU PLEASE GIVE US AN OVERVIEW
OF THE
CITY ORDINANCE
THERE WAS CHALLENGE HERE AND
EXPLAIN HOW PRECEDENT
ESTABLISHED BY THE
SUPREME COURT'S HELD
DECISION INFLUENCED YOUR
REASONING OF
THE CASE. YES, I WAS ON A PANEL
THERE IS A CHALLENGE TO A
BUBBLE ZONE ORDINANCE WHICH
ESSENTIALLY
>>IT WAS
DESCRIBE IT. IT LIMITED
WHERE ABORTION PROTESTERS COULD
GO TO DO SIDEWALK
COUNSELING REALLY FOOTING WITH
THE THINGS THAT THEY IDENTIFY
THE ACTIVITIES THEY DESIRE TO
UNDERTAKE IN THE EXPRESSION
OF SPEECH OUTSIDE OF THE
ABORTION CLINIC. THE SUPREME
COURT HAS A CASE CALLED HILL
VERSUS COLORADO.
HE
SAID THAT
SUCH BUBBLE ZONES, ESPECIALLY
BECAUSE THIS ONE IN CHICAGO WAS
NEARLY IDENTICAL
AS I RECALL WITH THE ONE THAT
WAS AT STAKE
AND HOW SAID THAT THEY DID NOT
VIOLATE THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. AND SO OUR YOU
KNOW THAT WE'RE BOUND BY THAT
PRECEDENT OUR PANEL
APPLY THAT PRESIDENT AND SO AS
YOU SAY
THAT WAS A CASE INVOLVING
ABORTION, BUT MY DUTY AS A
JUDGE WAS TO FOLLOW THE
GOVERNING LAW. I MEAN LINE THAT
CASE WITH HELP.
ABSOLUTELY AND THANK YOU FOR
THAT CLARIFICATION AND I THINK
IT WAS IMPORTANT TO POINT
THAT OUT.
>>BECAUSE IN THAT CASE USING
PROCESS DENT. IT
DID FAVOR. THAT
ABORTION CLINIC IS THAT CORRECT
THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU VERY
SO I WOULD LIKE TO. SUBMIT THIS
FOR
THE BACK. THANK YOU.
NOW TURNING
TO A TOPIC OF AGENCY RULEMAKING
REALLY TOPIC NOT SOMETHING THAT
WE HAVE NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE TALKED AS
OF YET. BUT AS I MENTIONED
YESTERDAY WHEN CONGRESS MAKES
LAWS THAT OVERSTEPPED
THE CONSTITUTION. IT CAN BE
FELT ALL
ACROSS THE STATE OF IOWA,
WHETHER IT'S IN THE STREETS OF
COUNCIL
BLUFFS, IOWA, OR IN THE FARM
FIELDS OVER IN
CLINTON COUNTY. BUT
CONGRESS ISN'T THE ONLY BODY
CAPABLE
OF OVERSTEP EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
CAN BE
JUST AS GUILTY AS THAT OF THIS
AS WE'VE SEEN
IN IOWA. IN 2018. AS A JUDGE ON
THE
7TH CIRCUIT. YOU HELP DECIDE A
CLEAN
WATER ACT
CASE SPECIFICALLY
ORCHARD HELD BUILDING COMPANY
VERSUS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
THE DECISION FOUND THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID
NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO
JUSTIFY ITS DECISION TO DEEM
13 ACRES OF
ILLINOIS WETLAND AND AS A WATER
OF THE U.S.
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF A LESS
EXPANSIVE
DEFINITION OF LOTUS AND I'M
ENCOURAGED BY HOW YOU APPROACH
THIS DECISION. FARMERS IN IOWA
ARE ALSO ENCOURAGED
BY THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I BELIEVE THEM AS I DO NOW THAT
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
CLEAN WATER RULE OR THE
WOTUS RULE
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT I
ALSO WANT TO TALK TO
YOU ABOUT AGENCY RULEMAKING
THAT I BELIEVE
WAS CONSTITUTIONAL WHICH IS
ILLUSTRATED IN
A ROOM CASE THAT
10TH CIRCUIT COURT HAS RECENTLY
RULED
ON SPECIFICALLY RENEWABLE FUELS
ASSOCIATION
VERSUS EPA. AT ISSUE IN THIS
CASE WERE 3 EXEMPTIONS.
THE EPA GRANTED TO OIL
COMPANIES ALLOWING THEM TO
AVOID
THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO BLEND
RENEWABLE FUEL UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACTS RENEWABLE
FUEL STANDARD. THESE OIL
REFINERY EXEMPTIONS WHICH WERE
NOT DISCLOSED TO
THE PUBLIC. WE'RE CHALLENGED BY
RENEWABLE
FUEL PRODUCERS WHO SAID THAT
THEY ONLY FOUND
OUT ABOUT THE WAIVERS BECAUSE
OF INVESTIGATIVE NEWS REPORTS.
THE 10TH CIRCUIT CONCLUDED IN
THIS CASE THAT THE RENEWABLE
FUELS PRODUCERS
WERE INJURED BY THE
EPA IS EXEMPTIONS AND DUST HAD
STANDING
TO SUE. THE COURT ALSO FOUND
THAT THE
EPA EXCEEDED ITS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY IN GRANTING
THOSE PETITIONS BECAUSE
THE AGENCY MAY ONLY EXTEND
PREVIOUSLY
EXISTING WAIVERS. IN THE CASE
OF THESE 3 REFINERS THERE WAS
NOTHING
TO EXTEND
BECAUSE THEY HAD LEFT THEIR
EXEMPTIONS LAPS IN OTHER WORDS,
THE
3 REFINERIES HAD NOT RECEIVED
CONTINUOUSLY EXTEND INC
EXTENDED EXEMPTIONS IN THE
YEARS PRECEDING THEIR PETITIONS
AS REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTE. HOWEVER IN THE
WAKE OF THIS 10TH CIRCUIT
DECISION SMALL REFINERIES
FLOODED. THE EPA WAS
67 PETITIONS FOR RETROACTIVE
WAIVERS
SOME DATING BACK AS FAR AS
2011 IN AN ATTEMPT TO GO BACK
IN
TIME IN ESTABLISHED A CHAIN OF
CONTINUOUSLY EXTENDED
EXEMPTIONS. THESE OIL COMPANIES
HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO THE
10TH CIRCUIT DECISION TO ARE
THE 10TH CIRCUIT DECISION TO
THE
SUPREME COURT. SO WHILE I'M NOT
GOING TO ASK YOU TO SPEAK
ON ALL OF THIS AND WHAT IS
GOING ON.
>>THE PROBLEM HERE BOTTOM LINE
IS THAT
THE EPA WASN'T FOLLOWING THE
LAW.
THEY TOOK THE LAW THAT CONGRESS
PASSED THEY
TWISTED IT AND INTERPRETED IT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF
OIL PRODUCERS AND THAT HARMED
OUR IOWA FARMERS.
I KNOW AGAIN YOU CAN'T SPEAK ON
HOW
YOU WOULD RULE RULE ON THESE
CASES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT
COULD BE PENDING BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT. BUT
TELL ME HOW
DO AGENCIES HOW SHOULD THEY
INTERPRET THE LAWS THAT ARE
PASSED BY CONGRESS.
WELL I THINK THAT
THE COURTS.
>>RULE AND REVIEWING THE
LAWFULNESS OF AGENCY ACTION
IT'S LARGELY GOVERNED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
WHICH US GOVERNS THE WAY
AGENCIES CAN DO
THEIR BUSINESS IN OUTLINES WITH
THEIR AUTHORITY CAN BE. THERE'S
ALSO A DOCTRINE
CALLED CHEVRON AND JUST NAMED
AFTER A CASE
AND MANY TIMES IF YOU'RE
TALKING
ABOUT A CHEVRON ISSUE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE OF
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S MOSTLY
WHAT YOU'RE MAKING UP.
AN AGENCY YOU KNOW WHEN WHEN A
COURT
REVIEWS WHETHER AN AGENCY HAS
EXCEEDED ITS
LAWFUL AUTHORITY. IT GOES TO
THE STATUTE THAT YOU AND
CONGRESS ENACT.
INTERPRETS THAT STATUTE LOOKS
AT THE TAX.
TRIES TO TELL WHETHER YOU'VE
GIVEN CAUGHT GIVING THE AGENCY
GIVEN THE UK AND
YOUR EXAMPLE. LEEWAY
TO ADOPT POLICIES AND THAT
LEEWAY WITH THE PRESIDENT
IF YOU HAD AMBIGUITY IN THE
STATUTE THAT LEFT THE DECISION
TO
THE AGENCY. BUT IF THE
AGENCY GOES FARTHER THAN THE
TEXT OF THE STATUTE PERMITS
THAT IT IS THE ROLE OF
THE COURT.
THE SAY THAT THAT ACTION YOU
KNOW WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
STATUTE AND
THEREFORE ILLEGAL.
>>AND WHAT HAPPENS THEN IF
THERE IS AN ACTUAL
QUESTION ON THE INTENT OF THE
LAW.
WELL A STATUTE.
>>IN THIS CONTEXT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE CHEVRON TYPE
CHALLENGE TO AGENCIES AN
AGENCY'S INTERPRETATION
OF IT YOU WOULD INTERPRET THE
STATUTE IN
THE SAME WAY THAT YOU INTERPRET
ANY OTHER STATUTES AS I WAS
TALKING TO SENATOR SASSE ABOUT
EARLIER.
MY OWN APPROACH TO IT WOULD BE
TECH STILL ISN'T
AND SO IN MY APPROACH TO
LANGUAGE THE INTENT OF THE
STATUTE IS BEST EXPRESSED
THROUGH
THE WORKS. SO LOOKING AT WHAT
THE WORDS WOULD COMMUNICATE TO
A SKILLED USER OF THE LANGUAGE.
VERY GOOD WELL I APPRECIATE IT
WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME
REMAINING SO.
>>AGAIN I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU I WANT TO THANK YOUR FAMILY
VERY MUCH FOR
LENDING THEIR SUPPORT TO YOU
THROUGH THIS PROCESS IT CAN BE
A
BIT GRUELING. BUT I DO HAVE TO
SAY
THOUGH TEMPERAMENT THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE HEARING HAS BEEN
TRULY
COMMENDABLE SO THANK YOU SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU FURTHER AND WITH MISTER
CHAIR I WILL RESERVE MY TIME,
THANK
YOU SENATORS. JUDGE ARE YOU
OKAY TO DO
2 MORE SHORT.
>>SO SENATOR BOOKER CENTER THEN
WE'LL TAKE A 20 MINUTE SO GREAT
GRAB BY THE
FINISH UP. SO BROOKE. THANK
MISTER CHAIRMAN YOU'RE ON A
BUS.
SO I SPOKE YESTERDAY AND
APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION WHICH
YOU GAVE ME TALKING ABOUT HOW
THIS IS NOT A
NORMAL TIME.
>>AND I WANT TO REITERATE ONE
MORE TIMES CAN COGENTLY AS I
CAN BECAUSE
THIS IS. SOMETHING LIKE WE'VE
JUST NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN THE
HISTORY OF
UNITED STATES. WE'RE NOT JUST
DAYS AWAY
FROM ELECTION DAY BUT PEOPLE
ARE ACTUALLY VOTING
RIGHT NOW. CLOSE TO A MILLION
PEOPLE IN MY STATE HAVE
ALREADY VOTED AND ABOUT
10 MILLION PEOPLE
VOTED NATIONALLY. THE ONLY
OTHER TIME A SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION HEARING HAPPEN THIS
CLOSE TO AN ELECTION WAS AS YOU
PROBABLY KNOW WAS UNDER
PRESIDENT LINCOLN WHO DECLINED
TO OFFER A NOMINATION BEFORE
THE ELECTION. BUT WE ARE IN THE
MIDST OF AN ONGOING ELECTION
RIGHT NOW AND A VERY
CONTENTIOUS TIME IN OUR
DEMOCRACY. IT'S PROBABLY NOT
NORMAL
ALSO BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY
SPEAKING IN THIS ELECTION AND
IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE RUSHING
THROUGH THIS PROCESS
WHEN MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ON
THIS COMMITTEE SAID JUST
4 YEARS AGO. THAT WE SHOULD NOT
PROCEED TO FILL A VACANCY
THAT OPENED 269 DAYS BEFORE
AN ELECTION. IN THE WORDS OF
SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES, INCLUDING THE
CHAIRMAN WANTS TO USE HER WORDS
AGAINST US WE WOULD NOT DO
EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT
NOW.
IT'S ALSO NOT NORMAL BECAUSE
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
PANDEMIC.
AND WE HAVE 10'S
OF THOUSANDS OF NEW COVID
INFECTIONS EVERY
SINGLE DAY. WIDESPREAD FOOD
INSECURITY LIKE WE
HAVEN'T SEEN THESE KIND OF FOOD
LINES IN MY LIFETIME, I DON'T
THINK.
PEOPLE ACROSS OUR COUNTRY ARE
STRUGGLING AND UNFORTUNATELY
WE SEE
THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW NOT
DEALING WITH THIS CRISIS.
WE ARE INSTEAD.
LITERALLY HAVING CLOSED THE
SENATE VIRTUALLY AND THE ONLY
PROCEEDS ARE BEING ALLOWED TO
GO FORWARD OR NOT THE ISSUES OF
HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE
STRUGGLING BUT DEALING
WITH THIS AND IT'S NOT NORMAL
THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT.
WHO HAS REPEATEDLY ATTACKED THE
LEGITIMACY OF
OUR INSTITUTIONS. SO MUCH SO
AND I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING
LIKE THIS IN MY LIFETIME THAT
HIS FORMER CABINET MEMBERS.
HIS FORMER CHIEF
OF STAFF, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE
DANGER. HE
REPRESENTS TO THE COUNTRY WE
ALL LOVE. IN FACT PROBABLY ONE
OF THE MOST RESPECTED PERSON ON
BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE GENERAL MATTIS WHO
SERVICE OR SECRETARY DEFENSE
WENT AS FAR AS TO SAY
A MAN
WHO HAS BEEN VERY RESERVED IN
HIS COMMENTS OF DONALD TRUMP IS
A DANGER TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
WE ARE AT A
TIME THAT THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR
INSTITUTIONS ARE AT STAKE.
