Skip to main content

tv   Public Affairs Events  CSPAN  October 13, 2020 12:06pm-12:45pm EDT

12:06 pm
>> that's the focus of our efforts. >> do you think that is distracting -- >> former senator, former vice president, and i future president biden is entitled to speak his mind on the issues. most of the time, i'm going to agree with him. sometimes, i won't. >> i thought that was very curious. i think her candor made sense to me. when you look at the history of
12:07 pm
felonies and, if it's not dangerous to you, to take someone's constitutional right away, which is to own a gun, and the idea of how you vote and what conditions are placed on voting at the state level, not the federal level, i feel very comfortable that she is not antagonistic to voting rights and that she took a reasoned view of felonies, in terms of depriving the second amendment. the bottom line here is that it's been a very good hearing, i think. i think senators have asked her very good questions, quite frankly, hard questions. i think she has comported herself well, and we will keep going. >> [indiscernible] >> i think she's done a pretty marvelous job of explaining textualism a regionalismnd -- and originalism. she can't tell you how she may rule. >> [indiscernible]
12:08 pm
sen. graham: i talked to tim last night. he felt like he needs to get out on the campaign trail. i think it's good to be campaigning. >> you raised the issue of your own election. is that appropriate? i think it's appropriate for me to respond to political attacks in a political way. if you didn't catch it, all day yesterday was an attack on the aca. they mentioned three times south carolina, what would happen if the aca was repealed. i thought it would fare -- was fair for me to say there's a better position for south carolina. i think i have a right to respond to political arguments politically and i wanted to make sure the difference between our political debate about the aca and how it would be decided in court was reported. thank you all. >> how subtle is that? there's no subtlety there.
12:09 pm
it is in a composition of the court's question, making sure the -- >> how do you think she will be reacting? do you think she's already had that conversation? >> she said she has not. when senator cornyn keeps saying this is insulting to suggest you are going to the court with an agenda, you want to direct that emotion to the white house. they are the ones who keep peddling this story every day and why we raise the question. >> thanks, senator durbin.
12:10 pm
>> day two of judge amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing got underway just after 9:00 a.m. eastern this morning. seven committee members have asked their questions, 30 members -- minutes allotted for each senator to ask questions. four republicans have asked their questions, three democrats. most senators using up their full 30 minutes, although, notably, chuck grassley, using just 20 minutes of his time this morning. john cornyn, the republican from texas, using just 12 minutes of his allotted 30 minutes this morning. the judiciary committee,
12:11 pm
breaking for lunch right now. when we come back, we will hear from sheldon whitehouse next, the democrat from rhode island. until then, updating you on the latest, keeping tabs on what's happening both inside the hearing room and the hart senate office building and also outside the hearing room as well. a couple of tweaks this morning offering some different -- tweets this morning offering some different images. this tweet from trish turner of abc news, showing the desk where judge amy coney barrett is sitting, noting there are no notes there at the desk. there is that pad provided by the committee, but last time she was asked to hold up that pad, she hadn't written anything on that pad. also inside the hearing room, you may have noticed that senators thom tillis and mike lee are both in the senate judiciary committee, both having
12:12 pm
tested positive for covid earlier this month. neither hasng that said that they have tested negative, but both said they have been cleared by their doctors to return. yesterdaye lee speaking on the opening day of amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing. today, senator thom tillis released a doctor's note, noting that he had been cleared to return to the hearings in person . that doctor's note is available on his website. am happy toaying, i report that come since the senator has had such a mild case of covid-19 and has such a strong immune system, you are free to return without any restriction as of october 13, as of today. a few more tweets about the hearing and the substance of the hearing.
