Skip to main content

tv   Today in the Bay  NBC  October 12, 2020 6:00am-7:00am PDT

6:00 am
extraordinarily high for the well. >> what an american people both in the makes. short term and decades to come. my goodness. well, quickly6:00 now and as >> our coverage continues on the "today" show in just a few monday morning. moments. happening any minute now on here is a twist on the three rs when it comes to some bay capitol hill the supreme court nomination hearing will begin area elementary schools. for judge amy coney barrett. this is a live look right now at reading, writing and reopening. the site. we're expecting a special report sharon katsuda, this is a big morning for some families. from nbc news at any moment now. and -- >> reporter: they're having to pick out complete outfits and they're heading to school having to allow for travel time now this morning for pre-k through good morning, everyone. first graders. we are coming on the air to instead of zoom calls they'll be bring you live coverage of the heading to campus due to lower senate confirmation hearing for covid-19 numbers. the palo alto unified school amy coney barrett, the district last month voted on president's nominee to secede having students head back to ruth bader ginsburg on the u.s. class with social distancing supreme court. this of course comes at an measures in place because extraordinary moment for our students sitting six feet apart. country in the grip of the many parents and teachers pandemic and 22 days away from election day. objected to the plan but the district is moving forward with we are taking you inside a look pre-k through first starting
6:01 am
today and two weeks later second and third graders, fourth and at that hearing room where we've seen amy coney barrett's fifth gradeers in november. middle schoolers and high school children, her husband, family members. students won't head back to a large hearing room where the campus until january. this all comes as california has supreme court confirmation seen a dip in covid-19 hearings have taken place, but never like this in terms of positivity rates. timing and what the country is going through. one of the senators seat. i did see some paws painted on in a moment we'll hear opening statements from the senators. the sidewalks and benches so there's lindsey graham, the kids are aware of where they republican chair of the judiciary committee talking to need to social distance six feet his counterpart, democrat dianne apart. reporting live in palo alto, feinstein. sharon katsuda, "today in the the ranking democrat on this committee. as we watch this unfold, these bay." >> thanks so much, sharon. few moments before the hearing a lot of unanswered questions this morning after a drin outdog gets under way, i want to go to area in san jose critically injuring two people. it happened yesterday at the grand century mall. nbc's kasie hunt. authorities say a 69-year-old this comes at a time when we're man accidentally hit the gas on close to election day. his suv which then plowed into some people are voting in states that allow early viking. diners injuring eight people. family members believe he may have suffered some kind of that itself is the back mental emergency. >> checking in with back --backdrop. >> reporter: so many ballots meteorologist kari hall for a pa forecast that includes a bit of cast, and the heated crucible a warm-up.
6:02 am
that we are in is the backdrop for this hearing. that is, of course, a big part we are going to see much of why republicans want to move warmer temperatures for today as so quickly to try and put amy we go into this afternoon you're coney barrett on the court. going to start to see those this hearing just 16 days after she was nominated. highs reaching into the upper they want to take this to a 80s and we'll be watching out for high fire danger as our temperatures crank up by the end of the week. final vote on the floor before we will, of course, have more election day. updates on that. part of the reason is what we'll what's happening for the hear democrats focus on. commute, mike? folks are picking their word a week or so after the election, the supreme court is expected to or words to describe the backup north 880 jammed up for about hear arguments on the affordable care act. a lawsuit that would basically three miles. we've extended the ability for strike down that law. that road work to go on at 29. and amy coney barrett if confirmed would be in a position to potentially rule on that. that will jam you up. so democrats today, you'll see it might temporarily send folks in a few minutes, planning on south of the san mateo bridge. displaying photos of constituents who could stand to moving smoothly acr lose their health care if that were to happen. we can report that senator mike all right. lee, who's in this room -- you sounds good. that's going to do it for us on pointed out how different this "today in the bay" this monday morning. is because of the pandemic -- senator lee was at the white >> a live look at the half moon house, was positive for coronavirus. bay pumpkin weigh-off. he's appearing here in person who won coming up in our midday
6:03 am
