Skip to main content

tv   Senate Judiciary Committee Votes on Amy Coney Barretts Nomination  CSPAN  October 22, 2020 5:42pm-6:47pm EDT

5:42 pm
tennessee at the sight of the second and final presidential debate between joe biden and president donald trump. our live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern. you can follow that here on c-span, listen on our radio app, or go to our website for live streaming of the debate coverage. the senate judiciary today approved the nomination of supreme court nominee judge amy coney barrett out of committee with the vote of 12 to nothing. democrats claimed that it was illegitimate. this is how played out.
5:43 pm
sen. graham: good morning. i appreciate all of you, all of my colleagues being here promptly. as you know, our democratic politics informed the committee last night that they will not participate in the hearing. that was their choice. it will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee.
5:44 pm
we are not going to allow them to take over the committee. they made a choice not to participate after allowing judge barrett four days to be questioned. i thought she did an exceptionally good job of handling the questions asked. i thought she was aggressively challenged, but not inappropriately. i want to complement my democratic colleagues for not going down the kavanaugh road. i want to complement the republican members for asking questions that matter to you, but showing a tremendous amount of discipline to make sure that on our side the hearing went well. and each of you, when this is over, i hope you feel like a sense of accomplishment. this is why we all run. it is moments like this that make everything you go through matter. it is moments like this where
5:45 pm
you can tell young conservative women, there is a place at the table for you. this is a groundbreaking, historic moment for american legal community, and really, politically. senator blackburn and ernst spoke eloquently of what it is like to be a conservative woman in america. you try to be marginalized and i just want to thank both of them for their participation. and a bit about the judge, and then we are going to vote. i have been here a while and i have never seen anyone more capable than judge barrett on the law. two days without a note. that was made obvious to us. i did not know that she did not have any notes until you mentioned it. but a deep and wide understanding of the law. the most important thing to me,
5:46 pm
understanding what a judge does versus what we do. and to all of the people out there wondering about judge barrett, i can tell you this -- the law of amy will not be applied to a case in controversy. it will be the law as written and the constitution, or by statues, or whatever regulatory body she is going to review. she will take her job on without agenda. important to me is that it is ok to be a complete person and be on the supreme court it is ok to be pro-life. she embraces the pro-life cause in her personal life, but understands that judging is not a cause. it is a process. she embraces her faith, like millions of other americans. there are some things said about her and her family that are disgusting. hert want to compliment family for giving her the backing she needed to take on
5:47 pm
this job. i want to thank the members of this committee for standing up against some pretty vile themes. -- pretty vile things. again, my democratic colleagues did not go too far, in the opinion. we will end with this. forget about what think as political people for a moment. all of us are, in the political process, in 2013 when they changed the rules to require a simple majority to pack the d.c. circuit court, you could see days like this coming. it was a decision that senators schumer and reid made in collaboration. i remember the night before the rules changed votes, senator schumer called me and informed me of it and i was very disappointed. i had been in a bunch of groups here trying to keep the traditions alive. by having a 60 vote requirement i remember telling senator schumer, he will regret this.
5:48 pm
today he will regret it. and all i can say is that judge gorsuch was filibustered two or three times, requiring us to change the rules. they started this, not me. if it were up to me, it would be a 60 vote requirement today. denying judge gorsuch the votes necessary to go to the floor was just the beginning of the end of a process that had served the country well. how could anybody in their right mind believe that judge gorsuch was not as qualified as sotomayor and kagan? how could anybody in their right mind, after listening to judge barrett, not understand she is not just qualified, she is incredibly qualified? qualifications apparently don't matter anymore. it is about trying to create a
5:49 pm
situation for your favor, politically. i don't know where this ends or how this ends, but i do know this. after listening to vice president biden's explanation about court packing, i am more confused than ever. one thing i can say is that the real energy in the democratic party is to pack the court. it is to expand it from nine to whatever number they need to make it liberal. as to my good friend senator feinstein, what happened to her by showing an act of human kindness tells you all you need to know about what awaits a senator who gets in the way of the agenda they have for our nation. beginning with the court. the day we start changing the number after every election to make it the way that we would like politically, partisan-wise,
5:50 pm
is the end of the independence of the court. lots at stake in this election but today i want to celebrate , the fact that judge amy barrett will be reported out of this committee unanimously. that, to all of the young women out there like amy barrett, this is a big day for you. to the country as a whole, you're going to have an associate justice on the court that you should be proud of. this is a good day. if you don't believe me, just listen to what the aba said. the american bar association is not high on senator lee's list. and many of you. i think they do give some republican nominees a hard time, but i have continued to use them because i keep as many traditions in place as i can.