AND IT'S NOT NORMAL THAT
THE PRESIDENT WOULD FURTHER
CAST A SHADOW OVER YOUR
NOMINATIONS WALLS. THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURT BY
SAYING HE WOULD ONLY
NOMINATE JUSTICES WHO WOULD
TEAR DOWN ROE V WADE WERE
OVERTURNED. CA.
AND IT'S NOT NORMAL. IT'S THIS
ALL.
AND AGAIN SOMETHING THAT I FIND
HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE A
PRESIDENT CANNOT COMMIT HIMSELF
TO THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF
POWER.
NOW IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
ABNORMALITY MOST AMERICANS
THINK WE SHOULD WAIT ON
YOUR NOMINATION. IT'S AN
ILLEGITIMATE PROCESS MOST
AMERICANS THINK THAT WE SHOULD
WAIT. TODAY I
I APPRECIATE YOU'RE NOT
FOLLOWING THE NEWS BUT 90 OF
YOUR FELLOW
FACULTY MEMBERS. FROM NOTRE
DAME WROTE AN
OPEN LETTER CALLING ONE YOU FOR
THE SAKE OF
OUR DEMOCRACY. THEY DIDN'T
SPEAK TO WHETHER YOU'RE RIGHT
OR
LEFT OR FUTURES FOR POLICY LOST
YOUR QUALIFICATIONS THEY WROTE
AN IMPASSIONED LETTER FOR THE
SAKE OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
HE PUBLICLY ISSUED A STATEMENT
ASKING THAT YOUR NOMINATION
THAT YOU PULL YOURSELF WITHDRAW
FROM THIS NOMINATION PROCESS
AND HAD TO BE HALTED UNTIL
AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS WANT TO WAIT. BUT MY
COLLEAGUES HERE NOT LISTENING.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME
QUESTIONS THAT IF YOU TOLD ME 5
YEARS AGO.
THAT WOULD BE QUESTIONS
ASKED TO SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION HEARING. I WOULD
HAVE THOUGHT THAT WOULDN'T BE
POSSIBLE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY
I THINK THEY'RE NECESSARY TO
ASK YOU
AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL GIVE ME
DIRECT ANSWERS, THE FIRST ONE.
YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TOWARDS
ISSUES OF RACISM, HOW YOU
DEPLORE IT BUT I I WANT TO
JUST HAS TO VERY SIMPLY I
IMAGINE WILL GIVE ME A VERY
SHORT RESOLUTE ANSWER.
BUT YOU CONDEMN WHITE
SUPREMACY, CORRECT. YES.
THANK YOU, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT
YOU SAID HAVE WHICH OUR
PRESIDENT.
I WOULD SAY THAT SO RESOLUTELY
UNEQUIVOCALLY AS WELL, BUT WE
ARE AT A TIME.
AMERICANS ARE LITERALLY FEARFUL
BECAUSE THEIR PRESIDENT.
CANNOT DO THAT IN THE RESOLUTE
MANNER IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T.
I'M SORRY THAT QUESTION HAD
EVEN BE ASKED AT THIS TIME.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT EVERY
PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE
A COMMITMENT UNEQUIVOCALLY AND
RESOLUTELY TO
THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER.
>>THAT SEEMS TO ME
TO BE PULLING IN A
LITTLE BIT INTO THIS QUESTION
OF
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID
THAT HE WOULD NOT
PEACEFULLY LEAVE OFFICE AND SO
TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS A
POLITICAL CONTROVERSY RIGHT
NOW.
>>AS A JUDGE I WANT TO STAY OUT
OF IT AND I DON'T WANT TO
EXPRESS A VIEW.
>>SO JUDGE I I APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'VE SAID ABOUT RESPECTING
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
REGIONALISM.
IT'S REMARKABLE THE WORD PLACE
RIGHT
NOW THAT THIS IS BECOMING A
QUESTION IN THE TOPIC BUT I'M
ASKING YOU.
IN LIGHT OF OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS. A LOT OF OUR
TRADITIONS.
UNLIKE THAT EVERYONE WHO SERVES
IN THAT OFFICE IS SWORN
AN OATH WITH A QUOTE SWEAR TO
PRESERVE PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION
UNITED STATES. I'M JUST
ASKING SHOULD THE PRESIDENT
COMMIT THEMSELVES.
LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I
THINK HAVE A
CLEAR INTENTION. LIKE THE GRACE
THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON SHOWED.
TO THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER POWERS
THAT SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENTS
SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO.
>>BEAUTIES OF AMERICA FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC IS
THAT WE HAVE.
PEACEFUL TRANSFERS
OF POWER. AND THAT DISAPPOINTED
VOTERS HAVE EXCEPTED THE NEW
LEADERS THAT COME
INTO OFFICE AND
THAT'S NOT TRUE IN EVERY
COUNTRY AND I THINK IT IS PART
OF THE GENIUS OF
OUR CONSTITUTION. AND THE GOOD
FAITH AND GOOD WELL, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT
WE HAVEN'T HOW THE SITUATIONS
THAT HAVE ARISEN IN SO MANY
OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE THERE
HAVE WITH THOSE ISSUES HAVE
BEEN PRESENT. THANK
YOU FROM.
>>DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT
HAS THE POWER TO PARDON HIMSELF
FOR ANY PAST OR
FUTURE CRIMES. HE HAD ME YOU
MAY HAVE COMMITTED AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
>>SENATOR BOOKER THAT WOULD BE
A LEGAL QUESTION THAT WOULD BE
A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND
SO IN KEEPING
WITH MY A GEISHA NOT TO GIVE
ITS PREVIOUS OR FORECASTS OF
POWER IS ON THE CASE THAT'S NOT
ONE THAT I CAN ANSWER.
>>WELL I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU
THAT IT IS AN ISSUE
RIGHT NOW SOMETHING I NEVER
THOUGHT WOULD BE AN ISSUE
BEFORE. BUT IT IS
AN ISSUE THAT OUR PRESIDENT MAY
INTEND TO
PARDON HIMSELF FOR FUTURE
CRIMES OR PASS CARDS.
IF THE PRESIDENT IS PERSONALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR 700 SEVERAL
100 MILLION DOLLARS
IN DEBT. WELL HE'S IN OFFICE,
POTENTIALLY TO
FOREIGN ENTITIES. DO YOU THINK
HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY
TO DISCLOSE WHO HAS
LENDERS ARE ESPECIALLY GIVEN
THE MONUMENTS CLAUSE.
>>THERE'S LITIGATION ABOUT THE
MONUMENTS CAUSE I THINK IT WAS
IN THE 4TH CIRCUIT. I DON'T
KNOW WHERE IT STANDS BUT THAT
CLEARLY IS AN ISSUE THAT'S
BEING LITIGATED IN
AND ONE PRESENT
IN COURT SAYS NOT ONE ON WHICH
I CAN OFFER AN OPINION.
>>I THINK IT'S DISTURBING THAT
WE'RE HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S
DISTURBING THAT WE HAVE
A PRESIDENT THAT HAS BROUGHT
WHICH SHOULD BE SETTLED IN THE
MINDS OF MOST AMERICANS.
REVEAL WHAT THEIR
DEBTS ARE ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE
TO FOREIGN NATIONS. THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE
UP TO
PARDON THEMSELVES FOR FUTURE
CRIMES PRESENCE SHOULD CONDEMN
WHITE SUPREMACY PRESENTS TO
COMMIT THEMSELVES TO A PEACEFUL
TRANSFER OF POWER.
JUST VERY YOU'VE A LOT OF
MY COLLEAGUES I PUT UP PICTURES
OF OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM
STORIES WE'VE TOLD AND
APPRECIATE. THE WE'VE LISTENED.
IT'S
NOT A STRETCH TO UNDERSTAND WHY
A LOT OF AMERICANS ARE FREE
RIGHT NOW. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS
LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS
ON ACTIONS OF MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES REPUBLICAN
PARTY PLATFORM. AND THE
PRESIDENT WHO NOMINATED YOU.
AND EVEN SOME OF YOUR OWN WORDS
WHICH HAVE BEEN READ BY BY
PREVIOUS COLLEAGUES AROUND THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT. PRESIDENT TRUMP TO
NOMINATE YOU FOR THIS VACANCY
IS NOT ONLY
EXPLICITLY STATED. THE SUPREME
COURT SHOULD OVERTURN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
BUT
HE PROMISED THAT HE WOULD
NOMINATE A JUDGE WOULD QUOTE DO
THE
RIGHT THING. UNLIKE BUSH'S
APPOINTEE JOHN ROBERTS, ONE
OBAMA CARE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO USE
LEGISLATIVE LEAST TRY TO DO THE
MINISTRY OF THESE FAIL TIME AND
TIME AGAIN BUT HE'S PROMISED
OVER AND
OVER AGAIN TO TEAR DOWN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. MEANWHILE,
ALL OF MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
ON THIS COMMITTEE EXCEPT FOR
ONE HAS VOTED TO OVERTURN THE
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT BECAUSE HOUSE AND
SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED
TO DO IT 70 TIMES.
THE ONE REPUBLICAN WHO DID NOT
WAS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO
JOIN 20 STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS
WHO SUED TO OVERTURN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
YOU YOURSELF SAID AND I WILL
QUOTE YOU
THE JUSTICE. CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS PUSH THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT BEYOND ITS PAUSING
PLAUSIBLE MEANING TO SAVE THE
STATUTE.
THE SAME CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
OF TRUMP IMPLIED DIDN'T DO THE
RIGHT THING.
TO TUCH BARRY YOU HAVE SAID
THAT IF YOU ARE ON THE COURT.
YOU WILL HEAR AND CONSIDER THE
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES I WAS
ACTUALLY.
INTERESTING WHEN YOU SAID THAT
YOU WOULD PUT YOUR FAMILY
MEMBERS
IN THE SHOES OF LITIGANTS ON
BOTH SIDES. GIVEN ALL THAT
YOU'VE HEARD SO OVER AND OVER
AGAIN ABOUT THE INTENTIONS TO
TEAR AWAY. THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT
THE PEOPLE WHO RELY ON IT.
GIVEN THE COMMITMENT YOU KNOW
THE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TO SAID
EXPLICITLY TO ONLY POINT JUDGES
WHO OVERTURNED THE A C A A.
IS IT UNREASONABLE FOR PEOPLE
TO FEAR.
PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES
OF PEOPLE. IT'S A REASONABLE
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN
UP HERE. IT'S IN
THEIR PICTURES
IS A REASONABLE FOR THEM TO
FEAR THAT THE AC A WOULD BE
OVERTURNED. IF YOU ARE
CONFIRMED TO THE COURT.
>>WELL SENATOR
I WANT TO STRESS TO YOU SENATOR
BOOKER AS I'VE STRESSED TO SOME
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES SAY THAT I
AM MY OWN PERSON I INDEPENDENT
UNDER
ARTICLE 3
AND YOU KNOW I DON'T TAKE
ORDERS FROM THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OR THE LEGISLATIVE I
UNDERSTAND THAT I COULD CARRY
ITS STATEMENT QUESTIONS I THINK
YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING. I'M JUST
ASKING WAS AN ACT
OF EMPATHY CAN YOU UNDERSTAND
THE FEARS.
>>THAT ARE EXHIBITED BY THE
PEOPLE WE PUT UP I DON'T THE 2
PEOPLE I PUT
UP MICHELLE ERIC I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THEIR POLITICAL PARTIES.
I
DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING
VOTE FOR ME I'M ON THE BALLOT.
I DON'T KNOW I JUST KNOW THAT
THEY WERE PEOPLE THAT ONE OF
THEIR VOICES TO
BE HEARD BECAUSE THEY ARE
AFRAID
RIGHT NOW AND WHAT YOUR
NOMINATION REPRESENTS ALL I'M
ASKING IS
CAN YOU EMPATHIZE WITH THAT CAN
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.
>>I CAN CERTAINLY EMPATHIZE
WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING.
I CAN'T EMPHASIZE
WITH PEOPLE WHO LACK
HEALTH CARE. YOU KNOW ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT
WAS SO STRIKING TO ME WHEN WE
WENT TO GET OUR DAUGHTER VIVIAN
FROM THE ORPHANAGE IN HAITI WAS
THE LACK OF ACCESS TO BASIC
THINGS LIKE ANTIBIOTICS.
AND IT JUST MADE ME APPRECIATE
THE FACT THAT WE HAD ACCESS TO
HEALTH CARE SO I CAN CERTAINLY
EMPATHIZE WITH ALL OF THAT.
TO THE AC A YOU KNOW SHOULD
I BE CONFIRMED AND AS I'VE SAID
I WOULD CONSIDER THE
ISSUE OF RECUSAL AT THRESHOLD
QUESTION OF LAW AND WHETHER TO
HEAR
THAT CASE. BUT SHOULD I BE
CONFIRMED IN SHOULD I SIT AND
HEAR
THE CASE
AS I ASSURED YOU HAVE TO
CONSIDER ALL THE ARGUMENTS ON
BOTH SIDES. AND
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN
THAT CASE
IS WEATHER EVEN IF
THE MANDATE HAS BECOME
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE IT WAS
ZEROED OUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE WILL OF
CONGRESS FOR LOCAL ACTS OF
FALL, IT'S A STATUTORY QUESTION
NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL ONE.
>>OR WHETHER THE MANDATE COULD
BE SEVERED OUT THE REST OF THE
ACT STAND.
>>AND SO THE
TASK OF EVERY JUSTICE WHO HEARS
THIS CASE WILL BE TO LOOK AT
THE STRUCTURE OF
THE STATUTE. AND
LOOK AT ITS TAX TO DETERMINE
WHETHER IT WAS THE WILL OF
CONGRESS HE PASSED THE 8TH AND
JUDGE I APOLOGIZE FOR CHAPTER.
>>THE GOOD BEHAVIOR THAT WAS
NOTED THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING
OVER EACH
OTHER MIGHT NOT HAVE TO PAY
SENATOR MIKE BY TIMES IS
RUNNING QUICKLY I GUESS
I JUST AS A GUY WHO.
LOOKS
AT JUSTICES. I WAS JUST ASKING
YOU TO TO EXPRESS.