today. >> all right. news at 11:00. we are watching this hearing room. gaveling in now. we'll see the nominee walking in. let's take a listen. >> learn about the differences good morning. on the trail. in judging and maybe the three weeks out, president trump differences in the party. gearing up for his return to if that happens, it will be a campaigning, saying he is now successful hearing. immune from the coronavirus. >> you know, the word "immunity" as to the hearing room, i doubt if there's any room in the means something. country that's been given more attention and detail to make having really a protective glow. it means something. >> and ss he has even tested sure it's cdc compliant. negative. the architect of the capitol the white house doctor saying working with the attending only he is no longer contagious. physician has set up the room in and joe biden prepares to launch his own tour of key battlegrounds with just 22 days a fashion that we can safely do our business. to go. the new national poll revealing senator lee is back. the state of the race. you've been cleared by your physician. welcome back. showdown. confirmation hearings for the covid problem in america is real. it's serious. it's dangerous. we have to mitigate the risk. i would just let every american know that many of you are going to work today, probably already
6:04 am
been at work, and i hope your employer will take care of your health care needs. but we do have a country that needs to move forward safely, and there are millions of americans, cops, waitresses, nurses, you name it, going to work today to do their job, and we're going to work in the senate to do our job. and one of the most important jobs the senate judiciary committee will ever do is have hearings and confirm a justice to the supreme court. so for housekeeping purposes, the first day has traditionally been opening statements by my colleagues. we'll do ten-minute rounds, and everybody will have ten minutes to talk about their views of the hearing and what this is all about. then we will have a panel to introduce judge barrett, and she will make an opening statement. we'll try to finish mid-afternoon if that's possible. then tuesday and wednesday will
6:05 am
be long days. there will be 30-minute rounds for every senator followed by a 20-minute round. my goal is to complete that wednesday at some kind of reasonable hour in the evening. thursday we will begin the markup, i intend to hold it over and bring the committee back on the 22nd to vote on the nomination. so if i may, i'll start off with an opening statement and say why are we here. number one, justice ruth bader ginsburg died on september the 18th. what can you say about justice ginsburg? she was confirmed 96-3. now those were days that have since passed. i regret that. 96-3. now this was a person who worked for the aclu. someone who was known in progressive circles as an icon. apparently just about every
6:06 am
republican voted for her. her good friend on the court, justice scalia, i think got 97 votes. i don't know what happened between then and now. i guess there's -- we can all take some blame. but i just want to remind everybody, there was a time in this country where someone like ruth bader ginsburg was seen by almost everybody as qualified for the position of being on the supreme court, understanding that she would have a different philosophy than many of the republicans who voted for her. 27 years on the court before becoming a member of the court, she was an active litigator, pushing for more equal justice and better rights for women throughout the country. her close friend until his
6:07 am
death, justice scalia, called of women's rights. the thurgood marshall of that cause. what high praise. i can't say any more than that statement says. in my view, the person appearing before this committee is in a category of excellence, something the country should be proud of, and she will have a chance to make her case to be a worthy successor and to become the ninth member of the supreme court of the united states. on september the 26th, judge amy barrett was nominated by president trump to the supreme court. who is she? she is a judge sitting on the seventh judicial circuit.ed.
6:08 am
she was a professor at notre da dame. three years during that tenure show was chosen by student to be the best professor which i'm sure is no easy task at any college. she's widely admired for integrity. she grew up in new orleans, graduated from rhodes college in memphis, tennessee, in 1994. graduate d first in her class from notre dame law school in 1997. so academically she's very gifted. she clerked for judge lawrence silberman on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and then for justice scalia on the supreme court. she practiced law in washington, d.c., she joined the faculty at notre dame in 2002.
6:09 am
she's published numerous articles in prestigious journals including the columbia, university of virginia, and cornell law the seven 2017. she was confirmed to that position in a bipartisan -- with a bipartisan vote. she has heard hundreds of cases in that capacity. she said, "i clerked for justice scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons i learned still resonate. his judicial philosophy is mine. a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold." she will give her statement, but i think that is a good summary of who she is.