5:51 pm
but the folks who are watching this hearing, their job is to evaluate the nominee in three categories. professional competency, character, judicial disposition. they spent hundreds of hours, talk to -- talked to hundreds of people, from all walks of life, about this judge. judge barrett. here is what they found. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary has completed the evaluation of the professional qualifications of judge amy barrett. as you know, the standing committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. a substantial majority of the standing committee determined that judge barrett is well-qualified. a minority is of the opinion that she is qualified to serve
5:52 pm
on the supreme court. the majority represents the standing committee's official rating, which is the highest you can get. i asked the two presenters a question. would both of you feel comfortable going before judge barrett? they replied, absolutely. another piece of information was from ms. o'hara. she was the dean of notre dame law school while judge barrett was a professor. remember what she had to say. i have only communicated with this august committee on two occasions. the first was 10 years ago and i wrote a strong letter in support of now-justice elana kagan.
5:53 pm
whose term as dean of harvard law school overlapped with my own. the second is today introducing and endorsing amy coney barrett, in equally strong terms. some might find these recommendations in juxtaposition. but i find them entirely consistent. so do i. i voted for both. the committee will hold over s-4632. online consent policy modernization act. i ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the motion of october 15, setting the vote on the barrett nomination at 1:00 p.m., the committee proceed immediately to vote on the
5:54 pm
barrett nomination. any objections? without objection. on the motion to report the nomination of amy coney barrett to being associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, the clerk will call the roll. favorably to the floor, the clerk will call the roll. [voting]
5:55 pm
>> mr. chairman, the boats are -- the votes are 12 yeas, 10 no-votes. sen. graham: senator cornyn. sen. cornyn: mr. chairman, i will take a couple of minutes. i find this to be a surreal environment we are in, where our democratic colleagues announced they are going to boycott one of the most important votes this committee will have, probably during our entire senatorial tenure. that is a vote to confirm, to provide advice and consent to a nominee for the supreme court of the united states. i just want to comment on the pictures that are in their chairs, like this is some sort of sporting event during
5:56 pm
covid-19 and rather than show up and do their job, they choose to continue the theater that was part of the hearing. and of course, this is all pretextual. their argument, as i understand it, is somehow amy coney barrett will violate her oath of office, contrary to everything she has done and who she is, and somehow that the affordable care act is in jeopardy. she explained, i think with great skill, the issue before the supreme court. it is one of severability, which is a very technical doctrine. it doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the affordable care act. it has to do with whether you can sever the unconstitutional portion from the rest of the aca, and that it will survive. but the fact is, democrats have already moved on from the aca. senator cruz and my state, the
5:57 pm
premiums for an individual under the aca have gone up, i believe, 57%. the average deductible is about $3000. for a family of four, the deductible is $12,000. which means that in essence, you do not have insurance. you are essentially self insured. democrats have realized that all of the promises that were made to the american people leading up to the passage of the aca, they have been broken. i remember president obama saying, if you like your policy, you could keep your policy. if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor. none of that is true. they said we would have essentially universal health insurance coverage. that is obviously not true. so aca has failed our democratic , colleagues recognize that. that is why they have, from the presidential candidates running in the primary, all the way down
5:58 pm
to people running in this election on november 3, have advocated a single-payer system. sometimes called medicare for all. sometimes called the public option, but it is all a slippery slope toward a single-payer system. i think it is important to point out what they are advocating. because it is extraordinarily radical. for the 180 million americans who get their health insurance on the job, they would eliminate that. they would take that away from them in order to put them on a single-payer government program. medicare, as we know, has its own financial problems, and is something we obviously need to shore up. it is a commitment we have made to our seniors, that if you pay into the medicare health program you are going to have health , coverage when you become eligible.
