[APPLAUSE] >> It's really nice to have a lot of
noise made [INAUDIBLE] protesters outside the [INAUDIBLE] House.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> Thank you all for being here tonight.
>> Okay, that's funny.
That's Amy Coney Barrett who recently voted to strip away access to abortion
rights from many, many Americans.
Talking to a group of right wing lawyers saying, I like this more than protesters.
Well, yeah, you probably would.
I expect that you would very much prefer to surround yourself by like
minded people who are unified with you in pursuit of these culture
war wins to placate enough Republicans.
That you guys can maintain control over the policy you actually care about,
which is keeping everyone in that room's taxes as low as possible.
But look at that, she knows why she's being protested.
She knows that many people,
many women in particular feel betrayed by her for what she chose to do.
How she obfuscated her position on reproductive rights during
her confirmation and then immediately turned around and destroyed those rights.
But it is nice for her to get a little bit of applause.
Dan, what do you think?
>> Yeah, it's a little bit sort of sni.
I guess, sure, it's a joke to be made that she can necessarily make with her free
speech and her rights that she has, but
it's also rights that are being taken away from people that are on the line here.
And I I just don't have a lot of love for these judges.
I think it's very aware that this Supreme Court has become very politicized more so
than at least the intent was,
which is funny considering these people claim to be constitutional originalists.
I don't think partisan courts was in the constitution,
nor were political parties, but I digress.
I think this just highlights one of the other many situations that,
okay, now the democrats at least have the Senate,
make it rain when it comes to approving federal judge appointments.
Whatever you can do, the pipelines that Republicans built to
have people like Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh on
the Supreme Court existed for 10, 20, 30, 40 years.
And were built by the Republican Party to install people like that who were
ideologues.
If we can't court pack, we've gotta be doing the same.
>> Yeah, and really fast, I just want to go to, again, seeing her there,
just delighting in this being this is the only people that she wants to talk to,
wealthy right wingers, that's who she wants to talk to.
Being so happy about that after at her confirmation saying,
I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, jumping out of the second graphic.
Which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category of a super
precedent.
And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that roe should be overruled,
but descriptively it does mean that it's a case.
Not a case that everyone is accepted and doesn't call for its overruling.
So, look, she's, I guess in her defense,
not doing what some of the others who voted to destroy Roe v Wade did,
which said it's a precedent, we will not overrule it.
And then they turn around to overrule it.
There, she's like, I just don't know,
there's people who believe both things and what are we supposed to believe?
That she's still making up her mind.
She's a mid forties lawyer who definitely knows that she wants to destroy it at
that point, but also knows that she has to pretend that she doesn't.
And it's possible there are some right wingers in the chat right now.
They're like, no, that's good, I like that.
I like that she lied to everyone about what she believed because they don't
realize in saying that, what they're saying is,
I believe that there should just be partisan ideological judges.
I would prefer that they be on my side.
But in doing this, I am setting the stage for
the other side to put forward clear dishonest ideologues to accomplish
their goals judicially that they can accomplish legislatively.
If you like it when Amy Coney Barrett does it and
you like it when she's gleefully joking about what she managed to pull
over on the American people will enjoy the precedent.
The super precedent that you're setting.
You're saying that Biden should put forward ideologues.
And honestly he should talk to them behind closed doors,
find out what they really believe and then they should lie to everyone
while they're being confirmed, won't that be fun?
That is the actual precedent you're setting?
[MUSIC]