6:10 am
that's who amy barrett is in terms of the law. in terms of amy barrett the individual, she and her husband have seven children, two adopted. so nine seems to be a good number. the process. this is an election year. we're confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. what will happen is that my democratic colleagues will say this has never been done, and they're right in this regard. nobody's i think has been confirmed in an election year past july. the bottom line is justice ginsburg when asked about there several years ago said that a president serves four years, not three. there's nothing unconstitutional about this process. this is a vacancy that's occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman, and we're going to fill that vacancy with another great woman.
6:11 am
the bottom line here is that the senate is doing its duty constitutionally. as to judge garland, the opening that occurred with the passing of justice scalia was in the part of an election year. the primary process had just started, and we can talk about history, but here's the history as i understand it -- there's never been a situation where you had a president of one party and the senate of another where the nominee of the replacement was made in election year, been over 140 years ago. i think there have been nine vacancies filled in election year, 17 of the 19 were confirmed to the court when the party of the president and the senate were the same. in terms of timing, the hearing is starting 16 days after nomination. more than half of all supreme court hearings have been held within 16 days of the
6:12 am
announcement of the nominee. stephens 10, rehnquist 13, powell 13, black man, 13, burger 13. all i can say is that i feel that we're doing this constitutionally, that our democratic friends object to the process. i respect them all, they'll have a chance to have their say. but most importantly, i hope we will know more about how the law works, checks and balances, what the supreme court is all about when this hearing is over. why hold this hearing? lot of people on our side say just ram it through. i hear that a lot. that's why i don't listen to the radio much anymore. so the bottom line is i think it's important, this is a lifetime appointment. i would like the world and the country to know more about judge barrett.
6:13 am
i'm proud of you. i'm proud of what you've accomplished. i think you're a great choice by the president. this is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens. all republicans will vote yes, and all democrats will vote no. and that will be the way the breakout of the vote. but the hearing is a chance for democrats to dig deep into her philosophy, appropriate ask her about the law, how she would be different, what's on her mind. it gives republicans a chance to do the same thing. most importantly, it gives you a chance, the american people, to find out about judge barrett. judge for yourself. is this person qualified? is she as qualified as sotomayor and kagan? i think so. these were two nominees
6:14 am
presented to the committee by president obama. they had a different legal philosophy than my own, but i never doubted one moment that they were not qualified. i thought gorsuch and kavanaugh were qualified. the senate in the past has looked at qualifications more than anything else. we've taken a different path at times. bjork, thomas, alito, kavanaugh. i hope we don't take that path with judge barrett. she doesn't deserve that. i don't think it makes this hearing any better. the american people i believe would not deserve a repeat of those episodes in the senate judiciary committee's history. to my democratic colleagues, i respect you all. we've done some things together,
6:15 am
and we've had some fights in this committee. i've tried to give you the time you need to make your case, and you have every right in the world to make your case. i think i know how the vote's going to come out, but i think judge barrett is required for the good of the nation to submit to your questions and ours. this is going to be a long, contentious week. i would just ask one thing of the committee. to the extent possible, let's make it respectful, let's make it challenging, let's remember the world is watching. senator feinstein? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. and i do want to just address your last statements. we feel the same way, and i believe we want this to be a very good hearing. and i certainly will strive to do my best to achieve that.