12:13 pm
"no hints, no previews, no forecasts." judge merrick sites the ginsberg cites- judge barrett the ginsberg rule on how supreme court nominees should answer questions at their confirmation hearings about issues in the law that might come before the court if confirmed. when it comes to the ginsberg rule, here is what political rights about it. the phrase republicans have seized on comes from the standard delay justice ruth bader ginsburg laid out during her 1993 hearing on her nomination to the high court. this is what ruth bader ginsburg said. "it would be wrong for me to say or do preview in this legislative chamber how i would cast my vote on questions the supreme court may be called upon to decide. were i to rehearse here what i would say and how i would reason
12:14 pm
on such questions, i would act injudiciously. judges in our system are bound to decide concrete issues. a judge can offer no hints, no previews." that topic coming up quite a bit over the first a little over three hours of today's confirmation hearing. one exchange in which judge barrett declined to offer her opinion has gotten a lot of attention. here is a "washington post" story about it. judge barrett declined to answer when senator feinstein, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, asked her whether the constitution gives the president the authority to unilaterally delay an election, and bang idea that trump has floated. the president has -- an idea that trump has floated. the president has no explicit power to take such a step. parent said she would have to consult with colleagues --
12:15 pm
barrett said she would have to consult with colleagues and if she gave an off-the-cuff answer, pundit." be a legal seven members of the judiciary committee have asked their questions, have taken most of their 30 minutes. some tweets from other members of the committee, coming up later today, watching the hearings, reacting on twitter. senator cory booker, the democrat from new jersey, just after 10:00 a.m. this morning, said, "it doesn't matter that donald trump and mitch mcconnell -- two donald trump and mitch andnnell -- to donald trump mitch mcconnell that millions of families rely on the aca. this rushed nomination process is a shameful attempt to strike down the legislation." senator blackburn saying, "rather than discuss judge barrett's qualifications, senate democrats are creating hysteria over health care to toy with americans' emotions."
12:16 pm
you can follow on c-span's twitter feed the reaction from members of congress, members of the senate. you can subscribe to that list. we are keeping tabs on what's happening inside the hearing, but also outside the hearing room. here is one of the scenes from capitol hill. this tweet from burgess everett of politico. it's the bus that was launched by the concerned women for america. variouss tour hitting states. a picture of the judge on the side of that pink bus that has been driving around capitol hill this morning. we are expecting the committee to come back at about 12:45 eastern this morning. we are hoping to hear from you during this lunch break. we are asking you what question you would ask judge amy coney
12:17 pm
barrett if you were in the judiciary committee hearing. what questions would you want her to answer? here is how we are splitting up our phone lines. republicans, 202-748-8921. 748-8920., 202- you can start calling in now. we would love to hear your questions, what you would ask if you were in the hearing room. as you are calling in, we want to show you some of the exchanges this morning between various senators and judge barrett, including with the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham, asking about judicial activism before the court. also asking about her comments about the affordable care act.
12:18 pm
here are some of those exchanges. sen. graham: let's talk about the process in general. let's talk about the heller case. that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. sen. graham: my friends on the left may try to challenge the construct of heller. if they passed a law in defiance of heller, what would happen? >> that challenge the construct of heller, if it was brought in a lower court, heller binds. lower courts always have to follow the supreme court precedent. sen. graham: and if the supreme court wanted to revisit heller, what would they do? >> if someone has challenged heller below, the supreme court would have to take that case once it was appealed all the way up. the court would have to decide we want to overrule heller and we have enough votes to grant
12:19 pm
cert and then do so. sen. graham: that's the way the process works? yes. sen. graham: is not true no matter the issue -- is that true no matter the issue? does that process hold true for everything? >> judges can't just wake up one day and say, i have an agenda, i like guns, i hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. you have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the constitution, to wind their way through the process. recusal. my colleagues are asking you to recuse yourself from litigation around the affordable care act. what's the precedent regarding the affordable care act, if any? barrett: the precedent
12:20 pm
that? sen. graham: is there a precedent on the issue? judge barrett: it turns on a doctrine called severability, which was not an issue in either of the two big affordable care act cases. sen. graham: the issue before the court was -- judge barrett: that was the first, about the constitutionality of the mandate. the taxi standes and can it be severable? judge barrett: now that congress has zeroed it out, can it be called the tax or is it a penalty? if it is a penalty, cannot be cut out from the statute so that the rest of the statute, including protection for pre-existing conditions, stands? sen. graham: a lot smarter people than me suggest severability would be a challenge, but time will tell. do you feel like you should recuse yourself from that case,
12:21 pm
