Judicial Crisis Network president reacts to the Supreme Court confirmation hearing process on 'Fox and Friends.'
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lets look at beach week,
Ralph Club biggest contributor.
What does the word Ralph mean
that probably refers to
throwing up
im known to having a weak
stomach?
Was there ever a time where
you couldnt remember what
happened the night before?
No,
I remember what happened and I
think youve probably had beers
Steve some democratic senators,
as you see, tore into
then Nominee Brett Kavanaugh at
his hearings. Back in twenty eighteen
judge, Amy Coney Barretts
confirmation hearing kicks off
about forty five minutes from right now,
where she is expected to facace
number of direct attacks on all
sorts of things,
but in a brand new op ed on
Foxnews dot com, our next guest
argues Barrett deserves the same
fair hearing that Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg once received
here now is former clerk to
Justice, Thomas Jerry Severino
good morning to you
good Morning,
Steve okay.
So what kind of a hearing did
Ruth Bader Ginsburg get?
Well, you know Ginsburg,
despite having a long history of
being associated with very
liberal positions and causes
having worked for the ACLU,
etc. She wasnt grilled on
those things
it wasnt that she couldnt
qualify. For those saying how
her jewish faith inspired her
going into law in the first
place, she wasnt told that she
need not apply because she was a
person of faith.
In fact, she was someone who was
treated with respect by the
committee. They recognized her
clear qualifications with Amy
Coney Barrett has herself just
received a well qualified rating
from the liberal ABA today.
This is something we ought to
expect for every nominee and
its something that Ginsburg
during the Kavanaugh hearing
said we should be expecting.
She was very bold saying the
process was very broken. She
didnt think it should be like
that
and she was confirmed virtually
unanimously
Steve and back in the day. At
her hearing she was, you know
she was asked all sorts of
questions and she would simply
and politely say you know what
thats a hypothetical im not
going to answer that,
whereas over the next four days,
we expect that ACB, as shes
referred to now, is going to be
asked about religion and
abortion and health care, because
its almost as if some of these
senators have a litmus test on
what is appropriate for a
justice and how they should
feel
yeah
and theyre trying to set a
different standard for Barrett
than they have for judges for
the last hundred years.
What Ginsburg did wasnt new?
There were dozens of questions.
She couldnt answer: traces back
to judicial ethics, rule
and the senators MAW want to
know that question, but im
sorry as a matter of judicial
ethics, shes not going to say
it
be prepared for people to say:
oh shes, hiding,
im, sorry thats, the same thing.
Ginsburg did same thing: judges
have done for decades.
Please dont set a new standard
for Barrett.
We should hold judges to a
consistent standard,
Steve and Carrie, because she
works at Notre. Dame shes been
called into question about the
fact that she is a strong
Catholic, a faithful believer,
but if she were seated on the
Supreme Court she wouldnt be
answering religious questions.
She would be answering legal
questions,
of course,
and she was so clear about that
during her first hearing,
I think everyone was so
impressed when S. She was attacke
for the dogma living loud within
her
she didnt back away, but she
said: look thats, not the job
of a judge. She has been so
clear on this. A judges job is
to read the law
not to import politics,
religion, any of those things
into it.
So this should be what everyone
on both sides of the aisle wants
to see. Someone who just wants
to look at what the text of the
law and the constitution says,
and we should all be celebrating
that not attacking her
Steve and finally, you know
Joe Biden has been asked
repeatedly: are you going to pack
the court if youre elected and
he has declined to say?
But now in the last twenty four forty eight
hours, hes got a new answer
packing the court thats? What
the Republicans are doing right
now by filling this vacant seat
thats just is this
appropriate.
Is that accurate
laughter?
I dont think that means what
you think it means
no. This is packing the court
like what FDR did
when you add seats to the court,
so you can have partisan
advantage
its something that Ruth Bader
Ginsburg said was a horribled
idea, something that Joe Biden
used to say was a horrible idea.
Even Bernie Sanders agrees. That
would be a bad move,
its open partisanship on the
court.
What Republicans are doing right
now is just what historically
has been done in every vacancy
during an election year. That is
the president nominates, and if
the Senate is of the same party
overwhelmingly those nominees
get confirmed, and especially
when you have a nominee as
talented and inspooring as Amy
Coney inspiring as Amy Coney.
Transcript generated on 2020-10-17.