 So I'm not sure how many of you have been tuning in to the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett But if you've missed any of it, don't worry. I've got you covered with some highlights in this video But before we get to that, I've just got to point out that the fact that Senate Democrats are participating in this process at all is deeply irritating to me because if it were up to me, they would be boycotting all these hearings because To even participate is a tacit endorsement that the process itself is legitimate when It's not legitimate. This is an illegitimate process This is an attempt by a Republican Party who said we don't fill Supreme Court seats during an election year to rush through this confirmation process before the election and To even allow them To go on as if this is a normal process It's just it's so frustrating But of course Democrats participated and you know what we saw were some good questions but not as Aggressive as I would have liked of course But I don't know what could satisfy me out, you know other than just outright rage you got Amy Coney Barrett But you know, I've got to share Diane Feinstein's opening with Amy Coney Barrett because it was very It was very on-brand you could say for Democrats Judge it's wonderful to see you here also with the family that I have been observing They sit still quiet. You've done a very good job. I have eyes in the back of my head I was wondering if you might introduce us to them. Sure So I have my husband Jesse my son JP my daughter Emma my daughter Juliet my daughter Tess My daughter Vivian and my son Liam and then behind them are my six siblings who are with me today I'll start the the side right behind Vivian. It's my sister Vivian My sister Eileen my brother Michael my sister Megan and my sister Amanda and it's Carrie in the room And my sister Carrie is sitting right over there You don't have a magic formula for how you do it and handle all the children and your job and your work and Your thought process which is obviously excellent. Do you it's improv? Yes. Yes Look, I'm not saying that um Diane Feinstein or any Democrat Should open, you know, they're questioning if they're gonna show up at all with thank you so much for showing up judge Amy Coney Barrett, let me just say first of all fuck you and fuck the Republican Party Like I'm not expecting you to do that But I mean consider the fact that Republicans didn't even give Merrick Garland a single hearing And you just go along with whatever they want now look they're running out of Tools that they can use to block this I get it are the things that they can do Yes, they can make a big stink about this They could do more than what they have been doing, but I mean if you're gonna show up Don't kiss their ass. It's just It's nauseating, but I mean I'll admit that's not very substantive And maybe that's me just being petty But after everything that the Republican Party has done to steal a Supreme Court seat from Democrats And they still go along with them throughout this process. That's completely rigged and illegitimate It's just I find it frustrating now We don't know much about Amy Coney Barrett because she doesn't have a very long Judicial record. So what we are learning about her at these confirmation hearings Is crucial it's crucial. I don't think it's going to change the trajectory of this process I think she'll likely be confirmed. I'd be surprised if she didn't get confirmed But I mean regardless we have to learn about her one thing that we know for sure is that she is uh subscribed To a very antiquated way of interpreting the constitution that is just completely irrational and unsustainable Justice Scalia. He was an originalist, right? Yes, he was people say that you're a female Scalia. What would you say? I would say that justice Scalia was obviously a mentor And as I said um in the when I accepted the president's nomination that his philosophy is mine, too You know, he was a very eloquent defender of originalism And that was also true of textualism Which is the way that I approach statutes in their interpretation And similarly to what I just said about originalism for textualism the judge Approaches the text as it was written with the meaning it had at the time and doesn't infuse your own meaning into it But I want to be careful to say that if I'm confirmed you would not be getting justice Scalia You would be getting justice Barrett. Oh, well, thank god. I feel so much better I mean She basically is the female equivalent of judge Scalia if you are an originalist or strict constructionist Whatever you want to call it You're going to be doing the same thing that Scalia did and let me tell you why This judicial philosophy is completely irrational You have to have a view of the constitution That allows it to be a living document that adapts with changing circumstances Okay, you want the constitution to be somewhat rigid. You want it to be bendable But if it's not bendable if you try to bend it, it could snap and then become illegitimate So what you want to do is you don't want to Interpret the constitution in a way Where you have to try to figure out and psychoanalyze what the founders were thinking exactly when they wrote it I mean you can believe reasonably so that there are rights that emanate out of certain clauses of the constitution And apply those rights to modern day circumstances, but to not do that You'd be an original list and that's what she is. So an original list is basically code for I am going to justify my imposition of extremist far-right views on the rest of society by saying I can't do anything because the constitution unless the constitution that is Says explicitly that we should be doing this or it says explicitly that there should be a particular right Now, let me explain to you why this is a not a legitimate way to interpret the constitution Because the entire premise of judicial review Is not in the constitution