Skip to main content

tv   Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 2  CSPAN  October 14, 2020 6:36am-7:00am EDT

6:36 am
c-span.org/ supremecourt. are live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. sen. graham: all of us on this side accepted she was highly qualified. what i want the american people ok.to beit is
6:37 am
religiously conservative it is ok to be personally pro-choice. to -- all the young, conservative women out there, this hearing is about a place for you. when this is over, i hope there will be place for you at the table. . pickingdent trump, i judge barrett, you have publicly said you find value in all of these characteristics, beyond anything else, you find a judge barrett to be highly qualified. you are one of the best picks president trump could have made and from the conservative side of the aisle you are one of the most qualified people of your generation. --'s talk about board versus brown versus board of education.
6:38 am
professor, i talked i think may be in political conversation or in newspapers people use it different ways but in my writing i was using a framework that has been articulated by other scholars and in that context, super precedent means precedent that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled. there are six other cases on this list scholars have identified. sen. graham: first let's talk about what the process is that would lead to it being overruled. what would have to happen? judge barrett: -- what would have to happen? would have to you
6:39 am
have another government imposed segregation again. sen. graham: if you want to make yourself famous by the end of the day, i you can say should go back to segregation. the point we are trying to make here is the court cannot wake up and say " let's revisit brown." decision, brown before you could review brown, someone out there would have to pass a law saying let's go back to segregated schools. do you see that happening anytime soon? judge barrett: i do not see that happening anytime soon. sen. graham: there is the heller case. what is that about? judge barrett: it is a case decided by the supreme court, which held that the second amendment protects the right to bear arms. of myraham: some
6:40 am
colleagues on the left may tried to challenge heller. what would happen? challenging the construct of heller. judge barrett: if it was brought in a lower court, heller binds. lower courts have to follow supreme court precedent. sen. graham: if the supreme court wanted to revisit heller, what would they do? 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 override heller and we have enough votes to do so." lawsuit, a law, then a then an appeal, then the court decided the case. sen. graham: is that true no matter the case whether it is campaign finances, does that
6:41 am
process hold true for everything? judge barrett: judges cannot wake up one day and say i have an agenda and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. you have to wait for cases and controversies to wind their way through the process. sen. graham: senator sasse gave us a good civics lesson. if the state says i don't think you should have over six bullets and somebody believed that violated the second amendment, there would be a lawsuit and the same process would work, right? judge barrett: in that case parties would have to sue the state arguing that law was unconstitutional. it would wind its way up and difficult to the supreme court and if the supreme court decided to take it, a whole decision-making process begins.
6:42 am
you hear or commence on both sides, they write briefs, you talk to clerks, your colleagues, then you write an opinion. opinions circulate and you get feedback from your colleagues. it is an entire process. sen. graham: let's talk about the two supreme court cases regarding abortion. what are the two leading cases in america regarding abrupt -- abortion? ande barrett: roe v. wade isey is the case after that grounded in a slightly different rationale. the rationale is that you cannot impose an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. thereraham: unlike brown are states challenging on the heartbeatront, fetal
6:43 am
bill. would reletl that pregnancy after the fifth week pregnancycy -- ban after the fifth month of praise and see. to save the child's life, you in esthesia. if you have to provide anesthesia to save the child's life, it must be a terrible death to be dismembered by an abortion. to protect the unborn at the fifth month -- if that litigation comes before you will you listen to both sides? judge barrett: of course. sen. graham: 15 states have passed a law similar to what i just described.
6:44 am
that is just one example. is a challenge coming passes aate, a state law and it goes into court where people say "this violates casey," how do you decide that? judge barrett: trial court would make a record. they would litigate and develop that record then it would go up to a court of appeals that would look for errors. it will be the same process. it supreme court would grant then at that point it will be the full judicial process. ,rief, oral argument consultations with colleagues, writing an opinion, it is not just a vote. the judicial process is different. to. graham: when it comes
6:45 am
your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun? judge barrett:. we do own a gun -- we do own a gun. sen. graham:sen. graham: do you think you could fairly decide a ?ase even though you own a gun judge barrett: i do. sen. graham: you have chosen to raise your family and the catholic faith. judge barrett: that is true. sen. graham: can you set aside your beliefs in deciding whatever issue is before you? judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: there are personal views on the supreme court and nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their beliefs. there is no reason to question yours in my view.
6:46 am
the bottom line here is that there is a process. you fill in the blanks whether it is about guns, abortion rights. let's go to citizens united. and ir whitehouse, you will come closer and closer on regulating money. there is a lot of money being raised in this campaign. i would like to know where some of it is coming from. citizens united says what? judge barrett: citizens united extends the first amendment to corporations involved in political speech. sen. graham: if someone challenged that congress went too far, how would the process work? judge barrett: it will be the same process i have been describing. someone would have to challenge that law in a case.
6:47 am
it would wind its way up, judges would decide it after briefs, consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. sen. graham: same-sex marriage, what is the case that established same-sex marriage as the law of the land? if there was a state that tried to outlaw same-sex marriage, there is litigation. would it follow the same process yucca -- same process? judge barrett: yes. not only would someone have to challenge that statute -- if they outlawed same-sex marriage there would have to be case challenging it. for the supreme court to take it up, you would have to have lower courts going along. the most likely result would be the lower courts bound by it down andt that lawsuit
6:48 am
it wouldn't make it to the supreme court. >> let me begin with the .the chairman touched on question the chairman touched on. 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. i saw young women try to hurt themselves and it was deeply concerning. during your conference -- during her confirmation hearing, ruth bader ginsburg was asked several questions about her views on whether the constitution
6:49 am
protects a woman's right to an abortion. confirmed herlly view that the constitution protects a women's right -- a woman's right to abortion. or not tosion whether bear a child is central to a woman's life, well-being, and dignity. it is a decision she must make for herself. when government controls that decision for her she is being treated less than a fully adult human responsible for her choice." in hatch, then ranking member of this committee commended her for being very forthright in talking about that. far, but ien thus hope you will be equally forthright with your answers.
6:50 am
in planned parenthood versus casey, justice scalia as was said earlier joined the dissent, wech took the position " believe a row was wrongly -- roe was that it wrongly decided and that it should be overruled." wasou agree that roe wrongly decided? judge barrett: i want to be forthright. on that question i will invoke justice kagan's description, which i think it is perfectly put. she said she would not grade precedent. in an area where precedent continues to be litigated as is true with casey, it would be
6:51 am
actually wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. if i express a view on a precedent one way or another, it signals to litigants that i might tilt one way or another in a pending case. somethingtein: on that is a major cause with major women, it is distressing not to get a straight answer. -- do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided? judge barrett: i cannot pre-commit or say i am going in with some agenda because i am not. i have no agenda to try and overrule casey.
6:52 am
i have an agenda to decide cases as they come. feinstein: as a person, do you agree with justice scalia's bew that roe can and should overturned? judge barrett: my answer is the same. litigated thatif that is terms could -- a contentious issue. one reason why it would be comforting to you to have an answer. i cannot express views or precommit to approaching a case any a particular way. that makes it:
6:53 am
difficult for me and i think other women on this committee because this is a very important case and it affects a lot of people, millions and millions of women. you could be a very important vote. i had hoped you would say as a , you understand all the implications of family life. should be proud of that. i am proud of you for that. my position is different. you're going on the biggest 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. the question comes, what happens? will this justice support a lot but has substantial president now? whethercommit yourself
6:54 am
you will or will not? toge barrett: i commit following all rules that if a question comes on before me -- comes up before me that i will follow the rules applying them ,s the court has articulated it workability, being undermined by later facts and law, all the standard factors and i promise to do that for any issue that comes up. i will follow the law. feinstein: i think that is expected. gun country is facing great violence. there has been a surge in gun sales during the covid-19 crisis, which has led to more lives being needlessly lost.
6:55 am
according to the gun violence archive, an independent research 60 nasation, there were shootings in may alone. mass shootings in may alone. killed.e were figure does not take into account all the gun sales that could not be completed because the purchaser failed a a number thatck, has also skyrocketed. for example, this past march the fbi's background check system 23,692 sales, or than blocked in march
6:56 am
of 2019. do you agree the courts have a compelling interest in stemming the rise of gun violence? senator, the: constitutionality of any particular measure that was passed by state or local governments or by this body would be subject to the same judicial process i described with senator graham. what i will say, heller leaves room for gun regulation and that is why there has been a lot of litigation in the lower courts, which makes me constraint not to comment on the limits of it, but it does not make -- in an opinion: you wrote, you said there was no keeping guns out
6:57 am
of the hands of those likely to is " a government interest." do you agree? judge barrett: what i said in that opinion, i stand by, which is the original meaning of the second amendment in that case does support the idea that governments are free to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous. for example, the mentally ill, those who would be likely to misuse guns. feinstein: where does that leave you on roe. the chairman asked a good
6:58 am
thision -- for many people is a fundamental question. we have our moral values, are religions. i respect you and your family for doing just that, but this is a very real problem out there. if you could be more specific in any way with respect to how you would view your place on the court with respect to controlling weapons in this country -- judge barrett: sen. warren: -- judge barrett: what i can say is my position in cantor shows how i approach philosophy. i spent a lot of time looking at the supreme court's cases. wayweight which i would -- in which i would approach gun regulation would be the same. to look closely at what the
6:59 am
original meaning was. i promise i would come to that with an open mind, applying the law as i best determine. watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government created by america's television company as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. look at alive coverage wednesday. at 9:00 a.m. eastern supreme court nominee amy coney barrett is in front of the judiciary committee for day three of her hearing. at 11 :00 a.m. president trump gives a speech at the economic club of new york. iser today, president trump at a rally in des moines, iowa.

73 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on