6:16 am
good morning, judge barrett, and welcome to you and your family. less than one month ago, the nation lost one of our leading voices for equality, ruth bader ginsburg, left very big shoes to fill. judge ginsburg loved the law, and she loved this country. she worked all of her life to ensure that the opening words of our constitution, "we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union," included all the people, not just a few, elite few. she was a standard bearer for justice. justice ginsburg's nomination was the first one that i participated in when i came to the senate, and it was a real thrill to be part of that crowded and celebratory hearing for someone who had broken down barriers and reopened doors and staunchly believed in a woman's
6:17 am
right to full equality and autonomy. in filling judge ginsburg's seat, the stakes are extraordinarily high for the american people. both in the short term and for decades to come. most importantly, health care coverage for millions of americans is at stake with this nomination. so over the course of these hearings, my colleagues and i will focus on that subject. we will examine the consequences if, and that's a big if, republicans succeed in rushing this nomination through the senate before the next president takes office. most importantly, in just a few weeks, on november 10th, the supreme court will hear hearings in texas v. california, a case brought to strike down the aca. the president has promised to
6:18 am
appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law. as a candidate, he criticized the supreme court for upholding the law and said, and i quote, if i win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee, john roberts, on obamacare, end quote. and when he appointed judge barrett to fill justice ginsburg's seat, the president said that eliminating the affordable care act would be, quote, a big win for the usa. judge barrett, you've been critical of chief justice roberts for his 5-4 opinion upholding the law, stating that roberts, quote, pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute, end quote. this well could mean that it judge barrett is confirmed, americans stand to lose the
6:19 am
benefits that the aca provides. so i hope you will clarify that in this hearing. first, more than 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions like cancer, asthma, or even covid-19, could be denied coverage or charged more to obtain health insurance. this includes more than 16.8 million californians with pre-existing conditions. and we are just one state. but i think you should know how we feel. secondly, some 12 million working americans are covered through the aca's medicaid expansion. if the act is struck down, they lose their health care. third, more than two million americans under the age of 26 are covered by their parents' health insurance, and they could
6:20 am
lose that coverage. fourth, insurers could charge higher premiums for women simply because of their gender. and fifth, women could lose access to critical preventive services and maternity care, including cancer screenings and well-woman visits. now, the bottom line is this -- there have been 70 attempts to repeal the aca, but clearly the effort to dismantle the law continues. and they are asking the supreme court to strike down the affordable care act. this i believe will cause tremendous harm. consider people like christina monroe garcia of my home state. at age 60, christina's eyesight started to fail because of cataracts. she had always struggled to
6:21 am
obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions, including c-sections and epilepsy. the cost of coverage when it was even offered to her averaged between $2,500 and $3,000 a month. far more than she and her husband could afford. in 2010, she was able to obtain coverage through the affordable care act. within weeks, she was able to have cataract surgery. this saved her life. christina described her reaction when she was able to get coverage through the california health exchange following passage of the aca. and let me quote, it was like mana from heaven. i cried. after all these years of struggling to obtain coverage, i was able to get insurance through the california exchange. no questions asked about my
6:22 am
pre-existing conditions. the premium was worth $200 a month as compared to the $2,500 to $3,000 monthly payments i would have to pay before the aca. if i could even get an insurer to offer me coverage. as christina further explained, and i quote, people just don't understand what it was like. the incredible fear before the affordable care act. having to worry about being able to cover medical expenses and not being able to find affordable insurance, end quote. we can't afford to go back to those days when americans could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant amounts. that's what's at stake for many of us, for america, with this nomination. and that's why the questions we will ask and the views hopefully that you will share with us are so important.
6:23 am
we are now just 22 days from the election, mr. chairman. voting is under way in 40 states. senate republicans are pressing forward, full speed ahead, to consolidate a court that will carry their policies forward with i hope some review for the will of the american people. president trump said last week that he had, quote, instructed my representatives to stop negotiation over a covid-19 relief package until after the election, end quote. and to, quote, focus full time
6:24 am
i believe we should not be moving forward, not until the election has ended and the next president has taken office. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. senator grassley? >> welcome, judge. on march 1, 2016, justice
6:25 am
ginsburg delivered a eulogy for justice ginsburg delivered a eulogy and said we were different, yes, in our interpretation of written text. interpretation of written text. yet, one in our reverence for the courts and its place in the u.s. system of governance, end quote. justice ginsburg's remarkable life and legacy will be honored for a generation and also justice scalia's. the senate is now tasked with carrying out perhaps its most solemn duty under the constitution. as we go through this process, we should heed justice ginsburg's words with a shared reverence for the court and its place in our constitutional system. this idea is critical.