YOU UNDERSTAND THE FEAR THIS IN
AMERICA RIGHT
NOW BECAUSE YOU HEARD STORY
AFTER STORY
OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW IF
THEY'RE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEIR
HEALTH CARE WHO
DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL BE
DENIED INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
I'M GONNA MOVE ON BECAUSE OF
THE SHORT TIME.
BUT I WAS JUST ASKING YOU IS
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE FEAR
GETTING
A PRESIDENT THAT HAS SAID THAT
THEY WILL PUT JUSTICE ON THERE
THAT
WILL TEAR DOWN THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT THAT'S TAKING AWAY
HEALTH CARE FOR MILLIONS
OF AMERICANS. THERE IS FEAR IN
OUR COUNTRY
RIGHT NOW. BUT I WANT TO MOVE
NOW TO EARLIER WHAT SENATOR
DURBIN
YOU DISCUSSED. THEY ASKED ABOUT
YOUR VIEWS ON RACISM IN THE
ROLE OF COURTS
IN ASSESSING AND ADDRESSING
RACIAL JUSTICE.
I WAS TROUBLED THAT YOU SAID
THAT RACIAL JUSTICE AND
EQUALITY O QUOTE YOU.
OR HOW TO TACKLE
THE ISSUE OF MAKING IT BETTER
THOSE THINGS ARE
POLICY QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT
THAT'S THE QUOTE
HOW TO TACKLE THE ISSUE OR OF
MAKING IT BETTER THE
RACIAL INJUSTICE. THOSE THINGS
ARE POLICY QUESTIONS AND NOT
FOR
THE COURT.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S OWN
DATA AND THIS IS I THINK YOU
ARE REFERENCES AN HOUR.
OUR START A CONVERSATION WHICH
I APPRECIATE.
YOU SAID YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH A
LOT OF THE DATA ABOUT THE
DISCRIMINATION WITHIN OUR
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR EXAMPLE THE
U.S. CENSUS COMMISSION SHOWS
THE PROSECUTORS OR MORE THIS IS
THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION
SAID THE PROSECUTORS ARE MORE
LIKELY TO CHARGE BLACK
DEFENDANTS WITH OFFENSES THAT
CARRY HARSH MANDATORY
MINIMUM SENTENCES AND SIMILARLY
SITUATED WHAT WHITE 3 FAMILIAR
WITH THAT THE U.S. CENSUS
COMMISSION, NOT FAMILIAR WITH
THAT PARTICULAR DOES THAT
SURPRISE YOU.
>>I MEAN I DON'T KNOW SENATOR
BOOKER THAT SEEMS AN ODD THING
FOR ME TO EXPRESS AN OPINION
AS AS UNITED THESE ARE FACTS
THESE ARE JUST FINE AS YOU AND
I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH
THAT STUDY AS YOU AND I
DISCUSSED I AM AWARE THAT THERE
IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN STUDIES OF SYSTEMIC
RACISM OR IMPLICIT BIAS IN THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM SO I AM AWARE
THAT ISSUE I I WAS NOT AWARE
THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF EVIDENCE
THAT THERE IS IMPLICIT
RACIAL BIAS I'M AWARE THAT
THERE HAVE
BEEN STUDIES SHOWING THAT
IMPLICIT BIAS IS PRESENT IN
MANY CONTEXTS INCLUDING IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
OKAY.
>>I'M JUST GOING TO
READ SOME OF THE OTHER
STATISTICS I THINK THEY'RE
REALLY IMPORTANT. THIS IS
INDEPENDENT DATA FROM THE U.S.
SENTENCING COMMISSION OF BLACK
DEFENDANTS AGAIN
ARE COMPARED WITH SIMILARLY
SITUATED WHITE DEFENDANTS WERE
SUBJECT TO
3 STRIKES SENTENCING.
ENHANCEMENTS A SIGNIFICANT
HIGHER RATE WHICH ON AVERAGE
AND A 10 YEARS TO SENTENCES,
YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH
THAT STUDY.
>>I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT
STUDY.
>>THEY HAVE TO DO SUCH CASES
COME BEFORE THE 7TH CIRCUIT.
>>THE 3 STRIKES CASES, YES.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE
3 STRIKES. THE PRISON
LITIGATION REFORM ACT CASES
WHERE
THEY'RE STRUCK OUTREACH.
I THINK I'M ASKING CASES IN THE
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND THAT RELATE TO
RACIAL BIAS TO THE COME BEFORE
THE COURT.
>>SO CERTAINLY WE HAVE
DISCRIMINATION CASES CERTAINLY
THERE IN
1983 CASES ARE TITLE 7 CASE
WOULD IMAGINE SO IN IN IN IN IN
THOSE IN YOUR RESEARCH FOR
THOSE CASES.
>>YOU FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH
A LOT OF THE DATA ON THE
DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE
SYSTEM.
>>YOU KNOW WE FAMILIARIZE
OURSELVES WITH THE ARGUMENTS
THE
PARTIES MAKE AND THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY PUT IN
THE RECORD AND IN SOME
I HAVE
HAD PARTIES SUBMIT OR ITS
MINUTE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TECHNICALLY IN THE MID PART OF
THE RECORD.
>>AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR TO YOU BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS IN FACT IMPLICIT
RACIAL BIAS IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
WELL SHE'S JUST A YES OR NO
QUESTION DO
YOU BELIEVE IN FACT THAT THERE
IS IMPLICIT RACIAL BIAS IN THE
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
>>SENATOR BE HARD TO IMAGINE A
SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM AS BIG AS OURS NOT
HAVING ANY IMPLICIT BIAS IN IT.
>>SO IS THAT A YES.
>>SENATOR.
>>YES, I THINK THAT IN OUR
LARGE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
>>IT WOULD BE INCONCEIVABLE
THAT THERE WASN'T SOME IMPLICIT
BIAS.
>>OVER THE LAST 2 YEARS ABOUT
A 121 OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
JUDICIAL NOMINEES. THE FEDERAL
COURT.
HAVE SAID UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT
THERE IS IMPLICIT RACIAL BIAS
WITHIN THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. QUITE CLEARLY.
I'D LIKE TO TERMS WITH A PIN
YOU WROTE LAST YEAR
ABOUT RACE DISCRIMINATION SMITH
VERSUS ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
THE CASE INVOLVED AN AFRICAN
TRAFFIC
PATROL OFFICER WHO HAD BEEN
FIRED FROM THE ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
THIS EMPLOYEE CLAIMED THAT HE
HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT. AND THAT THE
SUPERVISOR CALLED HIM THE N
WORD.
BUT YOU RULED THAT THE EMPLOYEE
HAD FAILED TO MAKE
THE CASE THAT HE HAD BEEN FIRED
IN RETALIATION FOR HIS
COMPLAINTS ABOUT RACE
DISCRIMINATION.
NOW YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT QUOTE
AND I'M I'M YOU KNOW, I'M
QUOTING
NOW THE AND WORD IS AN
EGREGIOUS
RACIAL EPITHET BUT YOU WENT
ON TO INSIST THAT THE EMPLOYEE
COULD UNQUOTE WIN SIMPLY
BY PROVING THAT THE N WORD WAS
UTTERED AT THEM.
AND THAT HE FAILED TO SHOW THAT
THE CITY SUPERVISORS USE OF THE
N WORD
AGAINST HIM, QUOTE ALTERED THE
CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
AND CREATED A HOSTILE OR
ABUSIVE
WORKING ENVIRONMENT. AND YOU
SAID THAT EVEN BASED
ON HIS OWN SUBJECTIVE
EXPERIENCE.
THIS BLACK EMPLOYEE HAD QUOTE
NO EVIDENCE THAT HIS
SUPERVISORS. WE ARE LASHING OUT
AT HIM BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK.
I'M
VERY SURPRISED TO HAVE TO MAKE
THIS POINT
ALL BUT EVEN A STAUNCH
CONSERVATIVE LIKE
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH MY QUESTION
OF HIM SPOKE TO THE OBVIOUS
HARMS HERE IN A WAY THAT YOU
DON'T
SEEM TO HE WROTE IN A COURT OF
APPEALS CASE
THAT QUOTE BEING CALLED THE N
WORD BY A SUPERVISOR.
SUFFICE IS BY ITSELF TO
ESTABLISH A RACIALLY HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT.
YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT.
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE LAW
RECOGNIZES THE HARM THAT'S
AFFLICTED ON A BLACK PERSON IN
THIS COUNTRY. WHEN THEY'RE
CALLED THAT WORD.
BY THEIR WORK SUPERVISOR.
ANYONE REALLY FOR THAT MATTER
AND THE IN ALL THE HISTORY
DREDGED UP AND THAT WORD.
WHAT WHY DO
YOU BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY THAN
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH.
>>SENATOR BOOKER THAT OPINION
DOES NOT TAKE A POSITION
DIFFERENT THAN
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH EXPRESSLY IN
WHAT WAS THEN VERY CAREFULLY TO
LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT
ONE USE OF THAT WORD WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE OUT A
HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT CLEAN. THE PROBLEM
WAS THAT IN THAT CASE
THE
EVIDENCE THAT THE PLANTS HAVE
HAD RELIED ON TO ESTABLISH THE
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT,
INVOLVED
OTHER YOU KNOW HE WAS DRIVING
THE WRONG WAY DOWN A RAMP AND
THEN EXPLETIVES WERE USED NOT
THE N WORD.
AND THE N WORD WAS USED AFTER
HIS TERMINATION HAD
ALREADY BEGUN AND HE DIDN'T
ARGUE UNDER CLEAR SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENT I DIDN'T MAKE
UP THE OBJECTIVE
SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT UNDER CLEAR
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT BOTH
ARE REQUIRED AND HE DIDN'T SAY
THAT
IT ALTERED THE TERMS OF THAT'S
NOT HOW HE PLATTER MADE HIS
CASE AND IT WAS SEEN AND THIS
PANEL DECISION.
>>AND FORGIVE ME IF I'M READING
YOUR SKIS WRONG BUT
YOU'RE SAYING TO ME HE WAS NOT
CLEANING THE HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT AND THAT AND THAT
IT ISN'T THE FACT PATTERN THAT
THE SUPERVISOR CALLED HIM THE
N WORD. AND THAT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT AND WITH JUSTICE
KAVANAUGH SAID CLEARLY THAT
IT DOES.
>>NO CENTER I THINK YOU'RE
MISCHARACTERIZING WHAT I SAID
WITH ALL RESPECT IN
THAT OPINION. THE EVIDENCE THAT
HE INTRODUCED TO SHOW THE
HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT WAS THE USE OF
EXPLETIVES WHEN HE
DROVE THE WRONG WAY DOWN WHO IS
HE WAS HIRED TO BE A
SAFETY DRIVER FOR THE ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND HE BASED
HIS HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
CLAIM THE USE OF
EXPLETIVES AT AND BASED ON POOR
WORK PERFORMANCE.
THAT WAS WHAT
HE RELIED ON AND THEN HIS
TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS
HAVE BEGUN. HE DIDN'T TIE THE
USE OF THE
N WORD INTO THE EVIDENCE THAT
HE INTRODUCED HIS HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT CLEAN AND SO AS
A PANEL
WE WERE CONSTRAINED TO DECIDE
BASED ON THE CASE THE
PLAINTIFFS HAD PRESENTED BEFORE
US. SO THE PAN OUT
VERY CAREFULLY WROTE THE
OPINION TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE
FOR ONE USE OF THE
N WORD TO BE ENOUGH TO
ESTABLISH A HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT CLEAN. IF IT WERE
PLAYED
THAT WAY.
>>WHO RETURNED TO THE AUTOZONE
CASEY DISCUSSED EARLIER WITH
SENATOR FEINSTEIN THE INITIAL
PANEL OF 3 JUDGES THAT EXAMINE
THE CASE WORLD AGAINST
KEVIN STUCKEY YOU ARE NOT A
PART OF THAT
INITIAL PANEL BUT YOU DID HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON
WHETHER THE TO HEAR THE CASE
BEFORE THE
ENTIRE COURT. YOU HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO AFFIRM THE
BEDROCK PRINCIPLE INCH
AND ENSHRINED IN BROWN VERSUS
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
ABOUT SEPARATE, BUT EQUAL
REALLY TO SAY THE SEPARATE IS
INHERENTLY
AN EQUAL. BUT YOU VOTED NO YOU
DIDN'T
THINK THE FULL COURT NEEDED TO
EXAMINE THIS DELIBERATE
SEGREGATION OF EMPLOYEES
BY RACE. BUT THE JUDGES ON THE
COURT DISAGREE
WITH YOU. IN FACT
3 JUDGES EXPLAIN. WE KNOW THAT
QUOTE DELIBERATE RACIAL
SEGREGATION BY ITS VERY NATURE
HAS ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
PEOPLE SUBJECT TO TO IT.
ON ONE OF THE
CENTRAL TEACHINGS OF OF BROWN
VERSUS BOARD
OF EDUCATION WHICH I KNOW
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IS IS THAT
IDEA OF SEPARATE BEING
INHERENTLY UNEQUAL. WHAT WHY
DID YOU
THINK THAT THE SEPARATE BUT
EQUAL FACILITIES WERE LAWFUL OR
WHY
DIDN'T YOU
SEE THIS AS A PRACTICE THAT WAS
WERTHER OF WORTHY OF CLOSER
SCRUTINY.
>>SENATOR AS I SAID
EARLIER THE SINISTER SENATOR
FEINSTEIN I DID
NOT MAKE THE MERITS DECISION ON
THAT CASE AND I WASN'T ON THE
INITIAL
THE CALCULATION OF WHETHER TO
TAKE THE CASE
ON BOND IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE MERITS
DETERMINATION. SO I WASN'T
REACHING ANY DECISION ABOUT
WHETHER TITLE 7 APPLIED THAT
SITUATION OR NOT FEDERAL
APPELLATE PROCEDURE.
IT'S 35 THE GOVERNMENT'S
ONGOING PROCEEDINGS SETS OUT
STANDARDS AND THIS CASE DIDN'T
CREATE AN INTEREST CIRCUIT
CONFLICTS IN INTEREST
CIRCUIT CONFLICT AND SO.