Do you want to know what the founders said about the supreme court having the ability to strike down laws that are unconstitutional? Nothing The reason why the supreme court has the ability to do judicial review to exercise their ability to strike down Unconstitutional laws is because of marbury versus madison. So is the entire Ability of the court to strike down unconstitutional laws in and of itself Not something that you should be exercising as a potential supreme court justice since it's not explicitly laid out in the constitution furthermore The founders couldn't have possibly predicted the invention of new technologies the internet. So when it comes to a case of Internet privacy Encryption, I don't know new technology that wasn't around back when the constitution was ratified How are you possibly going to look to? The constitution and what the founders intended for guidance when it's not there You can't so of course you have to exercise your own discretion And use these clauses of the constitution to determine whether or not They're fitting for modern modern circumstances. The fact that anyone maintains that they're an originalist again This is just code for I'm going to push my antiquated extremist views on the rest of society And I'm going to use quote unquote originalism or strict constructionism as an excuse to do just that But don't worry. It's legitimate because it's my judicial philosophy Yeah, well, you're not fooling anyone but putting that aside that gives you kind of a general sense as to how She would you know interpret the constitution when it comes to certain cases But if you want any specifics, I mean good luck because she wouldn't answer any questions She wouldn't answer any questions. It's deeply frustrating now I was uh, you know poking fun at diane feinstein for kissing her ass Um, but she did ask an important question So she asked whether or not the president has the authority to delay the election now as a strict constructionist This is an easy question. You just cite the constitution. What does the constitution say? Well, Amy conny barrett couldn't answer that Does the constitution give the president of the united states the authority To unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances does federal law Well senator if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read Briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process So, you know, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit And I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind Oh Yes, because we totally believe that you'd be impartial as a justice and that the federalist society Promoted you because of your refusal to act as a legal pundit. Okay, that's fine But let me ask you this. Were you acting as a legal pundit when in uh, 2006 in a newspaper ad You were one of the individuals who called for an end to the quote on quote barbaric Ruling of Roe v. Wade in a newspaper ad back then you were saying Roe v. Wade should be be overturned because it's barbaric But now you're saying well, look, I can't like Talk about these hypothetical situations that have not come to fruition I have to look at each case examine the facts and you know, I will uh Basically make my decision based on the facts of this particular case I can't be a legal pundit That is hilarious and she basically uses the same excuse to evade other questions So she was asked a very simple question whether or not uh voter intimidation is Illegal very very simple question. Uh, she's not asking about the constitutionality of voter intimidation. She's just being asked Do you think that it is uh illegal? Can you confirm that? It's illegal She couldn't answer this question last week a contractor from outside of my state of minnesota started recruiting pull watchers With special forces experience Mm-hmm to protect polling locations in my state. This was clear voter intimidation similar efforts are going on around the country Uh solicited by president trumps false claims of massive voter fraud something that by the way many republican leaders Including michael steele the former head of the republican party including tom ridge including governor casick including Sitting senator romney have made very clear is not true So as a result of his claims people are trying to get Pool watchers special forces people to go to the polls judge barron under federal law. Is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls? senator klobuchar, I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation And I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts I can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties on a full record after fully Engaging precedent talking to colleagues writing an opinion And so I can't answer questions like that. Okay. Well, I'll make I'll make it easier 18 usc 594 outlaws anyone who intimidates threatens coerces or attempts to intimidate threaten or coerce Any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote? This is a law that has been on the books for decades Oh, well, gee, you know, I just I can't tell you whether or not voter intimidation Is illegal because you're talking about some hypothetical situation. That's not actually happening right now So I just I don't know how to determine whether or not this is illegal or legal. I'd have to see the facts of the case I mean she's being purposefully Obtuse purposefully obtuse, but she's asked an even easier question This is the easiest question imaginable. If you're a math teacher This is the equivalent of being asked. What is one plus one? She's asked Should the president of the united states should presidents of the united states? Commit unequivocally to a peaceful transfer all of power. This was asked by quarry booker And again, she is an originalist. All she has to do is tell us what the constitution says Of course, she refused to answer this question Do you believe that every president should make a