6:26 am
ours is a government of separated powers. the power to make, enforce, and interpret law is central -- isn't centralized in one person or one branch of government. that's not a mistake. you all know what our american revolution was all about and what the constitution is all about because people at that time were sick and tired of one person, george iii, restricting american colonies of freedom that english-speaking people elsewhere exercised. as justice scalia reminds us, the framers recognize the separation of powers as, quote, the absolutely central guarantee
6:27 am
of a just government because without a secure structure of separated powers, our bill of rights would be worthless, end quote. but this constitutional system only succeeds if each branch respects its proper role. a good judge understands it's not the court's place to rewrite the law as it sees fit. it's not his or her place to let policy, personal or moral principles, dictate an outcome of a case. we are fortunate judge barrett's record clearly reflects this standard. she said, quote, a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policymakers, and
6:28 am
they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views that they might hold, end quote. judge barrett's service reflects an exceptional intellect paired with deep commitment to the rule of law. so we look to those who know her well. she's received praise across the legal profession and ideological spectrum. former colleagues at notre dame describe the judge as, quote, brilliant, inbus trees, gracious, and kind and the utmost inegg at this ti egtegri temper. prized in a judge, end quote. she's all -- she's also known as, quote, a generous mentor, and she's known for her, quote,
6:29 am
her humility, graciousness,abil among differing views, end quote. her students, quote, expressed awe with the power of judge barrett's intellect, with her mastery and organization of complex material, and with her ore than 200 sm, end of quote. liberty-supporting groups across quote, possesses the judicial temperament and philosophy necessary as a bulwark for our constitution and institutions of government, end of quote. 24 state governors describe judge barrett as, quote, a woman of great moral character who is devoted to her country, community, family, and faith, like many americans, end of quote. the "wall street journal" editorial board says, quote,
6:30 am
president trump's nomination of amy coney barrett for the supreme court is the highlight of his presidency, end of quote. a promise kept, a promise made, a promise kept. liberal harvard law professor noah feldman called judge barrett, quote, a principal brilliant lawyer, a genuine good person, highly qualified to serve on the supreme court. that's a pretty high praise, i just -- i just recited from others. moreover, judge barrett is a tireless mother of seven. for decades i've led efforts in the senate to improve foster care and promote adoption. so it's a privilege for me to welcome a justice like that to the supreme court.
6:31 am
to sum up the qualifications and character, impeccable. i suspect the minority will try to wrestle up baseless claims and scare tactics as they've done for decades, anything to derail the confirmation of a republican nominee. lately the left is threatening to pack the supreme court in retaliation for this confirmation process. even the democrats' nominee for president and vice president have not ruled out such blatantly partisan policy grabs. republicans are following the constitution and the president. it seems democrats would rather just ignore both. the left is also suggesting judge barrett's confirmation would be the demise of the affordable care act and the protection for pre-existing conditions. that's outrageous.
6:32 am
as a mother of seven, judge barrett clearly understands the importance of health care. so let's set the record straight. then-professor barrett criticized chief roberts' conclusion that it was a tax. democrats say her viewpoint is radical and a preview how she might vote on the court. first her comments dealt with a provision of law that's no longer in effect. so the legal questions before the court this fall are entirely separate. moreover, her criticism of roberts' reasoning is mainstream, not only in the conservative legal community, but well beyond. i'm the chairman of the finance committee and was ranking when democrats unilaterally cobbled together obamacare. i know a tax when i see one. this wasn't a tax. it was never discussed in committee as a tax.