I VOTE MEANS IS THAT I DIDN'T
LIKE IT SATISFIED. THE ELEVATED
HIGH
STANDARD FOR BOTH OF YOU NOT
THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS CORRECT
THERE'S A LOT OF
DEFERENCE TO PANELS IN MY COURT
RIGHT, BUT I MEAN
3 JUDGES DISAGREE WITH YOU
THESE ARE JUDGES POINT FOR
REPUBLICAN TO DEMOCRAT.
>>PRESIDENTS THEY SAW THE CASE
OF A SEPARATE VEHICLE
REALLY COMPELLING. THEY THOUGHT
THE ISSUE DESERVES CLOSER
SCRUTINY AND YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THEM, BUT
YOU DIDN'T YOU REFERRED EARLIER
TO THE PROBLEM OF IMPLICIT
RACIAL BIAS IN
OUR SYSTEM. THIS IDEA THAT
DESPITE THE WHOLE RISK IN
PEOPLE
CAN GET A HEARING PEOPLE CAN
GET JUSTICE AND THIS DENIAL.
>>SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU DISAGREE
WITH THE PRIORITIZATION
AT LEAST OF 3 COLLEAGUES.
>>8 OF
MY COLLEAGUES CHOSE NOT TO TAKE
THE CASE ON BOND AND THE
ON MOTT PROCESS IS A DIFFERENT
ONE THAN THE MERITS
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TO
DECIDE THE CASE ON THE
MERITS AND NO WEATHER WOULD
COME OUT THE SAME WAY I WOULD
HAVE HAD TO PARTICIPATE IN IT
AND READ THE BRIEFS AND HEAR
THE ARGUMENTS.
>>AND SO THE 3 JUSTICES WERE
WRONG. THE NEW DISAGREE WITH
YOUR COLLEAGUES.
>>THE 3 JUDGES WHO DISSENTED MY
3 COLLEAGUES WHOM I RESPECT
VERY MUCH. I THOUGHT THAT IT
MET THE STANDARD FOR ON
BANK REVIEW. THAT'S A DIFFERENT
QUESTION THAN THE MERITS AND SO
I DID DISAGREE WITH THEM ABOUT
WHETHER TO TAKE IT ON BOND.
SO I WAS WITHIN THE GROUP OF 8
COLLEAGUES
THAT DECIDED
THAT MAY BE THAT WOULD BE AN
ISSUE WE COULD TAKE UP IN THE
FUTURE
BUT NOT TO DISTURB THE PANEL
DECISION THEN THANK YOU ON
AMERICA'S DETERMINATION.
THANK YOU YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU.
>>MOVING JUDGE BARRETT OF 5
YEARS AGO
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT
THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE
RIGHTS OF SAME COUPLES
TO MARRY. THIS WAS A ROBBER
FULL CASE WHICH HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED TODAY THE
COURT DECLARED THE CONSTITUTION
GRANTS LGBTQ AMERICANS EQUAL
DIGNITY, THE EYES OF
THE LAW. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF COUPLES HAVE BUILT THEIR
LIVES ON
THIS DECISION. I MARRIED SOME
OF
THEM MYSELF ON THAT DAY 5 YEARS
AGO THE COURT FULFILL REALLY
THAT IDEAL OF EQUAL JUSTICE
UNDER LAW. AND
YET NOW THE SAME MARRIAGE
IS LEGAL. WE'VE SEEN EFFORTS TO
TRY TO UNDERMINE
THAT DECISION. JUSTICE GINSBURG
WROTE ABOUT LEGAL RULES THAT
WOULD QUOTE CREE 2 KINDS OF
MARRIAGE FOR MARRIAGE AND SKIM
MILK MARRIAGE. I FIRMLY BELIEVE
THAT OUR LAWS SHOULD ALLOW
DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF
WHO
THEY ARE I'VE A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC AND I
CAN GET THROUGH THEM.
BUT I WANT TO OR IF YOU HAVE A
FURTHER OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT I
DON'T THINK YOU GOT TO FULLY
ADDRESS THAT MY COLLEAGUE
BROUGHT UP WHEN YOU DID USE THE
TERM PREFERENCE
EARLIER TODAY, RATHER THAN
ORIENTATION
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE AND WHAT
IS IT.
>>SENATOR I REALLY AND USING
THAT WORD DID NOT MEAN TO IMPLY
THAT I THINK THAT'S YOU KNOW.
THAT IT'S A MATTER NOT A MATTER
OF.
THAT IT'S NOT AN IMMUTABLE
CHARACTERISTIC OR THAT IT'S
ONLY A MATTER
OF PREFERENCE, I HONESTLY DID
NOT MEAN ANY OFFENSE OR TO MAKE
ANY STATEMENT THAT.
>>BUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID YOU
UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT AND
MUTABLE CHARACTERISTIC IN OTHER
WORDS THAT SEXUALITY IS NOT A
PREFERENCE IS WHO THEY ARE IS
THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>>SENATOR I'M
SAYING I IT WAS NOT TRYING TO
MAKE ANY COMMENT ON IT. I FULLY
RESPECT ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE
LGBT COMMUNITY. BOOKER FOLLOWS
AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT OF
THE COURT.
REJECT ANY KIND OF
DISCRIMINATION AND ANY SORT
OF BASIS.
>>SO YOU DO PURPLES DECISION
WHAT ABOUT YOUR 2 COLLEAGUES
EXCUSE ME FORGIVE ME.
WHAT ALITO AND THOMAS WHO
HAVE SAID. THAT THE COURT HAS
CREATED A PROBLEM THAT ONLY IT
CAN FIX. THEY CLEARLY DON'T SEE
THAT AS OPPRESSIVE WE'RE
FOLLOWING.
HE'S YOU JUST SAID WE'RE TOLD
IS
A PRECEDENT.
>>I SAID OVER THE PHONE
OF COURSE A BIG DEAL ISN'T IT
IS A PRECEDENT IT IS AN
IMPORTANT
PRECEDENT AS YOU POINTED OUT
THEIR RELIANCE INTEREST NOW
IN OBERGEFELL AS TO WHY
JUSTICES ALITO AND THOMAS HAVE
CALLED FOR ITS OVER
ROLLING IN THE RECENT OPINION
THAT
THEY ISSUED I CAN'T REALLY
SPEAK TO CALL IT A PROBLEM, YOU
KNOW WHAT THEY'RE
REFERRING TO.
>>WELL SENATOR BOOKER I I DON'T
KNOW WHAT JUSTICES THOMAS AND
ALITO WERE THINKING THAT YOU
HAVE TO
ASK THEM.
>>SO WE'RE NOW SEEING CASES
WERE AND AMERICANS ARE BEING
DENIED EQUAL ACCESS TO SOCIAL
SECURITY SURVIVORS BENEFITS.
ONE TEAM COUPLE IN ARIZONA WAS
TOGETHER FOR 43 YEARS GOT
MARRIED.
ONE OF THEM DIED 6 MONTHS LATER
AND NOW THE SURAT 5 AND SPRUCE
HAS BEEN
DENIED BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY
WERE MARRIED LONG ENOUGH AFTER
43 YEARS. TOGETHER IN LOVE.
THIS IS FINALLY THE
THE RULE OF EQUAL TREATMENT
THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID
DOWN.
>>IN OBERGEFELL COULD YOU
REPEAT THE FACTS
OF THIS.
>>THEY WERE THEY WERE THEY
WERE.
TOGETHER FOR 43 YEARS THE LAW
CHANGE TO ALLOW THEM TO MARRY
THE MARRIED ONE DIED
SOON AFTER. THEY'RE BEING
DENIED SURVIVOR
BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T
MARRIED LONG ENOUGH BECAUSE THE
LAW WRONGFULLY DENIED THEM THAT
EQUALITY.
>>SO THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL
QUESTION THAT WOULD HAVE TO
COME
UP AND BE DECIDED IN THE
CONTEXT OF A REAL CASE MEAN
IT'S PLAIN
THAT OBERGEFELL RECOGNIZES
THE FULL RIGHT OF SAME COUPLES
TO MARRY, BUT THE
QUESTION OF WHAT ARE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THAT FOR
BENEFITS WOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT WOULD COME UP WITH THAT.
>>BUT WHO ARE COURT LATER, BUT
THERE ARE SOME PRECEDENTS MEDIA
CAN ASK A
DIFFERENT QUESTION CAN A
HAIRDRESSER REFUSED TO SERVE AN
INTERRACIAL
COUPLES WEDDING BECAUSE THEY
DISAPPROVE OF RUSSIA
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES.
>>LOVING VERSUS VIRGINIA
FOLLOWS DIRECTLY FROM BROWN.
IT
MAKES UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ANY
ATTEMPT TO PROHIBIT OR FRIEND
FOR BIT
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.
>>COULD THEY REFUSE TO SERVE A
BLACK COUPLE'S WEDDING.
>>COULD A BAKER OR FLORIST
REFUSE TO.
>>I
TITLE 7 PROHIBITS ANY SORT OF
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
RACE BY PLACES OF PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATION.
>>HOW ABOUT INTERFAITH WINNING.
>>WELL SENATOR I FEEL LIKE
YOU'RE TAKING ME DOWN A ROAD OF
HYPOTHETICALS THAT
IS GOING TO GET ME INTO TROUBLE
HERE BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW I
COM AND HOW CASES WOULD BE
RESOLVED AND THEY SAID THAT
WHETHER THEY'RE EASY QUESTIONS
ARE HARD QUESTIONS. I CAN'T
DO THAT.
>>SO I'M NOT A LAWYER THAT YOU
ARE, BUT YOU SEEM TO HONOR THE
PRECEDENTS THERE ARE ENOUGH
TO PROTECT DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICANS
INTERRACIAL COUPLES. BUT YOU
STOP ON SEEING THAT ON THE
CRITICALLY ABOUT. PEOPLE
STOPPING ON RELIGIOUS
DISCRIMINATION
OR THE AGAINST A MUSLIM COUPLES
WEDDING OR INTERFAITH
WHETHER BOOK.
>>SENATOR I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT
TITLE 7 SAYS AS I'M SURE
YOU KNOW THIS TITLE 7 PROHIBITS
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
RACE ON THE
BASIS OF
ALL I CAN DO IS SAY REFER TO
THE STATUTE, BUT OF COURSE AS
TO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE
EVIDENCE TO SHOW
WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR
ENCOUNTER BETWEEN A CUSTOMER
AND A FLORIST OR
A BAKER VIOLATED TITLE 7 THAT
WOULD BE THE CASE THAT WOULD
HAVE TO COME UP,
YOU KNOW AS I DISCUSSED WITH
SENATOR SACKS WITH REAL
LITIGANTS LITIGATED ON A
FULL RECORD. SO I YOU'RE ASKING
A SERIES OF HYPOTHETICALS.
>>AND SOON HE WILL NOT
RESPOND WORKING FOR THE SAME
REASON 240 WILL NOT RESPOND
ABOUT WHETHER FLOORS CAN REFUSE
TO SERVE A SAME COUPLE.
WHAT.
>>IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ON YOUR
WAY TO TALKING
ABOUT MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AND
SOME OF THE CASES THAT ARE VERY
HOTLY CONTESTED IN WINDING
THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURTS
SINCE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
I'M NOT IN A POSITION.
WHEREAS AND ELICITING ANY VIEWS
THAT WOULD BEAR AND LITIGATION
THAT'S
VERY ACTIVE.
>>WELL, I GUESS YOU MAY BECOME
OR SIMPLY GO BACK TO.
THE QUESTION THAT BOTH I AND
AND SENATOR HIRONO ASK
YOU ABOUT. WHAT WHAT
YOU SAID, AND YOU DIDN'T MEAN
TO OFFEND ABOUT WHETHER IT'S
A CHOICE OR NOT THESE ABOUT OR
THE IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS
OF AN INDIVIDUAL LIKE
THE RACE.
I JUST WANT TO JUST CLOSE
BY SAYING THE STORY SOME FOLKS
IN
MY HOME COMMUNITY OF NEW JERSEY
EMILY. SO MESSAGE
AND MORE THEY'VE BEEN TOGETHER
FOR 51 YEARS THEY'VE RAISED
3 CHILDREN AT LAST COUNT AND I
THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF
PUTTING IT. THEY HAVE 18
GRANDCHILDREN AND
20 GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN YOU KNOW
FAMILIES
ARE TOO. BUT FOR A LONG TIME
THEY HAD TO KEEP THEIR
RELATIONSHIP AND THEIR LOVE
A SECRET. FINALLY ONE SAME
MARRIAGE WHEN SOME ONE SAME
SESSION UP MARRIAGE BECAME
LEGAL, THEY
GOT MARRIED. AND THANKS TO THE
SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN
OBERGEFELL THEY CAN NOW ENJOY
THEIR FULL RIGHTS. JUST BEAR
YOU'RE
ASKING NAZIS. SENATE AGREED TO
HAVE YOU REPLACE JUSTICE
GINSBURG WHICH WOULD TILT THE
BALANCE OF THE COURT FURTHER TO
THE RIGHT.
REMEMBER THAT IT WAS JUSTICE
GINSBURG WARNED AGAINST
FULL MARRIAGE FOR SOME COUPLES
AND SKIM MILK MARRIAGE FOR
OTHERS. LIKE SO
MANY COUPLES IN MY STATE OF NEW
JERSEY AND AROUND
THE COUNTRY. EMILY CHAN OR
WORRIED ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
AT THE SUPREME COURT STARTS TO
PEEL BACK. SOME OF THEIR HARD
FOUGHT RIGHTS. THEY BELIEVE
THAT
THEIR LOVE SHOULD BE VALUED BY
THEIR GOVERNMENT AND EQUALLY AS
A LOVE OF ANY OTHER PEOPLE THEY
BELIEVE. A LOT OF THE RIGHTS
THAT THEY
NOW ENJOY WHICH WERE DENIED IN
THE PAST TO AFRICAN AMERICANS
EVEN.
TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES THEY
BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO PRESERVE THEM.
AND SO I
MY TIME'S EXPIRED BEEN VERY
GENEROUS AND AS HAS THE
TERMINAL ALLOWING ME TO GO
OVER. I'M GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THE
MORE TOMORROW.
THANK YOU SENATOR BOOKER, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
SENATOR BOOKER, A SECRET
THOUGH, THEN WE'LL 4 SEPARATE.
THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>>AND WE'RE FOR AWAY FROM
BEFORE I BEGIN I DO HAVE A
COUPLE
OF LETTERS I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT
FOR THE RECORD ONE FROM THE
SPEAKER OF THE IDAHO HOUSE
SCOTT
THAT T.