5:59 pm
but dumping 330 million people into the medicare program will bankrupt it. and we know that providers depend on a payment mix between medicaid, medicare, and private insurance in order to pay the bills. without the private insurance premium or payments our health care providers, our hospitals, including those in rural parts of our states, would be bankrupt. so i just think it is important to just lay out the facts here. this is all for show. they have given up on the aca because they realize it did not fulfill the promises that were made when it passed. now it is unaffordable to most ordinary texans and americans. so they have thrown that out the window in favor of a single-payer system.
6:00 pm
finally, senator schumer said, every thing is on the table. i think you have observed, mr. chairman, that if the shoe were on the other foot, we have no doubt what they would do. but beyond that, senator schumer has said that the legislative filibuster is in jeopardy. that they will turn this into simply a partisan body, where you don't need to do the hard work to get bipartisan support. they would consider turning d.c. into a state, and the state would get two senators. puerto rico, a state and get two senators. they want to permanently transform this country. this is not about incremental change. this is about revolutionary changes in our country. finally, as we have all observed, they are advocating packing the supreme court with additional partisan judges. as ruth bader ginsburg pointed out, there goes the crown jewels
6:01 pm
of the american public, which is our independent judiciary. it becomes nothing but another political body. a second legislative branch. i wanted to take a minute and thank you for your patience to lay out my thoughts and observations with regard to these theatrics with which our democratic colleagues are presenting us today. this is all for show. this is to try to capture a narrative which is simply false and to cover up what they are really about. so, thank you, mr. chairman. sen. graham: thank you, senator cornyn. i agree with what you said. why don't we do the business of the committee?
6:02 pm
>> judge barrett is one of the most impressive legal minds in the united states. she is a thoughtful and fair-minded lawyer. a daughter, wife and mother. faceout believer in her and in the constitution. she was arguably the most impressive judicial nominee that i have ever seen in these hearings. i have been watching them intently since i was a child. make anoing to
6:03 pm
outstanding supreme court justice and the people will be lucky to have her on the bench. it is a shame that our colleagues on the other side, having failed to lay a glove on judge barrett, have walked out on this process. and so doing, walk out on the american people. this is sad, but in context it is not surprising. i suppose we should be grateful that i walk out as all the democrats will do to judge barrett today. not all nominees have been so lucky. this is an important point for those watching these proceedings who might be tempted to believe the pious pearl-clutching and performance art of the media and the minority party about this particular nomination. i would like to take a few moments to set the record straight about this process and
6:04 pm
why america needs and deserves to have judge barrett on the supreme court. for the first 200 years of the history of our republic, supreme court nominations of both political parties were almost always polite and even boring. relatively nonpartisan, nonpolitical affairs. judicial nominees were examined for their qualifications and rejected by the senate only in relatively rare instances. but that era of generally common mutual respect and in 1987. when a democratic-controlled senate shamefully and slanderously defeated the nomination of one of the countries most respected lawyers and constitutional scholars. that is judge robert bork. the cynical attacks against judge bork, his only offense was that he was a conservative, were
6:05 pm
dirty and downright dishonest. but like the boy who cried wolf, senate democrats got away with it, at least the first time. four years later president george herbert walker bush nominated clarence thomas, then serving on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit judge democrats on the judiciary committee -- democrats, not republicans -- tried to do to judge thomas what they had done to judge bork. the public was now wise to the democrats' game. that particular attack, while injurious, failed. so they resorted to the next tactic. organizing what thomas rightly called a high-tech lynching of a black man who dared disagree that the white liberals who ran the democratic party. when democrats won back the white house in 1992, when she