because you are being nominated by president trump? senator, recusal itself is a legal issue. there is a statute. that governs when judges and justices have to read use -- recuse. there is precedent under that rule. justice ginsburg, in explaining the way recusal works, said it's always up to the individual justice, but it involves consultation with the other eight justices, so that's not a question i could answer in the abstract. are graham: if you appointed by obama, there is no need to recuse yourself in the law by obama? that would be a consideration, correct? judge barrett: that would be a consideration. sen. graham: when it comes to recusing yourself, you will do what the supreme court requires of every justice? judge barrett: i will. with senatorett
12:22 pm
graham. here are more exchanges from this morning. this between judge barrett and dianne feinstein. sen. feinstein: a question that the chairman touched on. it's of great importance, i think, because it goes to a woman's fundamental right to make the most personal decisions about their own body. as a college student, in the 1950's, i saw what happened to young women who became pregnant at a time when abortion was not legal in this country. i went to stanford. i saw the trips to mexico. try to hurtwomen themselves. it was deeply concerning. during her confirmation hearing
12:23 pm
before this committee, ruth bader ginsburg was asked several questions about her views on whether the constitution protects a woman's right to abortion. she unequivocally confirmed her view that the constitution protects a woman's right to abortion, and she explained it like this, and i quote, "the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. it's a decision she must make for herself. when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less then a fully adult human responsible -- less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choice." at one point, our former colleague, orrin hatch, then ranking member of the committee, committed her for being "very forthright in talking about that." i hope, and you have been thus
12:24 pm
be equally forthright with your answers. in planned parenthood of southeastern versus casey, justice scalia, as was said earlier, joined the dissent, which took the position, and i quote, "we believe that roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled, consistent with our traditional riedoach to story -- sto this in constitutional cases." do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided? judge barrett: i do want to be forthright. on that question, i'm going to invoke justice kagan's description, which i think is perfectly put. when she was at her confirmation hearing, she said she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.
12:25 pm
i think in an area where precedent continues to be litigated, as is true of casey, it would be particularly -- it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. if i express a view on a president, whether i say i love it or hate it, it signals to litigants that i might tilt one way or another in a pending case. on somethingtein: that is really a major cause, with major effect on over half of the population of this country who are women, after all, it's distressing not to get a straight answer. let me try again. do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided? senator, itt: completely understand why you are asking the question, but, again, i can't pre-commit or say yes, i'm going in with some
12:26 pm
agenda, because i'm not. i have no agenda to try to overrule casey. i have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come. person, itein: as a don't know if you'll answer this one either, do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe can and should be overturned by the supreme court? judge barrett: i think my answer is the same, because that's the case that is litigated. it is -- its contours do come up. they came up last term before the court. i think what they standard is and -- that's a contentious issue, which is, i know, one reason why it would be comforting to you to have an answer, but i can't express views on cases or precommit to approaching a case any particular way. that makesein: well,
12:27 pm
it difficult for me and i think for other women, also, on this committee, because this is a very important case and it affects a lot of pepole -- people, millions and millions of women. you could be a very important vote. i had hoped you would say, as a person -- you have a lovely family. you understand all the implications of family life. you should be very proud of that. i'm proud of you for that. but my position is a little different. biggestoing on the court of this land with a problem out there that all women see, one way or another, in their life. not all. but certainly married women do and others, too. and so the question comes, what happens? and will this justice support a
12:28 pm
law that has substantial precedent now? would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not? judge barrett: senator, i will obey all the rules. if a question comes up before me about whether casey or any other case should be overruled, i will follow the law and apply it as the court has articulated it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts and laws. i promised to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. i will follow the law. sen. feinstein: in 2013, as you probably know, you asked -- u.s. v. windsor, the u.s. struck doma down. two years later in albert's fellow, the u.s. supreme court
12:29 pm
ergefell, the u.s. supreme court recognized the right to marry could not be denied to citizens. justice ginsburg was in the majority. justice scalia dissented in both cases. you said in your acceptance speech for this nomination that justice scalia's philosophy is your philosophy. do you agree with this particular point of justice scalia's view, that the u.s. constitution does not afford gay people judge barrett: senator feinstein, as i said to senator graham at the outset if i were confirmed, you would be getting justice barrett, not justice scalia. i don't think anybody should assume just because justice scalia decided a certain way, that i would too.