>>IN SUPPORT OF JUDGE BERETS
NOMINATION AND THE OTHER FROM
THE NATIONAL
SHOOTING SPORTS
FOUNDATION ALSO IN SUPPORT OF
THE NOMINATION, MISTER WITHOUT
OBJECTION. THANK YOU. AND
JUDGE BARRETT. I AM GOING
GET TO SOME NEW MATERIAL BUT A
LOT OF WHAT I DO AT
THE BEGINNING WILL BE GOING
OVER THINGS YOU'VE
ALREADY SAID AND YOU MUST THINK
IT'S A DUMB.
WAIT TOO MUCH HAD THE SAME WAY
TOO MANY TIMES.
I'M GONNA.
>>JUST BE SURE THAT WE GET SOME
THINGS NAILED DOWN ONCE MORE.
BEFORE I DO THAT THOUGH THERE'S
BEEN A LOT SAID TODAY THAT
REALLY NEEDS TO BE RESPONDED
THIS WON'T BE A QUESTION TO YOU
THESE FIRST 2 I'M JUST GOING TO
QUICKLY RESPOND TO A COUPLE
OF THEM OF THE FIRST WAS ONE OF
MY SENATOR
WHITE HOUSE.
SPENT A VERY LONG PRESENTATION
TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT
THERE'S A
LOT OF DARK MONEY
OUT THERE TRYING TO CONTROL THE
SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS IN
THIS WHOLE PROCESS
AND THE SITUATION THAT WE FACE
TODAY.
I JUST WANT TO SET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT. THESE
ARE ACTUAL RECORD STRAIGHT.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY SOME
STATISTICS THAT SENATOR CRUZ
QUICKLY WENT THROUGH WHEN HE
SPOKE.
BUT THE OTHER IS DARK MONEY IN
POLITICS, I THINK THAT
WE SHOULD GET OUT WHAT THIS
MEANS IS THAT THE MONEY THAT
WHERE YOU DON'T
KNOW WHO THE REAL DONORS ARE
BEHIND THE ENTITY THAT'S MAKING
THESE EXPENDITURE. FORTUNATELY
WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF THAT OUT
BUT THEY'RE STILL
OUT THERE. THE IMPRESSION
THOUGH THAT WAS
LEFT WAS THIS DARK MONEY IS ON
ONE SIDE. THE
REALITY IS IF YOU LOOK AT OPEN
SECRETS DOT ORG THAT THIS DATA
IS FROM
2016 BUT I'VE SEEN THAT EVEN
LATER IN
2018. AND IT'S JUST THE SAME
KIND OF STATISTICS AND
THAT IS. THAT
REALLY THE SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY
OF THE DARK MONEY IS BEING
SPENT
IN FAVOR OF THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE
RATHER THAN THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE TOP 20
ORGANIZATIONS
AND INDIVIDUALS. THAT THEY
IDENTIFIED WHO CONTRIBUTE TO
SUPER PACS WHO THEN UTILIZE THE
MONEY IN THE WAY THAT WAS
TALKED ABOUT.
14 OF THEM GIVE EXCLUSIVELY
TO DEMOCRATS OF THE TOP 10 ON
THAT LIST
ONLY 2 GIVE
TO REPUBLICANS. SO AND THE
TOTALS BY THE WAY WERE A
422 MILLION DOLLARS IN THIS
REPORT GOING TO DEMOCRATS.
189 MILLION DOLLARS GOING TO
REPUBLICANS SO YEAH, THERE'S
MONEY IN
THE SYSTEM WHICH WE CAN'T
IDENTIFY
LOT OF THIS MONEY BY THE WAY IS
GOING INTO ADS AGAINST YOU
JUDGE BEAR. BUT
WE CAN'T WE CAN'T GET IT ALL
OUT YET I THINK WE OUGHT TO GET
IT OUT, BUT LET'S NOT TRY TO
CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS
IS JUST SOME ONE-SIDED
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S HAPPENING
IN
THE COUNTRY. THE OTHER THING I
WANT TO GO OVER FIRST BEFORE WE
GET INTO
MY QUESTIONS
IS THE SAME THING I WENT OVER
YESTERDAY BECAUSE THE
ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT
SOMEHOW WE ARE RUSHING
THIS CASE
AND SOMEHOW WE ARE VIOLATING
THE HISTORY AND THE PRECEDENT
OF THE WAY THE
SENATE OPERATES AND THE WAY THE
PRESIDENCY OPERATES WHEN THERE
IS A VACANCY IN AN ELECTION
YEAR.
SOME PEOPLE COUNTIES THINGS
DIFFERENTLY
THERE ARE. THERE'S A STATISTIC
THAT
I WILL USE THAT WILL COUNT ALL
PRESENT ALL VACANCIES THAT
HAVE HAPPENED WHETHER THE
VACANCY OCCURRED IN THE
ELECTION YEAR OR WHETHER
IT JUST DIDN'T GET RESOLVED
UNTIL THE
ELECTION YEAR. BUT IT DOESN'T
MATTER WHERE YOU JUST TAKE THE
ONES THAT AROSE IN THE ELECTION
YEAR OR IF YOU
TAKE ALL OF THEM THAT WERE
RESOLVED IN THE ELECTION YEAR.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SAME
IT'S OVERWHELMING IN EVERY
SINGLE CASE.
THE SITTING PRESIDENT MADE A
NOMINATION.
IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE
SENATE WAS OF THE SAME PARTY AS
THE PRESIDENT.
I'M GOING TO USE THE ONE FOR
ALL OF THE NOMINATIONS THAT
ACTUALLY WERE DEALT WITH IN AN
ELECTION YEAR THERE WERE 29.
19 OF THEM.
WHEN THE PARTY WAS THE SAME AS
THE PRESIDENT. 17 OF THOSE 19
THE PARTY MOVED AHEAD WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S NOMINATION. AND THE
NOMINATION WAS CONFIRMED.
10 OF
THOSE TIMES. IT WAS WHEN THE
PARTY WAS NOT THE PARTY OF THE
PRESIDENT.
IN 9 OF THOSE CASES THE PARTY
THAT WAS NOT THE PARTY OF
THE PRESIDENT DECLINED TO
MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE NEXT
PRESIDENT
WAS ELECTED. THAT'S THE
PRECEDENT OF THE SENATE THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENED IN
2016 WHEN THE SENATE WAS OF A
DIFFERENT PARTY THAN
THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW WHEN
THE SENATE IS THE PARTY OF THE
PRESIDENT
AND THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND
THAT'S THE PRECEDENT IN
TERMS OF THE TIMING I WENT
THROUGH THE TIMING THEN
AS WELL I THINK YOU'RE HEARING
STARTED JUDGE BARRETT ON THE
16TH DAY FROM THE DAY YOU
WERE NOMINATED. AS THERE'S A
BUNCH OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME
COURT WHOSE
NOMINATIONS HEARINGS STARTED
SOONER THAN THAT INCLUDING
RUTH GINSBURG RUTH
BADER GINSBURG AND SO THE FACT
IS THAT THE NORMAL PROCEDURES,
APPROPRIATE TIMING AND
APPROPRIATE POLICY AND
PRECEDENT IS BEING FOLLOWED
HERE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
NOW HAVING MADE THOSE POINTS
ONCE AGAIN.
I WILL LIKE I SAID I WILL
GET INTO SOME NEW QUESTIONS FOR
YOU, BUT I'M GOING TO OVER A
LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU'VE
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE I
REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE JUST MAKE IT AS CLEAR
AS POSSIBLE. YOU'VE TALKED
ABOUT ORIGINALISM AND TEXTUAL
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THOSE 2 THINGS.
>>AND THE SAME BASIC APPROACH,
BUT WE USE ORIGINAL ISN'T
MOSTLY TO
REFER TO INTERPRETING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND TEXTUAL
IS AND WE USED TO REFER
TO INTERPRETING STATUTORY TEXT
BUT
THEY BOTH INVOLVED THE SAME
PRINCIPLE WHICH IS THAT LINE
COMES TO THE LAW.
AND INTERPRETS IT AS IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY
THOSE AT THE TIME
OF THAT EITHER ITS RATIFICATION
IN THE CASE OF THE CONSTITUTION
OR ITS ENACTMENT IN THE CASE OF
THE STATUTE
AND THAT A LOT REMAINS A LOT TO
IT'S LAWFULLY CHANGE THE
DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS EASE.
>>ALL RIGHT THANK YOU AND I
ASSUME YOU WOULD CONSIDER
YOURSELF BOTH AN ORIGINALIST
AND A TEXT TO I DO SENATOR
CRAIG.
AND YOU'VE QUITE A BIT ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT AND STARRY
DECISIS COULD YOU JUST ONCE
AGAIN TELL US WHAT
THAT IS MAYBE YOU COULD
MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT
IT MEANS AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL
AND AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL
SURE.
>>SO THERE ARE 2 KINDS OF
STARRY DECISIS
THERE IS HORIZONTAL STARTED AS
ISIS WHICH IS SAY THE SUPREME
COURT'S OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW
ITS
OWN PRECEDENT AND THEN THERE'S
VERTICAL STARTED US
ISIS WHICH IS MY OBLIGATION
RIGHT NOW ON THE
7TH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT SITS
ABOVE ME IN THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL HIERARCHY.
IT FOR POLITICAL PRESIDENT
THERE'S NO QUESTION I MEAN
I CAN'T. BUT THE SUPREME COURT
DOES
IT IT. YOU KNOW SETS THE
PRECEDENT A LOWER COURTS MUST
FOLLOW
IT RIGHT FOR
HORIZONTAL PRECEDENT FOR
EXAMPLE ON MY OWN COURT RIGHT
NOW IN THE 7TH CIRCUIT. THE
COURT THAT RENDERS A PRECEDENT
DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO
RECONSIDER
IT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
OTHERWISE AREAS DON'T GET FIXED
IN PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON WOULD
STILL BE A LOT OF LAND.
>>SO AND YOU WILL ENSURE TONY
WHAT ARE THOSE SIR COME WHAT
ARE THE RULES THERE WHEN YOU DO
HORIZONTALLY REVALUATIONS.
>>SURE SO WHEN A COURT DECIDES
WHETHER OR NOT OVERRULE A
PRECEDENT IT CONSIDERS FIRST OF
ALL. IS IT WRONG.
AND HOW
GRACIOUSLY WRONG AS IT YOU KNOW
THAT WE CAN SEE IN THE BROWN
VERSUS BOARD
OF EDUCATION DECISION HOW THAT
FACTOR PLAY
YOU ALSO CONSIDER RELIANCE
INTEREST BECAUSE AS I SAID
BEFORE SYTAS ISIS IS
SHORT FOR STAND BY THE THING
DECIDED AND DON'T DISTURB
THE CALM. SO COURTS DOT
RECKLESSLY GET IN THE BUSINESS
OF JUST
DURING UP.
YOU KNOW DISRUPTING PEOPLE'S
LIVES.
THE OTHER FACTORS COUNCIL IN
FAVOR OF
DOING IT. YOU CONSIDER WHETHER
THE LAW HAS DEVELOPED SINCE
THE PRESIDENT
IN A WAY THAT UNDERCUTS THE
FOUNDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
IT'S UP
PRESIDENT ITSELF. SAME FOR THE
FACTS.
YOU ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER THE
PRECEDENTS THAT
YOU SET HAS PROVED TO BE
WORKABLE FOR THE COURTS BELOW
YOU THAT MUST FOLLOW IT SO IN
MY CASE IN THE 7TH CIRCUIT THAT
WOULD MEAN THE
DISTRICT COURTS HAVE WE SAT OUT
AND ARTICULATION OF THE LAW IN
A CASE THAT LOWER
COURTS CAN ACTUALLY USE.
>>AND FIDE TO PARAPHRASE
HERE IF IF A JUDGE IN A WAR
ZONE SITUATION USER A SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE EVALUATING
SUPREME COURT.
PRESIDENT WE'RE A CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGE EVALUATING THE CIRCUIT
COURT'S PRECEDENT IF THEY FELT
THE PRESIDENT WAS WRONG.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
>>THAT IS NOT AN A.
AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM THE
RELIANCE ON THE OTHER ALL
FALLING INTO THE
RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE. BEFORE A
DECISION TO
ACTUALLY OVERRULE OR OVERTURN A
PRECEDENT IS MADE.
>>THAT'S TRUE AND THIS MIGHT BE
A GOOD
TIME SENATOR CRIPPLE FOR ME TO
MAKE ONE OTHER POINT ABOUT 4 IS
UNTIL STARR DECIDES THIS
DOCTRINE.
EARLIER AND I CAN'T REMEMBER
WHICH INTERCHANGE IT WAS.
SOMEONE WAS POINTING OUT
YOU KNOW THAT I SAID STARRY
DECISIS SHOULD HAVE WEAKER
EFFECT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT'S A
WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPAL OF
STARDUST ISIS DOCTOR IN ITSELF.
THE COURT HAS SAID
THAT IT IS SUPER
STRONG EFFECT TO PRECEDENT AND
STATUTORY CASES
BECAUSE CAN ALWAYS STEP IN AND
FIX ANY ERRORS OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION THE COURT
MIGHT MAKE.
BUT THE COURT ITSELF HAS
EXPRESSLY SAID
THAT IT IS WEAKER START US ISIS
EFFECT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL CASES BECAUSE
THE ONLY WAY TO REMEDY IN AREAS
BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SO
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR
THAT IS SIMPLY A RESTATEMENT OF
THE COURT'S OWN DOCTOR
AND THAT WASN'T SOMETHING I
INVENTED ALL RIGHT APPRECIATE
THAT
AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER
THAT THERE ARE SOME I THINK YOU
SAID 6 SUPER PRECEDENTS.
>>LET'S SAY I CAN'T REMEMBER
HOW MANY
ARE ON THE LIST BUT AS I
SAID IT'S IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SCHOLARSHIP.
THERE ARE SOME PRECEDENTS THAT
SCHOLARS HAVE IDENTIFIED AS
UTTERLY BEYOND QUESTION THAT NO
SERIOUS PERSON EVER CALLS FOR
THEIR OVERALL.