6:06 pm
was put on the other foot, senate republicans did not retaliate. senate republicans did not retaliate. they did not respond in kind. in 1993, judge ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed to the supreme court with 96 votes. in 1984, judge stephen breyer was confirmed with 87 votes. they went low, and in response we went high. did republicans' good faith behavior improve the democrats' behavior? no. it only encouraged them. within a decade democrats breached norms. the unilaterally escalated their war over the judiciary by filibustering for the first time in history a judicial nominee. mr. estrada was and remains to this day one of the most
6:07 pm
respected lawyers and constitutional scholars in the country. he was a natural and inspiring choice to serve as a federal appellate judge. the left, that was precisely the problem. mr. estrada was latino and brilliant and charismatic and young, and widely seen as a future nominee to the u.s. supreme court. so the left decided to strangle mr. estrada's nomination with false, insincere attacks and unprecedented obstructionism. they filibustered his nomination. not once, not twice, but seven times. fan service to hateful leftist groups who are vilifying an honorable man and a tantrum of little cynicism and blatant racial condescension. during this ordeal mr. estrada's
6:08 pm
family suffered irreparable tragedy, but at least the new york times was happy. the left-center clear message to latino americans about what they can expect if they dare question liberal orthodoxy. thus, democrats ushered in another new era. in their judicial culture wars. judicial filibusters. remember, the time of the estrada filibuster, republicans take control of the white house and the senate. they could have invoked the nuclear option to break the unprecedented obstruction. we didn't. we did not retaliate. not after the estrada filibuster. on after the democrats' malignant smearing of than judge
6:09 pm
sam alito on his way to the supreme court. it is not the narrative but it is the truth. once again democrats went low. disgustingly low. once again republicans took the high road. under president obama republicans accepted the practice and required super majority cloture votes for judicial nominees. after a few years of this democrats got tired of having to play by their own rules so they broke them. in 2013, with a number of obama policies being challenged for unconstitutional and other grounds in the courts, democrats invoked the nuclear option over senate rules so they could confirm judges with only 51 votes. republicans pleaded with harry reid to do it. we warned democrats they would soon live to regret it. hubris makes the powerful deaf
6:10 pm
and blind. they rammed through their appellate court judges. we could not stop them. they did it because they could. in response, the american people did what they could. in the next election, and in every single congressional election since the democrats went nuclear in 2013, the american people returned a republican majority to the senate. that included the election of 2014, which meant when president obama wanted judge merrick garland to replace the late justice antonin scalia the senate, following precident democrats once again filibustered and feigned outrage as republicans followed democratic precidence again.
6:11 pm
let me go on record. i initially had concerns about this move. can conference meetings for sometime i argued we ought to try to find another way. try to see if he could figure out a way to restore the filibuster and preserve this important part of the senate's institutional design and presidential prerogative. i lost that argument. my position may have been principled but in the context of the democrats relentless, relentless and endless pattern and practice of abusing their power, it was untenable. i tried to persuade colleagues for a bipartisan solution.
6:12 pm
solutions were easy to imagine. the left's good faith was not. the only precedents where bork, thomas, estrada, and the nuclear option. democrats embrace traditional power of judicial total war. it was not a slide down a slippery slope, it was a giddy enthusiastic leap that they still don't regret. just look at the record since then. in 2018, when justice anthony kennedy retired and president trump dominated judge brett kavanaugh to replace him, was there any sign, any evidence whatsoever of an attempt to lower the temperature?