6:33 am
even the democrats who forced it through congress insisted it wasn't a tax. jeffrey toobin wrote that roberts' tax argument was, quote/unquote, not a persuasive one. president obama even said, quote, i absolutely reject the notion that it was a tax. further, democrats and their allies shouldn't claim to know how any judge would rule in any particular case. just look at history. the left slammed stephens for his consistent opposition to women's rights. they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david souter would, quote, end freedom of women in this country. ultimately, the left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist
6:34 am
allies have also shown that there is no low that they won't tarnish a nominee. and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came out. some of my colleagues may again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017, they said -- suggested judge barrett was too faithful or too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is of concern. let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits relilegiouft. judge, you'll no doubt be asked
6:35 am
how you'll rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you'll follow the example of justice ginsburg, a nominee should offer no forecasts, no hints of how he or she will vote because that's the role of a judge. that's the place of a judge in our system of government -- unbiased, fiercely independent, faithful to the rule of law, and a steadfast defender of the constitution. judge barrett, i look forward to our conversation. once again, congratulations. >> thank you, senator grassley. i believe senator leahy will join us virtually. >> thank you. and i assume you can hear me all . there you are. thank you. >> thank you. you know, as i listened to this, i think about the fact that i've served in the senate for 46
6:36 am
years. during that time we had 20 supreme court nominations, 16 confirmation hearings, i could tell you right now none looked anything like this. less than two weeks from justice ginsburg being laid to rest. now, it's true it's the responsibility of this committee to consider her replacement on the supreme court, but this isn't the way we should do it. we should not have had a nomination ceremony before justice ginsburg was even buried, while the nation was mourning her passing. we should not be holding a hearing just 16 days later when this committee has afforded itself three times as long to vet other modern nominees to our nation's highest court. we shouldn't be holding a hearing three weeks from a presidential election when millions of americans have
6:37 am
already voted. doing so requires that literally half of the senate goes back on their word. think of that, my republican colleagues. literally half of the senate had to break their word, contradicting every argument they made four years ago about the american people needing a voice during an election year vacancy. we should. -- we should not be holding this hearing. two members of this committee now emerging from quarantine after testing positive for covid. and when other members have declined to get tested and the chairman has refused to implement daily testing, a regime to keep members and staff and judge barrett and her family safe. i might say we shouldn't be spending time on this when we're doing absolutely nothing to pass
6:38 am
a much-needed covid bill.tor on knows in their heart this to and why? the answer is painfully clear. president trump and senate republicans see the potential to
6:39 am
swing the ballots of the court. taking the court independent and the far right and the republican party. the far right and the republican party. the potential to accomplish through the court what they failed to accomplish by votes in the halls of congress. the top of the hit list is the affordable care act. it's no secret, no coincidence that republicans are rushing to confirm judge barrett before the supreme court considers the latest republican-led lawsuit to overturn the affordable care act on november 10. the president has even promised that any judge he nominates will overturn the affordable care act. one member of this committee was promised -- has promised he won't vote for a judge unless he has that commitment, that the
6:40 am
nominee overturn the act. and for her part, judge barrett's writings, and they unequivocally are clear, she considers the act unconstitutional. in fact, overturning the affordable care act has been perhaps the single most-important policy objective of the republican party during the past decade. if republicans are now successful, the results will be nothing short of catastrophic for the millions of americans who depend upon its coverage and projections. these are real people. i believe you have in the committee hearing, trying to get this so you can see it. this is mary mayden scott. she lives in northfield, vermont, just over the bridge from my home in middlesex, vermont. in her 20s. she was diagnosed with
6:41 am
frederick's atoxia, a rare neurological disease. my wife -- i apologize for -- i know you have this picture in the committee room -- she worked, mary worked as a nurse realizing she would soon no longer be able to pursue the career she loved, she asked the hospital to prrotate her throug different specialties to help as many people as possible. that's who she is. now she's in a wheelchair, she can no longer practice nursing. she does everything she can to take care of her two children. i actually had the pleasure of calling one of her sons on his birthday last spring. mary i know attends their soccer games, at a remote school, she even brought them to tour the vermont state house.