>>COULD YOU TO I THINK BROWN
VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION WOULD
BE ONE
OF THOSE.
>>MARBURY VERSUS MADISON WHICH
ESTABLISHES THE POWER OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
>>LET'S SEE
THAT CASES IT'S PROBABLY EASIER
FOR ME TO JUST IDENTIFY WITH
THE PRESIDENT STAND FOR OUR TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
TO REFUTE JUDGMENTS FROM
STATE COURTS. THE PROPOSITION
THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT APPLIES
ONLY TO
STATE ACTION. THE INCORPORATION
OF THE
4TH AMENDMENT AND BY
IMPLICATION THE OTHER BILLS OF
RIGHTS BILL
OF RIGHTS THE RIGHTS THE BILL
OF RIGHTS AGAINST THE STATES SO
THEY'RE THEY'RE
MOSTLY STRUCTURAL AND A
FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES YOU
KNOW, AND THEY'RE JUST SO
SETTLED NO ONE SERIOUSLY
CHALLENGES ALL RIGHT.
>>THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THAT I
THINK THAT THAT'S VERY HELPFUL
AND IN
THIS HEARING. YOU'VE BEEN ASKED
ABOUT AT LEAST 3 VERY.
SIGNIFICANT THE SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENTS AND YOU'VE BEEN
ASKED WHETHER YOU ARE
ASKED TO COMMIT TO
OVERTURN THEM
WHETHER YOU'VE EVEN HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE PRESIDENT OR HIS STAFF
ABOUT THE ONE AND I JUST WANT
YOU TO AGAIN GIVE YOUR ANSWER
ON THAT BECAUSE I WANT THIS TO
BE VERY CLEAR. ROE
V WADE HAVE YOU HAD ANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
OR WITH THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF
WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL ANYONE. AND HAVE YOU
MADE
ANY COMMITMENTS ABOUT HOW YOU
WOULD RULE ON ANY CASE DEALING
WITH THAT. NOT SENATOR
CREATE THEM. THANK YOU FROM THE
SAME SET OF QUESTIONS WITH
REGARD
TO ORDER OBERGEFELL.
>>IT HAD NO CONVERSATIONS WITH
ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF
ABOUT THAT CASE MY VIEWS OF IT
HOW I
WOULD RULE.
>>ALL RIGHT AND THEN THE
CURRENT CASE CALIFORNIA
BE TEXAS. NO CONVERSATIONS AT
ALL.
NOW YOU ALSO EARLIER TESTIFIED
THAT THERE'S
A DIS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A JUDICIAL DECISION
MAKING IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING
A JUDICIAL DECISION THE PROCESS
YOU WOULD MAKE AS A PROFESSOR
ONE WRITING AN ARTICLE OR WHAT
HAVE YOU CAN YOU JUST QUICKLY.
>>GET INTO THAT WITH ME.
>>SURE PROFESSOR
WHEN READING LAW REVIEW
ARTICLES ARE DOING ACADEMIC
CRITIQUE IS KIND OF A 10,000
FOOT LEVEL YOU KNOW YOU'RE
YOU'RE NOT IN THE TRENCHES LIKE
A
JUDGE'S BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT.
DECIDING IN THE CONTEXT OF A
REAL CASE WITH MILLIGAN'S IN
FRONT
OF YOU. THE ADVERSARIAL
PROCESS WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE
ON EITHER SIDE REHEAR ARGUMENTS
AND YOU
CONSULT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES
AND YOU WRITE YOUR OPINION
AND I THINK ONE THING IT'S
WORTH POINTING OUT ABOUT THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS
IS THAT I HAVE HAD THE
EXPERIENCE OF CHANGING
MY MIND AT VARIOUS POINTS ALONG
THE WAY I'VE GONE AND ORAL
ARGUMENT MORE THAN
ONCE THINKING. I WAS GOING TO
RULE ONE WAY AND THEN OR LIKE
IT'S CHANGED
MY MIND, I'M NOT INTO
CONFERENCE AND MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE CHANGED MY MIND.
I'VE EVEN CHANGE MY MIND AND
THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON ON
THE COURT. ONCE I STARTED
WRITING AN OPINION JUDGES SAY
IT
WON'T RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WHICH
MEANS WHAT
YOU THOUGHT WAS RIGHT WHEN YOU
STARTED
WRITING IT YOU REALIZE ACTUALLY
DIDN'T
REALLY WORK OUT. SO I THINK
THAT PROCESS AND THE FACT THAT
JUDGES KEEP AN OPEN MIND ALL
THE
WAY THROUGH IS EVIDENCE
JUDICIAL PROCESS REALLY
IS UNIQUE IN OUR SYSTEM IT IS
DIFFERENT ENTERPRISE THAN
ACADEMIC
CRITIQUE.
>>THANK YOU I'VE BEEN ABLE TO
OBSERVE THAT A LITTLE BIT A
CLERK ON THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT
OF THIS RAID ON THAT.
SO I'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE
THAT EXACT PROCESS IN EACH OF
THOSE STEPS THAT YOU TALKED
ABOUT TAKING PLACE.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT THAT'S HOW IT
HAPPENS WHEN IT'S DONE
PROPERLY.
I WANT TO GO TO 1 ONE MORE
SPECIFIC KIND OF PROCESS TYPE
THING TO MAKE SURE WE ALL
UNDERSTAND RIGHT AND
THAT'S RECUSAL. INTERESTING
LEIGH YOU'VE BEEN ASKED BY MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE
TO ASSURE THAT YOU HAVE MADE NO
COMMITMENTS ABOUT CASE LAW.
BUT THAT TO GIVE A COMMITMENT
ON RECUSAL YOU HAD SAID THAT
THERE IS A PROCESS
FOR RECUSAL AS WELL AND THAT
YOU WOULD FOLLOW THAT BUT COULD
YOU PLEASE LAY THAT OUT AGAIN
ONCE AGAIN FOR US.
>>YES, THE QUEUES ALYSSA
QUESTION OF LAW
BECAUSE 28 USC FOR 55 THE
RECUSAL STATUTE. ACTUALLY
OBLIGATES A JUDGE TO
RECUSE IN CERTAIN CASES OF
EITHER ACTUAL BIAS OR
PARENT BITES. AND THERE ARE
SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENTS INTERPRETING
THE RANGE OF A JUDGE'S
OBLIGATIONS UNDER
THAT STATUTE. AND ALSO YOU KNOW
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
IS
TO CONSULT AND I THINK
COLLABORATION AND CONSULTATION
AS I
SAID BEFORE
WITH OTHER JUSTICES IS THE
TYPICAL PRACTICE, ACCORDING TO
JUSTICE GINSBURG'S DESCRIPTION
OF IT.
SO IT IS A LEGAL QUESTION
THAT'S GOVERNED BY
STATUTE AND PRECEDENT SO IT'S
NOT ONE THAT I CAN MAKE AN
ADVANCE RESOLUTION. ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU.
NOW I WANT TO MOVE TO.
FRANKLY BACK TO CALIFORNIA TO
TEXAS OR TEXAS CALIFORNIA
BE TEXAS.
>>AND THE OF PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN
RAISED BY A NUMBER OF MY
COLLEAGUES HERE WE'VE HEARD A
LOT ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT YESTERDAY AND TODAY.
I SERVE ON THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE AS
WELL AS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AND SO THIS IS AN ISSUE I
REALLY CARE ABOUT A LOT.
I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT ENSURING
THAT
ALL INDIVIDUALS. THE
SPECIALLY IDAHOANS HAVE
AFFORDABLE QUALITY HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE. AND MAKING SURE
THAT THEY HAVE COVERAGE FOR
THEIR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT ONE THINKS
ABOUT THE OBAMA CARE
LEGISLATION.
REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE
ABOUT THE TOTALITY OF THE
SUCCESS OF OBAMACARE.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I
THINK SHOULD
BE REMEMBERED. BUT MANY OF THE
POLICIES IN OBAMACARE WERE
POLICIES THAT ON WHICH WE HAD
AGREEMENT.
BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS AS
WE MOVE FORWARD AT THAT TIME
TRYING TO CRAFT A HEALTH
CARE LAW. PEOPLE MAY RECALL
THIS WAS BEING NEGOTIATED IN
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR A
QUITE A WHILE BEFORE
PRESIDENT OBAMA PULLED BACK AND
THEN BROUGHT HIS OWN STATUTE
OUT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE HAD AGREEMENT WAS PROTECTING
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS
BACK THEN THERE WAS NO FIGHT
OVER THAT.
IN FACT I THINK EVERY SINGLE
U.S. SENATOR WANTS
TO PROTECT ACCESS TO COVERAGE
FOR PATIENTS WITH PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS, REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS. SO HERE WE ARE
NOW
TALKING ABOUT THE OBAMA CARE
LEGISLATION THAT WAS PUSHED
THROUGH THE SENATE WHEN THERE
SENATE AND A PRESIDENT OF THE
SAME PARTY AND THE ABILITY TO
AVOID A FILIBUSTER.
AND WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT
LEGISLATION.
CHALLENGING ONE PART OF THAT.
AGAIN YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS,
BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST TO SET UP
THIS NEXT QUESTION. THERE'S
A DIFFERENCE.
BETWEEN AN F I B VERSUS
CIVILIANS, THE CASE WHICH YOU
HAVE MADE SOME COMMENT AREA.
AND TEXAS
BE CALIFORNIA. CAN YOU TELL ME
THE DIFFERENCE.
>>AND IF I'D BE VERSUS A
VARIOUS INVOLVES
WHETHER THE MANDATE VIOLATED
THE KIND IT
WAS FRAMED INITIALLY AS CASE
ABOUT WHETHER THE I LOVE THE
CONVERSE PONCE AND THE
MAJORITY IN THAT CASE HAS NOT
DISCUSSED IN
EARLIER INTERCHANGES
INTERPRETED THE MANDATE
PROVISION TO BE ATTACKS RATHER
THAN A PENALTY.
AND CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID
THAT
HE THOUGHT IT WAS JUSTIFIED AS
AN EXERCISE OF CONGRESS'S
TAXING POWER THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN INVALID UNDER THE COM.
A NEW CASE THAT THE
SUPREME COURT IS POISED TO HEAR
ABOUT A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
THE MANDATE WHICH HAS NOW BEEN
ZEROED OUT.
THE
INITIAL QUESTION DOES RESEMBLE
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ICE
BECAUSE THE INITIAL QUESTION IS
IT'S SOMETHING ATTACKS. IF IT'S
$0. SO IS IT STILL ATTACKS IF
IT'S NOT
A TAX CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED UNDER
CONGRESS'S TAXING POWER.
SEVERABILITY EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THAT IS NO LONGER
A TAX BECAUSE IT
ZEROED OUT
THE NEXT QUESTION IS IF THAT
PROVISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS JUST
THAT PROVISION,
INACTIVE SO TO SPEAK WHERE DOES
THE
WHOLE STATUTE FAR AND THAT IS
THE QUESTION OF SEVERABILITY SO
IN
SOME RESPECT WHETHER ONE
THOUGHT THAT THE MANDATE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT.
WOULD HAVE TO BE FOUND THAT
WOULD HAVE TO BE IT ON SEVERAL.
>>AND HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T OF YOU
MAY NOT KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THIS BUT I
BELIEVE THAT IN THE LAST
SESSION OF THE SUPREME COURT 7
MEMBERS OF THE COURT SAID THAT
THERE'S A VERY
STRONG PRESUMPTION AGAINST IN
FAVOR
OF SEVERABILITY
RATHER THAN KNOCKING DOWN AN
ENTIRE STATUTE THAT IS TRUE IT
SAID AN
ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE.
>>AND IT WAS REITERATED EVEN
LAST TERM.
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN A MOOT
COURT CASE ON THIS
LAST MONTH. WE'RE IN THE LAST
NEAR FUTURE.
>>I DID.
>>SO YOU TELL US WHAT A MOOT
COURT CASES. SO WILLIAM AND
MARY
LAW SCHOOL.
>>AS EVERY YEAR BECAUSE ITS
SUPREME COURT PREVIEW AND IT
INCLUDES
COURT CASE.
THERE'S A LONG TRADITION OF
NEWPORT EXERCISES AT LAW
YES, SOMETIMES THEY'RE CALLED
MOCK TRIALS, SOMETIMES THEY'RE
CALLED THE COURT'S THAT'S
WHEN THERE
THE PILOT AND IT'S A CHANCE TO
EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY ON THE
LAW SCHOOL AS STUDENTS OR IN
THE CASE OF THIS WHEN
THE MARY PROGRAM, IT ALSO DRAWS
AND PEOPLE FROM
AROUND WILLIAMSBURG. SO THAT
THEY CAN SEE HOW THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS WORKS IN JUDGES OFTEN
PARTICIPATE IN THE
COURTS RIGHT.
>>JUDGES OFTEN PARTICIPATE IN
THE COURTS AND IN THIS
PARTICULAR ONE THERE WERE
MAYBE.
>>COMPRISING THE PANEL.
CONFERENCE ABOUT SEVERAL OTHER
EVENTS THAT
COURT INVOLVED PANEL WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE A MOM
ARGUMENT FOR THIS CASE AND THEY
WERE ABOUT 4 A COUPLE
LAW PROFESSORS AND SOME
JOURNALISTS WHO ARE ON
THE PANEL WITH
FLESHING OUT THE THAT
WE DID IT BY ZOOM BECAUSE OF
THE PANDEMIC THAT SO THAT
STUDENTS COULD SEE HOW THE
PROCESS MIGHT LOOK.
>>THE MOOT COURT DECIDE.
>>PREFACE THIS SENATOR CRAIG BY
SAYING IT WAS AN
EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE UNDERSTAND
IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR TO THE
AUDIENCE BOTH AT THE OUTSET.
IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM AND
THEN OUTSIDE
THAT THIS DID IT
IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO REFLECT
THE
ACTUAL ABUSE OF ANY OF THE
PARTICIPANTS AND NOR COULD IT
BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS WAS.
YOU'RE NOT READING THE BRIEFS
DIVING THAT
THE DOW
AND YOU KNOW A LOT OF TIMES
PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR VOTES IN
THE DELIBERATION ROOM JUST FOR
THE SAKE OF MIXING IT UP AND
MAKING IT INTERESTING I
UNDERSTAND I APPRECIATE YOU
MAKE AND I JUST I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THE CONTEXT. THE VOTE
WAS IN THAT.