6:13 pm
any indication democrats for rethinking -- were rethinking their decades of vicious, unilateral escalation? just as before, of course not. during the kavanaugh nomination these duties to new lows, concocting a patently false accusation of teenage sexual assault against an honest, honorable and innocent man. like inquisitors burning heretics at the stake, breaking norms, breaking rules to slander and strangle the nominations of constitutionalist judges. it is simply what the left does. this is a feature. this is how they operate. this is what they do. liberals, not conservatives, turned the supreme court into a
6:14 pm
super legislature of sorts. democrats, not republicans, escalated supreme court nominations into ideological knife fights at worst and made political outcomes the defining issue of this process rather than judicial philosophy and qualifications. what has happened to this isn't a bipartisan failure? it is a uni-partisan strategy. every active escalation. the democrats have been the aggressor in every single instance. at every step along the way they abused his authority. -- its authority. there is no tit-for-tat. there is just tat. they killed mcgill estrada's nomination for partisan reasons. they slandered justice thomas, justice alito, and justice
6:15 pm
kavanaugh. they knew the filibuster -- nuked the filibuster for partisan reasons. now they are trying to scuttle this vote for partisan political reasons. when it comes to the judiciary, abuse of power is their agenda. now, the left seems to think the supreme court exists to impose their very worst ideas onto the public. onto those recalcitrant members of the public. those members recall citizens that refuse blindly to go along with their entitled extremism. they want the court to empower abortion activists, performance artist to tell everyone how to live without votes, without accountability, and without
6:16 pm
debate. putting debatable matters beyond debate seems to be there formula. they don't want democracy. amy coney barrett will not politicize the supreme court. she is going to turn back policy decisions and political debate back to the people and their elected accountable representative's where they belong. judge barrett understands under our constitution policy is supposed to be determined by the
6:17 pm
priorities of the people, not editorial boards or twitter poles or school faculty senates. that is why the left is so furious about this nomination. for all the pious problem you here on msnbc, and all you will hear on msnbc and those of the networks tonight, understand they are not angry because this process is unfair. they are angry because it is. not because they think amy coney barrett is going to be a partisan justice, but because they know she will not be. they are not afraid judge barrett will legislate from the bench, but she will force democrats and republicans to legislate from legislatures. as the constitution itself requires. judge barrett threatens their power, not because she has a hidden agenda or hidden powers but because they do and she won't enact those powers or exercise them by judicial fiat.
6:18 pm
and that is exactly why we need to have amy coney barrett on the supreme court of the united states. not to avenge bork, thomas, estrada, alito or cavanaugh, but to return integrity to the supreme court and the senate, and all the institutions left is judicial abuse has twisted and desecrated for two generations. we need to confirm amy coney barrett not to give political power to conservatives or republicans but to finally give it back to the american people. from 70 years ago. left -- so many years ago. amy coney barrett will take the constitutional highroad for decades to come.
6:19 pm
every day earning in more ways than one new title of justice. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. graham: well said. i have a statement i will introduce into the record without objection about the process. i think senator grassley would like to speak. take your time. sen. grassley: obviously our colleagues don't think they should represent their states by -- that is what they are not doing. represent either people and they don't you appear. i'm talking about my colleagues across the aisle. those of us that are here are pleased to have voted judge amy, uh, barrett's nomination to the floor. the reason for doing that is she has the temperament and humility
6:20 pm
we would expect of a judge. she approaches cases without bias and agenda. most importantly she understands a judge should interpret, not make the law. she was thorough, candid, and forthright in the hearing. but when pressed on how she might rule in a case, judge barrett applied to ginsberg rule. that rule demonstrates her independence by not showing any hints, previews, or forecasts. those three words are from the ginsberg testimony. about 28 years ago. judge barrett fairly respects the president and practices judicial restraint. per method is rigorous and exacting, but fair and open-minded.
6:21 pm
i specifically asked judge barrett if she made any promise to anyone about how she might rule on a case. she responded, the answer is no. "the answer is no. it would be inconsistent with judicial independence." she just expressed but we expect -- what we expect and learn from eighth grade civics what the checks and balances of government are all about. the supreme court is the court where we expect them to make sure the executive branch and the legislative branch doesn't go outside the bounds that the constitution sets for this congress and the executive branch.
6:22 pm
judge barrett is even-handed, and has ruled for plaintiffs and defendants and all kinds of cases since she served on the seventh circuit court of appeals. when asked if she would follow the law wherever it leads, she said yes. the affordable care act was brought up quite significantly and almost every person, maybe in this committee but more so by democrats that were trying to make it look like she would be a force to just have her mind made up already that the affordable care act ought to go out the window. but throughout the hearing democrats spun a bunch of nonsense about judge barrett and the affordable care act.
