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.
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
EARLY 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
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.
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
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,
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