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.