6:23 pm
they claimed her critique of chief justice roberts' reasoning in the 2012 aca case dictates how she would vote in the upcoming case. we all know that is bunk from how she has described her approach to that aca. judge barrett made clear then she doesn't have an agenda. she testified, "i have no hostility to the aca." academics, critics, court decisions all the time. obviously she was doing that as a person, a tenured professor at notre dame school of law. her critique of roberts's reasoning was shared by legal commentators across the political spectrum.
6:24 pm
moreover, the question before the supreme court this fall are entirely separate. so it is pointless to speculate. senate democrats want to portray the judge as a threat to health care. they want to distract from the fact they recently filibustered just yesterday, and three days ago covid relief bills on the senate floor that would have protected pre-existing conditions. although none of us republicans are threatening pre-existing conditions. this is all just a democrat election year scare tactic by voters are not buying it. a political poll released yesterday showed a majority of americans want the senate to confirm judge barrett.
6:25 pm
that is what we are going to do. she made it easy for us with her outstanding performance here three days before this committee. the judges record shows -- judge's record she shows judicial restraint. "a judge that approaches a case as an opportunity -- i better say this is her quote -- a judge that approaches her case as an opportunity for an exercise of the will has betrayed her judicial duty." the judge will not be a politician on the bench. she will make decisions as they should be decided in an impartial manner, and in accordance with the law and the constitution. i take the judge at her word. "in my time as judge, in my time
6:26 pm
as a judge, my job, my boss is the rule of law. not imposing my policy preferences." so i am pleased that we have voted judge barrett out of committee to be an associate justice of the supreme court. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. graham: senator hawley would like to present for the record and without objection, senator cruz. sen. cruz: i want to commend you on conducting a remarkable set of hearings last week. i want to commend every member of this committee for the result improving judge barrett's nomination, giving it to the floor where i have every confidence she will be confirmed on monday. this is a major victory for the american people.
6:27 pm
this is in many ways the single most important accomplishment president trump has achieved in office. in nominating a principled constitutionalist to the supreme court, president trump was honoring the promises he made to the american people. in confirming that principled constitutionalist to the court, the republican majority in the senate will likewise be honoring the promises we made to the american people. i want to take a moment to highlight something we have learned in the last two weeks. which is the democrats understand that their radical agenda for the supreme court is profoundly unpopular. the democrats are unwilling to defend their radical agenda for the supreme court. that is illustrated powerfully today by the fact that every democratic chair is empty.
6:28 pm
they are boycotting this markup. they are boycotting this markup because their substantive arguments are not persuasive. they are not effective. last week it was striking. not a single democrat asked any questions that defended the far-left's view of religious liberty. that the supreme court should go through the public square, scour the public square to remove any reference to god almighty. not a single democrat defended the far-left's radical view of religious liberty that the
6:29 pm
government has the power to punish you for living out your faith. i noticed these lovely photographs in the place where our democratic colleagues normally would be. in one photograph i don't see the sisters of the poor. the little sisters of the poor, a catholic convent of nuns who the obama administration persecuted because they were living according to their religious faith. and who joe biden pledges to once again persecute if he is elected. not a single democrat in this committee defended that radical view of religious liberty because the american people don't want it. they want the court that will protect their religious liberty, not take it away. not a single democrat during the hearing last week defended the democrats radical view of free
6:30 pm
speech, which is that the federal government has the authority to regulate political speech, to regulate your free speech and assignments you if you dare criticize the politicians. that is a terrifying increase in government power. there have been four votes on the left for that proposition, that the federal government has the power to ban movies, the power to ban books. that was the position of citizens united and not a single democrat would defend that proposition because the record people have no interest in a federal government that has the power to regulate free speech. on the second amendment, not a single democrat defended the proposition that the second amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever. which means government can make
6:31 pm
it a crime, a felony for any american to own a firearm and there is nothing you can do to challenge in court. there are four votes for that. not a single one of the defense that radical proposition. i would say to all of us in the majority, we should take solace from this. they know the propositions they are advancing our radical, extreme, not with the iraqi people want. see all the grassroots activists out there fighting right now less than two weeks away from election day, fighting to defend the constitution and bill of rights, take solace in the fact our absent democrats understand last week was not going well for them. they try to ask a few questions of judge barrett and realized this ain't good. american people seeing this
6:32 pm
jurist pledging to defend the constitution, that is a problem for us, the democrats. and by day 2 they had gotten out of dodge. there were only two democrats even left in the hearing room. two democrats is more than we have here today. it went from barely being present to being totally absent. there is a reason why joe biden and kamala harris refused to answer if they will pack the court. the answer is yes. if they get power, they will move to pack the court to expand the number of justices to fill it with partisan abuse of power that would do immense damage to the independence of the judiciary.