12:30 pm
i will not agree or disagree just for the same reason i have been giving. justice ginsburg used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. no hints, no previous, no forecasts. that has been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the ginsburg rule because she stated it concisely and it has been the practice of every nominee since. i am sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow justice scalia's position, but i cannot do that on any point of law. sen. feinstein: that is really too bad because it is rather a fundamental point for large numbers of people in this country. i understand you do not want to answer these questions directly, but you identify yourself with a justice that you, like him, would be a consistent vote to
12:31 pm
rollback hard-fought freedoms and protections for the lgbtq community. what i was hoping you would say is that this would be a point of difference where those freedoms would be respected. you have not said that. judge barrett: senator, i have no agenda and i want to be clear that i have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on sexual preference. like racism i think discrimination is abhorrent. on the question of law, however, because i am a sitting judge and because you cannot answer questions without going through the judicial process, i cannot give answers to those very specific questions. host: we are about three hours into day two. judge amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing. we are expecting 15 minutes until senators come back to the
12:32 pm
senate hearing room where the hearing has been taking place and we are asking you to call on phone lines split up by republicans, democrats and others asking what question you would ask if you are in the room. we are expecting about 7.5 more hours of questioning. 15 senators left to ask questions today. that would put the hearing -- aroundetime after 9:00 this evening with a dinner break expected to happen later today. that is the plan for the rest of the day. i want to turn the phones over to you now asking what question you would ask if you were in the room. isabel is waiting in new york city, a republican. go ahead. caller: hello and good morning to all. i have a question for amy. is in an area where conservatives are being openly
12:33 pm
attacked for their views in public or in front of their sometimes. what would you do if you felt are ared while you justice in the supreme court by others, by any other justice that works with you on a daily basis? thank you. host: that was isabella. this is edward out of houston, texas. what question would you ask if you were in the room? caller: good morning. my name is edward, a democrat from houston, texas. the question i would ask amy coney barrett is, she keeps stating that you have no hints or forecasts on how you will proceed if confirmed but it proceeds -- seems as you are already showing because of how answer every -- senators question with open arms but was democrats, you are very close to the questions and answers. i would ask again, how you would
12:34 pm
proceed with ruling if given the opportunity to get confirmed. in oyster bay,s new york. the line for others. go ahead. caller: i am calling because i would ask justice barrett, everybody has their case briefs, everyone has the written things available for each case, everyone that the justice currently sitting on the supreme court would have. i think it is improper for anybody being appointed to the supreme court to be so shady, about aous when asked policy or legal opinion. we are electing and putting these people on the court to say their opinions and tell us their opinion and by doing so and hiding behind old dogmas of the supreme court, i think any person be nominated -- being nominated violates the things
12:35 pm
they should share with the public. host: matthew from new york. for now, judge barrett's is serving on the second court of appeals to her several more steps need to take place. here is the road ahead for judge barrett after today's hearing. , tomorrow and thursday, additional hearings in the senate office building, that room you are seeing on your screen. tomorrow's hearing includes two rows of questioning. today's round is 130 minute round. tomorrow we are expecting eight 20 minute round followed by -- a 20 minute round. additional witnesses will be invited before the senate judiciary committee to testify about judge barrett. we found out yesterday the scheduling of the vote for the committee vote is expected to
12:36 pm
take place on october 22 on thursday of this week. after that, the nomination would go to the senate floor and a vote before the full senate. that is the road ahead. back to your phone calls. in about 10 minutes or so we are expecting before members and judge barrett return to the committee hearing room to continue today's question, 30 minute round of questions. this is joshua from columbus, ohio, republican. what would you ask? caller: i thought amy did a great job trying to separate the politics of the legislative and executive bodies versus the judicial review aspects of the supreme court. i would ask barrett what protections the country can make to ensure the supreme court is not turned into a political legislative body, but into a ruling body.
