TO MONITOR THE RALLY.
RAKING WITH ANY NEWS THAT
EMERGES.
A GOOD EATING, WELCOME TO
"TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT," HAPPY
COLUMBUS DAY.
YOU MAY HAVE MISSED THE FIRST
ROUND OF AMY CONEY BARRETT’S
CONFIRMATION EVENING EMAC
HEARING.
ARE THEY?
IT WAS BIZARRE.
BIZARRE FOR THIS REASON, NONE OF
THE ATTACKS ON HER AND THERE’S
MANY OF THOSE HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE JOB THAT SHE’S TRYING
TO GET.
THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS ONLY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE LAWS OF
THE POLITICIANS RIGHT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES.
THAT’S WHY WE HAVE THE
SUPREME COURT AND THE ONLY
REASON WE HAVE IT.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DO NOT
MAKE LAWS BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT
ELECTED BY VOTERS.
WE DON’T LET THEM LEGISLATE AS A
RESULT AND THAT’S HOW DEMOCRACY
WORKS, PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIKE TO
GET TO MAKE LAWS.
DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE
THAT SYSTEM.
THEY UNDERSTAND CONGRESS IS
INHERENTLY SMALL CONSERVATIVE
BODY AND CONGRESS IS NEVER GOING
TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY OVERNIGHT
AND RADICAL WAYS BECAUSE VOTERS
DO NOT WANT RADICAL OVERNIGHT
CHANGE.
THEY NEVER DO.
IF YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A
REVOLUTION AND REMAKE AMERICA,
YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT
FROM ABOVE AND IMPOSING ON
PEOPLE.
THE LEFT WOULD LIKE TO USE THE
SUPREME COURT AS THEIR
INSTRUMENT TO DO THAT.
IT KIND OF SUPER CONGRESS WITH
LIFETIME TENURE. IMAGINE THE POWER LIKE THAT.
IMAGINE THE POWER LIKE THAT.
NOTHING YOU CANNOT DO.
ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT
PERSPECTIVE, VERY MUCH THEIR
PERSPECTIVE, TODAY’S HEARING’S
MADE SENSE.
DEMOCRATS SPENT HOURS TALKING
ABOUT THE 2009 OBAMACARE LAW AND
THAT GOES BACK.
IF YOU’RE INTERVIEWING SOMEONE
FOR WHOM THE SUPREME COURT
THERE’S ONLY ONE RELEVANT
QUESTION ABOUT OBAMACARE.
IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
THAT’S ALL THEY CONSIDER, THAT’S
ALL THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO
CONSIDER, NOT HOW THEY FEEL
ABOUT THE LAW, NOT WHERE IT
CONTORTS WITH THEIR PERSONAL
VALUES.
IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
THAT WAS ONE OF THE FEW THINGS
DEMOCRATS DID NOT ASK BECAUSE
THEY’RE NOT INSERTED WHETHER OR
NOT IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL.
WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT IS POWER
AND AMY CONEY BARRETT WILL
DIMINISH OR ENHANCE THEIRS.
THEY UNDERSTAND THE
SUPREME COURT PURELY IN
POLITICAL TERMS AND NOT
SURPRISINGLY, THEY CONDUCTED
TODAY’S HEARINGS LIKE A CAMPAIGN
RALLY.
HEALTH CARE FOR MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS AT STAKE BARKED ONE
SINGLE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
POINTED TO ANOTHER WOMAN FROM
LAURA, SHE WILL BE UNABLE TO
AFFORD THE TREATMENTS NECESSARY
TO SURVIVE.
IF AMY CONEY BARRETT GETS THIS
JOB, IT IS CURTAIN FOR LAURA.
IT DEMOCRATS MADE THAT VERY SAME
POINT AS THEY HAD RECENTLY, OBS OR MANY WILL DIE.
>> YOU KNOW THEY’RE GOING TO
PUSH THROUGH A JUSTICE WHO’S
BEEN CRITICAL OF A UPHOLDING THE
CRITICAL CARE ACT.
>> THERE ASKING THE
SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE DOWN TO
STRIKE DOWN THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT.
>> YOUR NOMINATIONS ABOUT THE
REPUBLICAN GOAL OF APPEALING THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THE OBAMACARE THEY SEEM TO
DETEST.
>> THEY ARE DELIBERATELY TRYING
TO DEFY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO ROLLBACK THE
RIGHTS AND PROTECTION PROVIDED
UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
>> Tucker: SOUNDS LIKE
OBAMACARE IS GOING THE WAY OF
ACB GETTING ON THE COURTS.
BUT IT’S NOT ACTUALLY AND THAT’S
THE AMAZING THING, OBAMACARE IS
NOT AT RISK.
THERE IS NO CASE PENDING
ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY FOR THAT
WOULD ELIMINATE OBAMACARE.
THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW AMY CONEY
BARRETT WOULD RULE IN A CASE
LIKE THAT AND AGAIN IT HASN’T.