6:33 pm
why wont the answer the question? they know it is profoundly unpopular. the american people don't want to see the court politicized, its independence destroyed which is what today's senate democrats are pushing. the stakes of this confirmation in the stakes of this election coming up in two weeks are enormous. the reason the democrats want to see leftists on the court is so that a majority of judges, unelected lawyers in robes can mandate policy outcomes the american people would never vote for without our colleagues having to take responsibility for it. there are times when it seems republican senators don't necessarily understand the principles we are fighting for,
6:34 pm
the overwhelming majority of the american people are with us. you know who understands that very well? the senate democrats he refused to attend today. congratulations, mr. chairman. sen. graham: thank you for your participation in this hearing process. you bring a lot to the table. and actually understand the process as well as anybody i've ever met. thank you, senator lee, for reminding us how we got here. we got here through a tortured tale of abusing people, trying to get outcomes, changing the rules to accommodate political desires. it has ended today. i would love to go back to the traditional senate approach of having to grab some people on the other side of the aisle to
6:35 pm
confirm a judge. that was abandoned in 2013 for a purpose, to stack the d.c. court of appeals. that is where litigation involving the federal government goes. senator schumer, and senator reid to his credit said i would do it again and we should change the legislative filibuster. that is what harry reid said. i am hoping this election people will listen to it senator cruz just said. we are one vote away from fundamentally changing second minute. changing how free speech works in this country. and on and on and on. so, when they changed the rules and 2013 and filibustered justice gorsuch, requiring us to change the rules, it set in motion some things i have worried about for a long time. here's some good news. the judiciary committee got it
6:36 pm
right when it came to judge barrett. it would have been wrong to deny her a goat. if you are a republican, he would be crazy not to vote for her. as a democrat you may not agree with her judicial philosophy, which is rejection of judicial activism and an originalist point of view how you approach case in controversies, but you should've seen what i saw in sotomayor and kagan, qualifications. you expected me to oppose the qualification to sotomayor and kagan, and i did. it used to not be this way. justice scalia got 96 votes. justice ginsberg got 96 or 97. senator thurman voted for ginsberg because she was qualified. senator hollings of succulent of odiferous taleo because he was qualified. what happened?
6:37 pm
it wasn't us. senator lee made a very compelling case that it changed with bork, thomas, alito, and ended with cavanaugh. i want to thank my democratic colleagues who did participate in the hearings so you could ask hard questions and suggest she would not be open-minded. i think you lost that debate what you did show up to ask her questions. you should be here to vote. she deserves a vote yes or no. if you vote no, you will solidify the idea that qualifications no longer matter. if you vote yes, i don't know if you could stay the democratic party. i am still here. i voted for sotomayor and kagan and i did fine. it is a shame we have allowed it to get to where we have.