12:37 pm
i would ask her if may a tostitutional amendment codify the number of supreme court justices that would maybe stabilize the court from not being political, being judicial only. host: that is joshua in ohio. steve, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. it is obvious that your support to the republicans just before an election because they believe gunwill repeal roe, support gate'sip and deny right to marriage. right to marriage. host: what question would you ask? caller: i would like to know why judge barrett is being considered at this time. we are already voting. i would like to note if she has
12:38 pm
ever -- i would like to know if she has ever considered that. why not wait until after the election and of donald trump should happen to win, they can continue this hearing. -- wins, he winds, should have a say. about thee a question aca. i do not believe we are getting any information at all. the aca has saved millions of lives and millions rely on it. i am not feeling comfortable with any of the answers. i feel they are all canned. duringust mute my tv that part because it is all the exact same answer which is not an answer. thank you. host: wayne out of illinois, republican. what question would you ask? us?you with caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: yes.
12:39 pm
my question is, we are supposed to be having a hearing to see if the judge is qualified. they should not be distracting from what we are therefore. -- there for. how do she feel about the democrats using political hacking jobs to represent her beliefs. i would say they should get out of there and do your job. about, wedo you feel see signs on the house and senate floor as members try to make their points. how do you feel about signs in general? caller: i don't think it is a good idea because that is not what the senate is for the this hearing is based on the nomination for a supreme judge position. those signs have nothing to do with what she is therefore. -- what she is there for.
12:40 pm
it has no bearing on this case, whatsoever. hopefully we do get some judges that will overturn some cases that should not have been. obama screwed this country up with gay marriage. he screwed it up. abortion is illegal. it is not because of saving a woman's life, it is against the law to your why do we have to decide on whether people have the right to say a law is a law? we know the law. it is written. obey the law. do what the law says. the law says it is wrong. agree with the law. is right tok it choose what they want to do with her body. that is fine. y time to choose, you'll have to worry about me taking it to the court. donna from new jersey. you are next.
12:41 pm
caller: thank you for letting me join. on november 10, the supreme court will hear the challenge to the aca. judge barrett's youngest child is a special needs child. my question is if the supreme court rules in favor to the challenge, this could set precedent for other states to start unraveling and dismantling the aca. will the judge consider her own personal situation along with her interpretation of the constitution when she makes her ruling, thank you. host: that is donna in new jersey. a few minutes before we are expecting members to start returning to the hearing room after their lunch break and we will take you there live when they do. also keeping you updated on what else is happening on capitol hill. a tweet from earlier today from phil mattingly of cnn focusing on what could be ahead when it comes to coronavirus relief
12:42 pm
talks. they continued possible action before the november election. feel naggingly noting that mitch mcconnell said he would bring up mattingly, --il phil mattingly, when the senate returns next week. negotiations have once again floundered. democrats have repeatedly rejected standalone bills when it comes to future relief. twittert trump on weighing in about potential new relief bill, tweeting this just after 11:00, when it comes to a stimulus, go big or go home. when it comes to the democratic ade of negotiations, colleague letter released by nancy pelosi to the members of her caucus today. on the insufficiency of the administration, she writes, this
12:43 pm
is what she writes in that lengthy letter to her colleagues , "president trump suspended negotiations on our heroes act as you know. when he did that, the stock market went down and so did he in the polls. secretary mnuchin came back to the negotiation table and administered a proposal that took one step forward and two steps back. in some instances, it will make matters worse. a fly on the wall or wherever it might land tells me that the president only wants his name on a check to go out before election day and for the stock market to go up, the american people want an agreement to protect lives, livelihoods and the life of our american democracy. democrats are determined to do so here: that is part of the letter -- democrats are determined to do so." senate you to this
12:44 pm
office building. judge amy coney barrett getting ready to return to the hearing room on day two of her confirmation hearing at the supreme court. >> did you talk to the president during the break

69 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on