commitment? unequivocally and resolutely To the peaceful transfer of power well senator That seems to me to be Pulling me in a little bit into this question of whether the president has said that he would not peacefully leave office and so to the extent that this is a political controversy right now As a judge, I want to stay out of it. And I don't want to express a view on This is insufferable If you can't answer questions and you don't have a lengthy judicial record You shouldn't be on the supreme court because we have to get a sense as to how You would rule when it comes to certain cases, but she won't give anyone anything Okay, well don't comment on the situation regarding donald trump. But in general, what does the constitution say about presidents? Can they get a third term? Should they should they commit unequivocally to a peaceful transition of power? Is this really that difficult? You are an originalist a self-proclaimed originalist. Tell us what the constitution says Did the founders intend on presidents becoming dictators? And not committing two peaceful transferrals of power. Just say what the constitution says. I thought you were an originalist No, because she's an extremist She's an extremist and by now you get the point There's really no uh purpose in showing you more eclipse because she doesn't answer questions She just she refuses to answer questions about anything She won't say whether or not racism is systemic because she says that's a policy question She wouldn't say whether or not she'd overturn roe v. Wade went in 2006. She did call it barbaric She didn't give us a clear answer as to whether or not she'd overturn marriage equality Saying that she doesn't think the court would accept a new case regarding marriage equality Okay, but we're not asking you whether or not you think That the supreme court will grant certain petitioners a writ of certiary. We're not asking you what cases you think will come before the supreme court we're asking you Based on your interpretation of the constitution how you might hold in a specific case How you might rule in a case how the court overall will hold will be influenced by your vote She can't do anything so it's infuriating to sit here and listen to her I'm tired of pretending that justices are apolitical They're all impartial and you know, they don't come into the supreme court with preconceived ideas about how they hold on certain cases No, I'm sure she would vote to overturn roe v. Wade and marriage equality and not only that She's probably thought so far ahead that she knows exactly what she would say in the majority opinion She wants to write that I'm sure I mean these people are fucking political actors Stop pretending like you're not a political actor Stop pretending as if every single case is going to have to be evaluated Individually you have to see the specific facts Give me a fucking break your political actors your republican extremists And we know exactly what you're gonna do you would rule in the same way that uh Gorsuch rules and Kavanaugh rules except we have reason to believe that maybe she's even shittier than Kavanaugh Because there's one portion of her history of her limited history that we're learning about that is honestly just Baffling to me one of the cases she ruled on I don't even know what to say about this So the ap reports barrett wrote for a unanimous three judge panel in 2019 that upheld the dismissal of a workplace Discrimination lawsuit by terry smith a black illinois transportation employee who sued after he was fired Smith's claims included that he was called a racial slur by supervisor loyde colbert The n word is an egregious racial epithet barrett wrote in smith free illinois department of transportation That said smith can't win simply by proving that the word was uttered He must also demonstrate that colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment so to her Being called the n word alone wasn't enough to prove that this individual Was uh dealing with the hostile work environment I mean, what do you even say to that? Either you don't have common sense Or you're a clown you're more extremist than you're letting on and She's so bad that even kavanaugh has a more common sense position on this issue because ap continues A possible call league of barrett's took a different view on racial slurs in 2013 Just as bret kavanaugh then serving as a federal appeals court judge in washington dc said one utterance was enough But in my view being called the n word by a supervisor Suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment. I'm sorry, but if bret kavanaugh respects worker rights more than you seemingly based on this at least You're gonna be a disaster at a minimum you'll be as bad as scalia But you could be worse But we don't know because you want to answer a single fucking question So it's um, absolutely insane to me that this is taking place Democrats should be absolutely screaming at the top of their lungs about how rigged the process is and yes They should use the word rigged because that's what this is. This is court packing This is court packing. You're trying to rush through a supreme court nominee To benefit you uh in the event. We see another bush v gore So that way you can you know, uh repeal the affordable cure act with her And this is court packing. So of course if she is confirmed democrats absolutely must Pack the supreme court because if they don't then we are dealing with I don't know two to three decades of this extremists jurisprudence This extremists influence on the court And that's not accounting for the rest of the extremists on the supreme court like clarence thomas And brit gavinham. So I mean the situation is uh is looking bleak because she most likely Will be considered uh will be confirmed and if she is Buckle up because these fights that you had For decades or decades ago, uh roe v wade marriage equality We may have to have them again