6:38 pm
it is a shame my colleagues -- senator feinstein who opposed the process and domination had a moment of human interaction, which apparently is not enough to agree with the cause. you have to hate the people they want you to hate. america is in for a real tough ride if it is not enough to agree with the underlying cause that you must hate to be a legitimate liberal. it is not enough you embrace the cause. you have to hate. i hope that does not come on our side. then we will be reduced to hating each other rather than debating each other. it will not be about our ideas. is the fact we just opposed the concept of each other. i want to end this on a positive note. president trump had a list that was vetted. he picked judge barrett out of
6:39 pm
the list of really qualified people. senator cruz said maybe this is the most important decision. this'll be a historic moment. this to work for young conservative women knowing it is a place at the table for you. it's a historic moment for the court to have somebody like judge barrett on the court who openly embraces their faith. and has led the consequential life. america is for all of us. african-american and people of color who embrace republican ideas and conservativism have a tough time of it in modern society. same for women. this is a breakthrough moment. i regret we could not do it the normal way. what i don't regret is reporting her out of committee. i could not have lived with myself knowing someone this
6:40 pm
qualified, to work this hard all their life to be a good decent person is a giant when it comes to understanding the law has the disposition that all of this when you're in for in a judge. i could not have lived with myself if i denied her her day. this is a combination of a well lived life. there is one more step in the process, and that is the floor the united states senate. whatever you think about republicans or democrats, and i know we are very divided, i hope you will remember this was about judge barrett. this was about her and her qualifications. was she worthy of the nomination? did you conduct yourself in a manner to be worthy of our votes? i think it is a very easy question.
6:41 pm
to my democratic colleagues, you denied her her vote. i regret that. but in the process of participating in the hearing you pushed her hard but did not go too far. for that i do very much appreciate that part of the hearing. so we will go to the floor now. we will take up the nomination of judge barrett on the floor of the united states senate. i doubt if a single democrat will vote for her. i will end with this. elections have consequences. i understood justice kagan and sotomayor would be the type of judges a democratic president would be looking at. highly qualified, a philosophy close to president obama's than mine, and that is why i voted for both of them.
6:42 pm
now we find ourselves in a situation where qualifications no longer matter. it is about holding open seats that have been filled after the next election. we have lost sight that the individuals nominated matter. i think they do matter. i want to complement president trump for sending to the senate this outstandingly outstanding nominee. incredibly well in every way you would want to judge. i don't know the future holds for the senate. it is an election around the corner. the democratic party of 2020 is hell-bent on changing all the rules. there will not be nightmares of the court if they get the house and senate and white house. it will be at least 13. the legislative filibuster will
6:43 pm
fall like the judicial requirement of 60 votes has fallen. d.c. will become a state. the affordable care act will be replaced by some more aggressive form of socialized medicine. but that is for the ballot box. today was a process that has been in place for a couple of hundred years. advise and consent. i am proud to have supported judge barrett. i think the people of south carolina would be very happy with somebody like her sitting on the court judging us all. the role of advise and consent has been around for a couple of hundred years. the last three decades has taken a sinister turn. i would imagine that our
6:44 pm
founding fathers would probably be proud of the fact that woman is on the court. probably not possible when it first started as a nation. we have changed as a nation, i think, moving in the right direction. the thing i like about judge barrett is the constitution was a document written and the words matter. and change comes when the people of the united states have a say about change. not five people. the most important thing we have done today is we have insured in the future with judge barrett the societal changes people hope and dream about are not excluded. she will redirect them to the process the founders had in mind. the people making the change. not five justices of the supreme
6:45 pm
court. with that we will conclude the nominating process of judge barrett. i will end where i began. the committee did the right thing. [crowd talking] >> if you missed any of today's
6:46 pm
meeting, it will be online. you can also watch other confirmation hearings on today's entire judiciary meeting and confirmation vote will be shown again tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. while the senate will begin debate on her nomination tomorrow, the first full senate vote on her confirmation is expected sunday when senators vote on limiting debate to 30 hours setting up a final vote monday evening. watch live coverage on c-span2 as the senate works its way through the confirmation process. ♪ >> with 12 days left until election day, on november 3, when voters decide who will control congress and occupy the white house next year, stay with c-span.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on