PANEL THE MAJORITY SAID THAT
THE MANDATE
WAS NOW NOW A PENALTY AND WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT SEVERAL.
I THINK THERE WAS
ALSO A GROUP IN A MINORITY WHO
SAID THERE WAS NO STANDING.
TO BE HONEST NOW I CAN'T
REMEMBER AND MAYBE MAYBE
THERE IS. I COULD BE WRONG
ABOUT I FEEL LIKE THERE'S MAYBE
ANOTHER MINORITY THAT SAID.
IT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
HOW DID YOU VOTE THAT
I PUT IT TO SAY THAT IT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BUT SEVERAL.
>>ALL RIGHT, SO YOU VOTED IN
FAVOR THE ONE
CLUE WE MIGHT HAVE AS TO YOUR
THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE EVEN
THOUGH THIS WAS JUST
AN EXERCISE AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE
THE WHOLE CASE PRESENTED IN AND
I
I JUST SAY THAT TO THE VIEWERS,
THE ONE CLUE, WE HAVE IS.
YOU'RE REALLY IN THIS MID
COURT CASE AND I THINK THAT'S
KIND OF AN ANSWER
FRANKLY TO A LOT OF THOSE WHO
ARE RAISING
THE SPECTER THAT YOU'RE GOING
TO TRY TO TAKE THE HOME
AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT AWAY FROM EVERYONE
BECAUSE
OF THIS VERY NARROW CASE THAT
IS IN FRONT OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
>>I DO WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR
SENATOR GRATEFUL FOR THE RECORD
THAT IT
WASN'T DESIGNED TO REFLECT MY
ACTUAL VIEW SO TO THE
EXTENT THAT PEOPLE THINK I
MIGHT HAVE BEEN
SIGNALING TO THE PRESIDENT OR
ANYONE ELSE WHAT MY VIEWS ON
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OR.
THEY COULD TO TAKE IT A SIGNAL
FROM THAT SO I UNDERSTAND I
WASN'T TRYING TO SIGNAL
ANYTHING BECAUSE IT WAS
AN MOT.
>>IT WAS A MARK CASE, IT WAS A
MOOT COURT I UNDERSTAND THAT.
LET ME JUST GO INTO A COUPLE
OF OTHERS OF OTHER
ISSUES HERE. IN FACT I CAN HIT
VERY FAST. SENATOR ERNST
MENTIONED THE ORCHARD
HILL VERSUS ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS ON THE
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
THAT IS A BIG DEAL IN IDAHO
AND FRANKLY IN MOST OF THE
WESTERN UNITED STATES THAT MOST
OF THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
I
APPRECIATED YOUR
YOU'RE REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND
TELL YOU I'M NOT GOING TO ASK A
QUESTION ABOUT IT I APPRECIATE
YOUR RULING. I AM GOING TO ASK
YOU A QUESTION
ABOUT THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE YOU
MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO RESPOND TO THIS WHAT
WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE
CHEVRON DOCTRINE IS.
>>SURE
I GOT INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT
WAS SENATOR ERNST THE CHEVRON
DOCTRINE IS THE
DOCTRINE THAT WHEN A STATUTE
IS CLEAR AND THAT'S AND OF CASE
BUT IF CONGRESS PASSES A
STATUTE THAT'S GIVING AN
AGENCY AUTHORITY THAT'S
DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND
THERE'S AMBIGUITY IN
THAT STATUTE. THEN THE COURT
WILL TREAT THAT
AMBIGUITY AS A DELEGATION TO
THE STATUTE A DELEGATION TO THE
AGENCY TO FILL IN
THE DETAILS.
>>YEAH AND AND I'LL JUST TELL
YOU I DISAGREE WITH
THAT DOCTOR. I THINK THAT THE
COURTS OUGHT TO HAVE THE
ABILITY
TO INTERPRET THE STATUTE AND IF
IT'S AMBIGUOUS THEY SHOULD
INTERPRET IT AS BEST
THEY CAN AND THAT THE
THE INTERPRETER IN OUR SYSTEM
SHOULD NOT BE THE AGENCY THAT
IS ENFORCING
THE STATUTE. I THINK THE COURTS
SHOULD OVERSEE THIS. THAT'S
JUST
MY OPINION. SO THE
QUESTION THAT I'VE YOU PROBABLY
CAN'T ANSWER IS WHAT'S YOUR
OPINION.
YOU'RE RIGHT. I CAN ANSWER
OKAY.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I JUST HAD ANOTHER COUPLE
OF QUICK QUESTIONS THAT I WAS
GOING TO GO INTO THE HELLER
CASE I WILL ASK YOU OF TELLING
WHAT YOU WOULD DO YOU BELIEVE
THE BASIC RULING OF HELLER IS.
>>THE BASIC RULING OF HUYLER IS
THAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
FOR SELF-DEFENSE.
>>SO IF I WERE JUST TO
CHARACTERIZE IT AS THAT THE
HELLER CASE REAFFIRMED THAT THE
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS ONE
OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN THE
BILL OF RIGHTS
TO INDIVIDUALS THAT IS WHAT
HELLER HOUSE THAT'S WHAT
HILLARY THOUGH.
OKAY YOU KNOW I I DO HAVE A
NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
WHICH WERE JUST KIND
OF SOFTBALLS.
>>MAYBE YOU DESERVE SOFTBALLS
INSTEAD.
>>I'LL GIVE YOU
THE BREAK. AND YOU CAN HAVE
THAT TOO SO YOU CAN HAVE THE
LAST 5 MINUTES
OF MY TIME AREA WHERE YOU'LL
GET DONE
5 MINUTES SOONER. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR BEING WILLING TO
DO THIS
YOU ARE AN OUTSTANDING NOMINEE
AND I'M VERY GLAD TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU SENATOR
CRAIG M. THANK YOU SENATOR
WITH GOODWILL
IN MIND. WE'LL BREAK AND WE'LL
COME SAY
6.50.
>>AND GET A SPOT 30 MINUTES
GRAB A BITE AND WE'LL START
WITH SENATOR HARRIS WHEN WE GET
THAT.
TO CATHOLICISM WOULD
SOMEHOW INFLUENCE THE WAY SHE
VOTED IN CASES.
I HOPE SHE WILL GET UP AND SAY
EXACTLY WHAT JOHN F. KENNEDY
SAID WHEN HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT
IN 1960, HE IS AN AMERICAN
PUBLIC SERVANT FIRST AND A
CATHOLIC SECOND.
HE TAKES INDIGO TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, NOT IMPORT HIS OR
HER RELIGIOUS RELEASED INTO THE
PUBLIC DUTIES.
I THINK JUDGE BARRETT HAS BEEN
VERY CLEAR THAT IS WHAT SHE
WILL DO.
I HOPE THAT DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
DON'T FOLLOW THAT PATH AGAIN.
>> BACK ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A
GOOD CHANCE THIS CASE REALLY
MAY NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH WIPING OUT THE ENTIRE ACT.
CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT
SEVERABILITY?
>> EVEN THE YOU MIGHT STRIKE
DOWN PARTS OF THE OBAMA CARE
LAW, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE
WHOLE STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>> THAT IS NOT THE ONLY
HEALTHCARE PLAN PUT FORTH BY
CONGRESS AND CAN JUMP BACK IN,
NO MATTER WHAT THE COURT DOES.
>> THIS IS UP TO CONGRESS.
EVEN IF THEY RULE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY ON THE
DIFFERENT PARTS OF OBAMA CARE,
THAT IS NOT A POLICY IDEA ON
WHETHER IT IS A GOOD IDEA OR A
BAD IDEA ON WHETHER OR NOT TO
HAVE A NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM.
BARRETT MADE A STATEMENT , LET
ME BE CLEAR, IT IS NOT MY JOB
TO DECIDE IF IT IS A GOOD
POLICY OR BAD POLICY, IT IS
JUST HER JOB TO CALL BALLS AND
STRIKES AND DECIDE ON WHAT THE
BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS FOR
AMERICANS IS UP TO CONGRESS.
>>> FINALLY TONIGHT,
DETERMINATION, STRENGTH AND
GRACE, A FEW OF THE WORDS THE
McCAIN FAMILY USED TO DESCRIBE
ROBERTA, THE MATRIARCH OF THE
FAMILY.
>> SHE DIED AT 108 YEARS OLD.
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW CINDY SAYS SHE
COULD AND ASKED FOR A BETTER
ROLE MODEL AND FRIEND.
HER GRANDDAUGHTER SAID SHE
MISSED HER OWN DAUGHTER MEETING
WITH HER.
>> ROBERTA WILL BE BURIED NEXT
TO HER HUSBAND AT ARLINGTON
NATIONAL CEREMONY
– [Narrator] Since the
dawn of our nation,
nearly 50 million
Americans have offered
to lay down their lives,
to protect our freedom to vote.
A sacrifice Jesus Christ
himself demonstrated
and calls, "The Greatest
Love one can show another."
Yet in the past six
presidential elections,
barely more than 1/2 of all
eligible voters have voted.
Please join in honoring
our heroes' greatest love
and ultimate sacrifice
by voting this November 3rd.
(upbeat music)
– Welcome to "The
Prayer Link" everyone,
I'm Wendy Griffith.
– I'm Charlene Aaron.
– Hey Char.
– Hi Wendy.
– Great to see you.
Well, we have a really
cool show today.
We wanna tell people really
what "Prayer Link" is all about.
It is about the power of prayer
from what is
happening in the news
to what is happening
in your community.
We try to highlight what God
is doing and his mighty power.
– Amen, and today we wanna
focus on praying for you.
Maybe you need a
physical healing,
or a financial miracle,
so we wanna petition the
Lord on your behalf today,
so thank you so much
for watching today.
– Well our first story is
an incredible testimony
to the power of prayer.
After Seth Alfaro took a
flying leap off a building
doctors told his
parents he might die.
– That's right, but he
survived the 20 foot fall,
but later an MRI
showed that Seth
had suffered something
called brain shearing
and his parents were told
that he'd never be normal again.
– [Announcer] It had been an
unusually warm February day
in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
when Nate Wybenga
and some friends
went skateboarding downtown.
– Before I knew
it Seth was like,
"hey, like you know,
I'm gonna climb on
top of this building,"
and then another one
of my friends, Hunter,
also was like, "hey, I'll
go up there with ya."
– [Announcer] Seth
Alfaro and another friend
wanted to catch the sunset,
but when they got to the top
Seth decided to jump down
to the adjacent building, an
abandoned empty auto shop.
– And before you knew
it we heard like a bang
and Hunter was screaming
at the top of his lungs.
– [Hunter] This dude
literally jumped off there
and is down 14 feet, dude,
Seth, are you all right?
– [Announcer] Nate and the
others broke into the shop
to find Seth lying on the floor
unconscious and
fighting for breath.
– [Hunter] He jumped the roof
and literally fell 14 feet.
– We knew it was very serious.
There was the thought that
like he might not make it.
(sirens screeching)
– [Announcer] They called 911
and Seth was taken to
Spectrum Health Center
in critical condition.
Soon after his parents,
Christopher and Christine,
were met by a police
officer at their home.
– Then the first
thing she said was,
"Seth Alfaro had
a bad accident."
And my first thought
was that he was dead.
– [Announcer] They
rushed to the ER
where a trauma doctor
told them what happened.
– He told us that he
had fallen about 25 feet
and that he had
bleeding in the brain,
they had already
done a CAT scan.
They hadn't been able to
get any response from him.
I said, "could he
die from this,"
and he said, "yes, he could."
– [Announcer] Doctors also
said if he did survive
the odds were against
a full recovery.
Seth was sedated and
put in a cold-dark room
to try to reduce the
swelling on the brain.
– They said, "there's
nothing we can do
for the damage that's
done from the fall.
They said our job now is
to keep the swelling down
to keep him alive."
And I just my head
down and I said,
"Lord, you gotta help
me, I can't do this."
– That's all we did was pray
nonstop, I mean, nonstop.
I paced the room and
it was just prayers
after prayers after prayers.
– [Announcer] Over
the next several days
Christine's sister
kept friends and family
updated on Facebook.
– I like to think of it
as this wave of faith
that just held us up and
it was like immediately
everybody jumped on a miracle.
– It was some of those
posts, some of those prayers,
you didn't feel
like you were alone
you just felt like you
were surrounded by prayer.
– [Announcer] Eventually
doctors felt Seth would survive,
now the family pray
for a full recovery.
– I did worry
for sure about what–
– What kind of life
he would have.
– What kind
of life he'll have,
how much of Seth,
will we ever really
see Seth again?
– No.
– [Announcer] A week later
the swelling had
gone down enough
for doctors to do an MRI.
The results showed
extensive brain shearing.
– We heard shearing,
that's all I heard,
he didn't say
anything else I knew,
okay, now we're looking at
the worse-case scenario.
– [Announcer] Dr.
Sam Ho explains.
– Well shearing is almost
like you're sandpaper,
you're shear, so like the
brain torsion and so on.
So the mental function
is not gonna be good.
You're affecting the speech,
you're affecting the processing.
People with this type of
picture generally don't do well.
– [Announcer] Doctors
told Chris and Christine
they should start looking
at longterm care
facilities for their son.
Still, the family continued
asking God for a miracle.
– We're not a people in despair
and so it was important
to us, as a family,
to just rest in what, you know,
all things work for the good
of those who love and serve
and are called to his plan,
that was the mentality.
– [Announcer] Doctors started
bringing Seth out of sedation
looking for any
signs of healing.
– First began with him
kind of having slits,
you know, just barely,
he'd open his eyes.
We're like, "hey Seth,
how are you doing,"
and then he'd close his eyes.
– [Announcer] As each day passed
they brought with them
new signs of hope.
– He was reaching
for some of us,
like his nephews he'd
put his arm around 'em.
When I was sitting on
his bed he grabbed me
and hugged me and
that as like amazing.
– [Announcer] After two
weeks Seth was transferred
to the Mary Free
Bed Rehab Center.
His progress was so rapid
his doctors couldn't keep up.
– The physical
therapist was like,
"I don't even know
how to plan for him."
"Like I'll see him one day,
make a plan for the next day,
I get there the next day
he's already past it."