BUT MOST OF ALL, DEMOCRATS
THEMSELVES PUBLICLY CONCEDED
THAT OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER.
SIX OF THE TEN DEMOCRATS
CURRENTLY SITTING ON THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE SAME
COMMITTEE THAT CONVENED TODAY TO
CONSIDER AMY CONEY BARRETT’S
NOMINATION, SIX OF THE TEN
COSPONSORED MEDICARE FOR ALL
LEGISLATION.
THAT LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE
COMPLETELY ABOLISHED OBAMACARE.
ALONG WITH ALL PRIVATE HEALTH
INSURANCE.
KAMALA HARRIS IS ONE OF THE
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THAT.
YES, THERE’S KAMALA HARRIS TODAY
WARNING US THE COUNTRY WILL
COLLAPSE IF AMY CONEY BARRETT
GOES TO THE HYPOTHETICAL CASE TO
DESTROY OBAMACARE WHICH SHE
HERSELF VOTED TO DESTROY.
WHAT?
IT ALL SEEMS KIND OF CONFUSING.
THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND AND
IT BEGINS TO MAKE MORE SENSE.
WHEN YOU REALIZE THE GOAL IS NOT
TO PRESERVE OBAMACARE, AGAIN,
THEY VOTED TO SCRAP OBAMACARE.
THE GOAL IS TO UNDERMINE THE
LEGITIMACY OF OUR SYSTEMS.
IN THIS CASE, THE THREE
SUPREME COURT SO JOE BIDEN AND
KAMALA HARRIS CAN PACK THE
COURT.
AGAIN, IT IS ABOUT POWER.
OH, THAT’S THE KEY.
WHEN CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
BECOME PARTISAN POLITICAL
EXERCISES THEY MAKE THE
SUPREME COURT ITSELF SEEM LIKE A
PARTISAN POLITICAL EXERCISE AND
THAT DEGRADES THE PUBLIC TRUSTS
IN THE CORD.
AND THE SUPPORT FOR THE
INSTITUTION.
IT DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT THE
PUBLIC TO GO ALONG WITH THE
COURT PACKING, THEY HAVE TO
DELEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING ABOUT
THE COURT AND THE CONFIRMATION
PROCESS.
IF THAT’S WHAT THEY DID TODAY
AGAINST THEM.
>> IT IS THE LEGACY OF
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, LET ME
CLOSE BY REMEMBERING HER FOR A
MINUTES IN THIS UNSEEMLY
CHARADE.
>> THIS IS A CHARADE WHEN THEY
SAY THIS IS A NORMAL JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HEARING.
>> RUSHING A JUDGE THROUGH A
SHARED PROCESS.
>> THEY ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE
VICTORY IN THE SUPREME COURT IS
NOW WITHIN THEIR GRASP IF THE
SENATE CONFIRMS JUDGE BARRETT TO
THIS HYPOCRITICAL, ILLEGITIMATE
PROCESS.
>> YES, JUDGE, I THINK THIS
HEARING IS A SHAM.
>> Tucker: OLD.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG BECAUSE IN A
DEMOCRACY, AND A DEMOCRACY YOU
ARE REQUIRED TO OBEY THE
POSTHUMOUS ORDERS OF A DEAD
PERSON WHO IS NEVER ELECTED.
OKAY.
WHEN YOU DON’T, IT IS A SHAM,
IT’S A CHARADE.
NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THE
SENTIMENT OF COURSE COURSE BY
DEFINITION FUNNELING EVERY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE FOR
FULFILLING A SUPREME COURT
VACANCY.
IF AMY CONEY BARRETT IS NOT THE
OUTCOME THE DEMOCRATS WANT
THEREFORE THE SYSTEM IS IN WHICH
ILLEGITIMATE.
REMEMBER THAT THEY TELL YOU THAT
AT EVERY TURN.
IF IT’S NOT TRUMP WHO TRIES TO
ATTACK THE SUPREME COURT, HE
COULD HAVE TRIED.
HE DID NOT CONSIDER PACKING THE
SUPREME COURT.
IT DEMOCRATS ARE PLANNING TO AND
IT’S A FAMILIAR PATH.
HUGO CHAVEZ PACKED THE SUPREME
COURTS OF VENEZUELA IN 2004, AND
THE SAME IN TURKEY.
HOW DID THEY DO THAT?
HOW DID THEY GET THEIR
POPULATIONS TO GO ALONG WITH A
QUESTION MARK BY TEAMING THE
CLAIMING THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEMS WERE ALREADY
ILLEGITIMATE.
>> REVELED WICCANS ARE READY
PACKED UP THE CORE JOE BIDEN
DECLARED AND YES HE HAD NINE JUSTICES FOR
MORE THAN 150 YEARS AND SOMEHOW
WITHOUT ANYBODY NOTICING,
PRESIDENT TRUMP PACK THE
SUPREME COURT.
HE DID.
>> COURT PACKING IS GOING ON
RIGHT NOW.