6:42 am
mary can do this because her medication and in-home care is paid for by her insurance, but she's worried. even with some state protections, she's worried about the supreme court case next month, what it will mean for people with pre-existing conditions like her. for mary, if she lost her insurance, her biggest worry, she'd lose her in-home support that allows her to continue living at home and taking care of her children. she's a fighter. who i think of what the affordable care act means to millions of americans, what's on the line with this nomination, i think of mary. i think of what she's going to lose. and she's not the only one. i talk to vermonters always the time. i think of another one, martha richards. she's an amazing, amazing woman. she's another vermonter who
6:43 am
reached out to my office concerned about the fate of the medicaid expansion under the affordable care act. martha earns just over the minimum wage in vermont. she works for the vermont state parks, and she's raised two kids on her own. just look at this person. soon after enrolling in the now expanded medicaid program, she began experiencing debilitating pain in her ear behind her eye. it led to a reeseries of expens tests including two mris that would cost $6,000 each. she shudders -- the following would have happened without the medicaid expansion. if it's discarded now as republican attorneys general have requested a case before the supreme court, millions of
6:44 am
americans like martha would be on their own. now i do not suggest that judge barrett personally desires these consequence consequences or desires to devastate the lives of these two vermonters. far from it. but these are nonetheless the consequences of her stated views on the law prevailed in the supreme court. and if republicans are successful in filling this vacancy prior to november 10th, then we know these views will almost certainly prevail. that's what's at stake here. that's what weighs heavily on me as we begin these hearings. also weighs heavily on the minds of the vermonters i represent. and i've heard from them often and loudly. since justice ginsburg's passing, they're scared, judge barrett. they're scared that your confirmation would rip from them the very health care protections that millions of americans ought to maintain and which congress
6:45 am
has repeatedly rejected eliminating. they're scare ed that the clock will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace. they're scared that at a time when we are facing the perilous impacts of climate change, bedrock environmental protection are going to be eviscerated. and they're scared that your confirmation as a result of rolling back the voting rights, workers rights, and the rights of the lgbtq community to equal treatment. these aren't just thoughts. these are real-life implications, decisions made by the court. and the majority of americans like an overwhelming majority of my fellow vermonters don't
6:46 am
support taking our country in that direction. to republicans, in fill justice ginsburg's seat, justice one hour after her death, for that moment this process has been nothing but shameful. of course it almost certainly will lead to disastrous consequences for americans. justice ginsburg i am certain would have dissented, and i will, too, on behalf of vermonters, on behalf of the integrity of the senate, on behalf of the majority of americans who oppose this process. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator cornyn? we've been listen to senator leahy, senator feinstein and grassley and their opening remarks. this is the hearing for judge amy coney barrett, potentially joining the supreme court. these hearings will continue and
6:47 am
we will continue to stream them online. welcome back to "today in the bay." of course we want to give you the day's news as well. it's 6:46 right now. kris sanchez is joining me this morning. good morning to you and senator lindsey graham said it was going to be a long and contentious week. scott mcgrew, there were also calls on both sides to keep all of this civil. >> yeah, that's right. we've seen civil hearings in the past, certainly, kris. senators voting unanimously yes on judges they thought were qualified even if they didn't agree with them on party and policy, and we've also seen some very brutal hearings in the past. many historians would say democrats particularly had their hand in those. judge amy coney barrett was joined in the room this morning by her family including seven children. she's a former law professor at notre dame, currently an appeals court judge. while roe v. wade comes up at
6:48 am
nearly every supreme court hearing, the leading democrat on the committee, you mentioned her, california's dianne feinstein, signaled the democrats will concentrate on her views of the affordable care act, of obamacare, which will go in front of the high court very soon. the addition of coney barrett means it could be struck down. >> more than 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions like cancer, asthma or covid-19 could be denied coverage or charged more to obtain health insurance. this includes more than $16.8 million californians with pre-existing conditions. and we are just one state. >> now as for the republican committee chairman lindsey graham, he addressed the elephant in the room, if you will. he had insisted in the past what is happening today, hearings for a supreme court nominee, would
6:49 am