– To be able to recover
in such a fast pace itself
is already amazing, but to the
extent of how he recovered,
and the rate that he
recovered, is incredible.
– [Announcer] On March 30, 2017,
only 6 1/2 weeks
after his accident
Seth walked up the
steps to his home
on his way to a full recovery.
– They expected me to
be at Mary Free Bed,
or the rehabilitation center,
for 10 weeks at least
and then go on to
assisted-care living
and I left in four weeks,
I was jogging out of the
hospital (chuckling).
Prayer does so much more
than you could like
ever even imagine.
I just thank God every
day, "oh my goodness,
like thank you," you know.
– [Announcer] Today Seth
has no residual issues
from the fall, only
a renewed faith
in the one who saved him.
– God knew when he healed
Seth he was also answering
hundreds of thousands
of people's prayers
because he knew then what
would come of it later
and how many people he
could reach through it
and that's amazing.
– That was the other
part of the miracle
was the body of believers
surrounding a hurting family
and surrounding us with prayers
to get us through
this time, you know,
that's the thing
I'm thankful for.
– God like is a miracle
and I don't know
I just keep saying
like I'm so blessed,
but like it was nothing
I did, that was all God.
– It was nothing I
did, it was all God.
– I love this story Wendy
and what came to my mind
as I'm listening to the story
is the scripture that says,
you know, I am the
God of all flesh,
is there anything
too hard for me?
– Yes, that's so true.
Well there's nothing–
– Amen.
– Nothing to hard for God
and I know a lot of
people watching right now
you need a miracle.
You might not have fallen 20
feet and be in the hospital,
but nonetheless you're
asking God for a miracle.
Maybe it's a healing you've
been waiting a long time
to see manifest and we wanna
believe with you for that,
maybe it's a financial miracle
that you need right now,
maybe it's a job, whatever it is
we are gonna stop right now
and pray for you and your loved
ones and for your miracle.
– Amen.
– I'll start, Lord we just wanna
thank you–
– Yes.
– That you are the
God of miracles.
Lord it just encourages
our faith so much
when we see the power
of prayer working
to save this young man
when the doctors thought
there was no hope you looked
down from heaven and said,
"that's my son," and
you breathed on him
and he came back.
Lord, you do nothing,
the Bible says,
the prayers of the righteous
availeth much–
– Yes.
– Not little and you do
nothing without prayer, God,
so we just thank you right now.
We can, Charlene and
I come in agreement
right now–
– Yes, yes.
– For those watching right now
who need a miracle
in their bodies.
Wherever you are just
put your hands on–
– Healing Lord.
– Just put hand on that
part of your body right now.
– Healing Lord.
– And Lord I just ask you Lord
to breathe on them,
breathe on them Lord,
let today be the day, the
day of their healing God.
– So Lord–
– Yes.
– We just thank you there's
nothing too hard for you.
Lord we break off
disappointment,
we break off hope deferred,
because Lord you are a
God of appointed times
and Lord we declare
and agree that today
is an appointed time
of someone's healing–
– Yes.
– Who's watching right
now in Jesus' name.
– And Father I just
sense that you're saying
that you want people's faith
to just come up
to another level.
– Yes.
– So Lord I just speak
right now that people's
faith is rising
because they heard the
testimony of this young man,
Father God, and I just thank you
that those who've been
afraid to believe Lord,
that today is fear
broken off of them
in the name of Jesus and
they will believe you
for what doctors
said cannot be done.
– Hallelujah.
– Father I thank you
for a new report from the doctor
that will confirm Lord your
word that they are healed,
that their loved one
will live and not die
and declare the works of
the Lord Jesus Christ.
We thank you right now for
your anointing, Father God,
just saturating those
who are watching
throughout the airwaves God.
We thank you for reaching
people God in hospitals,
and in prisons, and
nursing homes, God,
we thank you for lives
being restored God,
arthritis being just
released from people God.
– Yes.
– In the name of Jesus.
We thank you for
your healing power,
Jesus, you are the same
yesterday, today, and forever,
you change not, you're
still the God of miracles.
Thank you for healing
in Jesus' name.
– Amen, thank you Lord.
Thank you Lord, all right,
well coming up a young woman
who had an 18-pound tumor
sitting on her uterus
and was clinging to
a promise from God.
See how her faith helped
deliver miracle after miracle
plus we'll be praying for
you again so don't go away.
– I had sharp pains,
burning, spasms
and it was the most
excruciating pain.
This was probably the lowest
point of my entire life
on my knees and there's Pat.
– Like a hot breath of air
is just burning
through your esophagus
and God is healing
you right now.
– That was it, no more spasms,
I was just weeping and
weeping like I haven't wept
I think ever, but it was joy
because it was a
moment of deliverance.
(upbeat music)
– Natalie Valcarcel
was not pregnant
but she certainly
looked like she was.
For more than five years she
had a massive fibroid tumor
inside her that kept
growing and growing.
– That's right, and doctors
kept telling Natalie
the prognosis that
she needed surgery,
but instead she decided to
rely on a promise from God.
– I had been having
pain in my stomach
and it would be so bad
that it would kinda
put me to the floor.
– [Announcer] Doctors
couldn't find the source
of Natalie Valcarcel's
occasional,
but intense bouts
of abdominal pain.
In 2005 two months
before her wedding
one of those attacks
sent her to the ER
where an ultrasound revealed
a three centimeter fibroid
tumor on her uterus.
– She assured me that women
have this all the time
and that it's not a big deal.
So since she didn't
worry about it,
I didn't worry about it either.
– [Announcer] But the
tumor started causing
more and more discomfort.
So, months after
her wedding to Paul
she went in for surgery
to have it removed.
30 minutes later the surgeon
came out to tell Paul
the tumor had grown from
three centimeters to 15.
– She showed me two photos
and it looked like the size
of maybe like a cantaloupe
and she points to
this little bump
on this cantaloupe-looking
tumor and says,
"you see that little bump
that's actually her uterus."
The tumor is completely
encompassing the uterus
so she says,
"there's just no way
to be able to remove the tumor
without having to
remove the uterus.
– [Announcer] They
stopped the procedure
and the couple went
home to discuss
whether to go through
with the hysterectomy.
A few days later
her doctor called
insisting that it
was her only option.
– "Don't hold onto any
hope for having children
it is impossible and this
tumor needs to be removed,
it's very dangerous, we just
need to do this hysterectomy."
Right when she told me that
I hung up and I was mad,
I was angry.
I didn't like that that was
being taken away from me.
I went to the Lord
right away and I said,
"God, what is your will
in this, what do you want,
what do you want to do?"
– I told Natalie, I said,
"you know I can believe
the Lord will take this
tumor completely away
however he wants to do it,
however he's gonna do it,
you have to decide for yourself
what you're able to believe for
and I'm gonna believe with you."
– [Announcer] Natalie says
God reminded her of Psalm 128,
the blessing that was
read at their wedding.
She looked it up and
one verse stood out.
– "Your wife will be
as a fruitful vine,
in the innermost
parts of her home,
and she will see her
children around her table
like olive plants," and then
I was like, that is for me
and I held onto it and
I didn't let it go.
– [Announcer] Natalie
declined the hysterectomy.
For the next five years the
couple tried to get pregnant
as the tumor continued to grow.
It got so large people
thought she was pregnant.
– I would just say,
"no, I'm not pregnant,
it's a fibroid tumor,"
and they're just like,
"oh, I'm so sorry,
I'm so sorry,"
and I said, "no, I
know what I look like
I am believing for a miracle
and I'm waiting for a promise."
"God has promised me that
I would have a child."
– [Announcer] Meanwhile
doctors kept insisting
she have the procedure
because now the mass
was pressing into her organs
and could cause kidney
or heart failure.
With the prayer and support
of family and friends
Natalie and Paul constantly
asked God for guidance.
– I asked him specifically,
"do I do the hysterectomy
or I don't," and he said, "no,"
and every time I went
to the lord regarding it
he told me, "no.".
I had times where
it was really hard
and I just went on my
face before the Lord
until I got peace back again.
And when I got that
peace I was so confident
that the Lord was in this.
– It's not easy, it never is,
when it's walking by faith
and just really the Lord
doing it through you
the less and less you really
consider your abilities
and just rely on his.
– [Announcer] Then
one Sunday at church
Natalie stopped to greet her
pastor before taking her seat.
Later in the
service he announced
that God had revealed
something to him.
– He said, "this girl
doesn't even know
that I'm talking
about her right now,"
and he says, "but
when I shook her hand
the Lord said, pregnant."
And he turned to me and he
said, "Natalie, this is you,"
and he says, "and the
Lord says to you right now
nothing's impossible with him."
– [Announcer] Then
in April 2011,
while out with Paul
on her birthday,
Natalie believed the
impossible had come true.
– She's like, "you know,
I think I wanna go home,
as a matter of fact let's
go stop by the Rite Aid
and get a pregnancy test,"
and I'm like, "what,"
(chuckling) "pregnancy test?"
– [Announcer] Just
as Natalie suspected
the test was positive.
– I was ecstatic.
I was just like I knew he
would do it (laughing),
I knew he would follow through.
– [Announcer] But with the tumor
putting Natalie and
the baby at risk
she started seeing
Dr. Douglas Montgomery
who specialized in
high-risk pregnancies.
He made sure the
couple understood
what those risks were.
– We would lose the baby,
or have an extreme
premature birth of the baby,
or have a medical
complication of Natalie
where we can't
continue the pregnancy,
her life's in jeopardy,
the baby's previable,
we need to deliver the baby
to save Natalie's life.
– [Announcer] Then at 28 weeks
one of many possible
complications arose.
Natalie developed a
blood clot in her leg.
– And it was at that point that
I was concerned for her life
because if that blood clot
were to break off
and go to her lungs
it was large enough
where she could die
from what we call a
saddle pulmonary embolus
and so that was very
concerning to me at that time.
– So even though I'm
getting in the natural,
all these things are
going to happen to you,
you're gonna die, it
doesn't look good,
it doesn't, the
Lord's telling me,
"no, you're not going
to die, you are healthy,
you are whole."
– [Announcer] Dr. Montgomery
decided to transfer Natalie
to the ICU at Los
Angeles Medical Center
where she would
be monitored 24/7
in case the clot broke loose.
For now he put her on
a mild blood thinner
to keep it from getting worse.
– He told me that he
didn't want me to die
but that's what
it's looking like
and I told him, "Dr. Montgomery,
I'm not going to die."
"I did not come this far
for this to end this way."
"The next time you'll see me
I will be holding
my baby tumor free."
– [Announcer] Once there
Paul stayed by her side
fasting and praying for
his wife and unborn child.
– I have to get before the Lord
because I don't know what to do.
I know what I feel
the Lord is saying,
I know what the
doctor's are saying,
and then I feel the tug and
pull of faith versus fear.
– [Announcer] After two weeks
one of Natalie's doctors came in
with results from an
ultrasound, the clot was gone.
– So when she told me, "oh,
that Heparin must've worked,"
and I said, "but you told me
that it would not take
the blood clot away
you told me it would just
keep it from getting bigger,"
and she's like, "I don't know,
I don't know what happened,"
and I said, "I
know, it was God."
– [Announcer] On
October 19, 2011
Heaven Faith Valcarcel
was born by a C-section
weighing three
pounds, 13 ounces.
– She was so real
and it was so God,
it was very surreal.
This has been done
completely by his promise,
it was impossible
in the natural,
but in the spirit
it was possible.
– Just being a first-time dad,
being with the
little girl, it was,
you know, it was awesome.
– [Announcer] Two months later
Natalie had the hysterectomy
to remove the tumor
which had grown to 18 pounds.
– The real remarkable part
of this is Natalie's faith,
not through one pregnancy,
but yet through
five to six years
and then to take on all
of the negative comments
that come on with all the
risks that she had to face
and I really am struck
how God worked through her
and brought that, she
built my faith during this.
– [Announcer] Heaven is
a healthy little girl
who loves Jesus.
For Natalie and Paul
she's living proof
that God hears their prayers.
– We believe in a God
who had done greater and,
you know, he did it in
Jesus and he just says,
"just believe me, just
trust me, see me, know me,"
because we can't do
it all on our own.
– Jesus is the
answer to everything
and because I know I can
trust in his promises
I trusted him all the way.
He's the only one
who can pull you through
something like this.
– Wow, what a powerful
story Charlene.
– I just wanna cry,
I just wanna cry
because it's so
powerful, it's so real,
God's power, his promises.
– She knew,
but see she grabbed hold of
that word from her wedding
that she was gonna
be a mother–
– She did.
– And a fruitful vine–
– She did.
– And she did not–
– Yes.
– Let go and she ended up
encouraging the doctor's faith
and everybody else
along the way.
– She did war with the word.
– There you go.
– She did war with the promise
and she literally birthed the
promise of God in her life.
– Amen.
– And that's what
God wants to do
he wants you to grab
hold of his word
and hold on to it and
fight with the word,
remind him of what he
has said in his word
and we're gonna
pray, amen Wendy.
– Amen, let's do it.
– I'll start off this time.
– Right.
– Thank you Jesus,
Lord we rejoice in just
this beautiful baby,
Lord God, little Heaven,
what a name Jesus.
(laughing)
>> IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE
OUTSIDE BUT I'VE LOST BUT I
REALLY THINK THIS HAS BEEN A
VICTORY FOR THE LORD AND IF
THIS COULD HAVE HELPED ONE
PERSON TO FIND CHRIST THEN IT'S
WORTH IT TO ME TO LOSE MY WHOLE
BUSINESS.
AND I REALLY MEAN THAT.
>> Reporter: HEATHER SELLS, CBN
NEWS.
AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHOW
SUPPORT FOR THIS TALENTED YOUNG
ANIMATOR BY FOLLOWING HER ON
SOCIAL MEDIA SIMPLY GO TO CBN
NEWS.COM AND YOU CAN FIND LINKS
TO HER NEWEST VENTURE CALLED
CHAPTER 2 CREATIONS.
>>> STILL AHEAD THE NUMBER OF
AMERICAN ADULTS WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED DEPRESSION HAS
TRIPLED SINCE BEFORE COVID-19.
WE WILL HEAR FROM ONE PASTOR
ABOUT HOW HE OVERCAME
DEPRESSION AND SUICIDAL
THOUGHTS.
THAT STORY IS COMING UP RIGHT
AFTER THIS.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published
*