tv Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 3 CSPAN October 14, 2020 7:10pm-7:24pm EDT
its overruling, paraphrased, and then the next sentence was something to the effect of an uncertainty in that regard councils in favor of preserving the status quo. so that sentence if it is just read alone makes it sound like i'm arguing for the over all of decisis in general, but that was not the thrust of the article, quite to the contrary. sen. feinstein: thank you very much. sen. grassley: judge. sen. graham: start the clock. [laughter] sen. grassley: welcome back. judge barrett: thank you, senator. sen. grassley: i want to compliment you for doing a very good job answering these questions and all about your decision-making process. you've been forthright, candid, thoughtful. you've demonstrated a tremendous command of and respect for the
law and constitution. that yourwn us judicial method is rigorous but also fair and open-minded. above all, it is clear that you understand the appropriate role of a judge, just what we are looking for, at least, on the side of the aisle. an individual who will interpret the law, not want to make it. you are an outstanding candidate. a couple things before i ask my questions. many of my colleagues on the other side have tried to get you to tell us how you would rule on a case. case wasou believe a correctly decided. or rather you will commit to uphold a specific law. responded, it is not appropriate for you or any nominee in your position, for
any level of the judiciary to make promises or give hints on how you would rule or what you think about a potential issue that may,. -- that may come up. judicial independence, those are our political branches accountable to the people. a bedrock principle of our constitutional system. best, aginsburg said it judge is sworn to decide noartially and can offer guesses or hints because that would show disregard for a particular case. and she also said you can't dissuade distain or display distain for the entire judicial process. you have not that made any promises to anyone about how you might rule on a case.
that is because you know that a judicial nominee should never promised votes in exchange for a president's nomination or a senator's support. yesterday andaw to some extent, monday, democrats' st rategy continues to be to use scare tactics, distortions and speculation. they are framing you as a real threat to health care coverage and especially protections for existing conditions. this was all a charade. , it because of your comments believe, just from one long review article you wrote, critiquing chief justice roberts' reasoning.
so it is time to get real. this is all just a distraction. this is what we saw monday and tuesday. democrats want to distract from the fact that they don't really care about obamacare. you heard that since democrats started their presidential primaries probably about two years ago. they want government-run medicare for all. that's what you have heard in the democratic primary. acachanges they seek to the move america closer to a single-payer system where the government provides or subsidizes health care for all americans. which we know, eventually, leads to government rationing of health care. distract from to the fact that they just billustered a covid relief
that would have protected .re-existing conditions they, we will see if they will vote for a covid recovery bill that leader mcconnell has scheduled for a vote next week. democrats want to distract from the fact that republicans, yes, republicans have introduced bills to protect americans with pre-existing conditions and to bring down drug prices and if we act, they don't have to worry about you doing away with pre-existing conditions in some future case down the road. opportunityen the to finance bipartisan prescription drug pricing reduction act, that of the grassley-whitinsville, democrats at schumer's command walked away because they wanted election-year issues. republicans passed and signed into law bills to end pharmacy
e clauses and to end abusive drug tactics that prevent lower-cost generic drugs from coming to market. democrats want to distract from the fact that president trump and the administration have taken steps to help lower health care costs for americans including finalizing a rule to allow the importation of prescription drugs from canada. and proposing a rule to facilitate the purchase of epipensle insulin and for lower income americans. the president signed an .xecutive order further, i and other republicans have been working with the administration to increase the end drug prices, to step up enforcement of anti-competitive activities, and the prosecution
of bad actors in the health care and to improve and expedite regulatory approval of drugs to combat covid and other diseases. here is the bottom line of what we have all heard monday and tuesday. the democrats cry foul over anything that may help americans if it doesn't advance their agenda for medicare for all. and the american people deserve to be reminded of this hearing, what it is all about. it is all about your qualifications to be on the supreme court. it is not about health care advocacy. judge, democrats want to distract from the fact that you are eminently qualified for this position you been nominated for.
and they don't like it that you know that the place of the laws, is not to rewrite as you might see fit. here's the bottom line. yesterday if it is your agenda to repeal the portable care act. you said "absolutely not." you said you have never made a commitment to anyone on the affordable care act or on any thing. you have never been asked to make such a commitment and you made very clear you would never make such a commitment. to put some, i want letters in the record from state legislative leaders supporting this nominee. sen. graham: without objection. now, you won't
get away without asking some questions on something that i'm very interested in. i would like to discuss a law that i brought up with you when we talked for a short time one-on-one. we didn't discuss it at that time. the false claims act. legislation toed make false claims act and effective tool to combat fraud against federal programs. this law enlisted the help of private citizens to enforce the false claims act. in 2000, the supreme court deemed false claims provisions constitutional. as you know, false claims act emerged as the government's primary weapon against fraud. since we restore the law in 1986, false claims actions have recovered $68 million of taxpayer money fraudulently
taken with $50 billion coming from was lower-initiated action. congress has remained vigilant to protect the false claims act from attempts to weaken it in the courts. have you ever written or spoken publicly about the constitutionality of any other provisions of the false claims act and if so, what were the circumstances or the context? grassley,ett: senator i don't recall ever speaking about the false claims act or the constitutionality of the provisions or any other part of the act. i can't think of a time when i have. judge barrett: do you have any preconceived ideas about the false claims act or was lower protection act that would impact your ability to impartially decide any cases involving those issues? judge barrett: i do not. any case involving that act i would approach with an open mind as with any other.
sen. grassley: some opponents of the false claims act argue that provisions are unconstitutional under article two and three. are you familiar with these legal arguments and if so, do you have an opinion on them? well, thoset: aren't ones that i can express an opinion on because as you say, it has been up for the court. sen. grassley: another interest of mine that i probably a 87 years of age won't live long enough to see done, but i've discussed cameras in the courtroom and introduced legislation on that over the last 15 years. it's not a very popular subject. -- would have to roll over his dead body before they put cameras on the supreme court. i can respect that point of view, but i totally disagree. think that allowing cameras in the courtroom would open courts to the public and bring about a better understanding of the judiciary.
for many years, that bill i have been introduced as been called the sunshine in the courtroom act, a bill to give judges the to allow immediate coverage of federal or proceedings. i'm also a cosponsor of senator durbin's bill to allow cameras in the supreme court. i understand that the seventh circuit court of appeals were you currently serve adopted procedures to allow requests for video recording of oral arguments as well as the public release of the recordings. judge barrett: that is correct. sen. grassley: as your court had any problems with these proceedings? what are your views on allowing cameras in the courtroom? if confirmed, would you keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the spring work? judge barrett: i would certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the supreme court. sen. grassley: i always ask court,district circuit supreme court this question about international law. i would like to get your views on how and when you would apply
international law to your decision-making process. is it ever appropriate to cite international law when interpreting the u.s. constitution? judge barrett: i would never want to say never because he is certainly possible. generally speaking, so it has issues with-- the which foreign law has been applied, and there is a debate about it, is when the court is trying for the lower court is trying to identify what is the nature of a right that is part of the tradition of the people, or that the people, what would people do? in my view of the united states constitution, it is the fundamental law of the american people. i don't think it would be controlled by the laws by other countries because it requests the fundamental commitment that we as an american peopsupport jue