tv U.S. Senate Sen. Wyden on GOP Aim to Protect Their Policies CSPAN October 27, 2020 12:30am-12:50am EDT
voters will decide who occupies the white house next year. watch campaign 2020 coverage everyday on c-span stream on-demand at c-span.org will listen on the c-span radio up. your place or unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> senators spent nearly 30 hours debating nomination of supreme court nominee amy coney barrett, here's more of the debate from the senate floor. >> everything that has happened the untimelysi passing of the legendary justice ginsburg, a clear reminder that much of what goes on in washington d.c. is simply not on the level. right now, our country is hurting.
mass death, mass unemployment, mass hunger and suffering among children. this two sides in congress to be addressing those challenges together, now more than ever while so many are so fearful about tomorrow. the rules that the senate goes by and the agreement the senate makes needs to stand for something. that's how i felt when i negotiated with a $600 a week unemployment insurance boost in march. the treasury secretary for the republicans agreed to it but at the last minute, republican senators pretended otherwise and tried to vote it out of the bi bill. think about that.
it was an agreement between both sidesha and one thing senate republicans wanted to do was break the agreement and keep working to get them money to pay the rent and the food bill. at a time they had been laid off through no fault of their own. another example is unfolding right before our eyes. until a few weeks ago, peter mcconnell and chairman graham would have toldas you it was the 11th commandment carved in stone, no election year supreme court appointment. again, republicans were back on their word. covid-19 was partisanship and
rule breaking and senate will hopkins might be on to something with their little stunt on the high court but it's not. of the american people, a more sensitive radar for unfairness than senate republicans. when i was home during the two week. he recently, i went to counties that donald trump won decisively in counties that hillary clinton one in 2016. both i talked to in both communities, both areas said the person who wins the 2020 election should be the one who chooses the court nominee. in this case, the american people know because they see the consequences of rule breaking. judge barrett is confirmed and
doesre what donald trump has repeatedly says she doesn't as a nominee. help him throughout the affordable care act, here's what happens. tens of millions of americans will lose their healthcare during a pandemic. covid-19 and pre-existing conditions used by insurance companies to oncein again discriminate against consumers, take america back toal the days when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy. even the nominee herself shows the judicial nominees is so dysfunctional and broken, it doesn't come close to being on the level. amy coney barrett may have established herself as the babe ruth of saying pretty much nothing. not everybody understands that nominees typically clamp c up
during these hearings. i don't expect judge barrett is about on healthcare policy, i wouldn't expect to agree with all the trump nominees position but unfortunately, our country is hearing what they do. one of my colleagues asked whether judge barrett was aware of the president had committed to nominating judges would throw up the affordable care act. the statements was part all across the countryga again and again and again, back in 2015, donald trump if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike john roberts on obamacare. the day after judge barrett's nomination, fellow trump tweeted obamacare will be replaced with a much better, far cheaper
alternative, if it is terminated in the supreme court. judge barrett answered, when i call it asked about whether she heard about anything assembly donald trump views on this, i don't recall hearing about or seen such things, that wasn't something i heard or saw reading it myself, unquote. it myself, she also said she couldn't recall whether senators brought up during their conversation with her. so i say to the senate today, does anybody think that was an authentic answer? everybody who occasionally looks at the news knows donald trump once to tear down the affordable care act. if judges would take the far right positions, routinely
attacks republican appointed justices or opinions that he dislikes. never heard it, never saw an argument, by judge barrett, she doesn't follow the news apparently at all, didn't talk with anybody about the healthcare debate that's been front and center in american politics for a long, long time, it is hard to understate this with reality. you don't reach heights of the academic and legal profession by exploring the news of the day for years and years and years on and. to watch judge barrett's heari hearing, it is clear the never sought argument is all about. it is about denying that there's
any real threat to the affordable care act, protections for pre-existing conditions, cheaper medicine for seniors. judge barrett certainly put on the hall of fame performance, ducking and dodging and leading her weightng out of the simple routine questions about existing law. it's guaranteed to come up in every nomination hearing. for example, this one stunned me. she wouldn't say whether connecticut decided correctly. 90e landmark 1960 case that affirmed the right of married women to have access to contraception. it is one of the key supreme court decisions, it is directly to the right of privacy. the right of women to make
decisions about their own bodies and their own lives, the roe v. wade follows directly from the decision and that. even justices comments, roberts and kavanaugh, not cyclic the left wing of american judicial consideration that griswold was decided correctly.or judge barrett refused, and it matters because there's a far right campaign working to undo both of those divisions which will be devastating. the fundamental freedoms in our country. she dodged a serious question on the galley fertilization which has helped millions of parents achieve their one dream. the judge refused to say whether she believes landmark decision amen mark decision quality was decided correctly. she was asked about enshrined marriage equality, she dodged
the question on whether the president should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. she went on to say voter intimidation on the issue of voter intimidation, she wouldn't answer whether it was illegal. it is not an open question, it is a case of black letter law. she was given what i thought was a slamdunk opportunity to confirm the president cannot unilaterally change the date of the election. that is not up for interpretation. the law is here that he cannot. judge barrett wouldn't say so. the president is not like it's shy, she bashed the opinion of chief justice roberts that upheld the affordable care act. she said it pushed it beyond save its meaning statue. this 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions are
protected today. why insurance companies have caps on people who need costly healthcare. why seniors no longer get stuck with prescription drug donut holes, bankruptcy in the system. a letter that talked about overturning roe v. wade because it was about a barbaric legislative. she failed to disclose the letter in the lectures and her disclosures to the judiciary. again, i understand nominees are always careful in these hearings but nomination hearings are providing less and less substance, it has been the case for a long time and over the last few weeks, judge barrett set a new ball. he is ago, chief justice roberts about the job of supreme court justice and called out balls and
strikes. how can you call balls and strikes if you spend your nomination hearing playing hide the ball? this doesn't qualify. look at donald trump and republicans brushing this confirmation, he looked at all of the ducking and dodging and basic questions and it not hard to see the politics behind it. in a moment when there are millions of americans across the countryhe wondering how they are going to pay their rent, how they will afford medicine, whether they are going to be able to safely hug their elderly parents again, senate republicans are lazy laser focused on lockean political power. repugnance somehow gets a the democrat, soy think it's a threat to the affordable care act, it is
not working.ha it's about a lot more than healthcare. the comfort of the senate and talknd about how the text of the loss written respecting the president and original meaning of the constitution. what happens when they join the bench and throw out long standing president, respect individual rights, and agenda that favors special interest for example, judge barrett the consumer protection law from the bench by essentially ignoring the text of the law itself, making it easier for debt collectors to prey on the vulnerable. judge barrett will president, denied $332 in damages with injured in a medical procedure.
the woman was unable to afford a lawyer and she mistakenly used the wrong word to describe the money she was out, judge barrett that mistaken cancer and ignored another existing president, taking away a jury award from a teen who was repeatedly raped by a prison guard. she segregated employees by race and she came up with the twisted interpretation of the age discrimination in employment act to allow discrimination against older job applicants. o none of that had anything to do with calling balls of strikes or respecting the law as written. those rulings they were the powerful corporation over people who don't have vast sums of money to protect themselves. president and senatet republics top on down, the far right
judges refused these ideological rulings, they r blocked democrac judicial nominees for years. they had a plan to remove the court other than consider visiting democratic presidents nominee. the president has pushed through an immense number of nominees given how many seas republicans left open obstruction some of these judges have been deemed not confident that the job is nonpartisan, then incredible damage for the ledges me an independent for the judiciary. all of them tell the same story about regionalism to the text in the traditional justice scalia. justice scalia considered the ultimate example of what is considered regionalism. judge barrett said judicial
philosophy is mine, too. judge scalia's opinion with ideology and wrote the decision granting things couples right to marry was threat to american democracy to rob people the freedom to govern themselves. he wanted to drop the act led to massive voter disenfranchisement. what is behind all this talk about regionalism and sticking to the text ofhe the laws as written a political agenda, plain and simple. taking away people's healthcare, disenfranchising voters, entrenching minority rules, getting corporations more power over employees, legalizing discrimination against the lgbtq community and against rocks, hispanics, asians and other groups of americans. cementing government control over women's bodies. republicans could never enact, deeply unpopular legislation so
they want the supreme court to enact the agenda for them. i want to close by saying all of this is contrary to what justice ginsburg spent her career planning for. it's exactly what the big rush to fill her see is all about and how the process torpedoes any opportunity for the senate to come together on other big issues. my democratic colleagues and i have been pleading with the majority, essentially going and saying look, let's work together on a major covered package, virtually pleading that we work in a bipartisan t way to help people on what i have heard again and again at home the number one concern. mitch mcconnell said it was too
complicated to get them. last week brought forward a bill on unemployment insurance, lifeline for jobless workers it was blocked. two days ago, democrats brought forth a series of bills, election security and healthca healthcare, all blocked. this nomination, senate republicans comes first in absolutely i everything else isn hold and we see no genuine interest in the hard work of putting it together. nomination not on the level. republicans are against their work, to hand the supreme court to the far right and i know it because effort so many about
they were worried about using their healthcare and for many of the fundamental freedoms, they are worried about what it means for the future of the country. this debate is about the ginsburg beach. justice ginsburg was not just an iconic fighter for the rights of the powerless and vulnerable, she always said what she meant and she meant what she said. we do not get that from judge barrett. i oppose this nomination. >> thank you. my staff, i want to thank my staff on the h floor, brad for l the work they've done is we've gone through the nomination process and i t was reviewing my prepared remarks this morning and reflected back on a very