never happen so close to an election. he even said hold my words against me if he even tried it. and here he is doing the very thing he said he would not do. >> the president serves four years not three. there's nothing unconstitutional about this process. this is a vacancy that has occurred through the tragic loss of a great woman, and we're going to fill that vacancy with another great woman. >> one of the terms you may hear people talking about, as we move forward, is court packing. certainly they've been talking about this up until this point. a viewer did ask us to explain what that is. the republicans are pushing this nomination very close to the nomination, something they said they wouldn't do. if coney barrett is approved it gives the conservatives on the court a majority for many, many years. however, the constitution is very vague about the supreme
6:50 am
court. it basically just says congress needs to set one up but never says how many judges should sit on the supreme court. it's nine right now, of course, but there's no rule that says it can't be more, which means if democrats won the white house and the senate they could just appoint more judges and realign the court. now that would be a huge violation of tradition but it wouldn't be unconstitutional. biden for his part has not said one way or the other what he would do. you'll have to wait until after the election to find out whether he'll pack the court. that is not what we expect from our politicians. we want them to tell us what they're going to do, what their policies are, and then we get to vote whether we like that or not based on those answers they give. we'll continue to watch the nomination hearings. i'll be tweeting about it. you can find me on twitter. i'm @scottmcgrew. >> thank you, scott. make sure your vote counts this november. join us tomorrow for a special decision 2020 california votes. we will cover everything from how to vote to the safety of
6:51 am
your mail-in ballot and what all those local propositions mean. we have a lot to decide. join us tomorrow right after nbc bay area news. good morning. we are expecting hotter temperatures this afternoon for the south bay. we'll see spots like milpitas reaching 83 degrees while gilroy will see a high of 89. upper 80s for the east bay and low 90s. oakland reaching 82. for the coastline a little bit of a warm-up. redwood city will see temperatures in san francisco mostly in the mid-70s and for the north bay highs to reach up to 85 degrees in ukiah. santa rosa will reach 88 degrees. warmer temperatures today and the heat continues as we go into the rest of the week. in fact, we'll be watching out for the potential of high fire
6:52 am
danger by wednesday into thursday. that will also continue on friday. you can see how hot it's going to be. highs inland reaching into the mid-90s. and then we'll gradually start to cool off as we get closer to the weekend. now back to you. >> all right. we'll take it, backup. look at the live camera 880 past the coliseum jammed up and it will continue to be jammed up as long as those lanes are blocked heading north of there at 29th. this is overnight road work that was extended until possibly 9:00 a.m., jammed up from the coliseum and 98. let's look at the map. about three miles of backups. i know it doesn't seem like a lot but it is when you're in it. west 580 is your alternate. you will find big rigs on there. chp approved that. south 880 is slowing through hayward, recovering from two earlier crashes. those are cleared and the rest of the bay looks great despite the backup at the bay bridge toll plaza you would expect with the metering lights on.
6:53 am
this is the light holiday traffic plus all the folks jammed up. remember the first backup traveling north past the coliseum on the nimitz. back to you. thank you, mike. happening now, two stanford professors just won the nobel prize for economics. paul milgrom and robert wilson were recognized for their achievements on how auctions work and auction formats for goods and service that is are hard to sell in the traditional way, things like radio frequencies. stanford tweeted the nobel prize committee could not reach professor milgrom to tell him his won so his neighbor, professor wilson, knocked on the door in the middle of the night to share the news. several other bay area professors and scientists have been awarded nobel prizes in chemistry and physics this year. >> so neighborly of him. up next on "today in the bay," a quick look at the top stories that we're following including a chaotic scene after a driver slams into a busy outdoor dining area in the south bay. the latest on the investigation next.
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
taking california for a ride. companies like uber, lyft, doordash. breaking state employment laws for years. now these multi-billion-dollar companies wrote deceptive prop 22 to buy themselves a new law. to deny drivers the rights they deserve. no sick leave. no workers' comp. no unemployment benefits. vote no on the deceptive uber, lyft, doordash prop 22. one ride california doesn't want to take. welcome back. it is 6:56. a look at the top stories we're following for you this monday morning. happening now the senate confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee amy coney barrett is under way. the hearing started just about an hour ago. republicans are looking to push the nomination before the
6:57 am
presidential election and this morning we've heard from senators including lindsey graham and dianne feinstein. >> we're going to fill that
6:58 am
6:59 am
7:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on