GOING ON WITH REPUBLICANS,
PACKING THE COURT NOW, IT’S NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL WHAT THEY ARE
DOING.
>> Tucker: THEY ARE THE ONES
OF VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION
SAYS JOE BIDEN, SO WHEN I
REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION, IT
WILL BE FUN.
THAT’S THE PREDICATE.
THAT’S THE SET UP FOR WHAT’S
COMING NEXT.
JOE BIDEN KNOWS REPUBLICANS ARE
NOT PACKING THE COURT, HE ALSO
KNOWS HE CAN REPEAT THE LIGHT
WITH NO CONSEQUENCES WHATSOEVER
BECAUSE THE MEDIA WILL NEVER
HOLD HIM TO ACCOUNT.
IF THEY WANT HIM TO GET AWAY
WITH IT.
BACK IN 2013 WHEN I HELPED
BARACK OBAMA, A PARTISAN
OPERATION ROAD TO "COURT PACKING
HAS INVOLVED ONE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT PROPOSING TO CHANGE
THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURT
EITHER EXPANDING OR DECREASING
THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES."
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT DOING THAT,
IT’S PRETTY SIMPLE, THEY’RE NOT
IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT.
WE WILL ATTACK THEM FOR DOING
IT.
WE ARE NOT PARTISAN.
OF COURSE, YOU WON’T FIND A
POLITIFACT FACT-CHECKER OF WHAT
JOE BIDEN SAID ON SATURDAY AND
THE MEDIA ACTUALLY RUSH TO
PERPETUATE THE WHATEVER IT
TAKES, WHATEVER IT TAKES.
THIS WEEKEND, A PIECE BY THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS REFERRED TO
COURT PACKING, NOT
SARCASTICALLY, "D POLITICIZING
THE COURT."
YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE
COURT TO DILUTE THE OTHER SIZE
POWER.
YOU PACK IT FULL OF PARTISANS
WHO DO YOUR BIDDING AND THAT IS
DEPOLITICIZED POLITICIZING.
HE WOULD BE OPEN TO MEASURES TO
DEPOLITICIZE THE COURT INCLUDING
ADDING JUDGES TO THE BENCH OR
PRACTICE CREDITS PACKING THE
COURT.
NO, NOT CRITICS, SCHOLARS,
HISTORIANS, POLITICIANS.
IT RUTH BADER GINSBURG HERSELF,
EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA REFERRED
TO COURT PACKING AS COURT PACKIN
UP UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO.
RIGHT.
HARD TO BELIEVE THAT LINE MADE
IT INTO PRINT BUT IT DID,
CORPORATION ROCKING IS D
POLITICIZING THE COURTS.
YOU WILL SEE IT IN THE NECK
STYLE GUIDE NEXT TO THEIR
ENTRIES ON UNDOCUMENTED SHOPPERS
AND PEACEFUL RIOTS.
FUNNY THAT EP IS ONTO SOMETHING
INADVERTENTLY AND MANY JUDGES
AND JUSTICES IN THE COUNTRY ARE
OBVIOUSLY THINKING THEY HAVE TOO
MUCH POWER.
MORE THAN INDIVIDUALS SHOULD
HAVE.
POWER IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD
ROADSIDE AND THE ELECTORATE,
PEOPLE ELECTED SHOULD HAVE THE
POWER AND NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE
APPOINTED.
UNLIKE THE JUDGES THEY SHOULD
NOT BE DECIDING ISSUES LIKE
ABORTION AND IMMIGRATION POLICY
FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BUT THEY
ARE.
THE SOLUTION IS NOT TO EMBRACE
MORE POLITICS IN YOUR JUDICIAL
BRANCH, WE RECOGNIZE THE PROPER
ROLE OF THE COURTS AND
DE-ESCALATE A LITTLE BIT TO
BRING US CLOSER TO SANITY.
IN A BRIEF MOMENT FOR THE END OF
TODAY’S HEARING AND THE OPENING
STATEMENT, AMY CONEY BARRETT
TRIED TO DO EXACTLY THAT.
WATCH.
>> THE COURTS HAVE A VITAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE RULE OF
LAW, WHICH IS CRITICAL TO A FREE
SOCIETY.
BUT COURTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO
SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM OR RIGHT
EVERY WRONG IN OUR PUBLIC LIFE.
THE POLICY DECISIONS ON THE
VALUE JUDGMENTS OF GOVERNMENT
MUST BE MADE BY THE POLITICAL
BRANCHES.
ELECTED BY AN ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
PEOPLE.
THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT EXPECT
COURTS TO DO SO IN COURTS SHOULD
NOT TRY.
>> Tucker: THESE HEARINGS OF
AMY CONEY BARRETT WILL CONTINUE
FOR THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS,
BARRING SOME REALLY DRAMATIC A
DEVELOPMENTS.
IT SEEMS LIKELY SHE WILL BE
CONFIRMED IN THE END.
THERE’S NOT A LOT OF DRAMA
TONIGHT SURROUNDING HER
NOMINATION.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE